Sports Sabbath

We (Only) Know Drama

2010-12-02T20:33:00.000-08:00

There was nothing more telling about tonight's Heat vs Cavaliers game than what happened before it even started. TNT, the station broadcasting LeBron's return to Cleveland, decided to air a rerun of "Bones" - a show that roughly 9 people have ever watched - instead of running a massive pregame extravaganza. This angered sports fans, who on most days, love to poke fun at ESPN's attempts to make even the most mundane of events into all-day telethons.

But that's the kind of fervor that surrounded this game. Everybody wanted something. Some wanted LeBron to fall flat on his face. Others wanted to see a historical showing from The King. And then there were those who wanted blood; to see Cleveland fans riot or throw beers onto the court.

One thing is clear: nobody tuned in to watch basketball.

It was a casual fan and sports writer nightmare; a Heat blowout, where LeBron neither destroyed the court nor failed to show. He did what LeBron does, although, at times, he was so dominant that you had to feel he was crushing Cavs defenders on purpose. Scoring 38 points in three quarters, he could have put up 50+ if he was so inclined*, but the LeBron we now know did what was expected: sit out the final quarter of a meaningless regular season game.

*A prominent, nationally syndicated sports radio host Tweeted that Michael Jordan would've gone for the 50+, alluding to the fact that James doesn't have it in him. I casually tweeted back that rooting for 50+ is rooting for entertainment, not basketball. He then sent me a direct message stating "I forgot more about sports during lunch than you've learned in your entire life". The lesson, as always: where you stand on LeBron is serious stuff, and that most people in the sports business are pricks.

This failed to satisfy a soul except for the hardcore NBA fan. The American public that drove up TNT's ratings Thursday night wanted something extraordinary, a mix between Kobe hanging 81 points on Toronto and Ron Artest jumping into the crowd and clocking a Pistons fan. They wanted entertainment that had little to do with sports. A reality show where either LeBron or Cleveland leaves the island alive. For things to remain the same on Friday morning would be a travesty.

Sorry, fair-weather NBA fans, nothing to see here. No drama, no violence, no answers. Just a December game where the home crowd had a little more juice than usual. Sorry you were strung along by the majority of the sports media, who led you to believe you were to be a Witness of something greater than you were actually going to see.

Now you know how it feels to be a Cavs fan, because this is likely the last NBA game you'll watch with interest before June. I'll give you one more look at LeBron to vent your frustrations. Then you have to get over it.

Real Soccer

2010-11-18T13:33:00.000-08:00

I am not a soccer guy. Sure, I get into the World Cup like everyone else, but I never follow the sport outside that particular event. In other words, I am all-American. And what has strained Major League Soccer from its inception is how to make soccer popular to Americans. The answer?

Make it less American.

The Kansas City Wizards have announced that they are changing their name to Sporting Kansas City. Just about everyone I know thinks this is lame. Not surprising. Our sports teams follow a simple formula: State or City + Team Name (preferably plural). But it's not like the KC club is breaking ground here. We have Real Salt Lake, D.C. United, Toronto FC, Chivas USA, etc.

Still, the name change hasn't gone over very well. Even Dead Spin came out against it, stating "the trend of naming teams in European and Latin American styles has to stop." I say this trend is exactly what the MLS needs, and to not stop there.

The problem with the MLS is that they tried making soccer an American sport. It isn't, and it will never be. What they need to do is promote the sport as an influx of European and Latin American athletics. Embrace the foreign aspect of it. With the mass migration of Latin Americans into America, what better way to reach out to that growing demographic than to give them a piece of their home?

My proposal? Create two conferences, one of "European" teams and one of "Latin" teams. I don't mean by segregating players, but by segregating atmospheres. The Euro league would consist of teams with the names of "United" and "FC" attached, with the Latin league including "Real" and "Sporting" names.

And let's keep running with this. Euro stadiums would blare English and German fight songs, only serve Warsteiners and Heinekens, etc. Latin stadiums would do the same with their respective heritage. It would add a little fun to the game. Everyone can be a part of the global game for one afternoon. Audience participation is the key.

I mean, let's face it; the game ain't attracting a whole lot of people in this country. So why not make it a cultural event? Imagine an NFL game mixed with Disney World and a touch of Beer Fest, if you will. If successful, the fan bases could even get a little Euro vs Latin hate going on. Why wouldn't this work?

The Art of Diversion

2010-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

The end of Sunday's Chiefs/Broncos massacre left a lot of different angles for Kansas City sports media to dissect. The defense put the Chiefs in a hole that was nearly impossible to dig out of. Matt Cassel was horrible, yet was able to put up over 400 yards, and in essence, keep fan favorite Brodie Croyle off the field. The coaching staff got run over. There were endless possibilities for writers and radio hosts to tackle.

But then, at the very end, Todd Haley snuffed Josh McDaniels for all the world to see. And now all of the city has to hear about it.

There was finger-pointing, yelling and more than likely some harsh words. It was a perfect television snapshot. Drama, suspense. It's the kind of story the media loves to run with. The game all of a sudden didn't matter. This was Haley vs McDaniels. It will get higher ratings than Pacquiao vs Margarito.

Only, I've seen this before. I remember the 17th of September. 2006. The Belichick-Mangini shake that shook the world. But it never really shook anything. The Hoodie is still the mastermind of the Patriots. Mangini is now heading the impressive Cleveland Browns. The handshake that wasn't never meant a thing. It was as meaningless as a preseason game or a Boise State regular season game.

Make no mistake, the Kansas City and Denver media will latch onto this like their own little version of Brangelina. You will hear words like "classless" and "unsportsmanlike". Those who step on their soap box to proclaim Todd Haley is a jerk will also praise him if he wins the AFC West. This whole episode will be long forgotten, as was Belichick and Mangini's.

I, for one, don't care about handshakes or finger-pointing or any of that. I care about football. Unfortunately, a squabble between two coaches will take away from any insight sports media members, with all their access and contacts, could possibly give us. It is a lazy way out. Much easier to discuss photographed bitchery than break down a game.

Sadly, this will divert eager Chiefs fans from the analysis they desire. After all, analysis is a loser's game; every wrong prediction will be remembered, every right call blown off. This is a way for media to consume a topic that is purely sensational.

Shame on anyone who tries to make this a story. I want sports, not a soap opera.

Antiweis Superstar: How Todd Haley is becoming the new Marilyn Manson

2010-11-08T14:55:00.000-08:00

Note: this article is lengthy and requires the reader to learn a little bit about a non-sports subject to get the overall point. If you'd like to skip straight to the sports stuff, just scroll down past the dotted lines and you'll see it. But I highly suggest you read the entire thing.

I have been a Chiefs fan since the day I was born. Every year, I follow the team like a hawk, spending so much time dissecting every little aspect of the game that I question my sanity. But this year is different. The Todd Haley Era is confusing me. It wasn't until I pulled myself away from football and delved into some of my other interests that I encountered a possible explanation.

That other interest was Marilyn Manson.

I am a huge Manson fan. Put aside for a second what you think you know about the man or the band. I'm sure images of Satanism and kids in makeup come to mind, but understand that Marilyn Manson - or Brian Warner, as his mother named him - is what I consider a musical genius.

The Reflecting God

His finest album, Antichrist Superstar, is a misunderstood masterpiece. I have always felt that ACS was a concept album chronicling the life of a weak, timid person who becomes a famous rock star who believes in too much of his power. This also happens to be the exact same concept of Pink Floyd's The Wall. That, by itself, is probably more thought than most people put into Manson's records. But then I came across an article that took it further.*

*For in-depth look into Antichrist Superstar, read this essay by Paula O'Keefe.

On Manson's official message board, someone had posted an essay by Jeff Cohn, which is a kind of conspiracy theory behind the singer's motives.

In short, (but I'd ask you to read the whole thing), Cohn suggests that the band Marilyn Manson has been, well, made up. The claim is, that from its inception, that every album, song and lyric Manson has written has been just a clue pointing to some greater point.

Marilyn has woven a complicated web of clues to catch him...we must all be forensic psychologist’s now. This is our “Seven” our “Silence of the Lambs” (One of Marilyn’s all time fav. movies) . We as fans must all continue to question everything and think deeper than the obvious surface level.

At first glance, this seems nearly impossible. It reminds me of claims that Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon was written to coincide with The Wizard Of Oz.* To achieve something so great - in this case, starting a band and writing songs to become one puzzle piece at a time that would take the highest amount of fame to work - just sounds crazy to imagine. But perhaps many artists have tried this very thing, but only Manson has been able to reach the highest point of popularity necessary to make it work. Maybe, instead being the only one to try this and it working at first strike, he is just one out of a thousand, and was the only one to be successful.

*Don't think I haven't noticed the parallels between Manson and Floyd. The same themes seem to occur in both bands, which may point to Cohn being closer to the truth than one might be comfortable with.

Mister Superstar

The idea that an art form, or an entire life, might be one that was preconceived and then actually achieved isn't an idea that a person can just accept. This makes the listener accept two things. One, that somebody can actually morph the perceptions of others to what that artist wants you to think is real, and two, that you are one of those people.

This takes a level of belief in one's self and belief that others will allow you to go on long enough to make the dream happen that is unrealistic to most. When it comes to Manson, he needed to make non-music that posed as actual rock and roll to start his puzzle, if Cohn's theory is correct. But that also had to be good enough to get him to where he needed to be, which is rock stardom. It's extremely hard to make good music, but to make good music that actually isn't music at all? Manson would have to be in the top 1% of musical minds to achieve this.

Then he would need to catch all the breaks (grab an AR man's attention, get airplay, etc.), or else this is just crap music that nobody ever hears. Again, it is entirely possible that Manson is just one out of many who has tried this, but only he has achieved it. But the master planning involved is mind-blowing. It takes a great leap of faith to acknowledge.

But it is fun to imagine that somebody out there had what it takes to create this. It's what has always drawn me to Marilyn Manson's music. So what does this have to do with sports, and specifically, the Chiefs? Please allow me to explain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Beautiful People

All was going right in Kansas City. The Chiefs were winning. The running game was on fire, the defense was playing well, special teams was flourishing. In the back of everybody's mind was the thought, "Why isn't Jamaal Charles getting the ball?" But we suppressed that thought. After all, you don't change a winning formula.

Even with losses to the Colts and Texans, and a near disaster to the Bills, the 5-2 Chiefs couldn't be questioned. This was a team that was expected to do nothing and be nothing, and yet here they were, controlling their division and their own destiny.

But then Sunday happened. The Raiders happened. A 15 penalty, 3 turnover debacle that most NFL teams would've put away at halftime. The Chiefs, however couldn't put it away. They gave the ball to their average-at-best quarterback rather than their 5.3 yards-per-carry superstar. It didn't make any sense.

So the question is: why? Why try to feature your limited quarterback and not the one guy who has proved to be the best player on the team?

Perhaps Todd Haley is putting together the pieces of a puzzle that we don't quite yet understand.

Man That You Fear

The theory, as far as I know, was first proposed by sports radio host Nick Wright here in Kansas City; that Haley and offensive coordinator Charlie Weis are consciously trying to convince people that quarterback Matt Cassel is better than everybody thinks he his. The idea is that Haley and Weis are purposely "highlighting" Cassel during regular season games. This basically means that the coaching staff is going away from the best game plan possible. The reasons for this can be only one of two things:

1. Haley and Weis are so stubborn, that they rather die with swordplay rather than bust out their guns.

2. They are giving Cassel meaningful reps to help build his talent and confidence, even if that means losing meaningful games.

Now think: there are only 32 human beings on the entire planet who are NFL head coaches. Would one of them risk losing his job just out of pure pride and stubbornness? Insane as it sounds, it actually makes more sense that one of them has devised such a complex plan that he truly believes in - a plan that includes wasting a possible playoff season to build towards a grander goal.

It's the same creation of illusion that, theoretically, Manson has built. The idea here is that the team is not ready for Super Bowl contention just yet, so it's better to let Cassel have real-game experience of shouldering the load, while at the same time limiting Jamaal Charles' touches to save him from injury. The crazy thing about it is that in these times coaches are expendable and you must have total faith that this plan will work, and work quickly.

So the question becomes. do you have the patience and faith that Haley, Weis and general manager Scott Pioli can pull this thing off?

Irresponsible Hate Anthem

Of course, there is the argument that everyone on Twitter has been sending my way: it is what it is. Thomas Jones is just more dependable, audibles are being called for passes because of defensive looks, etc. And that is entirely possible. But Charles has been limited the entire season, and when he does get the ball, he explodes. The only way that in-game strategy could be at fault would be that if Haley and Weis knew the exact times when the defense wasn't expecting Charles, which is completely false. There is obviously a premeditated strategy here, right?

That kind of out-of-the-box thinking is rare and dangerous in today's NFL. It also points to a thousand-point-plan that can't be trusted with today's media scrutiny. To take it back to Manson, would his low quality "Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids", and it's lack of popularity, give him the chance he needed in today's iTunes-heavy, single-oriented music landscape?

Of course not. But this is the same kind of deceit and faith that Haley and Company seem to be operating on. But you have to believe that these kind of men exist; men that are so self-confident that they dare to change the way the game is played solely because they have a vision.

I'm willing to accept that Marilyn Manson was this kind of person, and so too is Todd Haley. I can let go of what I think I know about the entertainers that are in front of me. After all, isn't the belief that great, visionary men are amongst us that keeps life interesting?

If this is just imaginary, and Haley really is just stubborn, then so be it. But I will now watch the Chiefs as I listen to Manson's music; an experience that I can draw my own interpretations to, letting me better understand the world I'm living in. After all, that is basically the point of entertainment, and sports is entertainment.

The Chiefs are my new Marilyn Manson, And just like the singer, I'm sure everybody will hate me and ridicule me for being a fan. So be it.

Rock on, Todd Haley.

The Illusion of Caring

2010-10-20T12:50:00.000-07:00

Every Christmas, there is a unique sociology experiment that I think everybody should partake in. Go to a Wal-Mart, stand outside, and watch the creative ways in which people try to ignore the Salvation Army workers. Some will pull out their cell phones, acting like they are checking a message. Some will spark up a conversation with whoever is accompanying them. We all have our strategies.

Yet, if confronted individually, every one of them would say that they cared about charities, and the Salvation Army specifically. And in their heart of hearts, they would truly believe that. Even if shown a video of them blowing off a SA volunteer, most people would make up some kind of excuse, and go on believing they are a caring person.

This is pretty much the behavior of the average NFL fan.

Joe Sports Fan would lead you to believe that he cares about football players. He'll tell you that he's against helmet-to-helmet contact and "illegal hits". He'll tell you that the players need more protection. And in his heart of hearts, he believes this. But Joe Sports Fan has been blowing off the brutality of the NFL for years.

Every football fan knows, and had always known, that the game ruins its players. We've heard story after story about Player X being diagnosed with dementia at age 45, or how the every day blows an offensive linemen endures takes twenty years off his life. This is not news. Anyone who watched just one football game in their life could understand the severity of the violence taking place.

Yet, we all watched. And we paid. And we cheered. While news leaked out about how the NFL basically discards its former players and their health, we screamed about how something should be done, and then continued to tune in to watch current players getting their brains mashed in. When a player went down with his third concussion in six weeks, knowing that those injuries will haunt him for the rest of his life, we responded with concern and teary eyes - that is, until the medical staff scraped him off the field and the next play began.

Fact is, football fans rank entertainment over the well-being of the players. 99% of fans kept paying the NFL and supporting the game even as guys got bigger, stronger and faster. The violence was never bloody enough for us to put down our foam fingers or sell off our fantasy teams.

But now Roger Goodell and the NFL say that the game needs to be safer; that it's worth taking away some of the most exciting plays of the game to help the players. Just about everybody is in agreement with this. They care about safety too, they say. They care about the players.

Because if they really did care, what they are admitting is that their own trivial entertainment is more important then something they feel deeply and emotionally about. And this might be true for some. Some people might actually wince and get a sick feeling in their stomach when there's a brutal hit. At best, these people just have extremely screwed up priorities. The kind that put their car or boat ahead of their own children, which we usually agree is a type of horrible human being.

I feel that most fans fall into a different group. Most people never think about injuries or overall health of athletes until it is presented to them. They are the Salvation Army ignorers. They watch with tunnel-vision; never able to see past what is on their screen or what they are already looking for. Football is always about the game, nothing more. Injuries are a part of that game.

To sit there watching and holding the knowledge that what it is you are seeing will eventually end the lives of the athletes, is in and of itself an unmoral, primitive thing. To enjoy something that is so violent is nearly evil. And to say afterwards that you care about the lives being ruined on the field is wholly dishonest, and in a way more unmoral and evil than admitting that you are unmoved at all.

If video of me at Wal-Mart ever surfaces, you'll see this: someone who just walks past the volunteer like he doesn't exist. If presented with a documentary or still photos of those in need, the human emotion in me would probably break down and give a little something. But that isn't the real me. That is a version of me reacting to guilt.

I don't feel guilty about liking big hits, because I don't pretend to care about those who suffer the blows. And for three hours (or six, or nine) on Sundays, I walk right pass the sad reality to enjoy some cheap entertainment. I'm okay with this, because I never concern myself with issues like morality, or more accurately, what definition of morality society has designed for me.

But you do. So you care. At least, you care when someone is watching. I say let us that truly enjoy the game for what it is have the game that we grew up watching. If you want safety, you need to move on to a safer form of entertainment. Don't let your guilt drag the rest of us down with you.

NCAA, Inc.

2010-10-15T09:57:00.000-07:00

"Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites" - Anthony J. D'Angelo

I've never been comfortable when people talk of concussions in the NFL. I'm alright when they wheel out ex-players or show a crime scene when some athlete with brain damage murders his entire family. But I squirm when some fan or writer stands on his soapbox and declares how the violence of football must stop.

After all, we knew that football is violent and destroys the bodies and minds of its players. But we set that reality aside because, well, it's not something we like to think about, just like we don't think of African miners whenever we buy a diamond at Zales. We lie to ourselves so we can enjoy our simple pleasures.

I am always conscious of these things. When I see a big hit, part of the satisfaction is knowing the guy might be carted off. This might make me sick and depraved to most, but it also makes me honest. Football players are our gladiators, and all I want is blood.

So earlier this week when Sports Illustrated came out with an article revealing the secrets of sports agents, it didn't surprise me when everybody in the sports world acted shocked. Former agent Josh Luchs spilled the beans about agents routinely paying NCAA athletes. As if that's something we all didn't figure was happening anyways.

We just didn't talk about it, because well, it got in the way of us enjoying our perceived reality of collegiate sports. Football can't mean as much is it's rigged and dirty. The dirt is what killed boxing in this country.

But now it's out in the open, so we put up a front of ignorance. We all know this is the way the world works. Those with the money wheel and deal behind the scenes to get what they want. It's politics. It's business. It's the reason why the BCS still exists even though nobody likes it.

The innocence and charm of amateur sports is gone. ESPN shows high school football and little league baseball and break them down like they're pro athletes. Sports at all levels are big business. We either accept this as fact and move on or keep pretending it's not happening and meet boxing's fate.

I know this is the last thing we want to face. The fear of violence is hurting the NFL right now, but there is no turning back. The cat is out of the bag. Personally, I care about the sport and the players can be getting under the table deals or Nike endorsements, doesn't really matter. But you do, or at least you say you do. Just pick one, and stop acting like a child who just learned that Santa isn't real.

Review: One Night in Vegas

2010-09-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

I've been constantly impressed by ESPN's "30 for 30" documentary series, even if it was conceived by someone who I think is flailing artistically.* But it has been mostly entertaining and thought-provoking. When I heard there was going to be an episode about the night Tupac was shot, and the parallels between the rapper and Mike Tyson, my DVR couldn't be set fast enough.

*Two things here. First, Bill Simmons has been an idol of mine and is the reason I got into sports writing, along with Hunter S. Thompson. I still read him and enjoy his columns. But my second thought is that he has given up and been generally lazy since becoming semi-famous. He has replaced columns with podcasts, and lost a ton of respect from me since I learned that he blocks anyone on Twitter that says anything remotely bad about him. I'm not bitter, I just disagree with the thought process there. The only other person I know that does this is Jason Whitlock. I fear for Simmons' career.

I was very excited for "One Night In Vegas". Gauging from the other docs, I was ready for some inside info and details I never knew about concerning Tupac's death.

None of that was there.

Basically, "One Night In Vegas" was nothing more than stylistic masturbation, trying hard as hell to force the white audience to accept as many urban stereotypes as possible. Testimonials from leaders in the black community such as Maya Angelou and Michael Eric Dyson served little purpose other than to shout "THIS IS ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE". Same was the reasoning for interrupting the story with less-than-impressive "poets", who evoked images of auction blocks during Def Poetry-esque rants that brought nothing to the narrative at all.

I know a lot of these "30 for 30" episodes are about posturing and embellishment (such as last week's "Little Big Men", who tried to persuade us that Little League baseball saved America in the 80s), but damn. Anyone who has ever been remotely interested in Tupac* knows all of the facts presented here. What was the point?

*As someone who doesn't listen to a lot of rap, Tupac has always been my favorite artist. I completely buy into the fact that he was a misguided and misunderstood philosopher of sorts. I also believe he was an extremely important figure in black culture at the time. But not everything written or filmed about him is as deep as the man himself.

There is no point, as I can see. The film spent most of its allotted hour explaining to us who Tupac and Tyson were (again, proving that this was directed towards a white audience). The night of importance was merely a fact getting in the way of the director's intention: shoving Tupac and Tyson's culture in the face of ESPN viewers.

This was a disservice. I would love to know more about what happened that night, more about the feuds between Death Row Records and gangs, and how it all came crashing down on that fateful night. But this film wasn't about that. This film wasn't about anything.

You Don't Know What You Think You Know

2010-09-07T22:15:00.000-07:00

When I graduated high school, I made it a point to become as politically involved as possible. I joined a political message board (dude, I was 18, give me a break) and talked about campaigns, war and everything under Washington's sun all day long. Eventually, I became a moderator on the site and spent every waking minute discussing and researching what I believed to be important issues.

Except I wasn't. As I delved deeper into the political arena, I realized that everything important happens behind closed doors. Everything. And they stay behind those doors forever.

Of course, there are those Watergate moments that make the common person believe that injustices within politics eventually see the light of day, but those are rare occurrences. In fact, conspiracy theorists might say that scandals are leaked on purpose to give citizens that exact feeling of security. Believe what you will.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do know one thing for sure: wherever there is money and power, there is a whole lot of dirty shit going on that you will likely never know about. And here's another thing I know: there is a lot of money and power in collegiate sports.

I am never surprised when I hear of some behind-the-scenes scandal regarding the NCAA. Reggie Bush receiving gifts is about as shocking as hearing another Senator got caught with his pants down. It happens, it's a part of the game. What does surprise me (but probably shouldn't, when you look at people's political knowledge), is the reactions from the fans.

When the Lew Perkins scandal broke out, you would think that the guy was apart of an assassination cover up based off the general amazement of commentators. It was simply inconceivable to Joe Sports Fan that a school's AD had overseen ticket fraud and accepted free exercise equipment. People who react this way are surely not into politics.

I, for one, would be shocked if this was the worst thing Perkins has over done. I am quite certain that the athletic departments at USC and Memphis are dirtier than we imagine, and the same goes for any school who has had big-money success in recent years. You simply do not gain that much money and power without leaving a trail of dead in your wake.

But so it goes, as we see nearly every month with Senator X or Governor Y who gets caught with illegal funds from lobbyists or whatever other scandal that finds its ways to newspapers. With the millions upon millions that get shoveled around in NCAA sports, you would be very naive to believe that the movers and shakers are nothing more than savvy businessmen with nothing to hide.

This is why I haven't paid much attention to the Lew Perkins or Reggie Bush story, because it's the same story the has been and will be told. I know these things go on every day, I just don't know the specifics. There is no knowledge to be gained from the details, only reputations and programs to destroy. If that's your idea of justice, go for it, lynch 'em. Just don't act like Perkins is a scumbag and not the norm, because you're wrong about that.

