Seth Davis Continues To Be Bad At His Job

I know there are times when we spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about how much media members suck. However, there are other times when there's really no way to properly sum it up. These guys get paid to watching fricking basketball. And to be so-called experts on the subject. We all have jobs or are going to school, etc. These guys? Paid to watch basketball. To sit in a studio or in a press box and watch basketball. That's their damn job.

On the Sunday night studio wrap-up show, I thought I heard Seth Davis say that VCU was in the A-10. The problem was I was watching on a TV without a DVR and thus was unable to back it up. I thought to myself, "Self, no you couldn't have heard that." He can't be that clueless. He must have producers at CBS who catch these things.

But then Seth went on Dan Patrick's show on Tuesday morning. And said it again.

No, Seth. No. VCU -- the team Shaka Smart coaches -- is in the Colonial Athletic Association, or CAA if you can't remember big words like that.

Seriously, did I misunderstand something here? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Seth Davis' imaginary friend

If you follow us on Twitter, you know we're not fans of Seth Davis. I guess that's fair since he's not a fan of the topic we cover- Purdue sports.

It's one thing to not like Purdue and give good, solid analytical reasoning for why you think that. It's quite another to mercilessly-pound an idea with nothing as your defense other than opinion. Davis does this over and over again...and he's wrong a lot. CBS doesn't seem to mind...but I do.

A few weeks ago when Purdue was in the top-10, Davis was asked who would be the first team out in that group. He of course answered Purdue. He went further to say that Purdue wouldn't get past the first weekend...without having any clue who Purdue would be playing. Let's look at Matty's tourney record, Seth- wait, nevermind, that'd take research...don't worry about it, I know it won't happen.

All season he's consistently had Purdue lower than where they've belonged and where they've landed in the poll. In fact, for much of the early season, he didn't rank Purdue. And once they had earned his good graces, they hung in the 20-24 range. Is it because they hadn't played anybody at that point? Could be. But, that very situation didn't stop him from ranking his beloved Blue Devils consistently in the top-5.

Davis has a problem with Purdue-I guess because Purdue beat Duke in Alaska a decade ago (I can't think of another reason). Whatever the reason really doesn't matter, but the proof's in the pudding and we have plenty of rancid dairy dessert all around the interwebnet with Davis' pasty fingerprints all over it.

Most-recently, he penned an article about 54 potential NBA players that are currently in college and what NBA scouts think of them. The problem is, he has no specific scout's opinion. Instead, he sites "several scouts" as his source...and he refuses to tell us who they are, so they can stay anonymous.

Sweet.

It's a nice place to be- you write an opinion-based piece, with your name attached, and you have no culpability. This type of pseudo-journalism is a pet peeve of ours at this site. But, let's take a look at our favorite guys in this article: Of course, JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore.

JaJuan Johnson, 6-10 senior center, Purdue
Some people really like him, but I just don't know how he gets his game off. I don't think his post game will transfer, so you're looking at a 6-10 jump shooter who will have a hard time guarding any positions in our league. He strikes me as a combination of Marcus Camby and Hakim Warrick. I'd say he's on the bubble for the first round. I think he makes the league, but he won't get a lot of scratch.

Honestly, I don't even know what the first sentence means...so I won't spend a ton of time on it. I guess he's saying he doesn't understand how well Johnson will play in the league. He jibbers his way through the review of JJ, saying little and comparing 25 to a guy who is a rebound-first player who's been in the league for 14 seasons (doesn't sound like a bad investment for an NBA team...but JJ is far from a banger on the boards) and Hakim Warrick, who while a few inches shorter is a very-similar player, statistically, as he left college. But, Warrick was more of a combo player and JJ will more than likely never play shooting forward in the NBA. Davis ends the write-up by saying he won't "get a lot of scratch". Once again, not exactly sure what he means, but I don't think it's a positive.

So, let's compare JJ to a few of the guys, that he's played against, that Davis' imaginary...I mean...anonymous sources are really high on.

Sullinger- "I love him."

He's good, he's young...a lot to like there. When JJ faced him, here's how it went:

Player Pts. Reb. Blk.

Sullinger 17 7 0

Johnson 22 7 0

I guess JJ's game did kinda "get off" in that contest...let's try another.

Benson- "I like him."

It's not love, but it's definitely more positive than his review of JJ.

Player Pts. Reb. Blk.

Benson 16 14 2

Johnson 25 11 2

Not too shabby...JJ also added 5 assists. Benson had 0.

Next, John Leuer- "He's more skilled than you think."

Player Pts. Reb. Blk.

Leuer 24 13 0

Johnson 23 4 3

Once again, JJ did OK, I guess.

Now onto Smooge's review:

E'Twaun Moore, 6-4 senior guard, Purdue
I think someone will take him in the second round. He's small and not very athletic, so that's a bad combination, but the kid has found a way to get it done at a high level. But again, who is he? What does he bring to the table? He can get to the basket at the college level, but he doesn't shoot it great. He reminds me of Reece Gaines, who didn't make it in the league because he had no position. Or Joe Forte from North Carolina. Forte was better than Moore in college, but he didn't make it in the NBA.

I think Moore will have a fight to be successful in the league because he is shorter and he doesn't appear to be quite as quick as many of the guys playing shooting guard in the NBA. So I understand some of the criticism. But the line that really bothers me is this: "But again, who is he?"

Here's who he is: He's a guy who's led his team in scoring for three of his four seasons. He's All-Big Ten, an Academic All-American, an Honorable Mention All-American and a lockdown defender.

Unlike JJ who's squared off against quite a few future draft prospects, I could only find one on the list that Moore had faced- Duke's Nolan Smith.

Davis said of Smith,

"Can he make it as a two guard? That's the question. I'm not sure he has the kind of speed and quickness to be able to attack guys. I think he's proven enough to be drafted and he'll figure it out once he gets up there."

Okie doke. Smith's career numbers look like this: 12.7 pts. 2.7 ast. 2.7 reb.

Moore: 15.0 pts 2.8 ast. 4.4 reb.

But Smith played in the tough ACC while Moore played in the lowly BT, right? Yeah, and Smith never had any talent around him at Duke while Moore was always surrounded by some of the best teams in America. Oh wait...I thought Purdue was only a two-man team. Nevermind.

Then head-to-head, Smith must have just owned Smooge, right??

Player Pts. Reb. Ast. Stl.

Smith 15 5 4 0

Moore 18 4 1 2

Alright, maybe not. It just seems odd that Moore is too small at 6'4", but Smith at 6'2" is not. And Moore is not athletic, but Smith, who will be drafted to a position he doesn't play in college deserves a chance to "figure it out" on the next level.

Other interesting tidbits:

Singler- "I'm a Singler guy all the way."

Plumlee- "If you stick around, you're going to get better."

(If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a plea...not a review.)

And if you really wanna pick this piece apart, read some of the UNC player reviews.

I know, supposedly these words weren't even Davis'...but since he's the only real person I can find mentioned as responsible for the article, I'll pin it on him. I guess if nothing else, Davis is consistent.

Consistently awful.

Seth Davis of SI Sees Potential Elite Eight in Purdue's Future

What, Seth? I let you into one of my practices and you say we won't make the Final Four?!

We meant to share this link late last week with SI shared it with us (yeah, I'm name-dropping, as though SI and BS trade emails all the time), but Seth Davis spent some time watching practice (hey, give him credit for actually showing up before writing his opinion) and he has a pretty detailed and fair take on the Boilermakers.

Seth breaks down the key guys and what he thinks Purdue's chances are and while he calls them a "bona fide Final Four contender," he seems to think the train will stop at a regional final.

We shall see, Seth.

(Thanks to Boilergal for the reminder.)

Seth Davis is a Jack

Sure, PSU and IllinoiS did the Big Ten no favors last night with their awesome display of awesomeness in Champagne (maybe I caused this by bashing women's basketball last week?), but I'm still tired of the Big Ten taking shots from people who should know better.

This morning, Seth Davis was on the Dan Patrick Show and he was first asked about the 38-33 Naismith-esque game between the Kittens and the Illini. His response? Why, to take a shot at the Big Ten in general, of course:

"When I saw that, I wondered if they had gone back to the old rules where you had to have a jump ball at center court after every basket. Although that would have maybe been an improvement in the Big Ten this year."

The hell? Frick you, Seth Davis. You and your haughty, ACC-leaning self. He also went on to talk about how those in "lesser" conferences are sometimes in better position for the tourney because they're not grinding out tough games like those teams "in the ACC and Big East."

One of the things I recently discussed with Boilerdowd was how the mass media don't have any clue WHY the scores are generally lower in the Big Ten. It's not that it's weaker -- it's that our conference does this little thing called DEFENSE.

Did anyone watch Duke-UNC last week? There wasn't any defense in that game. They just ran up and down the court, nobody was even getting their hands up on defense, and when you have two teams full of all-American shooters, well, you KNOW they're going to score. And then -- presto! -- you've got a 90-80 kind of game. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and if you still think (and I know none of you do) the Big Ten is "weak," let's take a look at the conference RPI ratings.

Huh. That's funny. It looks to me -- and I'm no Seth Davis-level genius -- like the Big Ten is ranked the #2 conference... ahead of the Big (L)East and mere thousands of a point behind the ACC.

Do you know how long it took me to do that research? Four seconds. Sure, I'm biased, too, but I don't get paid to be knowledgeable on the subject.