Posted on: July 27, 2010 12:36 am
Edited on: July 27, 2010 12:43 am
ATLANTA -- Will Karen Sypher's extortion trial end before I make it home?
My guess is that it will.
As you can see by my dateline, I've somehow ended up stuck in Atlanta. I was supposed to be home Sunday at 6 p.m., just in time for 60 Minutes (CBS plug). But my initial flight was canceled. And then my Monday flight was delayed. And then I missed a connection. And now I'm in Atlanta, where I just ordered a three-item combo at the Chinese restaurant without realizing there's no need to ever order a three-item combo from a Chinese restaurant.
Nobody needs that much food.
Anyway, I might make it home early Tuesday.
Or maybe not.
In the meantime, I wrote a column about Bo Ryan and Wisconsin basketball for a series Dennis Dodd and I are doing. Click this link to check it out. And if you have access to a private jet, please send it. Thanks.
Posted on: January 6, 2010 10:34 am
Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...
Dear Gary: Interesting column (on Jamie Dixon) . The Bo Ryan Treatment is not that dissimilar from my No. 1 rule of horse racing. I never make any bet on a horse race if Mike Smith has a mount unless I also have the Mike Smith horse on my ticket. It stems from 2005, when I had Giacamo on my Kentucky Derby exacta, only to remove him because my dad wanted to save $10. I had the 70-1 that came in second and with Giacamo, that exacta paid a hair shy of $10,000. Since that time I've broken my rule numerous times, most recently this summer at Del Mar when Mike smith rode 23-1 longshot Richard's Kid to victory in the Pacific Classic. But I've also made a lot of money following this rule, like in the summer of 2008 when I threw Mike Smith onto my ticket on a 35-1 in some random race, and he came in second, winning me $190 in an exacta. I didn't like the horse, but it had Mike Smith. Pretty simple theorem? Just can never count it out. No other jockey has reached that status yet.
I don't know anything about Mike Smith.
Or horse racing, really.
So I got a little lost in your note, Burton. But it seems your point is that you refuse to discount Mike Smith regardless of his horse, which absolutely means you're giving Mike Smith The Bo Ryan Treatment . Seems reasonable to me. And I like that you used the word "theorem." You don't get that word around here often, especially after a controversial DeMarcus Cousins column.
Posted on: December 9, 2009 10:47 pm
NEW YORK -- Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...
Dear Gary: It's funny that you posted that column right before Wisconsin plays on the road in front of a soldout crowd in Green Bay. Good column. I like the Badgers. But I would have waited to make sure there is no upset tonight to delute the value of the column.
Marc sent this email about my Bo Ryan column on Wednesday morning.
I needed him to send it Monday morning, you know, before I wrote the column.
(Final score from Wednesday night: Green Bay 88, Wisconsin 83 in overtime)
Thanks for nothing, Marc.
Posted on: September 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Here's Friday Dear Gary ...
Dear Gary: First off, let me say thanks for providing the most offseason coverage of college basketball that anyone could ask for. Also, I have a question: Bo Ryan always seems to do a fantastic job with a very small number of legitimately high-level recruits, and from what I've heard he really only goes after players that fit the Wisconsin system. ... Are there any other major conference coaches who recruit mid-level players like Ryan and manage any sort of success, or is Bo unique?
First, thanks for your first sentence.
A first sentence like that will pretty much get any question answered. So all you emailers should keep that in mind, that I'm a sucker for nice words. As for Bo Ryan, yes, he's unique. But he's still signed his share of high-level recruits over the years -- guys like Brian Butch (ranked 11th in the Class of 2004), Greg Stiemsma (ranked 31st in the Class of 2004), Joe Krabbenhoft (ranked 35th in the Class of 2005) and Jason Bohannon (ranked 42nd in the Class of 2006). So while Ryan does consistently overachieve given the level of natural ability in the Wisconsin program, it must also be noted that he usually has some Top 50-caliber prospects at his disposal.
John Beilein, not so much.
I think that's the name that best answers your question.
I'm not sure Beilein has ever had a Top 50 prospect, but he's done OK for himself. He went to the Elite Eight and compiled a 104-60 record in five seasons at West Virginia before leaving for Michigan, where there is no evidence that his recruiting philosophy has been greatly altered. And though I've vowed to never doubt Beilein because he's proved me wrong too many times, I will say that searching for "diamonds in the rough" who fit a particular system is not the way to compete for national titles in this era of college basketball.
Isn't that the goal at Michigan, to compete for national titles?
If so, I'm not sure that can be done with under-the-radar prospects because a team needs at least three NBA players to win a national title, or at least that's what recent history suggests. Don't believe me, checkout the last five NCAA tournament champions ...
2008: Kansas (Brandon Rush, Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers)
So clearly, competing for national titles requires NBA-caliber professionals, and I'm not sure Beilein deals in those enough. That's the concern. But make no mistake, the man is a tremendous instructor. And if any high-major coach deserves the benefit of the doubt, Beilein is probably that guy.
Posted on: February 20, 2008 11:32 am
Edited on: February 20, 2008 11:32 am
Gregg Doyel wrote a column this week about the National Coach of the Year race.
His pick (at this point): Duke's Mike Krzyzewski.
That's a nice selection, assuming Roy Williams doesn't strangle Coach K before the ceremony.
And though I believe it's too early to name a winner just yet, I feel comfortable providing a list of 15 legitimate candidates.
So here is a list (presented in alphabetical order):