If you're reading this, more than likely you are a sports fan. You're not a political junkie with inside information. If this scandal surprised you at all, then you know less about the going-ons in the world than 18 year olds who frequent message boards.

Stick to Saturdays, stick to what you know.

Repeating History

2010-08-24T09:51:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing left that baseball has going for it, then that one thing would surely be history. The NBA's past is violent and archaic compared to today's game. The NFL barely resembles the league it used to be, even as late as the 1980s. But baseball, by and large, is the same game now as it was in 1997 or 1897. Except, you know, that it isn't.

For some reason, Major League Baseball, its fans and sports writers as a whole, like to pretend that the Steroid Era didn't change anything; that with "The Year of the Pitcher" and the decline of Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire, the whole black period is behind us. As if somehow we can just slice that piece of baseball's history off like a tumor, and hope that it didn't spread to the rest of the body.

Which is why, I presume, there is outrage when you entertain the idea that Jose Bautista could be on steroids. It's unfair, they say. Just because he is having a career year doesn't mean he should be lumped into a group of cheaters in the 1990s.

But career years aren't usually defined by hitting 250% more home runs than your previous season high, which was 4 years ago, and it's only August. This stands out like a sore thumb. As did McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa stood out when they started murdering baseballs and breaking decade old records like it was old hat. Nobody stood up then to ask any questions. It's unfair, they said.

I'm not even suggesting that Bautista is using. But shouldn't we at least be asking the question? The reason the Steroid Era was allowed to thrive was because nobody would point out the obvious. I thought the lesson learned was to point out statistical anomalies so that this would never happen again.

Of course, you can't just flat out test the guy because he's smashing the ball. But we should look to next year. If he trends back towards his career average, then chalk it up to a fluke. But if he approaches 40 home runs again, and then again? Time to investigate.

Yes, it is unfair, but the Steroid Era is to blame. The game simply is not the same. Not yet, anyway. And until every sign and stench from that period is washed away, current players will have to suffer the consequences of their predecessors. Either that, or we turn a blind eye and repeat the tainted history that led us here.

Knowing baseball people, pretending like the game is fine is the likeliest of scenarios. They just better pray, and pray hard, that Jose Bautista is clean.

Contract Killers

2010-08-10T17:47:00.000-07:00

I am pro-celebrity. While others stand around the water cooler making fun of Tom Cruise and Lindsey Lohan, I understand how they and other crazy famous people got that way. When gossipers proclaim their disgust when the rich and famous complain about, well, being rich and famous, I side with the faces I see on the magazines. I rarely ever bitch about those who have it all.

So when I cringe upon hearing guys like Darrelle Revis say they aren't making enough millions, it's not because I can't relate to disputing over two or four million dollars. It's because the simple fact that millions are on the table is what makes every decision in sports life or death. Getting rid of Revis would cripple the Jets, and he knows that. He holds all the leverage. Well, he would if there wasn't a lockout looming anyways.

Nothing makes this more clear than what's happening in St. Joseph, Missouri.

Last week I attended my first Chiefs training camp. I was pumped. If I was still sixteen, I might have even been stoked. There was little that could have happened that would drain my excitement. Except, of course, seeing Matt Cassel.

In a word, the Chiefs' #1 quarterback has been awful. He just doesn't look like a starting NFL quarterback. Since he was eighteen years old, the only time Cassel has looked good as a starter was when he was paired with the likes of Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Last year's struggles were mainly blamed on the team as a whole being bad. But with nobody near him, simply running drills, he looked like he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. If nobody knew who he was, not one person attending would've figured he was the de facto starter.

But we do know who he is, and most importantly, what he makes. He is the $63 million dollar man, and you don't let that much money rot on the bench, even if it helps your team.

The Oakland Raiders know this. They continually trotted out JaMarcus Russell, though it was obvious to everyone that he didn't belong on the field. But Russell was the Raiders' #1 pick, and they couldn't justify letting his contract sit. The result was an okay Raiders team being sent to the slaughter every week because the most important position was being occupied by a purple drank drinking bust. If everyone on the team made equal pay, or drastically less, then the decision to say "we screwed that pick up" could have been made.

And I fear Matt Cassel will be the Chiefs' JaMarcus Russell. At this point, Brodie Croyle is the far superior quarterback, but will play second fiddle because of all the money tied up in Cassel. The same goes with defensive lineman Tyson Jackson, who, excluding this year's rookies, is the 13th highest paid player in the league. If anyone has looked worse than Cassel, it's Jackson. But you don't sit the 13th highest paid player. Not even if he's horrible.

I could care less about holdouts and gold digging rookies. The players can get paid, so they do everything in their power to get paid more. I get it. What kills me is how much power that money gives players, and how it strips decisions from coaches. The 2010 Chiefs will be worse because of those two contracts, and there is nothing coach Todd Haley or anyone else can do about it. If he sits Cassel and Jackson, he may get fired. If he plays them and the team tanks, he could get fired as well, and we'll all think of him as a bad coach, when in reality he was doing all he could to win.

This is not sports, it's economics, and bad economics at that. It's also the way it will always be from here on out. I just hope Haley has the balls to play the best players, not the highest paid. But I'm not holding my breath.

The Resurrection of Beavis and Butthead

2010-07-14T19:39:00.001-07:00

Since it's a slow sports day, I'm sharing this here. For all my non-sports articles, click on the Facebook line above.

I'm not sure how many people can say this and be telling the truth, but my life would probably be completely different if it weren't for Beavis and Butthead. The show aired from 1993-1997, at which time I was between seven and eleven years old. I had just graduated from the childhood developmental stages and was on my way to becoming an actual person. My parents also got divorced during these four years. Needless to say, this was probably the most important time of my life, as I spent more time by myself than ever before and was starting to understand the world around me.

And that world's epicenter was MTV. I was an MTV addict. Whenever the phrase "spring break" is uttered, I still think of Pauly Shore and the "Spring Break Moment" theme (do they still do that?). I consumed everything. I still have debates on who was the best Singled Out co-host (Jenny McCarthy). But the one show that caught my attention more than any other was Beavis and Butthead.

By the time the show was canceled, I had already became a die-hard Metallica fan, a full-fledged heavy metal junkie. Mind you, I was still in grade school, and most of my classmates' idea of music was whatever songs teachers made us sing in class. It wasn't like it is today, where nine year olds are already on their third cellphone and second iPod. My mother forbid me to watch it (fat chance) when I almost burned the house down my making a bonfire in my bedroom. Ah, the good ole days.

The show had a serious impact on my life, as funny as that sounds. Though I barely knew what half the references were, the idea of kids who did nothing but watch MTV, eat nachos and listen to Megadeth seemed like a dream. I wanted to be Beavis. How big of a fan am I? The backdrop on my phone is from the Halloween episode where Beavis turns into Cornholio, and my ringtone is the show's theme song. Yeah.

So it would seem only natural that when rumors started to swirl about a possible revival, I would be stoked. This is all speculation, but if there is a revival of the show, it sounds like it will be modernized. Not in a way that makes the boys more 2010 (I don't even think that's possible), but the world around them will be. From what I hear, the videos they mock won't be that of Helmet and Bruce Willis, but of Lady Gaga and Fall Out Boy. At first glance, this seemed like a horrible idea. After all, what holds B&B dear to my heart is the fact that they were so 1990s.

The only thing that makes me hesitant is MTV. I don't care whether or not they air it (currently no deal is in place, and the new episodes may be internet-only), but that MTV no longer shows music videos. What made the show cool for kids like me was that Beavis and Butthead were kids like me. They hung around and just watched MTV all day. But MTV today is all reality shows. No eleven year old can in 2010 can relate to watching music videos all day. At least not on television.

The ironic thing is that B&B paved the way for successful non-music programming on MTV. The "M" no longer stands for "Music", but rather "Mainstream". It simply cannot resonate with this new generation. All a revival can do is satisfy the kids of the 90s who have pined for more episodes for over a decade. But is that worth it? What's the point if you can't engage a new audience?

I see this failing hard. Not in my eyes, but that of the public, and that will ruin its legacy. If this will truly work, have the boys' Mystery Science Theater inspired commentary be in front of a computer, making fun of YouTube videos. Oh wait, Tosh.0 already does that.

Time to face it: the reign is over. Beavis and Butthead is nothing more than a piece of my past and I couldn't ever explain it to my children any more than I could explain the importance of the Black Album; you either get it or you don't. I want more of the show, but I don't need it.

With that being said, if the genius that is Mike Judge somehow pulls this off, and make B&B not only funny but also relevant, it may be one of the greatest achievements of the new decade. I just have my doubts. Recreating the past is usually just the masking of lack of new ideas. I really, sincerely hope I am wrong.

Obey Your Master

2010-07-12T19:26:00.000-07:00

I am white. Like, really white. My skin resembles that of Edward's in "Twilight". I like heavy metal and whiskey. My tattoos have colors. So it goes without saying that 99% of the time, I cannot stand and am vehemently against the words that come out of Reverend Jesse Jackson's mouth.

Let me present to you, that rare occurrence of the 1%.

I know I am in the minority here (no pun intended), when I say that I actually agree with Jackson's take on LeBron James. Well, not completely. Let me explain.

In case you didn't hear, the Rev. had this to say about Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, and his tirade over LeBron choosing Miami over Cleveland:

He speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers. His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship - between business partners - and LeBron honored his contract.

Ah, the race card. Expect nothing less. You also should expect each and every individual in the country to come out to bash Jackson, and his love affair with making any issue about race. Of course, the LeBron James Fiasco (as I like to call it) has little to do with racism. But the idea of sports owners having a "slave master mentality" hit a chord with me. It made me think. Is he right?

I don't mean to suggest that owners think of their players as slaves. But why is it that Dan Gilbert reacted so strangely and violently to Lebron leaving? I am of the opinion that Gilbert took the whole thing personally, as if James was saying to him: "You are not good enough. You made me do this. You cannot run a business. I am better than you". And while I'm sure Mr. Gilbert has heard this before in his lifetime, I doubt he's heard it from a 25 year old black man who just proclaimed it in front of ten million people.

The problem here is role reversal, not just between blacks and whites, but of all owners and players. Long gone are the days of teams just buying and trading players, like, ahem, slaves. Now you must kiss the feet of King James. And in Gilbert's case, you might get kicked in the teeth afterwards. That is a hard pill for a rich and powerful man to swallow. So instead Gilbert spit back at the King. Wrong move, Dan.

I suspect what Rev. Jackson was trying to say, albeit poorly, was that Dan Gilbert felt entitled have LeBron James, a sentiment echoed by every sports fan in the state of Ohio. And why would he/they feel that way? It is a fact that Cleveland horribly managed their team, failing to put anything remotely resembling a championship roster around LeBron. So this sense of entitlement means that Ohioans believed that James belonged to them, whether he liked it or not; that it was not his choice to not want to play in Cleveland. They had already written his script. But LeBron freed himself of what they wanted and what we as sports fans wanted. He went after what he wanted.

Granted, when you consider the mouthpiece those quotes came from, and how scared Americans get when race is interjected in any conversation (especially sports), the common reaction will be "there he goes again...". But I see the validity in Jackson's overall point. LeBron James is an athlete who may have tarnished his legacy and his hero-status in his hometown to win basketball games. Not only that, but he rubbed it in our faces as well. He did exactly what everyone wanted him not to do. And we responded with disgust that he would dare not play by our rules.

But we play by LeBron's, and any other star athlete's rules now. He has set the precedent. He is our master.

Defending LeBron

2010-07-07T18:48:00.000-07:00

Wow, I guess everyone hates LeBron James. How could you not? The guy gets nothing but praise, yet couldn't win a championship with Antwan Jamison and Mo Williams. And instead of just choosing a team to sign with this summer, he forced teams to come to him, and -gasp- show him why he should sign there. And when all of the hype got to the boiling point, and it seemed everybody was fed up with the speculation, he had the gall to tell us all the exact time and place we would learn his new destination.

Can you sense my sarcasm?

I'd like to thank the sports fans of America for completely ruining the Summer of LeBron. I've been excited for this for awhile now, just waiting to immerse myself in talks about sign and trades, cap room and player movement. And for the most part, it was as good as I thought it would be. But the misdirected hate towards LeBron has soured it. I can't take it anymore. It's disgusting and completely ill-informed.

Take Yahoo NBA analyst Adrian Wojnarowski, who wrote the following:

The Championship of Me comes crashing into a primetime cable infomercial that LeBron James and his cronies have been working to make happen for months, a slow, cynical churning of manufactured drama that sports has never witnessed. As historic monuments go, this is the Rushmore of basketball hubris and narcissism. The vacuous star for our vacuous times. All about ‘Bron and all about nothing.

James is throwing a few foosball tables at Boys & Girls Clubs, an empty gesture out of the empty superstar. He’s turned free agency into the title of our times, a preening pageant of fawning, begging and pleading. Hard-working people are dragged into municipalities and told to hold signs, chant scripted slogans and beg a diva who doesn’t care about them to accept a $100 million contract.

This just about sums it up; everything is LeBron's fault. He has "dragged" people into this, made them "beg". Except, you know, he hasn't really done anything. He was in the position to ask NBA teams to pitch to him. Those teams were more than happy to oblige. Once the media showed fans where these meetings would be held, they took it upon themselves to come out in droves and show James their support. Wow, what a monster!

Writers like Wojnarowski are who you should direct your disdain towards. He has spent all this time regurgitating the same speculations and rumors everybody else has, and is getting paid for it. His Twitter account has gained in popularity. He has, in fact, talked it about more than most LeBron supporters. He is a hypocrite and is partly responsible for Thursday's circus.

The truth remains that James' decision is the single most important event concerning the future of the NBA. That's why the media is covering this in the first place. And it is they, along with Mr. Wojnarowski, who have beaten it into us 24/7 ever since the end of Game Seven. All any NBA fan needed was the rumors and inside information. And yes, ESPN might have taken it further, but it was the naysayers who first started talking about non-basketball related issues, like what LeBron was wearing during these interviews.

Don't be mad at LeBron going through the motions of what is not only a huge decision for his life, but for the welfare of the league of which he plays in. The NBA with him in New York is a different NBA than if he stays in Cleveland. And mind you, this is a 25 year old making this decision. You were probably doing Jager-bombs with chubby college girls when you were his age. So shut it.

If you don't like how this whole thing has played out, remember: LeBron has no control on how he is perceived. He holds a lot of power, but as this hate-fest has showed, he cannot shape our opinions. That's what newspapers and television do. And what New Media and the internet age does now, is break apart our heroes and beat them down into dust. We no longer want our athletes to be bigger than life, rather, we want somebody to show us why they are no better than we are.

Well, LeBron is better than you. I'm guessing he's better than you in just about everything. He is definitely more accomplished as a 25 year old than most people, more mature as well. His response to people saying enough was to push this whole fiasco into one hour on a Thursday night. He's giving us what we want without dragging it out any longer.

Save your hate for the media. There was a time when they would champion the best, now they want to become part of the story. Don't let 'em.

Just know that when this is all over, James' decision will still matter in the NBA while the media's coverage of this last few weeks will be long forgotten. The King will write his own book. Let's just hope Adrian Wojnarowski doesn't write one any time soon.

The Future Is Now

2010-06-30T17:54:00.001-07:00

Since young stars such as LeBron James and Dwayne Wade took over, the league has grown in popularity. As I have been saying for a while now, basketball will replace baseball as the #2 sport in America, and will one day replace football as #1. Every monumental change such as this must start somewhere, and while the seeds were already sown, we will all look back to one day as Day One of the New NBA.

That day is July 1st, 2010.

Tomorrow, the biggest free agency period in the history of sports will start. LeBron, Wade, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, Carlos Boozer, David Lee - and now Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki - will all be eligible to choose where their careers will end up. Never before has a sport had so many stars being courted at the same time. With James, he is the future of the league. And where he goes, the NBA goes with him.

This is something the NFL and MLB doesn't have. For whatever reason, NFL free agency is rarely filled with big names. The Bradys and Mannings of the world are set for their careers until they become too old and are given up on or they simply retire. In baseball, only the big market teams have any chance of signing star players.

I know what you're thinking. With LeBron's suitors being Miami, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, isn't that just like baseball? The difference with the NBA is that big markets don't have the edge because of money, but because of venue. Those are just the places that big names want to play in. You can't fix that. Well, I guess James could if he stayed in Cleveland, but that seems unlikely at this point.

But the fact that the biggest basketball star since Michael Jordan not only could choose a small market, but would get paid more money by doing so, is what makes the NBA so great, and this summer so important. By staying with the Cavaliers, LeBron could effectively change the league. Wherever he goes, that city will have the biggest spotlight. All of a sudden, Miami could be basketball land. Now, that is power.

With football and baseball, one guy doesn't make that much of a difference. But in basketball, in changes everything. It makes the league much more volatile and entertaining. By adding James, New Jersey could go from one of the worst teams in NBA history to a favorite to win the East. One CNBC analyst estimated that LeBron's worth in an uncapped league could be manifested in a $500 million contract. $500 million!!!

I am telling you, the NBA is about to assume some serious staying power in American sports. Baseball is dying quickly. Considering the country's growing minority population, I would seriously want to sell my MLB stock and buy the NBA's while it's still relatively low.

Unless, that is, LeBron James decides to stay in Cleveland.

I could see a scenario where he stays put, and the remaining free agents scatter to various teams and the league loses some luster. Not that it will kill the league, but the progress of its popularity might be put on hold for a little while. But if King James becomes the King of New York? Well, get used to hearing his name a lot.

If you're not an NBA fan, but still reading, I implore you: BECOME A FAN NOW. Get in when the gettin's good. This is the perfect time to join. The future of the NBA is about the be formed. America's #2 sporting marriage is about to get engaged. Don't miss the reception.

Fireworks are coming on July 1st this year.

Soccer is the Death of America

2010-06-22T02:27:00.000-07:00

Note: Originally written on July 9th, 2009.

Alright, so in the wake of the Team USA win against Spain, I wrote how the match meant nothing in terms of Americans embracing soccer. I still feel I am right about this. I mean, how many friends do you have who have become soccer fans this summer? I'm guessing zero. I also wrote that soccer could succeed if America becomes an international futbol powerhouse. I am wrong about this. Actually, all that needs to happen is rapid social progression. And not in a legalizing pot kind of way. Let me explain.

The reason we hate soccer is because we suck. We are the foam finger-wavers, top dog. Vietnam was so damning to this country because we, gasp, actually lost. We don't lose, we're winners. We don't partake in activities, from sports to war, in which we won't succeed. Well, that was the old America, born 1776, and dead about 200 years later. The country post-Vietnam is taking the shape of a global participant, though admittedly still at or near the top.

But what if we start dwindling down towards the middle? Think about it: our economy sucks, the population is more of a true melting pot than ever before, and while we were batting 1.000 in wars for the first 200 years, we are on the verge of losing two in the last forty. This is New America.

And New America has no boundaries. See, this country, while accepting anybody from everywhere, still drew lines. The Southern Gentleman, the East Coast Elite, the Midwest Farmer. Those are generalities. Then you dissect certain districts, like New York City or Boston, who had clearly defined lines of not far removed ancestry; tight-knit groups of similar races and backgrounds. We were diverse as a whole, but not in our parts. Now we are. The poor and rich, white and black - they live close to each other and go to the same schools. To quote Bill Murray in Stripes, "We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts."

We are true mutts now. The election of Barack Obama was called the changing of the guard, out with the old and in with the new. Of course, to keep with overused phrases, it was meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But it did show a possible path for future America. We elected a mutt President who wanted to be a part of the global society, not its leader. Winning wasn't the priority, simply just being involved was. You know, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

So where am I going with this? The New America, concerned with being a global participant, culturally and economically, is the type of country who could enjoy soccer. It is THE international sport. Since 1776, the USA has been a virtual island. Think about soccer's two types of players - the European and South American. What they have in common is that they are interconnected. Brazil/Argentina, Spain/Italy/France. It is a community, and we've been separated. But hey, the coach doesn't bunk with his players. It comes with being king of the mountain. But in all facets, we are dissolving as that #1 team.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. Social progression is good, and empires never last. All I am saying is that it is change. And not Obama change, but real change. It'll be difficult to knock down our walls and let the world in. Just be ready. Because our football is based on the fact that we, and only we, can do it. We are the best. But international futbol involves everybody. It's sharing. The love of soccer could signal the death of America. The Old America.

Of course, I don't believe this will happen. We are much too stubborn for that.

Winning Isn't Everything

2010-06-14T20:01:00.000-07:00

For the first time in my life, I don't care about my favorite team winning. This is the end result of the entire Big 12 fiasco; a mind-numbing cash grab between rich universities that has left such a trail of disgust amongst the Midwest, that I find myself actually wanting Kansas to join a mid-major. In the words of David Byrne, well, how did I get here?

When Missouri first started threatening to move to the Big Ten, I was one of the few Kansas fans to say good riddance. Hey, I love history and tradition as much as the next guy, but I'm not married to it. The inability to move beyond tradition is what has made college football such a joke and ideas like the BCS a reality. I love the rivalry, but I can move on. No big deal.

And when Colorado and Nebraska jumped ship for greener pastures, leaving the Big 12 dangerously close to collapsing, I heard very few voices of optimism. The fear was to be left out of a BCS conference, which would cripple every Big 12 team not named Texas, leaving them basically incapable of winning a football championship and hurting their respective basketball programs.

Nobody stopped to think about anything other than winning. Every radio host and internet columnist (and newspaper columnist, if you still hold on to that archaic tradition as well) looked only for the pros and cons in terms of the Big 12 schools' athletic success. Nobody asked the question: couldn't this be sorta fun?

As a Kansas fan, I'm tired of playing the same schools year in and year out. I find it exciting that there's a possibility of forming new grudges, whether that be with UCLA in the Pac 10, Boise State in the Mountain West, whatever. I want sports to be fun again. A fresh start in another conference, even if it does hurt Kansas' chance of competing for titles, would help. I'd get to learn about new schools, new coaches, new fan bases. What's so wrong with that?

Everyone is so obsessed with winning that I feel they have lost sight of things. College athletics is fun even when your team isn't very good. This isn't professional sports, where athletes are paid millions to win. These are college kids, who you can always root for, good or bad.

But it's going to be hard to root for the Big 12 10 when I'll always be aware that this conference is really just the Texas Ten, with the only reason for its existence is the fear of being left behind. Texas is getting the cash, their own network and an even bigger advantage.

Every Saturday I'm going to see Colorado and Nebraska in their new conferences, happy as can be. It's like seeing your ex-wife once a week having a great time with her new husband, while you're stuck with a fat girl from the South who bullies you around.

I say bring on the Mountain West. I'd rather be in a fair conference that wants my team than a league based solely on making Texas more money. This isn't college athletics, it's big corporate business. This is not why I watch sports. I'm willing to sacrifice winning for enjoyment. But sadly, just about everyone disagrees with me.

To quote Mr. Byrne again, it'll be the same as it ever was.

The Harm of Progress

2010-06-07T19:28:00.000-07:00

Baseball is a nineteenth-century pastoral game

Football is a twentieth-century technological struggle

-George Carlin

I have forever been an advocate of instant replay. Not just in football, but in all sports. When a Ray Allen jump shot is changed from a two-pointer to a three-pointer minutes after it goes through the hoop, I'm glad they got it right. Replay has completely changed the NFL, so much so that teams hire guys whose only job is to watch every play from the booth to decide whether or not the coach should throw the red flag.

So, like most of the sports world, I too have been clamoring for baseball to adopt more replays. And now after the Armando Galarraga/Jim Joyce fiasco, the voices are louder than ever in favor of not just home runs being reviewed, but safe calls, fair and foul balls, etc. Last October, I even proposed a way for balls and strikes to be called from a booth.

I think I was wrong. When it comes to discussing the idea of progression, whether it's social, political or in the realm of sports, it is very easy to become hypocritical or lose sight of what really matters. I consider myself a very progressive person. I am pro-drugs, pro-gay, anti-war, etc. In other words, I am young. But while I value evolution, I also understand that sometimes, the unfair, old-school ways are sometimes the best ways to garner results.

For example, I hold a philosophy that is unpopular with about 99% of the people I know. I believe that the Feminist Movement of the 1950s and 60s hurt America. Let me explain.

Do I believe that women should be seen as equal to men? Absolutely. Do I believe women can and should hold the same jobs as men and be paid the same? Of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a coed working society breeds the best kind of people. You look at children today, and they are being raised by housekeepers, babysitters and daycare centers, not their parents. This is because both parents work. There isn't any time to actually raise their kids. And don't tell me both parents work because they have to financially. While true, that is a product of a flooded job market that is a result from twice as many people working than there used to be.

With that being said, I don't think we should strip women, or men for that matter, the right to work. It's simply not fair. But fair doesn't always lead to a desirable outcome. You see, a woman's role in early America was to raise the children, keep the house in order, cook the food, etc. Are those not needs anymore? That job is nearly extinct, yet the demand for those services is still as high as what it once was. So we are left without those services, which is crippling.

Women needed to be granted the right to earn their keep, but the Feminist Movement convinced everyone that a women should want to work, and that being a homemaker wasn't important. This is why are kids grow up in households without the sensitive, loving parent at home, and the dominant, disciplinary figure out in the work force. The cat's out of the bag, there is no turning back now.

So what does this have to do with instant replay? The cry for more replays in baseball is the MLB's Feminist Movement. Does it promote fairness? Yes. Is it an act of progression that future generations might laugh at because we didn't have it sooner? Yes. But will it turn out to hurt the game? Probably.

We simply do not have to be progressive about everything. It's okay if some things stay arcane and unfair, all in the name of preserving what works. The dichotomy between housewife mom and worker dad worked. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, you can not argue the results. And while instant replay may be the right thing to do with baseball, we also can not argue that the way the game has been played for ever a century has worked.

Baseball is outdated, but that's what we love about it, isn't it? It's slow and simple, like how life used to be. There's a reason why it's called the national pastime. I don't think it's in the MLB's best interest to try to out-advance the NFL. That's a losing battle. I think that I now understand what purists are talking about when they praise the "human element" of baseball. It's a game that is unfair and foolish but ultimately fun. That's how life not only used to be, but will always be. I say we embrace it.

Serving 8-10

2010-05-19T19:18:00.000-07:00

Royals fans put up with a lot of shit. Really, you have to give them credit for going to Kauffman Stadium year after year, subjecting themselves to the pains of loving a horrible team. Unlike a lot of fan bases, Royals fans are very informed of their minor league affiliates, mostly because that's the only place they can find some optimism. They understand the realities of a small-market baseball team and why it is that their beloved team sucks.

However, they are now pass the point of frustration. Nobody wants to wait anymore. Can you blame them?

It's not just that the Royals haven't been to the postseason since they won the World Series in 1985, or that they've only had one winning season since 1994. It's not that the team isn't winning, it's that they are embarrassing themselves while losing.

From the front office, you have bad signings, failure to build up the minors and failure to keep the studs that you have (Damon, Dye, Beltran). On the field, the players routinely drop infield fly balls, seemingly have no idea how to run the bases or work the counts, and think OBP is a type of doctor. After twenty-plus years of enduring this type of pathetic ball play, it's no wonder why Royals fans are fed up.

And then you add this: GM Dayton Moore has publicly announced that it will take 8-10 years (from 2007, when he was hired) to build this team into any kind of contender. Well, the fans aren't liking that. Not. One. Bit.

I understand them, I really do. But the fact is that Moore is right. When you have an organization that is as depleted as the Royals were, it takes a lot of work to get them rolling again, especially when they're owned by David Glass, who extends slashing prices from one of his many Wal-Mart stores all the way to the Royals' payroll. You can't just cash out on veteran free agents for a one year run - two years at the MOST - and then be bankrupt for the next decade. You have to build from the ground up. And that takes time.

What makes it hard for Royals fans to swallow can be summed up in two words: Zack Greinke. Here you have a bona fide Ace, a top-5 pitcher and Cy Young winner, a guy you can build around. Unfortunately, the Royals aren't in any position to build a contender right now. Don't blame Dayton Moore, blame the prior administration.

Really, it's just bad luck. What this team needs is to freeze Greinke, à la Austin Powers, so we can thaw him out when he's really needed. There's no use for a Cy Young winner right now. As much as it pains me to say it, the Royals need to trade him. Get some young, can't miss talent, and just stockpile as much as you can. The plan is for everyone to come up at the same time. It's what Tampa Bay did, and right now they are the best team in baseball.

I know the fans deserve a winning team right now, but it is just not happening. We have to trust that Moore knows what he's doing. Yes, it's like being proposed to right after you got out of a relationship where you were beaten severely for twenty years. I never said it would be easy. There's still a few really tough years to endure. But if the Royals' fan base pressures this team into making stupid, win-now decisions, then they deserve all the losing that they are getting.

Rick Reilly & The Mothers of Inventing Stories

2010-05-05T18:03:00.000-07:00

The transition between spring and summer can provide a lull for some sports fans. Baseball is just getting under way. The Red Sox are under .500 and the Nationals are above .500; it's a little too early to know anything. The NBA isn't for everybody and the playoffs can get dragged out. Golf? Only if Tiger is in contention on Sunday.

It is in times like these where stories that would never see the light of day in October or March surface. Stories like whether or not Dez Bryant's mother was a whore.

Honestly, I don't really care about Dez Bryant. My team didn't draft him and I don't care to pick him up in fantasy football. But I do find it interesting/comical/sad that so many people are outraged that Jeff Ireland, GM of the Miami Dolphins, was curious to find out if the wide receiver's mom was a prostitute under his pimp of a dad.

The most shocked people say that his upbringing doesn't really matter. Leading this charge is ESPN's Rick Reilly, who hasn't put two seconds of thought in any article he has written since joining the World Wide Leader. Reilly seems to think that you shouldn't be wary of someone because of their upbringing, an asinine idea that The Big Lead's Tyler Duffy immediately strikes down.

It's almost hard to believe that someone has to come out and prove that kids raised by pimps, whores, drug dealers and criminals actually turn into - wait for it - pimps, whores, drug dealers and criminals. I know this country loves the underdog stories of growing up hard and blossoming out of it against all odds. But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Now, just because you have a shady background doesn't mean you can't be successful. But if you are Jeff Ireland and thinking about spending millions of dollars on a prospect, wouldn't you want every bit of information you could find? Believe me, children of pimps and crack dealers are far less likely to be stable adults than kids of Duke graduates. It's a red flag, to be sure.

There are two lessons to be learned here. First is that Rick Reilly is about as relevant anymore as Royals playoff hopes. The second is that we need to accept reality. It's alright to say that Dez Bryant has a lot going against him due to his upbringing. Nothing against him personally, but that is a lot of baggage. Most middle-classers still bitch to their therapists about their parents getting divorced forty years after the fact. You can't act like it doesn't matter.

Add that to the fact that Bryant was thought of as a malcontent before this story even broke, and that in his best season he had only one touchdown on the road, then it paints not such a pretty picture. If he ends up being a great wide receiver, fine. But the big business of the NFL has every right to vet rookies.

The past matters. As the saying goes, "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". The NFL learned from the histories of Pacman Jones and others. The only question now is will Dez Bryant learn from his parents' history. Will we see.

My Degeneration

2010-05-03T17:54:00.000-07:00

Thousands of raving, stumbling drunks, getting angrier and angrier as they lose more and more money. By midafternoon they'll be guzzling mint juleps with both hands and vomitting on each other between races.

- Hunter S. Thompson, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved"

There are only four days per year where everyone acts like me. Being a drinker, gambler and someone who is attracted to the dark alleys of life, these days are New Year's Eve, St. Patrick's Day, Halloween and the Kentucky Derby.

The first two holidays are what I call "Amateur Nights". Every year on December 31st and March 17th, people all over America do what I do all the time: drink. Even if you are sober for nearly every day of the year, it's hard to resist a green beer or a glass of champagne. It's also impossible to get a beer at a bar during these days. I do not enjoy these holidays.

Other than sports, I have two passions; heavy metal music and horror movies. While I delve into dark territories almost every day, Halloween is the one time a year where it's okay to decorate your house in skulls and cover your children in blood. Also, women dress like prostitutes. I enjoy this holiday.

Then there is the Kentucky Derby. On one hand, it is the only time where rich white people can drink their asses off and gamble, which I do on a daily basis. However, seeing these people is a reminder of how embarrassing and wretched drunken gamblers are. It's pretty much the basis for Hunter S. Thompson's "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved", which in my opinion is the single greatest sports article ever written.

So, if you want to know just how bad the Derby can be, read that article, because I couldn't do it justice. What interests me is why. Why is the Kentucky Derby a mainstream media event?

First of all, nobody cares about horse racing. If Super Saver, this year's winning Derby horse fails to win the Preakness (thus failing to win the Triple Crown), the level of interest in the sport for 2010 will fall to 0% for most of America. We simply do not care.

While horse racing falls into the category of apathy, three other defining aspects of the Derby are more repelling to middle America; excessive drinking, gambling and looking like an idiot. But for one day a year, these behaviors are not only accepted, they are celebrated. During the day-long coverage on Saturday, every picture from the race was of disgustingly drunk rich people walking around looking like this. And I don't know if you've ever been to a track before, but believe me, even a nun can't be present without making some kind of wager.

So why this day?

The answer is simple: the patrons are wealthy. There is no difference between the Derby and any other race except for two things. One, the Derby is the first leg of the Triple Crown, but as I've already discussed, people don't really care about horse racing. The second discrepancy is in other races, the drunkards are degenerate gamblers, while the Derby is home to the rich and powerful. When the top 1% are doing it, it's all gravy.

And that's why I probably lean towards loathing the Kentucky Derby. I take it personally when people condemn the acts I partake in, only to celebrate the same behavior when the rich decide to do it. I know the argument here is that it's just one day where squares like to get loose and have a little bit of raunchy fun. A kind of fun release valve. Well, if drinking and gambling is so much fun to these people, then why are those known as drinkers and gamblers shunned?

Look at poker, for example. It was a backroom game for most of its existence, reserved for cowboys and the scum of the Earth. Then money got involved. Big money. And television. Now your grandma hosts a weekly Texas Hold 'Em game.

The fact of the matter is, what is right and what is wrong has nothing to do with truth and more to do with what you're told. These people decided that Derby Day is an acceptable time to engage in lewd behavior. So shall it be written, so shall it be done. I say that every day is an acceptable day. Only difference is, I am not rich nor powerful. Nobody wants to imitate me. My life is not a blueprint for high success.

What they won't tell you though, and what you won't see on television, is that the behavior seen last Saturday is not a one day per year event for these people. They are drunks and they are gamblers. I drink whiskey, they drink martinis. I gamble on sports, they gamble on the stock market. They only thing that really separates us? I don't wear stupid fucking hats.

The People vs. LeBron James

2010-04-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

If there's one thing that everyone in this country has in common, it is this: nobody knows what they want. This rings true in Who-like loudness when it comes to sports. We want Tiger Woods to be more human, but cry foul when he makes human mistakes. We bash Michael Jordan for his obsessive competitiveness off the court, but laud him for it with the ball in his hand. We never know what we want out of our athletes.

Really, we've asked for them to be perfect. To be funny but not cartoonish, confident but not arrogant, not a thug but also not smug, etc. Well, the NBA has this superstar. You might have heard of him. His name is LeBron James.

LeBron is as perfect as any athlete you will ever see. On the court, he scores, he dishes the ball, he hustles on defense. He simply makes his entire team better. Take Kobe Bryant off the Lakers, and they are still a very good team. Take LeBron off the Cavs, and you go from #1 team in the league to picking in the lottery every year.

But off the court is where he excels even more dramatically. There have been no rumors of drugs, alcohol abuse, treating people like crap or anything that could destroy his character. In an age where we are obsessed with the sex lives of celebrities, have you ever heard of one story about James with multiple groupies like Wilt or hitting up bars for skanks like Roethlisberger? None.

While I'm sure LeBron has employed an entire staff devoted from keeping his name strictly on the sports page, let's be honest here - you can't hide anything from the internet. If he truly was a ladies' man or a party animal, we would know. The truth is, James is a basketball phenom who is not only charismatic and likeable, but a stand up guy who knows his responsibilities.

And America hates this. Why else would we eat up scandals like Woods and Sandra Bullocks'? We love it when people that have more than us fall from grace. Though we pine for celebrities with just a smidgen of respectability, when someone like that actually comes around, we punish them for it.

First, there was Lebron James getting dunked on by a college kid, and the ensuing "controversy" of Nike stealing all documented footage. Either you have never heard of this event or you completely forgot about it. That's because it is, and was, a non-story. But at the time, it fueled the agendas of people like Skip Bayless, who put all their eggs in the "LeBron will never be the greatest basketball player" basket before he even entered the league.

Then there was the scandal of James not shaking hands with the Orlando Magic after being ousted in last year's Eastern Conference Finals. I wrote at the time and then reiterated my point a few months later how this was Jordan Part II. It's just being a competitive guy. Now we think of LeBron as a great guy and an ambassador of the league. Try again, haters.

Try, they did. Leading into this year's playoffs, James was railed for sitting out games. One writer even went as far as saying he owes his fans a refund and refused to vote for him as MVP. Now with LeBron banged up and the entire city of Cleveland holding their breaths for the series against Boston, let me ask the question: do you think he should have played all of those meaningless games?

Anything short of a 40/15/15 throughout the playoffs will leave the door open for people to call him out. The facts are there. He is the best player on the court and a truly respectable human being off it. This is what we all wanted. What more can LeBron James possibly do? And don't say win a championship, because if it's not against the Lakers with a healthy Kobe on the floor, the excuses will keep coming.

He is the NBA evolved. Get over it.

Divorcing the Royals

2010-04-28T17:29:00.000-07:00

I am in a very bad relationship. She beats me, hurts me, leaves me emotionally scarred almost every single night. Sometimes it can ruin my whole day just thinking about her. And yet, I keep coming home. I endure. My friends and family tell me to leave, that I deserve better. But I can't.

She, of course, is the Kansas City Royals. We've been together for 24 years now. Sadly, the last time she was even somewhat of a decent person was the year before we met. I do love her, but the pain has increasingly become much higher than the pleasure. I'm thinking of divorcing the Royals.

It's the most dreadful thing a sports fan can think about. There is no turning back once you let go of a sports team, because if you return when things start going well, then you become the worst kind of fan there is. It's permanent. No remarriages.

But enough is enough. It's one thing not to spend money. A lot of teams have small payrolls. Actually, there are ten teams that spent less this year than Kansas City did. One of those teams, Tampa Bay, might be the best team in baseball, and made a World Series appearance two years ago. It's not about the money, honey.

It's about the lack of caring. When you trot out the likes of Kyle Farnsworth and Bruce Chen to ruin the careers of Zack Greinke and Luke Hochevar, then there is a problem. When you lead the league in batting average, but come in dead last in team ERA, then you are wasting talent. Joe Posnanski tweeted the other day that since August of 2008, Greinke has had an ERA of 2.11, and in those games, the Royals are 22-24. This is unacceptable.

It seems that every decision this organization makes is the wrong one. The youth never pans out, the veterans are already washed up. I can get over the fact that we couldn't keep Jermaine Dye, Carlos Beltran and Johnny Damon; we're a small market team, it happens. But when you do have those guys and let them waste away and get bitter because you're unable to surround them with anything resembling a major league ball club? That is when it gets hard to swallow.

The scouts are never right, and somehow, through regime changes and everything, still this team seems incapable of understanding how to put a decent team on the field. Bad luck is one thing. Not every high draft pick will be a Hall of Famer. But to ignore stats, ignore history and ignore the windows of opportunity when they appear is just offensive to me. Why the hell should I support a team who at worst doesn't care about winning, and at best is completely ignorant and helpless?

I'm not breaking up with you yet, Royals, but I'm definitely taking some time away. Perhaps see some other people (don't worry, not your sister, the Cardinals. I hate that bitch). When I come back next Spring, you have better changed your ways. I simply cannot take any more of this. I don't want to, but I will divorce your ass. And if I'm lucky, I'm taking the kids, Zack and Billy, with me.

Don't Buy The Hype

2010-04-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

I'll put this out there right now: I'm not a Tim Tebow fan. I don't like him as a pro quarterback, and I certainly hate his holier-than-thou, good two-shoes personality. For his entire college career, every NFL expert agreed with me. Well, the part about him not making it as a pro, anyways.

In the few months between the end of his reign at Florida and the NFL draft, something changed. The conversation regarding Tebow's NFL future went from a 3rd to 5th round prospect to a possible 1st round threat. How did this happen?

An endless amount of publicity surely helped. You couldn't hear any talk about the draft without Tim Tebow's name coming up. Everyone wanted to know what round he'd go, what team what take that flier, if his throwing motion had changed, etc. The simple act of his name being heard surely advanced his status. But that's not the main reason.

There is this notion out there that Tebow is the ultimate warrior. He practices harder, plays harder and cares more than anybody else. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that. Let's say he really is the one guy who gives 110% every play. So what?

Remember Byron Leftwich? Click on this video. Forget the picture of Tebow with blood running down his face, Leftwich couldn't even walk down the field. You could say that nobody was tougher or cared more than Leftwich did. Very few people think that Tebow will be as successful as Leftwich was in the NFL, and he's currently the backup for the Pittsburgh Philanderer, Big Ben, traded for a mere 7th round draft pick.

Toughness means something, sure, but it isn't everything. You still need the tools. NFL teams will take the lazy Brandon Marshall over the hard-working Doug Flutie every day. And guess what, Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen and Colt McCoy aren't exactly bums. They too work their asses off and deeply care about the game. But they have one thing that Tim Tebow doesn't - a style of play that translates into the NFL.

Maybe Tebow will make it as an NFL quarterback. Nobody knows. But he doesn't have a monopoly on heart. Other guys have just as much desire as he does. They just have other qualities that shine brighter, while that's the only thing Tebow has to lean on. Good luck, Denver.

Vote For Ben

2010-04-22T09:12:00.000-07:00

I'll admit, Draft Day is getting to me. I have publicly come out against this new format, where Round 1 is now prime time on Thursday night. I still believe that it will take the excitement out of the later rounds. But today has a different feel than other NFL drafts. It almost feels like Election Day.

With the old Saturday/Sunday format, it started early enough that you couldn't think about things all day. There was just an hour or so of pre-draft specials, not the all day, CNN-esque coverage like today. When you have to wait all day long for the thing to even start, well, you start begging for more information.

This year, we all want to know one thing: Is Ben Roethlisberger going to be a part of it?

That's the story, because what we're talking about here is a 2-time Super Bowl winning quarterback, a young franchise quarterback, who instantly makes your team better. And you can get him fifty cents on the dollar. Pittsburgh seems ready to let him go.

The odd thing is, nobody seems eager to get him. I'm not talking about the actual teams (who the hell knows what they're thinking), but the fans. All I hear is how Big Ben is nothing but trouble and only suited to be a Raider. This is all based off his off-field performances, because before this offseason there was nothing short of Manning or Brady straight up that would've pried him away from the Steelers.

So are we really that moral, or do we just want to be heard that way? Remember how everyone hated Michael Vick's return? Well, it didn't take long for Philly fans to start chanting his name. When it comes down to it, we'll take a winner no matter what. Ray Lewis proved this. So did Pacman Jones.

I would bet the farm that Roethlisberger cleans up his act. I mean, he has to, right? So imagine getting his productivity, then add the fact that he won't be running around trying to get ass and pounding Jager-bombs. Shouldn't we expect his numbers to go up?

As a Chiefs fan, I'll give up the #5 pick and Matt Cassel if they want him. Reports are that a first round pick is all the Steelers really want. Other than Eric Berry, I have a hard time making a case of a home run pick at #5, and even then your taking a potential Pro Bowl safety over a proven, possibly Hall of Fame quarterback in Big Ben.

Say what you want about character issues, I want to win. I vote for Ben.

2010 MLB Predictions (American League)

2010-04-02T19:12:00.000-07:00

Predictions, like most sports analysis, are a win/win situation. If you get things wrong, nobody remembers. However, if you somehow strike gold and guess right, you can brag about it all year long. Now how could I pass an opportunity like that up? So here are my 2010 MLB predictions.

AL EAST

Winner: Boston Red Sox

I'm quite aware that the Yankees won the World Series last year. I am also privy to the fact that Steinbrenner & Sons spend more than anybody in baseball. But none of that matters. You know what matters? Pitching matters.

The Yankees had a team ERA of 4.26 (12th in the majors) in 2009. But their "ace" (more on the quotes later) didn't even have a win in the World Series. Oh, and that Hall of Fame closer? He's 40 years old. Scooby Doo is 40 years old. Think about it.

Anyways, here's the big "if": can C.C. Sabathia keep a sub 3.50 ERA again? He's only done it twice with the same team (Cleveland) and that was in the AL Central, where he won't be facing the offenses he will see day to day in the AL East. If he struggles just a little, the ground lost is enough to give the Sox the crown.

Seriously, what was the Red Sox's downfall in 2009? Offense. But look at the numbers. They were 3rd in the majors in runs scored, 2nd in OPS, 2nd in slugging, 6th in batting average, 3rd in RBIs and 4th in home runs. They were also in the top half of every pitching statistical category except for batting average, but every AL East team was in the top half in the batting category. So the question you gotta ask yourself is, was that Boston's fault or the result of good hitting?

I say it's a result of just a good division. If the addition of John Lackey and a healthy Dice-K/Beckett combo teams up with Cy Young dark horse John Lester and best 5th-man in the league Clay Buchholz ends up anchoring this team? Turn the lights out in New York.

AL CENTRAL

Winner: Minnesota Twins

Baseball Prospectus has the Twins winning this division at a forgettable 81-81 record. And you know what? I kind of agree. Though I do think the White Sox could be a sleeper here.

What killed Chicago is both their batting average and OPS. But don't think that key addition Juan Pierre (who's career BA and OPS gains ground in Chicago, especially against the 13th, 23rd, 26th and 29th worst ERAs in the majors) won't make a difference. If Jake Peavy can regain the San Diego form he once had (sub 3.00 ERA in 4 of 6 seasons), beware.

But that's a lot of "ifs". I like the sure bet. I like experience and a trustworthy program. I like the Twins.

AL WEST

Winner: Texas Rangers

The West isn't quite the best, as far as high level baseball. But as an arms race? To quote Sarah Palin, "You betcha!" To give you some perspective, Baseball Prospectus has my last place team, the Oakland Athletics, tied for first. Ugh.

Here's my take, in short: the Angels lost too much, the A's don't have quite enough, the Rangers have enough and the Mariners are said to have enough. You got that?

I understand the Seattle fixation. They were 6th in the majors in ERA last year and added Cliff Lee. But they were also next to last in batting average in the majors (they had .352 Ichiro Suzuki, mind you), finished last in the AL in runs and 26th in the majors in OPS. And did I mention that Milton Bradley is involved?

Give me the Rangers. Offense? Check. Pitching? Always getting better. Fielding? 5th lowest error total in 2009. Weak division? You got it.

Breaking Down the Final Four

2010-03-28T19:22:00.000-07:00

Don't pretend you are excited for the Final Four. You're not. There are no dominant teams or star players. I mean, when Da'Sean Butler is the biggest name left, then you know a lot of the excitement is gone. Not to say the games won't be good. Actually, with these matchups, they may be great. But you have to be a little bummed.

The only storyline that you'll hear all week is the Butler/Hoosiers comparison. Which is weak, at best. So I say, let's break down the stats. It's really the only interesting thing about the Final Four.

Michigan State vs Butler

For me, there are 6 statistical categories that matter in basketball. These are field goal percentage (offensive and defensive), rebound differential, turnover margin and three point percentage (offensive and defensive). Here are the two teams' breakdowns (national rank in parentheses)

Michigan State:

FG%: 47.3 (27th)
DFG%: 40.5 (51st)
RD: +9.0 (1st)
TM: -1.1 (240)
3PT%: 34.3 (163rd)
D3PT%: 32.5 (91st)

Butler:

FG%: 45.3 (78th)
DFG%: 41.4 (89th)
RD: +3.7 (60th)
TM: +1.3 (99th)
3PT%: 34.2 (162nd)
D3PT%: 30.9 (38th)

Now, on paper, it looks like a mismatch favoring the Spartans. But when you take the injured Kalin Lucas' 45% field goal percentage out of the mix, the only thing Michigan State really does well is rebound. Butler may not be leading the nation in any one category, but their worst statistic (3 point percentage) is still better than MSU's. Also, the Spartans' 240th ranked turnover margin is pathetic.

I just don't see how MSU can score against Butler. Unless they maximize every possession by not turning the ball over (unlikely), the only advantage they have is on the boards. But if they don't absolutely clean the glass (think 45-22 advantage), they will have less possessions and be least likely to score per possession.

I like Butler in a very low scoring game (over/under is currently at 126). The one thing that could give Michigan State the edge is that they are used to grinding games out in March. It's a game they'll be comfortable playing. However, the same is true with Butler, who is playing 15 minutes away from their campus.

West Virginia vs Duke

Here's the breakdowns:

West Virginia:

FG%: 43.4 (181st)
DFG%: 42.4 (136th)
RD: +6.8 (9th)
TM: +1.8 (63rd)
3PT%: 33.6 (184th)
D3PT%: 33.3 (126th)

Duke:

FG%: 44.0 (146th)
DFG%: 40.4 (48th)
RD: +5.9 (19th)
TM: +3.8 (16th)
3PT%: 38.2 (28th)
D3PT%: 28.2 (4th)

This looks like an even bigger matchup favoring Duke, and with their +11.3 rebounding margin during the tournament (excluding the first round, for obvious reasons), the one thing WVU does really well seems to be eliminated. Plus, with only one primary ball handler left, WVU would seem to be at a complete disadvantage when it comes to turnovers. Add the unlikeliness that the Mountaineers repeat their barrage of threes that they unloaded on Kentucky (Duke is 4th in the nation in defensive three point shooting), then it doesn't look good.

Here's the problem: Duke's entire offensive revolves around perimeter shooting. It's worked out thus far, especially late against Baylor, but how long can that hold up? They won't have very much success down low, so West Virginia can key in on three pointers defensively. This whole tournament, what has propelled Duke's threes is offensive rebounding, which they won't be able to get easily in this game.

This is going to come down to Duke hitting shots, really. And I would never put money down on a team who needs to rain threes for a victory. Coach Bob Huggins knocked Duke out of the tournament two years ago, and I see him doing the same thing here. You simply cannot rely on perimeter shooting to play a defense like this, as Duke clearly does.

Never Bet on College Kids

2010-03-28T09:54:00.001-07:00

Unless, you know, you get great odds and love both the underdogs. Then this happens:

NHL Needs To Move All-In

2010-03-25T19:29:00.000-07:00

Baseball is dead. We all know this, it isn’t exactly a revelation. To quote Baseketball, "with the rapid pace of modern technology, the attention span of the average American can only be “measured in nano-seconds.”" In result, the action (or lack thereof) in baseball just won’t cut it. Baseball has taken a backseat to more action-fueled sports like football and basketball.
We want to see blood, hard hits, pushing, shoving, fighting and the occasional jumping into the stands and wailing on a fan. Baseball offers none of this (in fact, the fans jump onto the field and wail on the first base coach). Hockey, on the other hand, offers all of this. Perhaps hockey will take over baseball’s seat in the Top 3 American sports.

But it won’t.

In light of the epic U.S. vs. Canada gold medal game during the 2010 Winter Olympics, the notion that hockey may finally hit the mainstream was a trending topic and with good reason. It was the first time since 1980 that Americans cared about hockey. For the first time in my life everyone was talking about hockey. Maybe all hockey needed was to have that one moment that hooked everyone in. Unfortunately for the game, it takes more than just a defining moment.

A good comparison would be the 2003 World Series of Poker Main Event. Before 2003, no one gave a crap about poker. It was a game some people played at home on the weekends and only degenerate gamblers played for a living. When ESPN broadcasted amateur (at the time) Chris Moneymaker take down the championship, people across the world were hooked. Fast forward to today, and poker is just as popular. So why can’t hockey have a similar fate?

The first thing you need is that defining moment which captivates and catches the attention of everyone. Check. From there, the next thing you need to do is capitalize on that moment. Poker did that by signing all sorts of television deals to broadcast a variety of tournaments: Poker After Dark, World Poker Tour, High Stakes Poker, etc. This is where hockey fails.

Hockey’s opportunity to keep the audience’s attention came way too soon. The perfect opportunity came when Ryan Miller and Sidney Crosby’s very next game would be against each other…two days after the Olympics. This game was not scheduled to be televised, and it would be damn near impossible to convince a television producer to change his or her programming with only a two days’ notice. However, the story could have still been there. We didn’t need to see it in order to stay interested. We would have been content on hearing about the matchup. But we didn’t.

Buffalo Sabres’ head coach Lindy Ruff decided to deactivate Miller so he could get some rest after the Olympics. Even though I understand this reasoning, I’m still against it. Hockey needed this. And they didn’t get it.

Another advantage poker has over hockey is the fact that it is not an entity. Poker is a concept. It is a game that is not owned by any one conglomerate that is run by a commissioner. Therefore, literally anyone can organize a game, package it, sell it, and profit. Conversely, professional hockey is owned by the NHL and is watched over by a commissioner…a god-awful one.

If hockey wants to earn the kind of mainstream success poker has enjoyed, it needs to start marketing itself. Right now, hockey’s stock is the highest it has ever been. If hockey has ever had any hope at securing television deals, now is the time. Television is everything! If you’re on television, people will pay attention. Look at the popularity of Jersey Shore for Christ’s sake! You don’t even need to be entertaining or relevant to be successful on television. Hockey is both entertaining and relevant…it can’t fail.

But it will.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has proven over the years that he is horrible at his job. If you thought David Stern was worthless, then you obviously haven’t paid attention to hockey, and chances are, you haven’t…BECAUSE BETTMAN IS HORRIBLE AT HIS JOB! He is in the perfect position to sell his product.

But he won’t.

And that is why hockey will remain in the backseat. Bud Selig is horrible at keeping the game in check, but he is awesome at marketing and advertising his product. The same applies to David Stern. Roger Goodell has a firm grip on the game of football in its entirety. Bettman couldn’t get laid in a monkey whorehouse with a bag of bananas.

And yes, I prophesied hockey’s fate by comparing it to poker and Jersey Shore…deal with it.

March Madness

2010-03-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

March is the month for Kansas Jayhawks fans. Every now and then, Missouri or Kansas State will have a good year where they go further in the tournament than KU does. When that happens, KU fans will hear about it until the next season. Well, this is one of those years, and sure enough, KSU and MU fans are voicing their bragging rights left and right.

As they should.

The Wildcats and Tigers had a tournament that either matched or surpassed the Jayhawks. However, the one thing everyone is forgetting is that key word: “tournament.” They had a better tournament. That does not mean they are a better team or had a better season. Missouri fans are certainly aware of this and are proud of how they performed in tournament, which they certainly did meet all expectations.

K-State fans are not as forgiving. Obviously, not all KSU fans are talking smack, and if they are, they’re doing it with class. However, those aren’t the voices we’re hearing over and over again. K-State fans are using KU’s unfortunate loss in the second round as justification for claiming the Wildcats are a better team than the Jayhawks.

I am here to debunk that theory and lay it to rest.

To start, let’s talk about the championship title and what it means. In simplest terms, it’s the team that was able to win six in a row in the month of March against the top teams in the nation. In reality, it’s a highly coveted title that gives a team bragging rights for a year that they are the best team in the nation. But are they really the best team in the nation? Yes and no.

Yes, they are the best team during the month of March…when it counts the most. No, they are not necessarily the best team in terms of overall statistics and performance. The NCAA national championship tournament has a one-and-done format. As KU has proven, all it takes is one off-day to ruin all chances of being the champions. What we need to remember is that losses happen in NCAA basketball…even to the best teams. Not one team lost less than two games in the regular season, and for the top five teams, most of those losses happened to a team with a lower ranking. It happens. Sometimes it happens during March.

If only the best overall team wins the championship, then why is it that a Final Four comprised of all #1 seeds has only happened once? Is it because of bad seeding? Well, some years you can argue that, but for the most part, the NCAA usually gets the #1 seeds right. Also, the designation of an overall #1 seed was started in 2004. Since then, only ONE overall #1 seed has won the tournament (Florida in 2007). Does that mean the other six overall #1 seeds weren’t really the best? No.

Look, the chance of any team winning the championship in any given year is a crapshoot. National championships are few and far between. When it comes to tournament time, the top sixteen teams have an equal chance of winning it all. The differences between the #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds may be many in the regular season, but those differences mean very little in March. Just look at the numbers. Again, how many #1 seeds go to the Final Four in any given year?

Unfortunately for KU, their upset came way too early. It is acceptable to lose in the Elite Eight and beyond, but in the second round? Unacceptable. This, I will agree with. With that said, it doesn’t matter if you lose in the second round or you lose in the Final Four. The fans of only ONE team are going to walk away not feeling dejected after April 5. Jayhawk fans’ feeling of dejection just came sooner than others.

So if the national championship is more symbolic than indicative, what makes KU the better team? Overall numbers.

Kansas was tied with overall wins and losses. Kansas lost to a team in their conference only once. The conference Kansas plays in has the highest RPI and the second highest Strength of Schedule (SOS). Kansas beat K-State three times…the last win allowed them to take the Big 12 championship. Best overall record in NCAA. Big 12 title. Big 12 championship. 3-0 against K-State. How can anyone argue that K-State is the better team?

K-State was the better team…in March. That’s all. Despite my broken heart, I will say congratulations to K-State for having a better tournament. As far as your bragging rights are concerned…you better win the championship.

Live NCAA Blog

2010-03-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

Ugh. Woke up late due to St. Patrick's festivities. Have to do half of my office pool brackets by hand. On the flip side, listening to the much improved Jay Bilas. It has begun. All times are Central, by the way.

(11:44) Trying to figure out why Kansas City gets Notre Dame/Old Dominion. What control group decided this was better than BYU/Florida?

(11:47) Tim Abromaitis. The Greek God of Drunken Three Point Shooting.

(11:52) I saw roughly 6 guys at the bar last night dressed like Notre Dame's mascot. And I think no matter what game CBS was showing, I'd be mad at it. How can you not glance at those scores and wonder?

(11:57) Old Dominion playing awful. Not sure what this team does so well. Then again, I could say the same about Notre Dame. Neither of these teams winning their Round Two game.

(12:09) Four team parlay: Tennessee -3.5, Baylor -550, Butler -2, Michigan St. -1400. Somehow, only game I'm worried about is Michigan St.

(12:11) ROBERT MORRIS?!?!?!?! Jay Wright decided not to start Scottie Reynolds AND Corey Fisher. He surely has cash on the Robert Morris money line.

(12:21) About time to order a pizza. When you order online, there is a section labeled "Special Directions". I'm going to write "Pick up 30 pack of Bud Light. Big tip." It's worth a shot, right? If Villanova loses, I will need all 30 of those (I have KU over Nova in my Championship).

(12:36) Pizza ordered. It's much harder juggling a live blog, Tweet Deck, 3 Facebook chats and 3 box scores at one time, while watching the games. Even though I didn't pick Old Dominion to win (a lot of people did), I am rooting for them. Remember when Luke Harangody was good?

(12:50) There is a 15-2 upset in the making, and the winner of two of the past four Championships currently losing, but CBS gives me the Notre Dame game. Fantastic.

(1:05) OK. Pizza guy couldn't find my apartment and turned around, Villanova is still losing and I have no beer. Oh, and I'm hungover. What God did I piss off? The mighty Abromaitis?

(1:15) I admit, I haven't followed Notre Dame at all this season, but what's with Harangody? He doesn't even score until 12.6 seconds left in the game? This used to be a Player of the Year candidate.

(1:18) ODU just swished two free throws right after Bilas said "Old Dominion isn't a very goood free throw shooting team." Not that Jay is wrong, but any time you mention how bad/good a team is shooting free throws, the opposite will always happen.

(1:20) One game done, one "upset". Old Dominion wins.

(1:30) BYU is choking, as is Villanova. I might go 0-3 to start this tournament. I hate sports sometimes. However, if Robert Morris wins and Duke doesn't make the Final Four in what will be the easiest region in NCAA tournament history, you can pencil Coach K in as Phil Jackson's replacement in L.A.

(1:37) ESPN's GameCast isn't working. Yeah, the BYU/Florida game is great, but the Nova game matters more.

(1:40) That final possession by Florida is why I had them losing. A backhanded NC State tip-in to win the game? How did Billy Donovan win 2 titles?

(1:43) I was hoping Urban Meyer showed up to hang with his old Mormon peeps. By the way, if BYU pulls this out, they might not get a single rebound during the KSU game.

(1:50) CBS didn't switch to the Villanova game until 25.4 seconds left. You payed 6 billion dollars to show BYU? Really?

(1:57) Looks like BYU and Nova are gonna win. Now 2-1 instead of 0-3. Still, my pick of Nova in the Finals looks really awful right now. Also, how good of a start is this? One game goes into double OT and one game is currently in OT.

(2:11) So, a 62% free throw shooter passes up a wide open dunk/layup (closest defender was at the top of the key) to dribble around and waste clock. Clanks first free throw. That might be the dumbest play we see in the tournament.

(2:15) Bill Rafferty talking about Robert Morris: "They only lost on the scoreboard". Yeah, the only thing that matters.

(2:20) You're not cool by referring to Robert Morris as "Bobby" or "Bob" Morris. You are, in fact, a tool.

(3:09) Looks like Kansas State is going to supply the first rout of the tournament. And I live in Kansas, so I have to watch the whole thing. It's insane that Time Warner can't get a package for the NCAAs. Even then, they would probably switch to BYU post game analysis.

(3:30) Did not realize Bill Simmons was doing this exact same thing today. I'm not even going to try to compete. Have fun. I need to pay more attention to the games anyways.

96 Problems, But This Ain't One

2010-03-10T20:31:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to rant about how bad of an idea to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams is. Everyone - and I mean everyone - thinks it's awful. So let's just leave it there. What I want to focus on, and what I feel is the important subtext here, is what this idea and the ideas that come after mean for the future of sports.

Cesar Chavez said, "Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed." The social change in this context is the pursuit of television money. It is the hamster that spins the wheel. Everything you see, from Bob Knight struggling through broadcasts to TBS butchering baseball playoffs, is the result of a very lucrative piece of paper. And of course, this is what is pushing the 96 team bracket.

The only thing sports fans don't want more than this is the BCS. Well, guess what: the BCS is here to stay. And the tournament expansion will be here soon. We have to live with it, just like we had to live with over expansion in all the major sports.

If there were less teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB and (most importantly) the NHL, the games would be better. More teams means a more diluted playing field. The 12th man in a 20 team league sees significant playing time in a 30 team league. It's simple math, it hurts the sport. But we've accepted it. When's the last time you had a heated discussion about getting rid of the Raptors, Marlins or Jaguars?

I suspect we will get used to 96. Remember, the tournament wasn't always 64 teams. I guarantee you that teams like Kansas, North Carolina and Duke would have more banners if the postseason was more limited. Look at how it has progressed over the years:

1939–1950: eight teams
1951–1952: 16 teams
1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
1975–1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980–1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985–2000: 64 teams
2001—present: 65 teams

The famous North Carolina State championship wasn't even in the 64 team era. UCLA's Wooden years? That's the 22-25 team era. The 64 we know and love isn't a staple, just a transitional period. The bigger the sport gets, the bigger the field.

We will learn to love it. Especially the first time #82 gets to a Elite Eight. Then you can expect the field to expand to 128. And we'll have this same argument over and over again. Is it for the right reasons? No. Will it matter in the long run? To quote Chavez once more, "There is no turning back".

At Small

2010-03-06T00:36:00.001-08:00

Imagine you are applying for a job at a top law firm. You were the 63rd best law student there was. You did well, but others were far and away more impressive than you. They get the top jobs, which is expected. Then the lower opportunities are handed out. The 25th guy gets his job. Then the 39th. Then the 62nd. It's your turn now. You get passed up for somebody else, and then another. All of a sudden, there are no more jobs left.

Do you think anybody cares? Of course not. You weren't a top prospect, just one of those who could of been considered. Yeah, you were 7th in your class at Harvard Law. But the top firms liked the head of his class at Binghamton. Your final interview didn't go so well. This is life.

But not in college basketball. In this world, the underachiever at the big school feels slighted when he isn't picked. He never thinks that he could've done more. His competition is too good, he says. The #1 at Binghamton didn't have enough talented classmates. That is HIS job.

Except, law students don't have the media on their side. They have to accept reality. Joe Lunardi gets to create his own reality, a world in which the opinions of the decision makers doesn't matter. But in business, in the real world, those decision makers can fall back on one point: you didn't do well enough.

You weren't #1 in your class. You did not do the work necessary to take the decision out of the hands of the decision makers. You left it out in the open. You made it an argument. You left it up to chance.

And that's what UCONN, Notre Dame, Rhode Island and many others have done. They did just enough to make it a decision. How can they complain if they don't get in the tournament?

All they needed was that one signature win, or to get a win over that one bad loss. But these schools didn't do that. They left it up to chance. They didn't get the job done.

So when the brackets come out next week, and if your school isn't amongst the elite, ask yourself: did we do enough? If you did, there wouldn't be a question. You only did enough to be considered. And that just ain't enough.

Official Sports Sabbath Website

2010-03-03T15:21:00.000-08:00

Be sure to visit Sports Sabbath, hosted by UMKC's University News. Hear me talk shit, it's quicker than reading it.

Click here!

The NHL Versus Itself

2010-03-02T17:10:00.000-08:00

Everyone is asking, will the NHL capitalize on the the popularity of USA vs Canada? And everyone is answering with a resounding "No!". I tend to agree. But the problem is that nobody is asking the right question. We all know nothing will change. The big question is: how does the NHL capitalize on the popularity of USA vs Canada?

I was excited to find out that the first game back for both Sidney Crosby (the game winner) and Ryan Miller (the MVP) would be - wait for it - against EACH OTHER. Imagine if during the Summer Olympics, LeBron James blocked Dirk Nowitzki's game winning layup during the gold medal game of USA vs Germany, and then two days later the Mavericks played the Cavs. I would be more excited for that than the actual Olympic game. But then I found out what I should've already known; the Crosby/Miller rematch was not going to be televised.

This is why the NHL will never make the jump. You cannot be a fan of that which you cannot see. It's why college basketball and football make billions but college baseball is a niche sport. The only time you see college baseball is during the College World Series, much like the Stanley Cup. It's time to get hockey on TV.

Of course, ESPN doesn't want it. Fox Sports probably doesn't either. But Versus shows NHL games. Why not make Versus just a hockey channel? Wouldn't a 24/7 NHL station get better ratings than reruns of "Wild and Wacky Sports" or whatever hunting program is on at ten in the morning?

All the NHL would need to do is request very little money from the channel itself. Let Versus keep all the profits. Why would Gary Bettman agree to this? Because the money he doesn't get from Versus would be made back tenfold from the increased fanbase. All you needed to do was by up a bunch of advertising on ESPN the day after, market the Crosby/Miller rematch, and watch the ratings soar. Have Canadian/American panels discuss the game for weeks. Bank on it.

Instead, the NHL is just going to hope that the game was good enough to get you hooked. It wasn't. You need big plans to become a big sport, and while baseball is begging someone to take them over, Bettman refuses to spend the money necessary to make the money hockey needs. He has to force-feed hockey into America's mouth. If left to choose, we'll take the NFL Combine over NHL playoffs every time. You know why?

Because the Combine is on television.

Sympathy for the Devils

2010-02-24T13:32:00.000-08:00

Imagine the scene. Police walk in, they see the body of a man who has hung himself. A woman is bound and strangled to death. Then the body of a seven year old boy, strangled as well. It sounds straight out of a horror movie. This was the scene of the double murder-suicide committed by professional wrestler Chris Benoit. It's a story that is seen as the tipping point for experts and ex-athletes who have called for action for the protection of players. It is what ex-wrestler Christopher Nowinski has made a career out of.

Nowinski and others have been pleading for years that something needs to be done about the dangers football players and other athletes face. The concussions, the violence. It all leads to dementia, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. It's the evil leagues that have no sympathy for the players. The NFL lets old linebackers wither and die. Major League Baseball turned the other cheek while players were destroying their own bodies. This is what men like Nowinski claim.

But here's the reality: it's the players' own unions that are killing them. As was seen by many people, including myself in September of 2007, a test for HGH was coming, and the unions wouldn't like it. Well, the test is here, and according to the NFL Players Union, "at this point, there's no reason to believe that blood-testing for NFL players will or should be implemented."

Actually, there are reasons. It's the same reasons why Benoit murdered his family and countless ex-NFL players have committed suicide. The same reasons why Nowinski thinks the NFL is the devil. Contact sports can literally kill you. Now multiply that by 100 when you add HGH in the picture. The hits are harder and the after effects are more damaging. But the Union's stance? They don't want it.

The NFL wants it. Roger Goodell wants it. For as much criticism that the league gets, it's really the Players Union that could care less. And for what? So it won't come out publicly that many of the league's stars are using the same drugs that Chris Benoit used? That would be just as damaging to the NFL itself, not just the players. But they are willing to accept that trade. The Union isn't. The only protection they are interested in is financial protection.

So the next time you hear about some old player dangling from his ceiling or drooling over himself at age 45, don't just attack the leagues. Ask yourself, what are the unions doing to prevent this? The answer: absolutely nothing.

Woods' Apology Was Enough, Unfortunately

2010-02-19T22:02:00.000-08:00

There's something interesting in the fact that the first big media event of the new decade was Tiger Woods' "apology". It will be one of those things that we look back at in 2019 and say, "Wow, that was ten years ago?" It already feels like Thanksgiving 2009, when this whole melee began, is in the far away past. But what is more telling than that, and what is the most frightening, is how the media handled the whole thing.

I was watching the fifteen minutes of blame on ESPN2, during First Take. Immediately afterwards, Pat Forde and some apology expert (yes, that's a job), went on to proclaim how great of a speech it was. I scanned the radio and television for the next couple of hours and pretty much heard the same sentiment. Eight hours later, I arrived home from work to see the slew of articles that had come out about the subject. 99% of them came to the same conclusion I had; Tiger Woods' apology was simply pathetic.

I'm not going into the details. If you watched the entire thing and thought of it as anything else than another regurgitated pseudo-apology constructed from the Tiger-machine, than you are either two things: retarded, or desperate for the old Tiger to come back. I think most people fall into the latter group. Pat Forde, who I like, is desperate. That apology expert is just retarded. Either way, I am reminded about why I am saddened that newspapers are dying.

Nowadays, the most heard commentary is the immediate. By the time well thought out columns come out, the talking heads have already beaten the subject into your brain. I am writing this the night of the speech, but when you read this, you will already be tired of the story. A thousand writers have already told you that this speech sucked.

I know it's way too early to say, but this might already be the defining moment of the decade. A speech so robotic, so choreographed and so insincere now has a 50% approval rating, simply because split-second reactions were favorable. Any opinion that took at least an hour to construct would deem Tiger Woods as a fraud. But at face value, in the moment, it might have seemed real. So that's the perception you receive.

The reality is that Woods is a corporate machine. It's the way superstars talk in a post-Jordan world. Any reactionary opinion would see this as the way things are now, without question. The beauty of writing is that you can reflect and put into perspective, only that the columns that get heard are the ones that get out the fastest, which makes them no different than radio or television.

It's sad, and if you weren't paying attention, you might think that this morning's apology had a smidgen of heart in it. It didn't, but because we were told it did, we believe it. Which I guess made it worthwhile, and makes Tiger's ignorance turn into genius. He gave us nothing, but we didn't ask for anything.

When High Standards Equal Wins

2010-02-09T15:51:00.000-08:00

I will admit that I'm not too aware of what the fan bases are like in any towns not named Kansas City or Lawrence. Perhaps those who follow the Tarheels, Longhorns and Bruins act the same way as those who follow the Jayhawks. All I know is from my own experiences, so with that being said, this is what I know: criticism breeds winning.

