What we learned: Cleveland is not Murderer's Row

By Brendan Hall
Fan Fanatic Sports Staff

Go ahead, call me a caveman, an introvert, a hermit. But I haven’t watched SportsCenter in two days (my brain cells need to grow back), so I’ve missed the inevitable media freakout after LeBron’s game-winner in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals.

But if it was anything like tonight’s “for the 27th time, this is what happened two nights ago” in-game vignettes, I’m glad it passed me over.

There are a handful of organizations in sports that I like to call “Publicity Machines." They have such a top-notch PR staff, and delusional fan base, that when the team is playing well, they tend to get puffed up and their flaws get masked. In no particular order, these are the regulars: Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Jets, NY Giants, NY Rangers, Dodgers, Lakers, Pacers, Packers, Colts, Knicks, Maple Leafs, Cowboys, Notre Dame football, Indiana basketball, Kentucky basketball, Ohio State football, Duke basketball, USC baseball. For as long as LeBron is in Cleveland, let’s include the Cavs.

Now, don’t get it twisted. LeBron is the most dominant yet amoebic force to hit the NBA since Michael Jordan – notice I used the term “amoebic." He is charismatic, a quality teammate who makes the teammates around him play better, and is ultimately a great selling point for the game.

With that said, because he is such a polarizing force, the LeBron bandwagon tends to overheat. Two problems I see with the Cavs that get overlooked are their lack of perimeter defense and lack of interior toughness. Often times, head coach Mike Brown will pound the scorer’s table, or a player whose name ends with “Varejao” will get called for being out of position, throw his hands in the air and do his best Miguel Cairo impression (“you mean I’m out?”).

The Cavs are no doubt one of the most explosive offenses in the league. But they also know how to work the media, the refs, and the fans (by the way, who the heck still uses Quicken software these days? I thought online banking would make that company obsolete). They’ve earned their stripes, but they want their brownie points, too.

Which is why I’m glad things turned out in Game 3 the way they did, a 99-89 Magic win that was dominated by Dwight Howard. Winning 66 games in the regular season does not make you a juggernaut; winning physical battles in the playoffs does. Time to let a little air out of the ball.

Score one for the Magic in the intimidation factor, and let the blood bath continue. This one’s far from over.

-- My friends who cover the UMass basketball team at the Daily Collegian just got the press invitation kit for the “100 Years of UMass Basketball”, and one of the interesting points they make is that the Minutemen experienced “one of the most extreme turnarounds in history.”

When you think about it, they actually have a point. When you think about what a dormant program UMass was in the 80s before Calipari took over – 10th worst record in Division 1 for the 80s, period – and what they were able to do in the early to mid-90s, it really gets lost on this generation about how truly special that era was. It’s been taken for granted.

Anyways, it got me thinking about what teams rank as the five most improbable powerhouses. In no particular order, with coach in parentheses: Gonzaga (Dan Monson-Mark Few), UMass (John Calipari), Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead), Long Beach State (Jerry Tarkanian).

Rick Pitino’s Providence teams miss they cut because it’s been argued many a time that his 1987 squad was the worst team to ever make a Final Four. Dana Kirk’s Memphis State teams don’t count either, because the dude thugged his way to a Final Four and subsequently got cold-cocked by the NCAA banhammer. Tark, for the record, sued the NCAA and won.

In turn, here are my five most underachieving programs of the last 25 years: DePaul, Houston, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia.