Single Post

Hello again, friends and people looking to kill time on late-summer vacations, and welcome to another hotly anticipated Shot Takers mailbag.

These are busy days — Dana O’Neil is shuttling offspring to various colleges; I am being systematically destroyed by allergies and extremely hot halogen bulbs — but we can always make time to tell our beloved readers what they should think about stuff.

To the questions!

Has Arkansas become the new dominant team in the SEC, replacing Kentucky? – Joe M.

Dana: Hello, hello. I’m going to say I have allergies later this week, after I drop my youngest off at college and return to the empty nest. Thanks, Brian, for the assist on that one.

So Arkansas versus Kentucky … I’d say we’d have to rein in the hogs a little bit on that one, Joe. Not to diminish what Eric Musselman has done and is continuing to do with the Razorbacks, nor to overlook that the Wildcats’ most recent results have been not quite up to snuff. All of these things are true, but it takes a little longer than two years to unseat the king.

This year will be huge for Kentucky and John Calipari. It sounds insane but this is sort of a show-me year for both. The loss to Saint Peter’s on the heels of the disastrous 2020-21 season combined with the abject salivating Cal already has done over this roster means it’s time to put up or shut up. Reading the dispatches from the Bahamas, it sounds as if the Cats could beat the Warriors right now, so they’d best live up to the high standards their coach has set.

But let’s say that Kentucky crumbles, does Arkansas elevate? Yes and no. There’s no doubt that Arkansas is primed for the future, and the NCAA Tournament results speak for themselves. This is a team on the rise, and in position to take over should Kentucky wobble. But last I checked, the Hogs still haven’t won an SEC title with Muss, right? Or an SEC tournament. Kinda need to do that to become the new king. And I would argue that Auburn would like to be considered for coronation, too.

Agree, Brian?

Brian: Eric Musselman is fun and good for men’s college basketball, and particularly those who write about men’s college basketball. A competitive, relevant Arkansas men’s basketball program is also good for the sport. It wouldn’t be terribly shocking to see that crew in Houston in April. But as for the premise of SEC dominance? Yes, let’s drop a forklift of bricks on the brakes here.

It’s important to actually understand what “dominant” means, first of all. And it’s not finishing second in the league two years ago and fourth last season. These are very good results! But if you’re not winning the league or winning the conference tournament, which Arkansas thus far has not done in Musselman’s short tenure, you’re not dominating anything, as my friend Dana noted above. (No one is really “dominant” in the SEC lately, in fact, by that definition.) And, well, if we’re to do a side-by-side comparison on the more dominant program between these two … Kentucky finished third in the SEC last season and seventh in the final Associated Press poll. Arkansas finished fourth and 17th. I realize their respective NCAA Tournament experiences were, um, let’s say, different. That can only be part of the discussion. The sum of it doesn’t reveal some sort of burgeoning Razorback hegemony.

Also, as our intrepid beat man Kyle Tucker noted on the Twitters recently, Calipari has a legitimate shot at signing the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 prospects in the Class of 2023, and that doesn’t even include the already-committed Reed Sheppard. Nothing is certain until the players show up at the Craft Center. But even the prospect of that happening makes it impossible to view Kentucky as a flailing, fallen titan, subsumed by an army of usurpers shouting “Woo Pig Sooie” as the Wildcats disappear from view.

What teams do you expect to surprise this year? Or to disappoint given high expectations? – Phil H.

Brian: Let’s tackle both, shall we?

I’m torn between which national title game participant will stumble more, particularly because North Carolina might have nowhere to go but down as a potential preseason No. 1. But old wins in college hoops. And the Tar Heels will be old. Kansas? Kansas will not be young, per se, but there’s much less continuity of performance in Lawrence and a much weaker grasp on what each of the pieces will do in their roles. Sure, Bill Self brings in three top 30-ish freshmen to sort of cauterize the talent drain from the 2021-22 champs. But they’re still freshmen. And how many freshmen were really, really good in the Big 12 last year?

Before the comment section is ablaze, here’s where I’ll note that the roster features a good deal of former four- and five-star recruits, and presumably they are all good at basketball, and Bill Self can coach a little. Kansas will be good. Kansas will be fine. But it’s not totally crazy to envision slippage from a top 10 preseason ranking.

As for a potential surprise, I’ll stick in the same general Big 12 neighborhood and throw Oklahoma at you. There’s newness with some guys who will be important to winning — Grant Sherfield and Joe Bamisile in particular — and that can be a bit of a dice roll. But there’s also enough proven oldness that returns. And even though January and February were brutal for the Sooners last year, it’s still a group that finished in the top 40 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. I don’t know. Call it a hunch that Porter Moser’s systems and philosophies and idiosyncrasies are more normalized after a year, and maybe the whole operation ramps up as a result.