Last night's domination of Kansas over Texas was just that - a domination - unless you happen to be in Jayhawk country. Nationally, it would seem as if KU had just cemented their sixth straight Big 12 title and is now waiting for April to begin. But locally, you only hear one thing from the fans: Kansas has a lot of work to do.

This might seem a little out of place if you don't follow the team every day. Because when you compare them to your favorite team, no matter who that might be, then the Jayhawks come off as being better. But in Kansas, you have only one team to compare them to: themselves. When you do that, then you are never satisfied.

All I hear day after day is how Sherron Collins has too much on his plate or Cole Aldrich isn't playing very well or Marcus Morris needs to stay out of foul trouble or that Xavier Henry is a disappointment or Tyshawn Taylor makes too many mistakes or how Brady Morningstar is offensively challenged. You know what the reality is? Every single one of those players is better than the guy he's matched up against in most of the games they play. I dread every time Markieff Morris comes onto the court, but that's only because he isn't as good as the other KU players. He's still better than your sixth or seventh man.

You can find a flaw in any championship team, especially when you know them like the back of your hand. The truth is they rank in the top ten in most of the statistical categories that matter, and they've lost one - count 'em, one - game all season long, which was a road game against a ranked team early in the season. They are undefeated in the conference with the highest RPI. They have three NBA draft picks. They have a shoe-in Hall of Fame coach. They have veteran leadership. What more do you want?

Kansas fans want perfection, just like Bill Self does. No, perfection isn't possible. But when K-State beat Texas while their two top players struggled, at home, it was seen as the biggest win of the year. When Kansas beats Texas with their two top players struggling, on the road, in dominating fashion? We pick out the negatives. That's the difference.

But when you do that, when you demand perfection and are never happy, it's hard for the players to think any other way. These players know that somehow, some way, being 22-1 and the #1 team in the country doesn't satisfy their fans, so it shouldn't satisfy them.

It's why certain teams always rise to the top, and why those teams can still have a chip on their shoulder. It's also why other teams should fear the Kansas Jayhawks. Yes, we're good, but guess what: we're only getting better.

J Fish on Sports Sabbath

2010-02-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

Take a listen to the new sports podcast, Sports Sabbath. I co-host this new show, which is a weekly sports talk show every Sunday night. Recorded right after the Super Bowl.

Sports Sabbath

America's Team

2010-02-07T22:02:00.000-08:00

A lot has been made of the plight of New Orleans. Katrina, the horrid history of the Saints, the city that was forgotten. That's why every non-Colts fan was rooting for them. But you can take all of that and throw it out the window, because the real reason we were all Saints fans for one day can be described in two words: Who Dat.

Those words are ignorant. They are uneducated. They are words spoken with a down South, good ole boy dialect, representing a lack of knowledge or interest in the right or proper way to speak or act. In the 21st century, we strive to be smarter. We want to be more refined. But the heart of America and what it means to be American is why we were so anxious to jump on the Saints bandwagon to begin with; the love for the underdog.

To quote Bill Murray in Stripes:

We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts!

That's America. We love the Louisiana natives who still speak in a faux-English that is otherwise deemed as the dialect of the dumb. They are more honest and true than their progressive friends of the North. A lot of conservatives bad-mouthed the city for not leaving during Hurricane Katrina and standing tall at their homes. But that's NOLA; loyalty and patriotism over knowledge and reason.

It's why an Aints fan is still a Saints fan. It's, like it or not, why this win means more than a Colts win would've meant for Indianapolis. It's why American optimism still exists when there's so many reasons to give up.

New Orleans is full of mutts, full of citizens that were so easily forgotten. But that makeup is what has made Americans so impressive to the rest of the world. You can be Peyton Manning - a new-age technological machine - but that can't overcome passion and voodoo. It's the unmeasurable that beats the stats.

That's America, and the New Orleans Saints are America's team.

The Importance of Greg Oden's Penis

2010-01-29T10:46:00.000-08:00

Alright, probably not the most tasteful headline I've come up with. But Greg Oden's manhood is all over the internet, and damn, it bothers me. Not that he is hung like a genetically altered horse (he's a 7-foot black man, what did you expect?), but that he is getting so much crap from just about everybody. I say don't blame Greg Oden; blame the wretched bitch that posted it on the internet.

We have grown so accustomed that whatever we do, no matter how mundane, has the potential to wind up on YouTube or Facebook. The lesson we've learned seems to be to not do anything that could possibly incriminate us in any way. Which, you know, is impossible. We all do things that we wish nobody will ever know. Drunken fights/sex, racy photos, anything I wrote pre-2008, etc. Washing away the evidence isn't the answer, washing away the lust for fame and money is.

Look, I once had a girlfriend who moved halfway across the country for school. I would've killed for some sexy pictures or a webcam strip show in the year she was away. Most people will think she was smart for not coming through with either, since we aren't together anymore and I would surely post those pictures on some amateur porn website. Except, I wouldn't have, because I am not vindictive and actually care about people just enough not to completely ruin their lives. And I generally hate people (especially ex-girlfriends).

Greg Oden, the chick from High School Musical, pick any victim of the internet you like. There's nothing wrong with sending a significant other pictures of your birthday suit. There is, however, something very distasteful and disturbing about letting everyone in the world view something you were given in confidence. It says much more about that person than whoever snapped the photos.

Of course, Oden can't really complain. His cell phone is probably blowing up right now with gorgeous women wanting a little bit of his lotta bit. But I don't see it as immature or dumb on Oden's part. It just shows that his ex is a sick and twisted person. The fact that people see no problem in the trend of posting private pictures is way more alarming than anything below Greg Oden's waist. We should be condemning the woman in this case, but people don't like to condemn private citizens. Celebrities can never be a victim unless it's a celeb vs celeb crime.

We live in a very sick society.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2010-01-27T13:51:00.000-08:00

For me, the most important athlete of all time is Michael Jordan. He was the first superstar to brand himself, to go corporate. He inadvertently set the bar for every athlete after him. Since Jordan, the template to become a sports celebrity is to be as clean as possible and never take a stand on anything. Because of this, we pine for more athletes to have opinions on social issues. That is, of course, until an athlete actually has an opinion.

Now, I'm no fan of Tim Tebow. The background to my Twitter page is a picture of him crying after the Alabama loss. But the criticism he's receiving over his anti-abortion ad that's set to premier during the Super Bowl is a clear case of hypocrisy.

I also need to add that I'm not a fan of his message either. Truthfully, I don't care enough about abortion to have an opinion, but if I were to choose sides, I would be pro-choice. So everything about this ad should anger me. But it doesn't. I say let Tebow and whatever Christian group that funds him (Focus on the Family, in this case) do what they want. It's a free country.

But the fact that people are coming down on Tebow just goes to show that when people finally get what they want, they find that it wasn't exactly what they were looking for. Here we have a superstar that has the balls to express his opinions, and now everyone wants him to shut up. It's not like this is news; Tebow has always been an outspoken Christian. What did you think his stance on abortion was?

However, this is a very bad career move for Tebow. It's hard to be a franchise quarterback in the NFL when half of your fanbase disagrees with you on such a polarizing issue. It would be different if he played a non-team sport like golf or tennis, but the most important position in football? You need your guys on your side, and like it or not, some players will not want to play for a guy like him. It actually makes this stand even more impressive that he's willing to sacrifice that. Or, he was just incredibly short-sighted and doesn't understand what these kinds of outspoken opinions mean in the long run.

I cannot stand Tim Tebow the player or Tim Tebow the man, but I'm not going to vilify him because he's taking his message to the streets. The kid is brave. He's going to need that bravery when his non-pro skills get him pummeled in the NFL by an angry pro-choice linebacker.

The Sweetest Gig

2010-01-21T11:10:00.000-08:00

The NFL needs to borrow the NBA's motto, "Where Amazing Happens". It doesn't make any sense for professional basketball. Good teams beat bad teams, the Finals are nearly set by February. The only thing amazing about the NBA is that the Nets have only won 3 games this season. That's as many games as the Jets have won in January alone. That's a football team, by the way.

But the NFL never ceases to amaze me. Not because of so-called "parity" or jaw-dropping skill. What amazes me about the NFL is the amount of horrible decisions that are made at a staggering rate of regularity.

For example, Norv Turner and Wade Phillips getting extensions. Now, I'm all for consistency and not making knee-jerk reactions by firing everyone involved, but extensions? It's the same mindset that Notre Dame used when giving Charlie Weis millions of dollars because he won a few games with somebody else's players. Not firing the coach is one thing, but giving more money and more years to a guy after he failed to meet expectations for the Xth year in a row?

The NBA gets it right with coaches. GMs have no problem canning a guy one month into a season because it's obvious he can't get it done. You don't hear things like "they just need more talent, it's not the coach's fault" in basketball. I mean, what's the point of a coach if you don't expect him to win with a team that isn't loaded from top to bottom? Any fan off the street could coach the Chargers into the playoffs. From there on out, it's strategy and motivation that keeps a team rolling.

Seriously, where is the bar set for NFL head coaches? Marvin Lewis got Coach of the Year basically for keeping his team from self-destructing. Then the playoffs happened. And they self-destructed. First year head coach Jim Caldwell decided to scrap a perfect season to let a team into the playoffs who might end up beating them. Brad Childress lost his head coaching job to Brett Favre. Wade Phillips got out-coached by Brad Childress. Must I go on?

Couple those decisions with the Bills hiring Chan Gailey (seriously?) and the Raiders interviewing head coaches before they even fired their current head coach, and I must ask, are the best football minds even working in the NFL? Or is there something I'm missing? Is there some kind of genius working behind the scenes that keeps Eric Mangini employed while Jon Gruden has to sit in a booth?

Perhaps the reason there is parity in the NFL is because all teams are equally inept at making the right calls. Even dynasties like the Patriots, who have arguably the smartest coach of all time, plagued themselves with poor decision making this year. Nobody's perfect, but hell, some of these teams aren't even trying. Maybe I'll be proven wrong with next year's Chargers/Cowboys Super Bowl, but I doubt it.

Every football fan in America couldn't possibly be wrong about this, could they? Amazing.

Big Brother, Where Art Thou? (Part Two)

2010-01-11T13:23:00.000-08:00

I wrote an article a few months ago laying out why baseball should be controlled, in nearly all forms, by a review booth. Balls and strikes, home runs, everything. And after the horrid refereeing during Sunday's Packers/Cardinals game, it got me thinking: should football be controlled from the eye in the sky as well?

The answer is yes. And no. Let me explain. Here's what I wrote in terms of baseball:

How about every call is booth reviewed? Every ball, every strike, every close call. If TBS can install a strike zone during its telecast, why can't the MLB? It's easy: someone upstairs watches the pitch using the boxed strike zone, hits a button that signals a remote to the home plate umpire (like where the little box used to keep track of balls and strikes would be), and then the ump signals ball or strike. There would be a one second delay for every call, which would be virtually undetectable. Hell, you could do it right now without telling anybody and not one fan could tell the difference.

In theory, I guess you could use the same buzzer system, but with every penalty being called with a delayed flag, questions would be raised about the honesty of the reviewers. The reason it works in baseball is because we know when the calls will be made. Balls and strikes come at the same time, and we know exactly when. Holding, pass interference and just about every other call in football doesn't have the same timetable. Nothing has to be called. Sure, we'll expect some calls that are blatant (like the missed calls in the Packers game), but not all. This matters.

Because of this difference, the reviewer (or more accurately, reviewers) would have to watch the entire game in real time, like a referee with laser eyes. But that doesn't do a whole hell of a lot, because actual refs don't miss a whole hell of a lot. What they do miss is usually the consequence of the game being too fast, which would be the same problem a review booth would have if used in real time. What makes the booth effective now is that the game stops and they get to see multiple angles in slow motion.

So you really couldn't use it the same way baseball can. Football can, however, use it the second way I proposed:

With fair or foul calls, and calls at the bases, let the umps do their thing. There is ample time in between the call and the next pitch for someone in the booth the review it. If the call is wrong, they can just buzz the umpire. It would add what, one minute to each game? So be it.

This part would work. At the end of every play, as well as while the play is actually happening, the booth can go through things and see if anything was missed. Buzz the ref, throw the flag.

You need the human refs out there to make the calls and stop Albert Haynesworth from going American History X on guys, so there's no reason to scrap them altogether. Oh, and if you think this is going to slow things down, then you would have to admit that there are a lot of missed calls throughout a game. I'm talking over ten penalties, in which case we obviously need this.

I'm really tired of these hugely important games being affected by bad officiating. If someone can explain to me why the system we have now is the best available, please tell me. Then tell the Green Bay Packers fans.

Kansas City, Here They Come

2010-01-06T20:38:00.000-08:00

The new Millennium has been pretty disappointing so far. No flying cars, no teleporting, no sex robots. The saddest thing is that the latter is closest to happening. None of the things I was promised as a kid have come true. So I look to something that's probably more fiction than any of those other fantasies. My wish for 2010 and the decade to come? Continuity.

Seems simple enough, right? But when I watch Brian Kelly and Butch Jones leave for greener pastures, Bobby Bowden get forced out from an empire he built, and Urban Meyer decide to take the money and run - only to come back 24 hours later - it makes me pine for the days of your coach being your coach.

Not that it's only a problem for college football. Jim Zorn got 16 games to prove he's fireable. Raheem Morris and Tom Cable might have the same concerns. Then I see the Chiefs hire Charlie Weis as their new offensive coordinator, with Romeo Crennel possibly on the way to anchor the defense.

Of course, these were the two head assistants of the Patriots' dynasty, and they might be reunited. In their proper place, these two failed head coaches could return to their niche and bring glory back to Kansas City. But then what? Then they get new head coaching offers. And the band breaks up.

Selfishly, I would never want that. I'm a Chiefs fan and want sustained success. But even if the Weis/Crennel hit duo were in Buffalo or Washington, I would still want them to stay together. I enjoy the idea of a winning team accepting their roles and helping each other. The point to being great shouldn't be the ambition for a greater paycheck. In sports, it's to win championships.

I accept that there's a better chance of flying Hummers than the idea of a sports team keeping all their great parts. But why not? Let's say that a Weis/Crennel/Haley team brings in a Lombardi Trophy. Hell, let's say they bring in two. Is a bigger check and the chance of complete failure alluring enough to walk away? To keep with the band analogy, would you quit the Beatles for a solo career, or would you recognize the history you're making?

Maybe the Rolling Stones are the band we want to look up to. Everyone accepted their roles and worked together to build a legacy. Weis tried to cover "My Sweet Lord" at Notre Dame and hit the dirt, Crennel's Browns were even worse than McCartney's Wings. And while football's Lennon, Bill Belichick, isn't available, Kansas City currently has Ringo employed at head coach.

And when you look back at it, wouldn't Ringo, McCartney and Harrison be a fresh breath in these times? And perhaps the Kansas City Beatles could pave the way for the new Rolling Stones - a team that keeps everyone together so they can win, not further their own careers?

Yep, we're definitely closer to getting flying Hummers.

The Coach Of The Decade

2009-12-27T21:02:00.000-08:00

I've been trying real hard to come up with a synopsis of the last decade. Whether it's trying to explain how tragic it is that Radiohead seems to be the defining band of the 00's or how the internet has born an age of amateurs, nothing seems to be really important enough to collect my thoughts. But just as the decade was wrapping, and time seemed to be dwindling, Jim Caldwell came into my life.

The Colts were 14-0. Their last two games were against the Jets and the Bills; two teams prime for a beating. On the line was the title for the greatest football team there ever was, and solidifying Peyton Manning as the greatest quarterback of all time. Immortality was staring them in the eye. And their coach chose personal criticism over shooting the moon. This pisses me off.

Any trend over the last decade can be disputed and construed as personal and irrelevant. Perhaps I just don't understand Radiohead or couldn't feel the importance of Slumdog Millionare. Okay, I concede. But sports has one trend that cannot be disputed: the men that make the decisions are, in fact, affected by the media.

Let's get inside the mind of Jim Caldwell, or more accurately, our minds in Caldwell's position. We have one of two options; either play for 16-0 and football God status, or rest your starters. 16-0 sounds pretty good, right? So what's the upside of sitting Peyton Manning? That would be to save face in case you implode in the playoffs. If you lose, like Bill Belichick lost, after running the table in the regular season, your decision to rest or not rest your starters would be crux of criticism for the entire season and offseason. The debate between rest and momentum would define the year. This is, of course, a completely fake, media-based argument.

And that's alright, because that's what the media does. But a head coach of an NFL team - a 32 person fraternity - shouldn't be affected by this. In fact, he makes a lofty sum of money NOT to be affected by such things. But he obviously was. His own perception overruled his team's success. Why else would you not go for perfection?

When did the want for acceptance override the want for a win? In this decade, that's where. The 2000's is where perception became more important that anything else. Why else would a football man - a competitive man - not want to win?

Sports has become not a projection of excellence, but a mirage of calculated, over-thought analysis of what will work. Jim Caldwell is a prisoner of this new perception. He is not a football coach who made a bad decision. He is the coach of the decade.

The Dark Future of College Football

2009-12-14T21:19:00.000-08:00

If there is one common trait amongst all American people, it may be the belief that anything that has been around for thirty years or more is here to stay. Yes, we can all agree that the Backstreet Boys and Sega Genesis aren't going to stand the test of time, because they couldn't even stand the test of a decade. But the Beatles and The Godfather cannot be argued; they've been culturally relevant for thirty-plus years, so they must matter a hundred years from now. Right?

This is flawed logic and certainly a product of the 24 hour news cycle and new media. So if you try to spark debate on whether or not football can fail in this country, you are met with very hostile disdain. Football is American lifeblood. There is no possible way that the people will get fed up with it. College or professional, football is here to stay. Right?

I've felt this fear for the NFL for a while now. Up until the last decade or so, football had been seen as a violent sport amongst death-dealing Gladiators. But with new rules and new concerns over players' safety, the game has evolved into something unlike the football I grew up with. Some may argue that the NFL is doing what Major League Baseball has refused to do - evolve with the times - which is exactly why it will survive. I'll concede that point for now.

Since that is the NFL's biggest hurdle, it should be fine. However, college football has another problem that is much bigger, and in my opinion, cause for much more concern. That problem? Arrogance.

NCAA football looks fine now; good ratings, great interest, television coverage all around. But let's look at its problems, which are well documented. The BCS is the main culprit. We all know why we hate it, so to save space I won't explain. Now think of the other complaints. Lack of black head coaches (the old boys' club) and the Heisman Trophy (biased) are the two main points I always hear. What do those all have in common? Arrogance.

See, the college football world exists in a vacuum. Though 99.9% of the fans think the BCS should be scrapped, the men who run the show just turn their heads. And they get away with it. It's the same thing that hurt George W. Bush so badly; not that the love of money and power was the ruling philosophy, but that this fact was so blatantly rubbed in our faces. The BCS heads know that their system isn't very good, but they don't care. "Deal with it", they say.

It's this same mentality that allows a majority of black players to be coached by old white guys. Ironically, it is this same dichotomy that makes the NBA so watchable. But I feel the relationship between basketball players and their coaches is actually more empowering for the black players (more on this at another time). In football, it's purely an Old Boys system, just the way it is.

As far as the Heisman, this year's ballots tell all you need to know. Every single media talking head, and every single fan, had come to the same conclusion: Ndamukong Suh was the most dominant player in the country. According to heisman.com, the trophy goes to an individual who deserves designation as the most outstanding college football player in the United States. Where did Suh place? Fourth.

Everybody just accepts that quarterbacks and running backs win the award. In the trophy's 75 years of existence, two wide receivers, two tight ends, and one defensive player have won. It's biased and makes absolutely no sense. Once again, we're told "deal with it".

This may have worked twenty years ago, but things have changed. In the diverse, opinionated country we live in today, people simply don't stand for these things. Imagine explaining the in and outs of college football to a non-fan. If honest, this is what you would come up with:

- The championship game is determined by a number of computers and human votes (of which are biased due to regional differences).

- In the event of more than two undefeated teams, the teams from BCS conferences are chosen for the championship. This is because BCS conferences are deemed as harder to win. If more than two BCS schools are undefeated, then somebody is left out due to no other reason than that only two teams can play the BCS championship. Those two teams, by the way, will ultimately be chosen by the biased human votes.

- College football is ruled by an older white class that is harder for a minority to break into than a country club.

- The game's most prestigious award can only be given to one of two positions. The balloting consists of former winners of those two positions and another regionally biased voting system.

- Every Saturday, a major network mandatorily shows you a game that is completely worthless because one of the teams used to be good. Of course, this is only true if NBC is still a major network in ten years, which is doubtful.

Not even Don Draper can sell that. The NCAA really needs to rethink its strategy. I'm still of the mind that the pussification of football will lead to the game's demise, but even if that's not true, than these problems surely will. College football needs to deal with it.

The Book You Should Read, But I Won't

2009-12-10T20:22:00.000-08:00

I care about the NBA. I care about its growth and its future as a major American sport. I most certainly care about the integrity of the game, but I also understand that it is the most horrendously officiated sport there is. Make no mistake, while the MLB playoffs shed a light of fantastic incompetence, they can't even touch professional basketball when it comes to bad refs. I also like to read non-fiction and crave information. So Tim Donaghy's new book, Personal Foul, should be right up my alley. But I'm not going to read it.

In case you didn't know, Donaghy is the referee who the FBI found had been gambling on NBA games. Now he is trying to make his money back by promoting his new book, which tells tales of refs making bets with each other on who would call the first technical foul or even purposely extending playoff series. These are all things that I believe happen in the NBA. Unfortunately, Donaghy has no credibility with me. Like Jose Canseco before him, Donaghy just seems like someone riding the wave of newly found information for his own glory.

It's the same reason I don't watch Fox News or read the New York Times; I don't want to be tricked into believing a false reality. Those news publications have lied enough that I can no longer trust them as a news source. Sure, most of what they say or print is probably factual, but it is simply not worth the real news to ingest the "factually incorrect" information which is surely there. Donaghy is a proven liar and degenerate, so there is sure to be a lot of misinformation in whatever he's saying.

However, if you are not an NBA fan, I actually suggest reading it. Don't get caught up in all the little details, just understand the politics of the game and see how professional basketball really works. One of the reasons I never got into hockey or golf is because I don't really understand the sports. Yes, I know the rules and how the games are played, but nobody can teach you the in and outs, the game behind the game. I suspect this is what Personal Foul conveys, probably by accident.

I already know the story. But if you don't know why you've never gotten into the NBA, this might be an instructional manual. The sport is truly dirty, which is why I love it. It's the way all sports used to be. Not overprotective like the NFL or underevolved like the MLB, but just five black guys with a ball and three white guys who bet on them. It's actually kind of racist, but honest all the same.

Dirty Deeds, Not Done Cheap

2009-12-03T17:48:00.000-08:00

As I sat on my couch, smoking cigarettes and watching Killer Chimps is America (a great pregame to Oregon/Oregon State, by the way), my phone alerted me of of incoming text message. It was from a coworker of mine who also happens to be a Missouri fan. It read: "Mangino resigns."

I just stared at the message, with perhaps a blink, took another drag and continued watching what is probably the greatest episode of Monsterquest ever. I knew this was inevitable. Kansas Athletic Director Lew Perkins seemingly had it out for Mark Mangino. But then I went over to my laptop, found the article and read this:

"I have been instructed by legal counsel that we cannot release any documents related to this investigation, nor any details regarding our settlement agreement. The investigation and settlement agreement will remain part of Mark's personnel records."

In other words, the firestorm over Mangino's alleged physical and verbal abuse of players is over. Put down the pitchforks, Frankenstein is gone. The big, ugly monster is no longer going to terrorize the streets of Lawrence.

But where, I ask, has all the anger gone? Because last time I checked, Mangino had done a definite wrong and needed to be punished. Is firing him and (surely) paying him off a punishment? When did this story go from protecting the victims to saving face?

