Deliberations of a Desert Rat

A look back – May 12, 2010, former UA recruit-slash-ASU freshman Victor Rudd becomes the fourth player to bolt from ASU along with Demitrius Walker, Brandon Thompson, and Taylor Rohde. Rudd eventually enrolls at the University of South Florida.

UA fan “sleepingGiant” posits:

Wow!!.. Nobody seems to want to play for Sendick and his 40 minutes of helI “watch paint dry” offense! ASU is easily looking like the worst basketball team in the Pac-10 right now for next season. Meanwhile UofA will be back to putting up the usual basketball scores they put up against ASU for a quarter of a century.

This quote sets off a huge firestorm, where many Tempe Normal faithful blast sleepingGiant as being uneducated and uninformed.

Some examples:

SeeingIsBelieving:

You said the same EXACT thing last year. Don’t you get tired of being wrong…EVERY…SINGLE…TIME???

UofAholes:

As for UofA – maybe you clowns will actually qualify for the NIT next year….

sundevilmike:

The same UA basketball team that didn’t even get an NIT bid? Yeah, ASU fans are terrified…

GoDevils1:

Somebody tell Sean Miller he’s not in the weak A-10 anymore….he couln’t even get his team into the NIT in the weakest year in the Pac-10′s history.

PCPMN:

With 5 good recruits coming in this is not surprising. Herb can handle it.

It doesn’t look like Herb is handling it at all. As of February 6, 2011, Tempe Normal is 9-14, 1-10 in the Pac-10. With 7 conference games remaining, Tempe Normal will have to go 6-1 just to get to .500. Anything less and it assures Tempe Normal of a losing season unless they win the Pac-10 tournament.

Currently, Tempe Normal ranks near the bottom of the nation in three of four major statistical categories (points per game, rebounds per game, field goal percentage), and only two players average in double figures in points per game. Only two players have gotten to the free throw line more than 60 times (Abbott, Lockett), and as a team, Tempe Normal shoots free throws at a 64% clip.

Arizona, on the other hand, ranks in the top 100 in three categories (points per game, field goal percentage, assists per game), has a National Player of the Year candidate (Derrick Williams), plays 11 men with no real noticable dropoff outside of the center position, and has six players shooting three pointers at a 38% or better clip. They shoot free throws at a 74% rate, and get to the line almost twice as much as Tempe Normal (600 to 385), with five players having more than 60 attempts.

Yes, the next game is in Tempe, but really it’s more like McKale Center North. It doesn’t help that recently Tempe Normal cordoned off almost 3200 seats, ostensibly to give it a “home court feel”. Realistically, though, nobody’s buying that because even after that, Tempe Normal still can’t sell out games. No, it’s because they got tired of seeing all the empty seats… except when Arizona comes to play, in which case the Arena is mostly cardinal red and navy blue instead of maroon and gold.

Now, Tempe Normal’s Herb Sendek is 6-4 against Arizona since 2007-08 season. However, of those 6 wins, only one of them is against Sean Miller. Again, that’s ONE win against a non-interim Arizona coach.

That says volumes about Tempe Normal’s program – that it can jack it up against the interims but completely shuts down against the heavy guns. Oh, and by the way, Lute Olson’s record against ASU: 43-6. Miller’s career Arizona record against ASU: 2-1. So, that’s a 45-7 record by regular Arizona HC’s (not counting interims) against ASU HC’s in the last 28 years.

Yes, that’s exactly SEVEN wins over regular Arizona HC’s in 28 years. That five-game win streak between 2007-2009 was fool’s gold since it was over the interim HCs.

So, for Sunday’s game:

Frontcourt: Arizona. Tempe Normal has no answer for Williams who will go for another double-double (at least 20 points and 10 boards). Jamelle Horne will also get 10-and-5, and Perry will get 8-and-5. In otherwords, Arizona’s frontcourt will have a field day on the glass – and second chance points – against the woefully undersized Tempe squad. Tempe’s Kuksiks will get his 10 points, but that’s about it.

Backcourt: Arizona. Jones, Fogg, Mayes, Hill, and Parrom have come alive in the meat of the Pac-10 schedule. Tempe’s Abbott and Lockett can score in bunches (27 ppg combined), but after them, McMillan, Felix, King and now Creekmur offer a combined 16 ppg off the bench. And while Jones and Fogg combine for only 18 ppg, the Arizona bench of Mayes, Hill, Lavender and Parrom offer up another 25 ppg.

Coaching: Arizona. Normally, Sendek would have the edge if it were any other coach, but this isn’t any other coach. Miller has shown he can outcoach Sendek and already owns the career head-to-head coaching lead against Sendek, going 3-2 as Arizona’s and Xavier’s HC.

Intangibles: Arizona. The game is being played in Tempe, but both teams have a week off after a trip to the Bay Area schools. Tempe Normal, however, has given Arizona a lot of game film to find weaknesses – not that it’ll be hard to find them… see “frontcourt” – whereas Arizona has given Tempe Normal a lot to worry about after a 3OT win at Cal, where two nights earlier Tempe Normal could not close the door on the same Cal team.

Arizona by 10.

So, the AIA released its sectional initial placements this week. I had a chance to review it and figure out how far off I was. Appeals are ongoing until January.

The result? Not too bad.

First off – the AIA decided not to name any of the sections and just number them. Nice.

Division 1 – there were mistakes in every section, but you can see what happened. The AIA placed Desert Ridge and Skyline (the far East Valley schools) in Section 2 instead of the Ahwatukee schools Desert Vista and Mountain Pointe. Then the 5A Metro schools (Carl Hayden, Central, North) along with St. Mary’s were placed in Section 1 instead of the 5A Northwest schools (Mountain Ridge, Boulder Creek, O’Connor) plus North Canyon. Tally so far = 27 out of 35 correct (77.1%).

I believe that all 12 of these schools will appeal. Desert Ridge and Skyline are being placed in the Section grouped with the three Southern Arizona schools (Buena, Sunnyside, Tucson), along with the Southeastern Valley schools like Hamilton, Chandler, and Basha, instead of being grouped with their natural Mesa-area schools (Mesa, Red Mountain, Westwood, etc.). Also, the 5A Northwest schools will now have to travel to the far East Valley instead of staying on the West side of I-17. The 5A Metro schools are caught in the middle – it’s a shorter drive to the West Valley than to the East Valley, yes, but the difference is negligible. St. Mary’s in particular will appeal to be in the same section as Brophy anyway.

Division 2 – 40 out of 42 schools placed correctly. (95.2%) Swap McClintock with Kingman in Sections 1 and 3 and that’s it. This was the division where I had originally gotten only 29 teams correctly placed in the division, so I’m pretty happy about the sectional placement now. I’m reasonably sure that Kingman will NOT appeal since they would be placed with a lot of Northwest Valley schools, including Prescott, but McClintock will definitely appeal since now they will not be in the same section as Marcos de Niza.

Division 3 – Again, mistakes in every section here, but it was not as bad as D1. Swap Apache Junction for Maricopa for Sections 1 and 3, and then it’s just a matter of the far West Valley schools versus the North Phoenix schools. Tally was 29 out of 39 (74.4%). I don’t think you’ll see any appeals here in D3. Most everyone I think will be happy even with this placement. This is the division I fully expected to have mistakes with sectional placing.

Division 4 – Surprises here. Payson is booted out of the Rim Country and along with Fountain Hills are apparently now members of the West Valley. South Pointe is actually taken literally and placed in the Southern Arizona Section along with Scottsdale Coronado. And Page gets its wish as the step-child and is placed in the Rim Country Section. Payson will appeal but lose because Page’s drive time issues will outweigh Payson’s. Tally was 30 out of 35 (85.7%)

Division 5 – Only two misses here. Scottsdale Christian is in the same Section as the Phoenix-area and Yuma-area schools, while Santa Cruz is placed with the Southern Arizona schools like Pusch Ridge, Tombstone, and Bisbee. Tally was 36 out of 38 (94.7%)

Division 6 – What a cluster*@$+. Almost everything was wrong in Section 3 and the other two sections only had 6 right in each. To make matters worse, the divisional alignment specified four schools that were not in the sectional placement!! (Shonto Prep, Rancho Solano Prep, Phoenix Day School for the Deaf, South Ridge), while the sectional alignment ADDED three schools (El Capitan, Seligman, Phoenix Country Day School). Mind you, I welcome Seligman and PCD back into the fold after a multi-year absence, but it’s distressing that these three are showing up now after not being there before. Tally here is 14 out of 36 (38.9%), but apparently the total number of teams in D6 is a moving target.

Total count: 162 out of 193 (discounting Division 6). That’s 83.9%. Ugh. I was shooting for 95%. Of course, if the appeals go the way I think they will, I’ll probably hit 90%.

So, right now, the new sectional alignment is below. In Division 6, where it says “not listed”, those are the schools that were in the divisional placement but not in the sectional placement (thus showing that the AIA needs a fact-checker on staff…)

On 11/8/10 I received an email entitled “COUPON & Picks for You!” which detailed a special offer: buy Josh Groban’s “Hidden Away” single for $1.33 with coupon and get a coupon for Josh Groban’s upcoming “Illuminations” at $9.99. My wife likes Groban so I planned on getting this for her.