Dana: I’m going there, Brian. The first name to pop into my head for potential — underscore potential — disappointment is North Carolina. As you astutely pointed out, in some ways, this isn’t bold. If you’re a near consensus top pick, there is nowhere to go but down. But I also can’t help but think about UCLA around this time last year when I think about the Tar Heels.

Like Carolina, the Bruins rode a magical ride to the Final Four and returned the essence of their team. Quite naturally and understandably people figured Mick Cronin’s team would simply pick up where it left off. And the Bruins were not bad. Far from it. They lost (ironically) to North Carolina in the Sweet 16 and finished a very respectable 27-8. But there were bumps along the way — back-to-back losses to Arizona (forgivable) and Arizona State (not so much) — and they eventually ceded Pac-12 darling status to Tommy Lloyd and the Wildcats.

This is what makes me nervous about North Carolina. I’m old enough to remember when folks wondered if Hubert Davis was in over his head and couldn’t do the job — that was in January when the Heels lost to Miami and Wake Forest.

And while I love the returning pieces for this team (I mean, who doesn’t?), and believe that the logic in loving UNC is not displaced, I just wonder how they’ll do in Year 2, when all of the eyes and expectations are upon them. It is far easier to catch a wave and drive the bandwagon than to maneuver the Cadillac all season long.

On the flip side, here’s a team that I think could be entirely insanely threateningly interesting … or a total flop: St. John’s. There are only two ways for the Posh Alexander/Andre Curbelo pairing to go — exceptionally well, or in the toilet. I’m leaning toward the former, expecting a dynamic backcourt for Mike Anderson’s high-energy style of play that will leave opponents whiplashed and confused. These two have the benefit, too, of coming into the Big East in flux. I know Jay Wright never made a bucket for Villanova, but until we see what this team is without him, the Wildcats are vulnerable. And that means the title is for the taking. It likely will go through Creighton before New York, but I also know what two really good guards can do in the city, in the conference and in college basketball.

Which non-power five coach will be the hottest name in next season’s coaching carousel? – Jeremy K.

Who were the top 3 names that didn’t get picked in last year’s coaching carousel? I can’t believe Jeff Linder didn’t go somewhere else. – Scott G.

Dana: Figured I’d partner these since they are similar. So first to Scott. No doubt Jeff Linder worked a miracle at Wyoming, and the school was wise to sign him to an extension. Going on his entire track record, back to Northern Colorado, Linder has certainly proven he can do a lot with a little and deserves a look. The thing with these sorts of coaching searches, though, is ADs tend to fall in love with the “It” coach of the moment, and get their heads turned by splashy names and more prominent successes. Most people, alas, couldn’t tell you who the Wyoming coach is. That’s on them, of course.

Now if he does it again, and brings Wyoming back to the tournament, I’d argue he’ll get his chance — deservedly so.

I’d put Niko Medved on the list. Three 20-plus winning seasons at Colorado State ought to be good enough to merit a shot at a bigger job, and you have to think, as conference realignment turns the Mountain West into something of a dumping ground for wayward programs, he might want to find a better place to land.

One year does not a career make, but Drew Valentine is going to be on some short lists, I’d imagine. Loyola Chicago went 25-8 in his first year — granted he had a lot to work with — but Valentine is young, smart and has all the credentials a school would love to endorse. The Ramblers’ move to the Atlantic 10 is definitely a step up, but Valentine could, with a good year, leap.

I’m going to stump for my guy Matt Langel, too. I covered him when he played at Penn, which means I’m ancient. Or I was a prodigy. Let’s go with prodigy. Anyway, Langel has taken Colgate to three consecutive NCAA Tournaments and if you haven’t been to Hamilton, New York, in the winter, well let’s just say it’s pretty but not a destination site, so getting players there, winning there is something. Before Langel, the Raiders last went to the tourney in 1995.

Who you got, Mr. Hamilton?

Brian: As usual, you steal my good ideas, Dana. (I kid, I kid. I never have good ideas.) Medved is atop my list due to both quality of coaching and sheer curiosity about how the next few months will go for him. First, from what I gather, he’s not going to take a power conference job just to take a power conference job. There are some quality-of-life considerations that will be in play, which may disqualify some potential suitors. Then, competitively, can post-David Roddy Colorado State maintain high-end results? And if not, do administrators with job openings wisely look at the whole of what Medved has accomplished and what he’s about, or do they go with the shiniest option at the time? I’m sort of weirdly fascinated by this dynamic. Maybe this merits a trip to Fort Collins for further investigation — a suggestion that has absolutely nothing to do with the local beverage options. I swear.