There doesn't seem to be any repercussions for Mangino's alleged acts. Which leads me to believe that Perkins engineered this all along, which is a view many Jayhawk fans have. The theory goes something like this: Mangino wasn't Perkins' guy, so he had him removed to make way for a new coach that Perkins has penned as the guy to take KU football to the next level. I'm not saying the players who accused the coach were lying, but were probably encouraged. Makes me wonder how many players at other universities are gagged when the coach they accused had a healthy relationship with their A.D.

So if this is the case, whoever the new coach is will be a very interesting follow. If this power play works, then Perkins may well be a genius. It's obvious he wants more than anything to make Kansas' football program matter on a national stage. Can he do it, or will this cripple the program?

Jim Harbaugh's name has been thrown out, which is a pretty lofty goal. But if Harbaugh or some other sexy pick lands in Lawrence, and Perkins' plan works, will it be worth it? Is ruining a man's reputation for the sake of glory make any sense ethically? Probably not, but it won't matter, because if this program rises to the top under whoever the next coach is, Mangino will be nothing more than an egg that needed to be cracked to make the omelet.

I like Mangino, but I'm alright with this. Ethics doesn't really seem to matter in sports anymore. Actually, it never has, this episode was just made public. I'm glad my school is willing to do what it takes to build a winner. Admittedly, this makes me a little sad to confess, but it's the truth. It's just the way it is.

Us, Weakly

2009-12-02T20:23:00.000-08:00

There are many reasons I love sports and follow it the way I do. For one, I am a compulsive gambler. I also have nothing better to do than own twenty different fantasy teams. But I used to think the main reason was because I love competition. Watching men in real time battle physically and mentally is like nothing else; it's pure reality. Well, unless you're watching baseball.

But this whole Tiger Woods mess is shining a different light on what I may have secretly enjoyed about athletics all along; all of the information that I want, and the kind of information I want, is dependent on me. If you follow politics or celebrities, you only get what the newsmakers want to give you. Only after sifting through piles and piles of bullshit can you actually find unbiased information. Everything is blown up, polarized and branded for mass consumption. Barely any of it is real.

That's why the Woods story isn't a sports story. Yeah, it's all over ESPN and every other sports network, but hey, it's Tiger freakin' Woods. I wrote on Friday that we were lucky that Tiger crashed his car on Thanksgiving weekend because it would turn into a non-story. That was before it came out that he was having an affair. Now it's turned into a tabloid fiasco.

And all of these "revelations" about Tiger are fed to us. We can't look up stats for his marriage or break down footage of his parenting skills. We can only learn what we've been told, with no chance of finding out the truth for ourselves. This formula is what fuels the tabloid world and networks like CNN and Fox News. We either have no way to learn how Brad and Angelina are really doing or don't take the time to really read the President's health care plan. We take everything at face value.

But sports has layers that we can dissect ourselves. Everything is out in the open in three hours of game tape. It would be like watching a Zapruder film of Woods' car crash. There would be no need for sensationalism if everyone had the same knowledge to work with.

Not to say this whole incident has no sports angle. I can talk all day about how I think this could affect his career. Will he cave mentally and no longer return to form or turn into Michael Jordan with an "Eff You" attitude where he simply doesn't care anymore? It will be interesting to watch. But every piece of "news" that breaks from here on out will be basically meaningless, because it's coming from sources that make a living out of controlling the story.

Sorry, I'm a thinker, and I like to get the information for myself, because I can trust myself. I don't need to be told what to think, keep the tabloids to yourself. Plus, there aren't any bookies that let me gamble on Jon and Kate.

Lucky Stripes

2009-11-27T20:58:00.000-08:00

Sometimes we get lucky. Like the time I accidentally put a $50 chip on 17 while playing roulette, and when that little white ball settled on my number, the dealer stood up, pointed at me, and yelled "DUDE!!!". Or the numerous times I've done karaoke and nobody had a video camera rolling. Luck happens even to the unluckiest of people.

There's a lot of luck in sports, but mostly it's in the form of tipped passes and glaring lights blinding Matt Holiday. Real luck - like Texas, Florida or Alabama losing so we can see the BCS screw over two more teams, or Andre Agassi winning that final US Open - rarely happens. But we lucked out in a huge way. This Thanksgiving weekend I give thanks to one thing: that Tiger Woods crashed his car on a Friday.

Because if the world's #1 golfer, who is as clean as John Daly is dirty, would've been in an accident on Monday, ESPN would be as unwatchable as the week following the World Series. Skip Bayless would assure you that this is a sign that Woods' head isn't in the game. Jay Mariotti would have barked that we should have seen this coming. Tony Kornheiser would have shown remorse, and Michael Wilbon, solemnly, would have said, "Yeah, Tony".

But it didn't happen that way. Tiger Woods crashed his car, and then was removed from the car by his wife after she smashed the window with a golf club, on a Friday of Thanksgiving weekend. Most sports personalities had taken their vacations. People weren't at work to be bored and sift through all the headlines. By Monday, the story will seem like a year old, and more than likely will not carry any weight. Thank God.

This is one of those unfortunate circumstances that happens to all people. It's the ugly side of life. Whether Woods was drunk or if there was some kind of domestic dispute can be left up to imagination, but what is certain is that the general public does not want a hero like Tiger Woods to have these things occurring in his life. It's the kind of blind faith that kept us from realizing Brett Favre was an egomaniac or that Michael Jordan is perhaps the meanest son of a bitch who has ever lived.

The reason Woods' car crash disturbed people at first glance was the same reason for the media uproar about Michael Phelps' pot use; we want to believe that given the same opportunities and advances that our athletic heroes have had, we would be mistake-free.

Of course, that's impossible. But ask a coworker sometime about their plans if they won the lottery. You always hear the same thing: take care of family and friends, buy a house, invest, etc. These are mature responses. You never hear someone say "I'm going to the strip club and making it rain!" or "I'm going to Vegas and gonna blow 100 Gs!" But that's what we would really do. We would celebrate and flaunt our newly given power, for no other reason that we can.

So when we hear of professional athletes making mistakes, we get angry because we feel that given the same life, we could do better. But I suggest that most of us could never be the stand-up citizen that Tiger Woods is if given his power. That makes his one mistake that much more impressive.

We all could be heroes, except for that one day.

Thanks For Tradition

2009-11-23T21:39:00.000-08:00

I hate to reference the same book in one week, but sometimes writing has an effect on you that cannot be shaken for at least a month. Like the first time I read The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved, or the first time your daughter read Twilight.

Some interesting points were brought up in Chuck Klosterman's Eating the Dinosaur. One of which is the parallels between football and conservatism. On face value, conservatives probably love this idea, but the point, as I recall, is that both football and the conservative movement thrive on one main perception; though their fan base thinks that their beliefs stand on solid ground, in reality, the core ideals of both movements have adapted with the times so as to keep their stranglehold on the American public.

As football fanatics still believe the game they are watching now still has the same rules and philosophies as the game of old, so do conservatives believe that their party is consistent with the men who ran on the same namesake when they were kids. And of course, as any NBA fan or liberal will tell you, those beliefs are completely misguided.

Just as right-wing government has been passing around cash like Pacman Jones and conservative leaders are throwing family values out their mistress's window, football to has not been sticking to their core beliefs. During Monday night's Texans/Titans game, a defender was charged a fifteen yard penalty for "horse-collaring" Tennessee's Chris Johnson, when all he did was tug the back of Johnson's jersey. You can't sack a quarterback anymore without being brought up on charges. The conservative game of today was the liberal game of yesterday. The NFL has yet to accept change, though their game has progressed further than any Ralph Nader supporter.

But through all of it, one thing remains the same: the Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions will host games on Thanksgiving. The league has added a third rotation game to be broadcast on the NFL Network, but I (and more than likely you) do not get the NFL Network, so that doesn't count.

Debate has sprung on whether the NFL should scrap the Cowboys/Lions tradition and rotate all teams for a Thanksgiving game. A recent ESPN poll shows that every state except Texas and Michigan is in support of this idea, obviously. But would that be good for football?

I say no. In the Age of Information, certain things have come to light. Joe Namath wasn't very good, the worst team today (Raiders) would demolish the great teams of old. The game is different, as Klosterman pointed out. It's not the NFL you or I grew up with. Nothing is sacred. Al Davis is universally known as the worst owner, nobody outside of Kansas City knows who Lamar Hunt is.

But it didn't use to be this way. Al Davis was a genius at one time. It's true. But you wouldn't know it growing up with today's NFL. It's a completely different sport, and that's okay. Though, it would be nice to hold on to something old, something to remind us of what the league used to be like. If nothing else, that is watching the Cowboys and Lions play on Thanksgiving.

No it doesn't make sense, and it may be hurting the NFL. But just like conservatives, the idea of holding on to traditional values makes it all worth the while.

Mangino Isn't The Problem

2009-11-19T21:41:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure if there is a growing epidemic in Kansas, or if the problems I see stretch as far as the swine flu, but one thing is for sure: the wave of sensitivity in sports is absolutely pathetic. I just wrote about the crying over Chiefs coach Todd Haley's fondness for F-bombs. Now, it's Kansas Jayhawks coach Mark Mangino.

We all know by now that Mangino repeatedly yelled at, berated, and put his hands on his players. He was, for lack of a better word, abusive, both mentally and physically. Reports of Mangino giving the same treatment to campus police also paint the coach as a mean, unstable man. Unlike Jason Whitlock, I'm not going to tell you he is this way because he's fat. I don't care why he's this way, but I know he is.

What bothers me is why all of this is coming out. Could the players just not take it anymore? Was it getting to be too much? From what I've heard, there aren't any players calling for Mangino's firing. Most of the reports are coming from former players. During a five game losing streak, mind you. Nobody wants to hear how mean the coach is when you're 12-1 and hoisting up an Orange Bowl trophy. But when you are in the midst of a hugely disappointing season? All of a sudden people become very interested.

If these reports were about Urban Meyer, I can guarantee you that the response from fans would be that this is all sour grapes; complaining from weak players who couldn't handle it. Obviously it works, the success is there. Remember, Kansas football was a joke before Mangino arrived. It was his toughness and his old-school approach which got results. Only, the results aren't there, so toughness is turned into abusiveness.

When I played football as a ten year old, I had a coach who day after day would tell me I wasn't good enough, made me run laps even when I didn't do anything wrong, etc. Truth is, I was small, weak and not really committed, and that abusive coaching would have resulted in two things: either me getting the message and working through it, or complaining and deciding to quit. I chose the latter. I was a weak kid. However, I did learn the lesson. I understand now what these former players obviously have failed to grasp.

We live in a blame-first society. Nothing is ever our fault. It's the mean coach's fault the team didn't get better, the conniving coworker's fault we didn't get the promotion. It's never the weak-minded players that lose games or your fault for not working hard enough for a pay raise.

Mangino said today that "I can’t do the work of some parents, what they should have done before they got to me. There’s some things for 18 years that happened in their lives that I can’t change in four years of college. Can’t change their behaviors, can’t change their attitudes." He surely can't change their minds, either. He's to blame, and that is that.

Just remember, KU fans, that when you're wearing your Orange Bowl shirts, old-school abuse brought those results in. So if you don't like the way Mangino coaches, fine. But you need to throw those shirts and those memories away. You can't have it both ways.

More Than Words?

2009-11-16T20:06:00.000-08:00

Monday morning in Kansas City was so very different, yet so much the same. The weather went from a sunny November to the cold, rainy winters I was used to as a kid. And just like the November Monday mornings of the 90s, the city would wake up fresh off a Chiefs win. But there were no feelings of hope, no optimism in the air. I woke up, turned on the radio, and all I heard was this:

It's embarrassing to have a head coach cursing like that on national television.

He's out of control.

I couldn't even watch the game with my children in the room.

Yes, head coach Todd Haley has an affinity for the F word. (Couldn't find good video of the game, but here's a classic Haley-to-Croyle interaction that paints a good enough picture.) This time around, Dwayne Bowe got the brunt of the punishment, and the entire city's sensibilities have been offended. The team won, which nowadays is cause for excessive celebration, but the only talk of the town is how coach Haley is immature and offensive. But the only F word these "fans" are really hurt by is this one: football.

In "Eating the Dinosaur", author Chuck Klosterman notes that in 1905, eighteen players died while playing football, and that the violence of the sport almost caused President Theodore Roosevelt to ban the sport. The game was seen as a bloody mess between neanderthals. The gladiators of modern times. This had been the reality of football from its inception, until recently, where violence is seen as the root of all evil.

In the last decade, the rise of concern for the safety of sports has been dramatic, with football on the forefront. Studies on concussions and the effects of banging heads for thirty straight years have been headlines in newspapers and topics of books. The verdict: playing football hurts, both short term and long term.

How is it then, that in the Age of Information, that we are just now learning what was deemed common sense for a century? Football is brutal. It is only for men. It's ruthless and unforgiving and will make you drool all over yourself by the time you are fifty. This isn't breakthrough science. I've known this since I was a child. During Oklahoma Drills in practice, when I was ten, we used to bash heads. And I even knew then that this was not for the timid. Hence, the writing gig.

But NFL Commissioners Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue made a fortune on selling the American public that football was a game, not the rough and tough display of violence that it really is. And they bought it like it was a Shamwow. The perception of the NFL is completely different than its reality. These superstars may make millions on have reality shows and funny Twitter accounts, but make no mistake: these are hardened men that sacrifice their lives for the short starburst of glory. And that is what sports is all about.

This brings me to Todd Haley. He curses, he yells, he screams. He drops F-bombs like a sailor. Well, guess what. He is football. He is dirty, degrading and mean, which is everything the NFL stood for. This game is not for Gen X, Tipper Gore or soccer moms. Football was designed for men with no regard for their bodies who curse, spit and routinely try to end the lives of their opponents for the chance to one day hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

As Lombardi said himself. "I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." This isn't a game. It is war. Deal with it.

The (Un)Importance of Coaching

2009-11-12T13:48:00.000-08:00

One of the biggest frustrations in my daily life is trying to persuade my friends and family to watch the NBA. Somewhere between 99.9 and 100.00 percent of the people I know are fans of college basketball, yet have no desire to watch professional hoops. The majority of them have a valid reason: they're fans of Kansas basketball. Who wouldn't follow a team who has championship aspirations ever year? But even all the fans of K-State, Missouri, Witchita State or whoever still haven't made the jump. I used to think it's because Kansas City doesn't have a team, but we haven't had a baseball team in two decades yet they still watch the World Series. I think the problem is coaching.

No coach does less than a baseball manager. One or two pitching changes, perhaps a pinch-hitter, and that's it. Perhaps tweaking the lineup every now or then (or if you're Trey Hillman, every single day). Yet the coaching is still present. We know when Joe Girardi is over-managing, it's tangible.

In the NFL, coaching probably matters less than it does in baseball, yet the perception is that coaching is the end-all be-all of professional football. But if it matters that much, how come Bill Belichick's tenure with the Cleveland Browns was unsuccessful yet his reign in New England is nearly historical? Well, the Browns didn't have Tom Brady, for one. Neither did they have the Lennon-McCartney duo of Belichick-Pioli. I think it's safe to say that Belichick's job as part-General Manager has had more to do with the Patriots' success than his ability to coach. It's all about the players, and when The Hoodie finally got full rights to his own, it ended with three rings.

The NBA is different in this regard: not only does coaching matter very little, but its common knowledge. Sure, a coach can single-handedly kill a team (see: Karl, George). But to actually make a team better? Doc Rivers coached the Celtics to a 24-58 record in 2006-2007, second worst in the league. In 2007-2008, the Celtics were 66-16. That's 42 more wins in one year. The difference? Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. The point, as always, is that talent is the most important factor in a team's success, not the coaching staff.

This is crucial because most fans want to be a coach. Fantasies of playing quarterback are just that, fantasies. We couldn't do it if given the opportunity. But every fan thinks they could coach a team. Aw, we shouldn't have tried a field goal there! I would've taken Pedro out an inning earlier, this guy is a boob! This is what you hear from Joe Sports Fan.

Coaching in the NBA is different. It's the players' game. Whereas baseball and football and all college sports are (seemingly) dictated by coaches, the NBA is dominated by LeBron, Kobe and Howard. They are the ones who make the difference. The best coaches right now (Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich) aren't known for their mastery of the Xs and Os. It's their ability to bring personalities and egos together. They excel in psychology and philosophy, whereas most of the sports arena is dominated by math and statistics. And even with that being said, all of Jackson's rings where with guys named Jordan, Pippen, Bryant and O'Neal. Philosophy means nothing if Kirk Heinrich is running the point.

Which brings me to Byron Scott, who today was fired by the New Orleans Hornets after a 3-6 start. On a poll on ESPN.com, 36,040 people voted nearly 3-1 in disapproval of Scott's firing. The reason being that injuries and bad personnel decisions were to blame, not Scott. Which is true. But then what, I ask, is the point of a coach? If he can't make the team better when things go wrong, then what is his purpose? That, I suspect, is to hold things together when things are going right. To not make mistakes is the only way to do anything right.

Pat Williams once said coaching in the NBA is like a nervous breakdown with a paycheck. Now, who wants that job? I feel this is why I can't seem to convince my fellow KU fans to jump to the NBA. Unless you're a basketball junkie (Kansas fans are mostly winning junkies if anything), there's really nothing in it for you. There simply is nothing to fantasize about. With the growing popularity of fantasy sports, I do believe that the element of being involved is the #1 reason to watch sports anymore. Luckily, there are enough true basketball fans to keep the NBA alive and well. It's just not that none of them seem to live in Kansas City.

The Good, The Badass, & The Ugly

2009-11-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

There are two circumstances where sports crosses over into life. The first is when a tragedy occurs. Think of George W. Bush's first pitch after 9/11, the first game Virginia Tech played after the massacre, etc. The second is when the troubles the rest of us have reaches our beloved superstars. Not in a Mike Vick/Plaxico Burress sort of way either. I mean, how many of us have murdered dogs or shot ourselves in a night club?

The Good

San Francisco Giants ace pitcher Tim Lincecum. The Cy Young winner who resembles Mitch Kramer from Dazed and Confused was charged with possession of 3.3 grams of marijuana after being pulled over for speeding. No doubt he was driving to his dealer's house to reload.

The Badass

Raiders coach Tom Cable, who we have recently learned not only beats up on assistant coaches, but smacks around women as well. The National Organization for Women thinks Cable should be suspended. Which seems funny, because the cumulative man--err--woman hours that organization has spent watching football is somewhere around 0.0-0.02.

The Ugly

Andre Agassi. According to his new book, Agassi smoked meth, tanked games, took speed at an early age, never liked Brooke Shields and was a pyromaniac. Or as it's known in tennis circles, "Pulling a McEnroe".

The reason I bring these three up is because they have done what sports commissioners and sports writers spend a lifetime trying to hide: athletes are exactly the same as us.

Granted, Tom Cable is not an athlete nor a superstar. But he has come to embody everything that the Oakland Raiders used to stand for: blue collar football thuggery. I say "used to" because the reality of sports in the 21st century has led us to believe this kind of behavior doesn't exist anymore. Like it or not, the Raiders conduct themselves like athletes of yesteryear, which everyone seems to agree was a better time for sports. They do not hide their shortcomings. Everyone who puts on the black and silver is an extension of Al Davis. And while that rarely translates to wins, it does translate into truth.

Lincecum and Agassi's stories are a little different. They are superstars. And while Agassi's life may be lazily construed as a warning against forcing children into professional athletics, I see it more as another story of another American person. No, we haven't all had the same problems, but we know somebody who does. I know a guy who used to do meth, a guy who for some reason did not love a beautiful woman, and a guy who thought he should abuse matches like Beavis (OK, that last one was me). Agassi is all of us, just wrapped into one.

The same goes with Lincecum. He smokes weed. We all have. If you haven't, then I have no idea why you would read anything on this website.

We've learned that Troy Aikman almost crushed his brain into mush because of his pride, Brett Favre is selfish, Pete Rose wanted to win too much, Isiah Thomas has a little bit of homophobia, and so on. In the 60s, 70s and 80s, being like everyone else and having flaws was the reason athletes became heroes. Mickey Mantle drank like your father. Hell, even JFK lusted like you do. It was alright, because there was no illusion.

Make no mistake, this is a good thing. We need it. It's why Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa are pariahs but Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettitte are champions; the latter pair apologized. They admitted their flaws, which we can identify with. I say the more pot possessions, wife beatings and meth smoking the better. It's healthy to become comfortably numb to demons of reality. It's what makes the accomplishments of those who have risen above them that much more heroic.

No Time For Losers

2009-11-02T22:21:00.000-08:00

Losing, in fact, has never been a good thing. Well, unless you're discussing virginity. But I'm talking about sports, and losing in sports is the worst thing you can possibly do. You can cheat, lie, murder dogs, whatever. Just don't lose. Especially now.

As a Chiefs fan, I know my team will not win a championship this year. That's fine, it happens. But I find myself growing more disinterested in the teams that still have hope. I watch the Saints and Colts remain undefeated, however I remained bored. I see the NFC East as a battleground towards the playoffs, but I still stare blankly. The internet is to blame.

I do not feel that I am alone in the sentiment that information is not coming fast enough. That's weird to say in an age where you can get just about anything as fast as you can think it. But it's true. Sports remains one of the few frontiers where we still have to wait for information. Sadly enough, I am having trouble waiting. I can't be the only one.

For most of my life, I could get over my own team's woes by enjoying the league itself. It used to be fascinating just to watch things unfold. The Giants look great one week, then implode for three straight losses. The Dolphins might be changing the way the game is played before our very eyes, but it's not enough. I want to know. I want to know if Tony Romo and Brett Favre can keep it going. I want to know if Matt Cassel can earn his check. I want to know now.

This is a potential problem for all sports. Fans here in Kansas City are turning off the Chiefs and Royals sooner every year, and I don't think they are replacing that viewership with the Colts and Yankees. We simply are watching less.

This is possibly why college football refuses to change the BCS. For everything that is wrong with the system (and there is a lot), it does achieve one thing: instantaneous knowledge. When USC lost to Oregon, we knew right then and there that they would not play for a national title. Even though we pretend like the future is uncertain for teams like TCU and Boise State, in reality, we know they can't play for a title either.

The problem with a playoff system is that it keeps us guessing. If the Saints and Colts are the two best teams, through the eye test and their records, it ensures nothing other than a first round bye. The Patriots can go 18-0, but nothing is certain until the final whistle of Game #19. This used to be the beauty of it, but in the Internet Age, it may not hold.

Yes, this is sad commentary on our technological world, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Extremely odd things are happening in the dynamics of sports. The thirst for information is starting to ruin things. This is no time for your teams to be losing.

The Two Books of Alex Rodriguez

2009-10-28T21:24:00.000-07:00

If there is one big secret amongst writers, this is it: we don't like to work. We wanted to be writers so we didn't have to get a real job. So naturally, your common sports writer will take the easiest road possible, not the one less traveled. We claim our predictions before research, trying to find stats that backup our words. We write books before the ending is clear.

This is basically what Alex Rodriguez's public career has become. If you were to write his biography now, it would be summed up like this: great regular season, horrible postseason. Writers who feel they are clever would say the "A" in A-Rod stands for April.

But the 2009 postseason has changed things. Rodriguez has been Jeter-esque in his clutchness. He has carried the Yankees to the World Series. And this does not sit well with the sports media.

You see, these lazy sports writers have already written the book. It's a very nice strategy. Usually, what you see is what you get, and there is no need to imagine that things might change. But things have changed for A-Rod. He is no longer the wannabe Derek Jeter who can't perform in the clutch. He has rewritten his career. He has caused change.

Writers hate this.

Believe me, every non-Yankees fan will want the Phillies to win, not just because they loathe the Bronx Bombers, either. They also want A-Rod to fail, to fulfill the destiny they themselves have already written about. Because if Rodriguez were to carry the Yanks to the title, maybe even win World Series MVP, they would have to admit to being wrong. The book of A-Rod would have to be rewritten. That does not set well with writers.

To quote Mark Twain: "The time to begin writing an article is when you have finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to clearly and logically perceive what it is that you really want to say". Most writers have already finished what has not really begun. Let's wait and see, shall we? Perhaps A-Rod can write the another book, or at least another chapter. It will probably be more interesting than what you read in the papers.