Today 11/10/10 I went into the Borders store at Superstition Springs today and this single was not in store. I walked around the store to see if it was misplaced but it wasn’t in store at all. I asked the cashier (Peg) about it and she had never heard of this offer, nor could she be of any more assistance than just pointing out the two places where CDs were being displayed. This was very disappointing as I made a special trip over there just to purchase this.

The online Borders.com customer commitment regarding the “In-Stock Promise” is useless as a search for the single on the site yielded no results either. Why send out offers if they don’t plan on allowing customers to purchase the items?

So, I sent a note to their customer service explaining the above (verbatim). The form I filled out also included my address. This is what I got back just a few minutes ago:

Thank you for contacting Borders.

I apologize for the inconvenience this have [sic] caused you. I highly suggest that please try other Borders stores nearest your place, please be reminded that the offer is not valid at Borders Express and Waldenbooks stores.

For an online listing of all U.S. locations please view our store locator at:

http://www.borders.com/online/store/LocatorView

Thank you for shopping in Borders. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us at customercare@borders.com or 1.800.770.7811.

Sincerely,

[name redacted]
Borders Customer Care

And below the email was my original note along with my name, address, the store I tried going to and the words “Contact Customer: Yes”.

When I read that email, I was sorely disappointed. One, I was disappointed with the fact that “Customer Service” was just blowing me off. Two, I was disappointed with the fact that “Customer Service” apparently does not have English as its first language (“…this have caused you…”, “…highly suggest that please try…”, “…please be reminded…”) Three, I was disappointed with the fact that, sadly, Borders apparently cannot keep up with its peer (Barnes and Noble).

So I responded:

[name redacted] (and anyone else that may be reading), I understand that you are probably very busy and so could not take the time to determine that the Borders I went to _IS_ the nearest to my location – which already is 13 miles from my house. Your suggestion, which may make sense if you don’t take the time to look at Google maps, would force me to drive over to West Mesa (Arizona), which is another 11 miles from the previous Borders; or, I should instead drive to South Chandler, which is “only” 23.5 miles away from my house, thus saving that extra half-mile. I filled out the form that included my address and zip code – it’s even at the bottom of this email!!! – so you had the opportunity to definitely do some checking; your website stated that you would respond in the next 48 hours, so you had time to research. As a customer service representative, you’re supposed to be listening to the customer’s needs and determining what’s best for the customer.

Instead, you’re telling me “too bad, go to another store and hope they have it.” And if they don’t have it, well, golly, I’m out of luck or else I have to drive even farther.

No thanks.

Your whole “In-Stock” promise is apparently nothing but smoke and mirrors. I have a Barnes and Noble closer to Borders, but I had stuck with Borders out of loyalty to the brand dating back to when it was just Waldenbooks in my hometown. I was one of the first to sign up for the Rewards program when it was first offered over five years ago – I still have the old silver and red striped card. Apparently, that loyalty is misguided. You’re sending me coupons and offers I can do nothing with – look at my Rewards account activity over the last six months (1 time, and that was today) and you’ll see what I’m saying is very much true. When you finally send me something that I actually WANT, I can’t use it because not only is it not in stock, but the online store doesn’t carry it either and the customer service tells me to “go to another store”.

Well, I will, thank you very much. From now on, I’ll be shopping at Barnes and Noble. At least when they don’t have something in store, their customer service offers to find it or order it and ship it to me free and doesn’t tell me to drive around the Phoenix suburbs until I find a store that has it. I’ll also make sure my friends and family see this on Facebook; maybe it’ll cause Borders to change how they approach their Rewards program members. Too bad that I had to be the “test case”.

So, for all those reading this (all ten of you), don’t shop at Borders any more. It’s just not worth it. Go join the B&N rewards program instead and save your hard-earned money.

—- FOLLOWUP 11/11/10:

Received a final email from Customer Service:

Thank you for taking the time to contact Borders with your comments.

I apologize that our site did not meet your expectations. We do not want to lose you as a customer and hope that you will give us another try.

We want to thank you for taking the time to give us detailed feedback regarding our website. We value and rely on feedback so that we can evaluate our programs and services and make changes to best meet our customers’ needs.

We do not want to lose you as a customer and hope that you will give the Borders Rewards Program a try. Please feel free to contact us with any other questions or comments.

My expectation (singular) is that if you advertise something, you’ll have it in stock. Pretty simple. If you can’t do that, then I’ll go elsewhere with my money.

My expectation for your Customer Service is much higher. Even though I’ve referenced the touted “In Stock Promise”, Customer Service is showing that it really is just meaningless promotional drivel. NO attempt has been made to follow through and find the items. NO attempt has been made to show me that Borders actually cares about making it right – they’ve got the systems in place to look up other stores and find the items and then have the items sent to the closest store. And absolutely NO attempt has been made to apologize for the previous Customer Service person’s misguided and unhelpful comments.