While I’m on subject of curiosity: Is there any chance Anthony Grant relishes another shot at a power-conference gig? I’m not suggesting as much as legitimately asking. A couple years ago, I visited with him for a story, and he convincingly sounded like a coach totally content to work at his alma mater for the long haul. Dayton might be a preseason Top 25 team, which normally would set the table for the coach riding success to a bigger gig … but will Grant see it more as a validation that he can win big right where he’s at, particularly since the recruiting has been auspicious lately, too? If the Flyers are really good, I imagine someone will call Anthony Grant. I am super interested in how long — or short — the call will be.

I’m also surprised Grant McCasland is still the head coach at North Texas, and I can’t envision that being the case much longer. He’s 45, his teams have won 20-plus games in five of his six seasons as a head coach and the Mean Green have won either the regular season or the Conference USA tournament three years running. He’s a product of the Scott Drew coaching tree, too, which likely will be a plus in most hiring processes. None of the “big” jobs in Texas are opening anytime soon. But any school in the general vicinity looking for a new coach has to consider him.

How much can the Big East expect in its next media rights deal? With Fox going all in for the Big Ten, does this squeeze out the Big East or result in a low ball offer forcing the Big East elsewhere? Personally I have no interest in going back to ESPN and having our games stuck on The Ocho behind the SEC and ACC. – John C.

With the Big East’s TV deal with Fox and FS1 up shortly, do you see the conference aligning with ESPN (now that ESPN is out of the Big Ten arrangement) or re-upping with Fox? Also, do you think the Big East feels any pressure to add Gonzaga to the league to jack up the money for its next TV deal? – James C.

With all that B1G inventory off ESPN who do they displace on FS1, CBSSN, etc? How does that work with those contracts? I assume the backfill ends up being mostly ACC and SEC. – Ben W.

Brian: More than a few concerns in the Mailbag about college basketball’s place in the forthcoming television landscape … which I’d guess is more concern than anyone doing the actual deals had. But anyway.

To be perfectly honest: This is a little out of my wheelhouse. It was my understanding there would be no math. Feel free to fast-forward to Dana’s much more informed response, but my general thought is quite possibly ridiculously simplistic: College basketball games aren’t as long as college football games. And college basketball happens on more days than college football does, usually. So there are at least a few more windows to fill on more days and nights, and networks need inventory to fill said windows in the months of December, January, February and March, or to draw people into their streaming services. As a result, I still think college basketball has value and I doubt any league is going to be overly disappointed with the money that flows in from TV deals.

And while I’m talking about things I probably have no insight into: Spokane, best I can tell, is the 66th-largest television market in the country. Unless the Zags also bring in Seattle (No. 12) and maybe Portland (No. 21) by whatever calculations television executives do, I don’t think adding that program alone provides a massive windfall.

Dana, by all means, please provide an actually intelligent answer.

Dana: That’s a lot to ask on a weekday in late August, but I’ll give it a go. Here’s the first thing to understand. Even the new Fox/NBC/CBS conglomerate deal for the Big Ten is not exactly ideal for hoops. If you read the fine print, a lot of games will be streamed on outlets such as Peacock (for NBC) or BTN+. That understandably has plenty of Big Ten coaches worried. People don’t want to shell out money for one more streaming service. An annual BTN+ conference pass runs a cool $199.95 and an annual BTN+ school pass is $79.95. That’s a lot of money to be true to your school.

Big Ten coaches also are concerned that, without any ESPN alignment, what happens to Game Day and all of the cross-promotion it brings? In the past, ESPN went to places even if the actual game wasn’t on its network but this whole rights fight is nothing shy of a bare-knuckled brawl between the big networks, and you gotta wonder if ESPN is going to want to promote a game on Fox.

Equally lost in all of this upheaval are two things our savvy readers bring up: What exactly is ESPN going to show now? It remains a 24-hour network, and with ESPN, ESPN2, the SEC Network and ACC Network, what’s the inventory? Certainly, there’s the Big 12 to backfill, but there are only so many teams that really draw eyeballs. Like, are we looking at Duke, Kentucky and Kansas on a loop? Quite possibly.

And then there is the Big East. Their deal with Fox is up in 2024, just as Fox pushes the entire pot at the Big Ten. The two have gone hand-in-hand, much like the Big East and ESPN did in the 1980s, the conference helping FS1 launch and Fox giving the newly realigned Big East a landing spot. But the but. There’s only so much money, and the Big Ten, I believe, just absorbed the GNP. The Big East, for all of its on-court successes, simply doesn’t have the name recognition/draw of other conferences and is especially shaky if Villanova stumbles.

So the short answer is what it’s always been when it comes to realignment deals: No one thought about college basketball when they were cutting the deals, and now college basketball has to figure out where it fits. Awesome, baby.

(Top photo of Holly Rowe: Tommy Gilligan / USA Today)