Free Speech For The Dumb

2009-10-15T16:07:00.000-07:00

Damn it all. I'm going to talk about Rush Limbaugh again.

As we all know by now, Rush has been cut by Dave Checketts' group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. Hey, it was bound to happen. Joining this news in the "completely obvious" department was the inevitable Limbaugh quotes that followed.

You know, that this was "Obama's America on full display". What does that even mean? To me, it means one thing: that Obama is all about that free market, baby.

Which should make Rush happy. I mean, is there anybody who is more pro-free market than Rush Limbaugh? Because that is what happened here. Checketts & Co. decided that for them to make money, they would have to drop from their bid what consumers had deemed undesirable. It may not be right, it may not be the smart move. Rush could have a genius football mind, for all we know. But the market dictated the move.

But forget quotes like "The hatred that exists in this is found in the sportswriter community, it's found in the news business, it's found in the race hustler business". It doesn't really matter anyways. Rush lovers will still love Rush. Like guys who love the band Rush. They, sadly, will never change.

And more importantly, neither will the NFL. I am constantly amazed how powerful this organization is. Limbaugh would have come out victorious if this was the political world, by either gaining the bid or looking like a martyr. In the NFL? Roger Goodell got rid of this story without a chink in the NFL shield. It's impressive really.

Think about it. Football has no steroid scandals. Baseball has been ruined by it. The NBA's biggest concern is the thuggish perception of its players. The NFL has Pacman, Donte' and Vick, and still goes on without a hitch. It's not like the product is that good, either. The game itself has been in steady decline with all of the bad officiating, lack of parity, stupid rules, etc. But the league still cannot be touched.

Goodell could be a Rush supporter (and I would bet on it), but no one, and I mean no one, challenges the shield. Being an owner is a privilege, even if you're on the right.

Limbaugh may have half the country on his side, but it doesn't matter. Nobody is bigger than the NFL. So slam the league, slam the critics. You have that right. Don't plan it meaning anything, though, because at the end of the day, sports is about winning, not politics. Stats are more important than opinions. And boy, is that refreshing right now. You know, in "Obama's America".

Big Brother, Where Art Thou?

2009-10-13T08:21:00.000-07:00

Game Two between the Twins and Yankees had fantastic drama. A-Rod gets the monkey off his back and ties the game in the ninth. Mark Teixeira hits the game-winner in the bottom of the 11th. Baseball should be loving this, right? Unfortunately, at the top of the 11th, Joe Mauer's double that was called foul left a big black mark on the series. As have some questionable calls at first, and the strike zones which seem to have no consistency at all. The game is too big for this, too much money and passion is involved. Things needs to change.

Convincing the good ol' boys of baseball to install instant replay for home runs was like trying to convince Glenn Beck that Obama doesn't sneak out of the White House at night to eat children. Met with way too much resistance, Bud Selig and the gang made it seem nearly impossible that any other type of replay could be used. Yes, we all want it, but if getting the home run calls took that much effort, what will we have to do to get instant replay for foul balls and safe calls?

Two arguments go into the mindset of keeping the game where it is. One is that instant replay slows down the game. Well, here's a secret: people that think baseball is too slow do not watch baseball. When is the last time you heard someone say, "I love the Mets, but if these games start going an extra ten minutes longer, I'm out"? So let's put that to rest, it is a non-issue.

The second case is to protect the "human element" of the game. As if it's somewhat charming to have umpires who blow calls like Lindsey Lohan blows lines. Give me a break. Does anyone outside of the game actually care about this? I propose something different, something radical.

How about every call is booth reviewed? Every ball, every strike, every close call. If TBS can install a strike zone during its telecast, why can't the MLB? It's easy: someone upstairs watches the pitch using the boxed strike zone, hits a button that signals a remote to the home plate umpire (like where the little box used to keep track of balls and strikes would be), and then the ump signals ball or strike. There would be a one second delay for every call, which would be virtually undetectable. Hell, you could do it right now without telling anybody and not one fan could tell the difference.

With fair or foul calls, and calls at the bases, let the umps do their thing. There is ample time in between the call and the next pitch for someone in the booth the review it. If the call is wrong, they can just buzz the umpire. It would add what, one minute to each game? So be it. You know what makes games long? Managers coming out to bitch about bad calls. You think Lou Piniella would come out and argue with the ump if he wasn't the one who made the decision? There would be nobody to yell at. Nothing would be disputable.

Somebody tell me how this would not work. I'm curious. The game would change, yes, but times have changed. Baseball is no longer a past time, it is a billion dollar business. It's time to get things right.

Vote for Rush!

2009-10-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

When I first heard that Rush Limbaugh was trying to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams, the first thing I thought was the same thing about half this country thought: hell no. First off, let me make clear that this is not really political. I don't care about left/right qualms. Limbaugh is 51% insane, 49% opportunist. This is not debatable. Anyone who listens to him for anything more than entertainment value should have their voting rights revoked, and probably should not be allowed to breed. And no, I am not a Democrat nor have I ever voted for one. This isn't about beliefs, it's about somebody who could rival Jerry Jones as the craziest owner in the league. And nothing but good could come of it.

Think about it. If you are a Rush fan, then first, bang your head against the wall one thousand times. Okay, now hear me out. Imagine an all-white, all-Christian NFL team. It works out perfectly, since the Rams will more than likely have the first pick in the draft, and yes, Tim Tebow is your man. I mean, is there any other choice? Start new. Imagine the Edward Jones Dome looking like this. You can prove to the world your superiority, trading for Kevin Curtis, Brian Urlacher, whoever. And you could get them easily by trading your best black players (see, the joke's on them; everyone knows black players are only worth 25% of the white players in a trade!). It will show the country, nay, the world, that your beliefs are right.

Or...

What will really happen. He becomes part owner. 95% of black free agents refuse to sign with the Rams, which is significant, because the Rams are awful. Possibly the first black rookie they draft pulls a Crabtree. Everything goes along as normal, until the first time Rush opens his mouth and says something blatantly racist. Players start to speak out. Advertisers gets nervous, pull out their spots, and King Goodell lowers his hand and with one fell swoop, knocks Rush back into radio. Let me ask you Limbaugh haters, or as I like to call them, the "educated": wouldn't this be the best case scenario. His dribble wouldn't just be heard by Fox News supporters and abortion clinic bombers; it would be heard by the entire NFL audience. Rush's biggest advantage is that he preaches to the choir. Now he can't choose his listeners, and we all remember the Donovan McNabb fiasco...

I know conservatives are going to read this and get pissed. Fine. Feel free to hit the tiny little X on the top right of your screen. Because there's something telling that players have come out against Rush, and none have come out for him. There's merit in the fact that SportsNation's Michelle Beadle had the most obvious look of disgust on her face with the mere mention of his name (and ESPN isn't the most liberal network on the planet). It means something when this is even an issue. Rush Limbaugh isn't even controversial anymore. He draws the line. It's a line between the sane and insane. You can't come out in a neutral setting for him without getting blasted, and there's a reason behind that.

So I welcome Rush into the NFL. I will enjoy seeing him show his true colors. Guess what color that is.

Just Say No... To The Olympics

2009-10-01T21:58:00.000-07:00

You'll have to excuse me, because this column is more political than sports related, but the Olympics are technically sports. Well, some of it. And President Obama has been taking a lot of heat about his campaign to get the 2016 Games in Chicago. Not just from the usual suspects - Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. - but from the sports community and really, the entire country. Nobody seems to want the Games here, which is a good thing. No, a great thing.

After a failed war, a failed economy and failed health care reform, people seem to care a lot more about real issues than puffing out their patriotic chests. We don't want our politicians, let alone the President, wasting time trying to host a bunch of pseudo-sports. We're no longer interested in being the center of attention, because let's face it, we're not that attractive anymore. If America was Britney Spears, then we have moved from Schoolgirl Britney to Shaved Head White Trash Britney. We need time to grow our hair back, check into rehab and lose some weight before we thrust ourselves back into the limelight.

I understand too that the Games aren't for another seven years. We could use it as motivation, like signing up at a gym for an entire year in advance; we made the commitment, so we're now forced to make some changes. But really, do we need any more motivation? If the past decade can't bring along the changes we need, then nothing will. Not even table tennis.

So I applaud America. Somewhere along the way, the people have stopped caring so much about appearing to be #1, and started to care more about actually being #1. It is now a time to retreat, a time of reflection. Bring the troops home, maybe on their way they can swing by and pick up Obama. Let's concentrate on ourselves for once, and not what everyone else in the world thinks about us. Let this one go. Maybe when we get back on our feet, we can put in another bid, and be truly proud to show the world what we are all about. Which we don't really need, because this new American attitude says a lot more than any Olympics ever could.

Royals. I'm Not Lovin' It.

2009-09-30T08:34:00.000-07:00

In Kansas City, as the Royals' season winds down (as it has been since May), the talk around town is how the franchise needs success not to hold onto current fans, but to insure that the younger generations grow up in baseball culture. I was born a few months after the Royals won the World Series - I have never seen good hometown baseball, and neither has anyone of my generation. I'm still a fan, as I was born into it, but many people my age just don't care. It's why every season in every sport matters so much. You need to be constantly hooking the younger fans.

It's why McDonald's advertises. Those commercials aren't for you and me, we know where to go for a burger, they're there so every kid in America will know McDonald's. You don't pay billions in advertising dollars unless it has an effect.

If the Yankees are the McDonald's of the baseball world, then the Royals are Jack in the Box. George Brett retired in 1993, the same year JINB had their E. coli epidemic. I was seven years old at the time. Since then, there has been no reason to care about the Royals, and JINB has been known for nothing other than killing people. However, in the past few years, the restaurant chain has made a comeback, equipped with a new mascot and a new look. And it's working.

Americans under twenty don't know about the E. coli breakout, they only know the fake Jack in the Box CEO with the Barry Bonds-sized head they see on television. The chain could have done the same thing in 1994, but more than likely it wouldn't have worked. The time was ripe for change, as it is now with the Royals. They too need a face lift, but of course, replacing Slugger and spending money on ads won't do the trick. Slugger has a big enough head as it is anyways.

But they are running out of time. The reason JITB has able to resurface was because not only did the young audience not remember the controversy, but they did remember the brand. They've always been around, so it wasn't a new name. The only difference was the appearance of success. If the Royals strike now, they can keep the younger fans who at least remember George Brett, or even Mike Sweeney. But if they wait, they will only be left with a future of kids who don't trust the organization and don't expect anything but failure. And those kids will not become fans.

2010 might be the most important season of the Royals franchise. Fail now, and future success may not even matter. At the very least, they can become the Hardees of the MLB; not very good for you, but addicting and it keeps you coming back for more. And at this point, I'm fine with that.

You Can't Always Get What You Want, Part Two

2009-09-24T20:39:00.000-07:00

When LeBron James left the court after the end of the Eastern Conference Finals, refusing to shake hands or even saying a word to the champion Orlando Magic, the first thing that came to mind was: this reminds me of Michael Jordan. In June, I wrote, "I think it's clear that if Michael Jordan was playing in today's game, his legendary competitiveness would be chalked up to thuggery and selfishness." Well, in the aftermath of Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech, I have to say, I was right.

ESPN's Rick Reilly, the posterboy of a dying style of sportswriting that once made the Sports Illustrated writer an icon, called Jordan's speech "tactless, egotistical and unbecoming." These also happen to be three of the qualities that made Michael Jordan the undisputed king of basketball. As Reilly points out in his own article, former Bulls assistant coach Johnny Bach has said about Jordan, "This guy is a killer. He's a cold-blooded assassin. It's not enough for him to beat you. He wants you dead."

That's what it takes sometimes to be the greatest ever. Jordan never quit trying to win. He still doesn't want to quit, which is why he seemed so upset during his induction; going into the Hall signifies the end, and for the best competitor the game has ever known, there is no end.

But nobody wants to hear it. Jordan's speech was disgusting and disrespectful. The irony, of course, is that when Jordan was a player, the most common criticism slung his way was that he was too corporate, too fake. People wanted the real Jordan. Well, be careful for what you wish for. You were given to real MJ, and you rebelled against it.

Or did you? You see, this shouldn't have caught Mr. Reilly off guard. In an SI column in June of 1993, Reilly wrote, "Whatever searing obsession is inside Jordan driving him to be the most dauntless basketball player on earth, does not suddenly leak out of his Nikes when he leaves the court." Seems as if Reilly has gotten old, as he is doing the same thing with Tiger Woods.

Don't get mad at Jordan, Woods or James for not being able to shut off the valve of competitiveness that got them where they are today. The best of the best are wired differently. It's a trait that is applauded when they are athletes but shunned in real life, as Reilly has properly demonstrated. So don't be surprised when after asking year after year for athletes to come out of their shell, you find that their real self is less than socially acceptable. It usually is for people with losing mentalities.

You Can't Always Get What You Want, Part One

2009-09-21T22:11:00.000-07:00

Sports fans are a fickle bunch. Tony LaRussa gets railed for swapping pitchers too much, but Grady Little was run out of Boston for leaving his pitcher in too long. Fans boo when the home team punts on fourth-and-one, but become Monday Morning Quarterbacks when their team goes for it and fails. Even when changed is called upon for decades, once the real change happens, they panic like rednecks when Obama was elected.

For as long as I can remember, fans have berated announcers for their lack of knowledge and insight. Don't get me wrong, most arguments against announcers are based in fact. John Madden couldn't tell you anything about a play that a thirteen year old couldn't point out. Same goes with Tim McCarver, Rich Gannon, and well, just about every color guy. The only purpose they serve is to explain plays to people who know nothing about the game, which is something around 3% of the viewing audience. They are, in fact, worthless.

ESPN's season opening Monday Night Football double header provided fans with a different audio experience. The network's Mike & Mike, teamed with Steve Young, gave us a new angle. No, it wasn't Dennis Miller new, but it wasn't the same old "analysis" we usually get. These guys knew and worked with each other before the pairing, and it showed. They bantered, they talked over each other. The trio sounded like any three guys watching a football game. And people hated them for it.

Immediately after the game, I tuned to two different national sports radio shows to hear the same thing: Mike & Mike & Steve sucked. The next day at the water cooler (or more aptly in the 21st century, the ashtray outside), the talk was the same; the broadcast was unprofessional, unpolished and unlistenable. Message boards around the net resonated the same. But what is it that fans want? Do they even know?

Fact is, we have been conditioned to the polished, unintruding ways of Madden and McCarver. As much as people bash them, they at the same time can;t stand anything but. Dennis Miller was chased out like Frankenstein's monster because his humor wasn't mindless and fake like the kind you see on pregame telecasts. Young and Golic's banter was deemed annoying because it wasn't scripted like Buck and McCarver's. And Greenberg's play-by-play is denounced as boring because he doesn't have an on-air orgasm after every first down like Gus Johnson.

Already the abuse is being directed towards the regular MNF crew and newbie Jon Gruden. My favorite sportswriter, Joe Posnanski, even repeatedly Tweeted during tonight's game about the awful announcing. Well, what do we want? If we can't stand more of the same, maybe we should not be so quick to overreact to a new formula. You can't bitch about everything all the time. We need a little Steve Young and Dennis Miller. Or if not, we need to stop whining about the status quo that we refuse to change.

Where Have All The Gladiators Gone? (Part Two)

2009-08-20T11:37:00.000-07:00

There's a scene in "Gladiator" where Russell Crowe's character, Maximus, yells to the Colosseum crowd, "Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?" Then after throwing down his sword and spitting on it, the crowd chants, "SPANIARD! SPANIARD!" Maximus seems shocked by the power he holds.

It was a prominent moment of the movie, and it's also a metaphor to what the fan/player relationship has become in the NFL. As Maximus learned, so too have players learned that they have the power, that they are the ones that matter, not the fans. It wasn't always this way. Players were the gladiators, the unloved and unnamed. They put their bodies on the line for nothing more than the glory of victory. And we worshiped them for it.

Only, now the league has become too big. The lines are drawn. Chiefs fans will love Chiefs players no matter what, Giants fans will love Giant players, etc. Michael Vick, Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson have found homes. We've chalked this up to America's principle of second chances. Alright, I'll give you that. But how can you explain Brett Favre?

There's an old adage in sports: the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back. Of course, free agency and million-dollar contracts had teams swapping players like spouses at a 1970s commune. But even in this age, the beloved ones are the players who helped identify what their teams - and thus, their cities - stood for. Derek Jeter in New York, Troy Aikman in Dallas, Kobe Bryant in Los Angeles. Even guys who played for other teams - Joe Montana, Bruce Smith, Jerry Rice, etc. - will always be known in the jerseys that made them famous. Yes, they played the money game like everyone else, but they were still not bigger than the league.

Brett Favre believes he is bigger than the NFL. He has no notion of loyalty or history. It's business, not personal, he would say. Except, the fans have no monetary stake in this game, only emotional. Favre was Green Bay's Maximus, who turned on them once he learned of his power over them. The difference being, of course, that Favre is not a slave. The fans he betrayed didn't cheer his death, they payed his salary. Literally. The Packers are community-owned.

Favre doesn't understand the heart-strings he pulled with his constant "I don't know if I'm coming back...I am...no, wait, I'm not" routine. Management had roles to fill, a team to build. They waited, and when Favre said he wasn't coming back, they put Aaron Rodgers in the starting spot. So when Favre said he wanted to un-retire, it was too late. Sorry, but you are not bigger than the league, the Packers moved on. We all know what happened after that.

Favre has now twisted the knife he had already stuck in every Cheesehead's stomach. "Real Packer fans would understand", he said. The man would have no clue what it meant to be a real anything. Which is sad, because he was the ultimate gladiator. Never missed a game, a true blue-collar good ol' boy from Mississippi. We want to root for this guy. But he stands for everything football fans loath; greediness, blindness and narcissism.

But it's not really his fault. He is a product of the system. Maximus didn't steal his power, the mob gave it to him. And so it is with Favre. We put him on this pedestal. So it's not that wrong of us to knock him off. We make these gladiators, they are ours. Forget this fight of individualism and freedom; you make more in a season than 90% of fans will make in a lifetime. Woe has no place in a millionaire's vernacular.

I say boo this man, for he deserves it. As does Ochocinco (how quickly we turned on this clown), Terrell Owens or anyone else who forgets who they are. This is football. This is our game. And when it comes down to it, your future should be decided on whether we give a thumbs up or thumbs down. Make it primal, uncivilized, politically incorrect. Suffer in the name of entertainment. Then take it to the bank.

Where Have All The Gladiators Gone? (Part One)

2009-08-20T07:07:00.000-07:00

I am not civilized. I am an animal who craves blood, sweat and tears. I believe in the supreme nobility of warriors. I would've fit in nicely in ancient Rome, sitting in the gallery shouting at slaves killing each other in the name of entertainment. Wine would soak my lips, I'd be in heaven. It is why I became a football fan.

We hear analogies between America and Rome all the time. The Empires. They had the Colosseum, we have the Coliseum. They had gladiators, we have the NFL. And the two used to be one of the same. Both sports were built around men who left everything on the field of play, whether it be literally or metaphorical. Both had a rabid fan base. But more importantly, the driving force behind them was that the power of the fan superseded that of the performer. The glory days are over.

The sad but true reality of pro football is that of the gladiator-like treatment the players received. In the last decade, a big bright light had shone over medical records of past players. Concussions, broken bones and years of wear and tear had taken their toll. Running backs were walking around like zombies, quarterbacks acting like, well, Joe Namath. A panic spread across the NFLPA. Protection became more important than performance.

Now, we have rules in place designed to prevent injury. You can't hit above the shoulders or below the thigh. You can't lead with your helmet. If the quarterback even seems like he's going down, the whistle is blown before the damage can be inflicted. This is not football! We wonder why MMA has taken such a stranglehold on the attentions of young men? The lack of violence and reality in sports drove them to the death cages. I would join the MMA march myself if I weren't for the fact that the first death to occur in a fight (which is inevitable, by the way) will bring about rule changes much like the NFL is suffering. I don't need my hopes dashed twice. Enjoy your short run while it lasts.

This society is way too hung up on safety. It is illegal to not wear a seat belt, which affects nobody but the moron not wearing it (and according to one police officer I know, "that law is in place because we have to clean it up". In this case, it's a law in place to protect cops from seeing gruesomeness, not to keep you alive). We want to ban aluminum bats from little league. I actually heard two sports radio hosts debating whether or not pitchers should wear helmets. How about suits of armour while we're at it?

I don't want any of this nonsense. Give me two overgrown men of steel (NOT literally) bashing into each other at full speed. Give me linebackers gunning for quarterbacks' knees. If a receiver catches a pass in midfield, I want somebody sticking a helmet in his chest. Until recently, football players expected this kind of brutality. There aren't any misconceptions about getting hurt. A big hit today aches tomorrow. Take big hits your whole career, it will hurt for a decade. That's reality, and there is no way to get around it.

This is what the fans signed up for, but we're getting a watered-down corporate version of football. Media-heads actually complain that Hines Ward - a wide receiver - hits too hard. Please. This anti-violence is ruining the game. How did we get here? Well, Brett Favre is somewhat to blame.

To be continued...

Will It Be Sunnier In Philadelphia?

2009-08-14T08:42:00.000-07:00

I was sitting on my couch Thursday night, slightly hungover and irritable, watching the Cardinals and Steelers game. Actually, I was just looking at the game. The meaninglessness of preseason added with decreased energy from the night before put me in the mindset of not wanting to do anything. So I sat there, mostly thinking about whether or not I like Jon Gruden.

Then it happened. Mike Tirico all of a sudden went to Chris Mortensen for an update. I knew what the news was. Michael Vick has found a team. The only question was which team. The Eagles? Oh, this is not going to sit well. And it didn't. Ron Jaworski (an ex-Eagles quarterback) was livid. Jon Gruden seemed more interested than either angry or happy. He wanted to think about what Andy Reid would do to get Vick on the field. He's still a coach at heart. He still thinks in terms of football. Jaworksi has been in the media game for a while. He let his emotions fly.

And so has everybody else. Commentators either asked or told you whether or not Vick to Philly was a good idea, not as far as good for the team, but good for the Vick, the city or the NFL itself. What is the social commentary - that is the angle here. How we feel about Vick's return is suppose to gauge how we feel about the crime of dogfighting altogether. Which is dumb, to say to least.

True, you can't say dogfighting without thinking of Mike Vick. He will be the face of that crime for probably the next 20 years, but more than likely be forgotten after that. Donte Stallworth is not the face of drunk driving because he's just one of many, Vick's crime was new. And animal abuse comes with one loud, wholly obnoxious group of haters - the loathsome PETA.

PETA's intentions are good, sure. But make no mistake, their job is to completely ruin the public lives of anyone who has ever eaten a cheeseburger. There is no understanding, no faith in humanity. Their undying love of animals seems to be based in their complete lack of insight into people. Animals are flawless, humans are evil, this is the PETA way.

PETA isn't rotting for Vick to change. They don't want him to turn his life around and be a champion to anti-dogfighting in the Philadelphia community. Like any loud organization, their goal is to win. If Vick's life was left in shambles - which means no football after prison, no public persona and more importantly, no money - then PETA wins. They get to flex their muscles, show the world that you don't fuck with PETA. Don't love animals because it's the right thing to do, love animals because if you don't, the mighty PETA machine will flat out destroy you.

On the flip side, the Humane Society actually gets it. In a video on the HSUS website, you hear things like "are we about writing off an individual...treating that person as a pariah forever...and trying to block his career...or are we about trying to make people better?" This is the right way to think about Vick. This is the mature way. It comes from a real love of animals, not a hate for people. It's how we should all react.

There will be protesters from PETA, naturally. But don't be one of these people who believes the ends justify the means. Be the People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans as well. Don't get mad that Vick went to a strip club after he got out of prison (I sure as hell would), or refuse to believe he actually wants to change, as this blog represents. If he does good in his life, he does good. If Vick relapses, then so be it. I much rather look at things like Jon Gruden does, purely from a football standpoint. That's what is interesting to me.