Like I said, no way am I ever shopping there again.

The AIA released today the teams that appealed their division placements. Surprisingly there were only four for football. Unsurprisingly, three of them were Notre Dame, Salpointe, and St. Mary’s.

However, the fourth one was odd – Tucson Santa Rita decided to appeal up to D2 from D4.

To me, this makes no sense. A D4 Southern sectional that includes Tucson-area schools Sabino (who didn’t appeal), Palo Verde, Empire, and Rio Rico would seem to be a good fit for Santa Rita – for sure an easier path to the playoffs.

Instead, Santa Rita opted for the massive D2 Sonoran sectional which now will include Salpointe, CDO, Cienega, and Ironwood Ridge.

If it’s travel times they’re doing it for, maybe that makes sense. The D4 sectional would have also included trips to Safford, Florence, Globe, and Fountain Hills. The Safford trip is probably the most daunting of them all since Safford is the only D4 school in Southeastern Arizona (Douglas is D3).

In any case, given that information, I’ve updated the sectional projections now to include the new appeals. I’m 99% confident that this will end up being the final version the AIA comes out with, and 100% confident that if any changes are made, it will involve less than 8 teams switching sectionals.

Teams with a * next to their enrollment numbers indicate the school appealed to the listed division.

After considering a lot of discussion surrounding some of the appeals (see the previous post) and looking at the way the sectionals are currently arranging, I really have some issues that I’m trying to work through.

One of them is the obvious appeals for the four major Catholic schools: Seton Catholic, Notre Dame Prep, St. Mary’s and Salpointe Catholic. All four are currently in D4 due to enrollment numbers.

Notre Dame is most likely only appealing up one division (from D4 to D3). Seton, in the last 4 years, has appealed up to 4A-II, so if they continue that trend, they too will appeal to D3.

St. Mary’s and Salpointe have historically appealed all the way to the highest division to play. Both schools have a very competitive history, with each owning a couple of Region titles, and both are usually playoff teams.

However, with the new divisional and sectional breakdowns, it might make more sense for St. Mary’s and Salpointe to take the path of Notre Dame and Seton and only appeal up to D3. (If that happens, look for Vista Grande to appeal up to D2 to play with Casa Grande, and Sabino to appeal up to D3 as well.) There are several benefits to playing in D3 – competition, travel times, and in some cases a renewed rivalry.

For example, Salpointe would play in the Kino (Southern) sectional along with other Southern Arizona high schools Amphi (a historical rival dating back to the 1950′s), Sabino, Catalina, Douglas, Sahuarita, and Nogales. Seton Catholic would also be placed in the Kino sectional as well. The travel times for the remainder of the section (Williams Field, Tempe, Vista Grande, Campo Verde, Apache Junction, Queen Creek, and Poston Butte) are not too much of a stretch. St. Mary’s would play in the Skyline (Western) sectional along with West Valley schools Cactus, Desert Edge, Liberty and Peoria. Notre Dame would be placed in the East Sky (Northcentral/Eastern) sectional along with Saguaro.

Already many of the Catholic HS sports are classified as D3 or D2 in some cases. Arguments could be made to move these four to D2, but of them, only St. Mary’s and Salpointe would seriously consider it – the Salpointe AD has stated that he’d prefer all his sports to be in the same division, even though all appeals are on a sport-by-sport basis. If the majority are already in D3, it’d make it easier for him if he just based his appeal on that and moved everything to D3. If he wants absolutely no travel times, an all Tucson region in D2 might be the ticket.

On a personal note, I’d love to see these schools all compete in D4. Seton has a history already with the schools in D4 (the old 3A conference), and it would be no stretch to include Notre Dame, Seton, and St. Mary’s in the Western Canyon (Western) sectional, which would pit them against the perennial West powers Chino Valley and Wickenburg. On the Southern side of the fence, Salpointe staying home in D4 would cause Sabino to stay home as well, matching up several Tucson-area schools in that sectional (Sabino, Santa Rita, Palo Verde, Empire, and Rio Rico) along with Salpointe. The travel times there would not be bad either, with the remainder of the sectional including Florence, Coolidge, Globe and Fountain Hills, Safford being the farthest travel time for any school. (Yes, there would be a little perverse pleasure in seeing the horror on the faces of the Rim Country AD’s who would know that the path to the championship was no longer guaranteed from the old 3A East schools, but I digress…)

Realistically though, I believe that Salpointe and St. Mary’s will end up in D2, with Notre Dame playing D3 and Seton staying D4. Call it a gut feeling.