100 Down, Way Too Many To Go

2009-07-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

UFC 100 may have been watched by millions, but I was not one of them. Loyalty to boxing may be to blame. But there seems to be a simple reason for the MMA hysteria. It starts with a number.

We are obsessed by numbers. When you're 39, you have free range at booze, drugs and loose women. But once you turn 40, apparently it's time to settle down and get old. Hey, you're over the hill, right? If a guy says he's been married for 49 years, jokes about unhappiness ensue. Married for 50? A love that cannot be touched. We build up these milestones like they have some kind of significant meaning. Well, they don't. They're just numbers.

UFC 100 is one of these milestones. It was the biggest fight in mixed martial arts. On the grandest stage, the so-called sport showed us all what it's made of. Fans and sports writers across the country proclaimed that UFC had arrived. Time to get with the program. It's boxing for the 21st century boys. Looks like I'm stuck partying like it's pre-1999.

Look, I'm a boxing fan. But not a boxing "fan". You know those people; they claim they love the sport, but explain their lack of enthusiasm due to the fact that the heavyweight division is so barren. Yes, my favorite boxer (Lennox Lewis) was a heavyweight, and yeah, when the big boys are rockin' the fans come a-knockin', but I don't need it to enjoy boxing. Good boxing is out there, and its not really that hard to find.

And that's what UFC buffs have marketed around; the fact that boxing is dead. OK, I'll give you the fair-weather fans. Let them drive your pay-per-views up. But don't think that UFC is grabbing them for good. Remember the numbers.

Like #100, which has gotten everyone up in a frenzy. You know when boxing's 100th main fight was? Well, the first heavyweight champ was John Sullivan in 1885, so it was a long freaking time ago. Most people won't recognize a fighter until Jack Dempsey, who won in 1919. If you're celebrating where you are as a sport at #100, then boy, you know nothing. You haven't even begun.

Oh, but that's point, they say. Look how big we are in such a short span. Well, what's the road from here? Do UFC fans really expect to keep expanding at this rate? It'd be bigger than the NFL in a decade. Not gonna happen. Also unlikely is plateauing at this point and averaging the millions of viewers last Saturday's fight attracted. There is no basis to this, no history. If anything, this was the peak. 100 is not a milestone, it's a pebble in the history of UFC. It means nothing.

The only argument I would give UFC fans is that MMA is a representation of a change of interest in young Americans. Boxing was two men beating the hell out of each other, yes, but it was art. MMA is simply beating the hell out of each other. And on a much greater scale. It's in-your-face brutality, a concept adored by a generation raised on reality television and violence. Don't dance around, kill! Mob mentality, fill the Colosseum! How apt for a country that is starting its Roman descent.

Am I missing the boat, perhaps? But I'll be playing my boxing violin as I go down drowning, not cursing the iceberg that drug us there. It's a fad, in my book. Nothing more. Like Bender from The Breakfast Club, I too share a disdain for guys who roll around on the floor with other guys. But hey, if you want blood, you got it.

Where Is My Mind?

2009-07-08T17:56:00.000-07:00

Twittering during games, protecting your image, tabloid deaths and bashing Americans. Yeah, I got a few thoughts.

No Fun

Chad Ochocinco is getting on my nerves. You want to putt the football with a pylon? OK. Create your own Hall of Fame jacket? Fine. I don't really care. But now he wants to use Twitter during games. This has gone too far.

It's one thing to be the class clown, the joker. But is it too much to ask these millionaires to have just a tad bit of focus for three hours a week? This isn't a product of the No Fun League, it's a starve for attention. Most critics of the NFL's policies complain that the players aren't allowed to have enough fun, but isn't football itself supposed to be fun? I mean, it is a game. I get the feeling that guys like Ochocinco play football because they have the talent, not because they love the game. If they did, simply being on the field would give them the enjoyment they need. But not Chad. The game's not enough. Perhaps he should quit.

Fuhrer LeBron and S.S. Nike

Now this has rubbed people in a very wrong way. Apparently at the LeBron James Skills Academy, Xavier guard Jordan Crawford dunked on James, and shortly after Nike officials confiscated all the tapes from said dunk. To make matters worse, it seems that James was the one who ordered the search and seizure.

First off, I could see Nike orchestrating this more than Lebron. But if he did do it, is it that big of a deal? So he has some pride issues, what do you expect. He's constantly harped on for not winning a title, despite being crowned "The King" (a nickname that he was given, by the way). Oh, and he's 24 years old. Who cares if he's ashamed? I am tired of the high horse riding by sports people when it comes to LeBron James. Nobody will remember this. Hell, Kobe raped a girl and Shaq had a "tell me how my ass tastes" rap and everybody just loves them. I can't wait for James to win a title to shut these middle-aged white sports writers up. Give it a rest.

Sick News is Sick

I applaud sports fans for not wanting to hear anymore about Steve McNair. Sure, we still read the updates, but it's July - what else are we gonna do? The mood I get is that the story is too disturbing, too wrong and has nothing to do with McNair the quarterback. We understand that our heroes aren't really superhuman, we don't need to be reminded. With the gross exploitation of Michael Jackson's death, fans are disinterested to do the same with McNair. This is a good thing.

We want sports and we want it now. Not a 24-hour news investigation of McNair the man. None of our business. Chalk it up to ignoring the truth if you want, but what will learning the truth achieve? Nothing but negativity, and we surely don't need anymore of that. ESPN and the rest and continue to let us in on the latest, it's their job, but I get the feeling that nobody is all the concerned.

America, F*** Yeah!

This whole Lance Armstrong thing cracks me up. As I've written before, sports nationalism in this country is a joke. First soccer, then tennis, and now cycling. Remember, if it's foreign, it's crap. Until we put a competitor out there, then we are the greatest! We are the saddest bunch of front-runners in the world. It's alright during the Olympics, it's kind of the point. I'm rooting against Armstrong and for the French. That's right, I said it. Let's bring the trophy to a group of people who actually care about the event when they aren't dominating. What happened to our underdog spirit?

Summer of Morality

2009-07-06T11:19:00.000-07:00

This past Independence Day weekend got me thinking. While most people were consumed with the Steve McNair story, I started wondering about Wimbledon. And soccer. And Phil Mickleson. And Rocky. Let me explain.

See, this weekend was a microcosm of what I call the Trophy Era, which is our current state of giving the kid who struck out four times and made two errors the same hardware as the kid who went 4-4 with five RBIs. It is the land of morals, home of the meek, and they are indeed inheriting the Earth. And it's entirely possible that the movie Rocky helped shape this new form of ideals.

Looking at the series as a whole, there are six parts. In part one, Rocky loses, but receives the biggest moral victory in the history of both fantasy and reality athletics. But in parts 2-5, Rocky wins. And our memories of Rocky are in those wins. He beat Mr. T. He knocks out Drago. It doesn't matter that the first image is of him losing, because the lasting images, which are the most important, are of the underdog champion.

When the franchise came full circle in 2006 with part six, Rocky Balboa, the underdog loses. Rocky gets beat. So the message being sent here is that while all the wins were good and made a champion out of Rocky, it's the losses, to start and end his career, which are the most important. It is the birth of the moral victory - the most disgusting term in sports.

The summer of 2009 is the result of this kind of thinking; the Summer of Morality. The lasting images of this summer will be of three events: the U.S. Open, the FIFA championship and the Wimbledon final. The dominating storylines of these three were of the underdog caliber. Mickleson had to fight for his sick wife. Team USA and Andy Roddick had to fight the foreign powerhouses. Real Hollywood stuff, you know? But in real life, we want Rocky II-V, instead we got Rocky I and VI.

Mickleson fell short. Team USA gagged. Andy Roddick was no match for history. In the way we usually look at sports, these are failures on the biggest stage. Mickleson's bogies on 15 and 17 were awful. Team USA blew a 2-0 lead at halftime. Roddick played the greatest game of his life, and found out it wasn't enough. These are the lowest of the low. Except, we live in a Rocky world, where not only does failing in the clutch not get you criticized, it gets you a medal.

I'm not saying that the Rocky movies create excuses for professional athletes. Art reflects reality, it doesn't produce it. This is a new, late 20th century American view. We changed Lombardi's quote of "winning isn't everything, the will to win is" to "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing", because that is what America has always been about.

Not now. No, Mickleson, Roddick and Team USA are champions of the heart, and that's all that matters. The compelling aspect of athletics used to be to witness what it takes to rise to the top, not what it takes to achieve noble failure. Maybe we need to stop rewarding people for just trying. Whether it's giving runner-ups journalistic praise or your clumsy kid a medal. It breeds defeat, not success.

Remember, Rocky did eventually become a champion. He had a statue erected. Phil Mickleson, Andy Roddick and Team USA lost. There is no award for second place in life, so let's not give one out in sports. I want to go back to "only the strong survive". It's what makes July 4th such a great holiday; a day to raise our foam fingers as #1. We didn't just try, we succeeded. There used to be morality in that.

Why We Are Really Saddened About Michael Jackson

2009-06-26T15:36:00.000-07:00

I'm going to take a break from sports for a second to talk about what everyone else is talking about - the death of Michael Jackson. Only, it isn't the end of his life that has people so upset, rather, it's the death of his resurrection.

Michael Jackson, the child star and King of Pop, has been dead for a while now. In his place we were given Jacko, the freakshow plastic man who slept with underage boys. And that is the man who left us yesterday. Fans have already mourned over the beloved superstar, but the news that he was trying to jump start his career and with the hope that this was true, his death brought a sobering reality: Michael Jackson is never coming back.

He will never redeem himself. He will not return back to form, no longer write any classic songs. And apparently, this is news to people. Because why else would anyone care?

What would be the reaction to O.J. Simpson's death? I ask because the two have some distinct similarities. Both were beloved stars, both acquitted of hanus crimes that 99% of the population believes they were guilty of. Both transformed into two different people entirely. They were involved in the two most-watched trials in the last twenty years. But Simpson's death wouldn't carry the nationwide sadness that Jackson's has. Why? Because we've accepted that the old Simpson is never coming back. His trial was a two-year long funeral of the funny, lovable actor/athlete, ending with the birth of this Bizarro O.J. who has as about as many fans as George W. Bush.

But we really never let go of Jackson. The reason for it, I suppose, is because we understood him. We all know that his childhood (or lack thereof) was the reason for his transformation. It's purely human, while Simpson's alter-ego has no back story. We can't fathom why he did what he did. So we've all held up this hope that Jackson would break out of this shell he has made for himself, and return to glory with Thriller 2.

Now we're faced with the fact that it's never going to happen. And nothing has really changed. We still have the records and videos and memories of Jackson, and Jacko was never going to add anymore to it. So if you're mourning the death of Michael Jackson, all I have to say is that you're a tad bit late. But hey, isn't denial just part of the grieving process?

Win Against Spain Means Nothing

2009-06-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

What prisoners of the moment we are. Wednesday's big news was that the USA soccer team beat #1 Spain 2-0. It was the headline for the websites of ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FOX Sports and Yahoo Sports. Everyone was talking about it. My question is, um, why?

Last time I checked (and I check every so often), nobody in this country cares about soccer. We don't play it and we don't watch it. So why all the hoopla about beating Spain? I can understand if we just beat the Iranian team, or if it was 2002 and we beat the French. Do we really only pay attention when we do something well?

Yup. The reason we don't like soccer is because we're not any good at it. We are the Clippers of soccer. So we pass it off as a silly foreign game. It's boring, not really a sport, bad television, so on and so on.

Wait, we beat the #1 team? USA! USA! USA!

That's pretty much the common thinking here. It's embarrassing seeing everyone get so excited over this. Where were you when we were routinely getting our asses kicked? At least with the sports we like, we endure the rough times. Cleveland sports have had about as much glory as Team USA, but their fans still bleed with their teams and never waver.

And this is why soccer will never become popular in this country. Shortly after the match, ESPN put up a poll, "Was a 2-0 win against Spain a game-changing moment for the sport of soccer in the United States?" The results: 57% said yes. I guarantee you that this time next year, 90% of those people who answered yes won't give a damn about soccer.

That is, unless we become Spain. If Team USA goes on to dominate the sport or at least be in serious contention every year, then maybe we will all become fans. But what's the odds of that happening? Remember, a bigger upset happened in 1980 when Team USA beat Russia in hockey. And we all know how much Americans loooooove hockey...

Please stop acting like you care about this. The only time Americans pay attention to soccer is when one of the players rips her shirt off. Or David Beckham rips his shirt off. And I think that about says it all.

Sports Isn't Reality

2009-06-19T20:34:00.000-07:00

I hate reality television. It is a commercialized, over-produced lie wrapped in a nice, advertised bow of truth. The Bachelor isn't really looking for love. Survivor contestants probably check their Facebook off camera. But the illusion of reality sells, and what drives the market is a world that is much better - and simpler- than real life. Only, in reality shows, when the real world rears its ugly Putin-like head, better T.V. is had. Like when Tila Tequila gets an STD.

Sports is the ultimate reality show. It's the first reality show. That's why we love it; sports is human emotion + skill - editing. Sports is raw - but not really. The world of sports is as fake as American Idol votes, and Jonathan Papelpon is a prime example.

When the Red Sox closer blurted out that he is open to join the rival Yankees when his contract is up, it sent shock waves around Red Sox Nation. How could he possibly speak such blasphemy?

Because sports is a business. Papelbon doesn't care about Boston lore and he has no loyalties. Pitching is what he does for a living, not to carry on a hatred between two cities. He loves what he does and he's good at it, isn't that enough?

Remember, the Red Sox are the same team that let Babe Ruth, Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens don pinstripes. And they are crying "traitor"?

Truth is, this is how nearly all professional athletes think. They don't care about your personal war. But they usually play the game. In the normal world of professional sports, Papelbon wouldn't let it be known that his colors run North until the moment he signed with New York. This keeps his integrity in Boston intact, and leaving us with the notion that our prejudices matter.

Well, they don't. This is the true reality of sports. We've only contrived a true dream scenario, which is no different than The Hills for teenagers. I love the drama of athletics, but let's not pretend that our heroes care about the same quarrels as we do. Any Sox fan would quickly change sides for a few million bucks, and Papelbon isn't any worse of a person for doing the same.

Fixing Baseball

2009-06-18T22:30:00.000-07:00

Baseball is again down in the dumps, thanks to the "news" that Sammy Sosa roided it up. So here are a few ideas that could fix America's Pastime.

1. The league with the best interleague record gets home field advantage for the World Series.

Enough with the All-Star game being the deciding factor. It's an exhibition game, which is supposed to be fun, not matter. Who wants to see two players on sub-.500 teams square off when it doesn't even matter to them? Yes, the winning and losing pitchers last year were from the Rays and Phillies - the two World Series teams - but how often does that happen? The only reason this rule is in place is because Bud Selig made an awful decision by calling the game a tie in 2002.

If we pick the league with the best interleague record, that will give us a much fairer outcome. That way, home field advantage (which is huge) will go to the best league, rewarding the team who had the toughest road to the Series, and the All Star game can go back to being fun.

2. Age restrictions

The biggest problem with baseball, in my opinion, is that nobody knows where these guys come from. College baseball is virtually non-existent, and no way are we going to follow every high school kid, international player or A/AA/AAA prospect. So here's a thought: you have to be two years removed from high school to be drafted/signed by a MLB club. It's what the NFL does, and it works. This rule will force players to attend college for at least two years, which will expose prospects to the national stage, which in turn will gets fans interested in the college game, which then leads to interest in the minor leagues.

With all the young talent being relocated to the NCAA, it will expand the talent pool and make it, for once, watchable. We will be acclimated with the college environment, making the MLB draft on par with the NFL/NBA drafts. Also, getting Central American players out of societies where PEDs are served with breakfast won't hurt either.

3. Get tough on steroids - for real this time

First strike: one year suspension. Second strike: three year suspension. Third strike: you're out.

If that doesn't force players to think twice before dropping their drawers for a performance boost, I don't know what will. But in order to do this, baseball has to be prepared. First off, the MLB must make a list of all known substances which might come up positive under a PED test. Go to a GNC and mark down everything. Make it known, make it clear, and there will be no mistake about what is or is not acceptable.

4. The World Baseball Classic should be played directly after the World Series.

Here's why it's bad to play the WBC in March: it's March! What do you think we're watching? Most casual fans don't get into baseball until June/July, let alone during college basketball season. Play it right after the Series, and you'll get fans right when their taste for baseball is the most palatable. This also helps us to get familiar with international players. Hey, if we watch the World Cup because of the rabid nationalism, we sure as hell will watch the baseball equivalent.

Donte' Stallworth is not Michael Vick

2009-06-17T20:57:00.000-07:00

Somehow, minorities getting in trouble hurts caucasians the most. It's because of what I all Angry White Man Complex. AWMC is when the collective hatred of the pigmently challenged rallies everyone else against them in the name of bigotry. It's what happened in the cases of O.J. Simpson and Michael Vick, and it's dangerously close to happen with the Donte' Stallworth mini-drama.

So, long story short, Stallworth, an NFL wide receiver, hit and killed a man with his car while driving under the influence. With that description, Stallworth should at least get the same penalty as Leonard Little, who did the same thing, and probably should get hit harder with Roger Goodell as Punisher in Chief. Except, the long story isn't short.

The facts seem to point to an accident. Not that Stallworth was a drunk whose impairment led to someone's death. Apparently, the story is that victim Mario Reyes darted out in front of Stallworth's car, and that the hit and run was unavoidable unless the star receiver made a miraculous car commercial-like move.

Oh, and it wasn't a hit and run. Stallworth stopped immediately, called the cops and volunteered to take a breathalyzer knowing he had been drinking. Seem like he premeditated a crime like torturing dogs?

The family settled financially, and the courts did so judicially. So why all the outrage? On today's broadcast of "Around The Horn" on ESPN, L.A. Times columnist Bill Plaschke said that the verdict "stinked", was "all about the money" and is "wrong". Well, Mr. Plaschke, if the family is satisfied, then why aren't you? Stop looking at the case by face value and look at the facts. If the NFL wants to punish Stallworth for driving drunk, then fine, so be it. But the fact that a professional athlete didn't serve what sports writing legal experts consider ample time doesn't mean that it's another case of a celebrity getting off light.

Seriously, learn the facts folks.

It's Time To Legalize Gambling

2009-06-15T21:51:00.000-07:00

I am a gambler. I love the rush - the anticipation of every pitch, the excitement of a three-pointer and the hope of a missed field goal. Anyone who has ever placed a wager, whether it be a $5 bet on a Super Bowl coin flip or a $1000 roll on a craps table, will know from the very first time whether or not they are truly a gambler. I'm not proud of it, but I also am not ashamed. It's who I am and I deal with the harsh reality of having such a vice.

I don't need anybody to protect myself from it either. And that somebody is U.S. House Representative Spencer Bachus. He is the one leading the charge against internet gambling. On the other side is Rep. Barney Frank from Massachusetts, who is trying to pass a bill for legalization. Dueling columns written by the two men on usnews.com gives both sides of the argument, but since Frank's views are similar to mine, let me point out the voice of the opposition:

- Betting with a credit card undercuts a player's perception of the value of cash, which leads to addiction

- Underage kids can bypass age verification

- Underage kids fall prey due to computer access

- Gambling is 24/7 online

- Internet operations are vulnerable to criminal activity

- Regulation is hard and takes time

The first four points all have something in common, so I'll address those first. The idea that using credit cards somehow tricks people into betting more than they can afford has less to do with gambling and everything to do with, ahem, credit cards. This is the society we live in, folks. Millions of Americans use their magic pieces of plastic to buy things they can't afford. Personal responsibility, or the lack thereof, is a national problem that extends way farther than pokerstars.net.

That lack of control is also what the fear of 24/7 gambling is all about. Frank makes an excellent point that it is quite curious that conservatives, who are always complaining about a Democratic "nanny" government, seem very interesting and protecting ourselves from ourselves. So what if I spend 12 straight hours playing Seven-Card Stud High-Low Eight-Or-Better against a businessman from Singapore and a college dropout from Houston? Who am I hurting? Believe me, if anything I'm buying that businessman a new Porsche or getting that kid back into school. I suck at poker.

The other three points I will lightly touch on. First, if you're worried that college kids are using their laptops to play computer games, God bless you. You don't want to know what they're actually using it for. Just type in "two girls" into Google. See what your kids are really watching.

Age-verification and criminal activity can be solved by one thing: legalization. That will bring regulation, the arch-enemy of Republicans. Well, business regulation that is. As far as regulating your own behavior, they're all for it. As Bachus puts it, "new legislation would direct the Treasury Department to set up a new regulatory regime to oversee shadowy foreign gaming enterprises in a mere matter of months". That's how Bachus thinks, because that's how the media works. If things aren't running smoothly in a short time frame, it must be a bust. Truth is, the process will be long and tedious, and in the dawn of gambling's legalization there will be a lot of fake sites and "shadowy foreign gaming enterprises". But, as the saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. We'll have to take the lumps. I'm okay with that.

While Frank is still anti-sports betting, I applaud him for his effort. He is still a politician and I am sure his stance against all other gambling is purely political. But I'm tired of people telling me what to do.

As Frank so eloquently put it himself: "the vast majority of human activities should be neither encouraged nor outlawed by the government but rather be left entirely to the choice of free individuals."

Blind Faith

2009-06-15T15:46:00.000-07:00

Life is full of many tough decisions, but picking your favorite sports team isn't one of them. Most of us were indoctrinated at a very young age, much like the kids in Jesus Camp. And like those kids, we too have our little rituals, warped thinking, extreme loyalty and a deranged enthusiasm for our sports teams. But I live in Kansas City. I only have three. For me, it's all about the Royals, Chiefs and Kansas Jayhawks. We have no NBA or NHL team, and it is simply not enough for me. That's why I have decided that the time is now to choose sides. No longer will I watch professional basketball or hockey with an objective eye. And just to make sure I get my sports fill, I'm going to pick a NASCAR driver as well.

But how do I go about doing this? I can't simply just pick some teams. That would be too biased, plus I don't want to be that guy who becomes a Lakers/Penguins/Jimmie Johnson fan because they happen to be winning at the time. In other words, I don't want to be LeBron James.

The only true way is through complete randomization. For that, I turned to random.org's List Randomizer. And to bring myself a little bit of fortune, my teams and driver will be the eighth down the list; my lucky number.

The results: Detroit Pistons, Minnesota Wild and Greg Biffle.

I can live with the Pistons, who are a storied franchise, even if they seem to be headed for a quick free fall. They've always had that hard-nosed, blue-collar toughness, which I like. They hate Chicago, and I can back that up as a KC resident. Their last championship, in 2004, was under coach Larry Brown, who led my beloved Jayhawks to a national championship in 1988. I can work with this.

The other two are a bit tricky, since I have never really followed hockey or racing. But that was really the whole point; becoming a fan of one team/driver will help me in becoming a fan of those sports. I need a rooting interest.

So there it is, my new distractions. I now have a stake in all the major sports, and my loyalties will not waver. Well, until the Sprint Center finds some tenants, that is.

Raul Ibanez, Steroids and the Media

2009-06-10T20:05:00.000-07:00

It is now time to comment on the infamous Raul Ibanez story. If you're not in the know, here's the short version: a blogger for Midwest Sports Fans wrote an article which happened to include a " what if?" about Ibanez's great start to 2009, and if it's possible that steroids could be the culprit. Well, after the post got some internet love, Philadelphia Inquirer journalist John Gonzales made the news national in his column, berated original poster "JRod" for insinuating that Ibanez is a cheater. Which, it should be stated, he did not.

If you don't automatically think of PEDs when someone comes out of nowhere and starts hitting the ball in a Bonds-ian manner, then you haven't been paying attention over the last decade. We thought Alex Rodriguez would be the Golden Boy who cleared Bonds' record. Uh-oh. Well, at least there are pure hitters like Manny Ramirez who don't need to cheat. Oops. OK, but we know that the pitchers these juicers are hitting are doing it the right way. Wrong again.

As in JRod's original story, I want to remind everybody that steroid allegations are not personal attacks on anybody, but the harsh reality of baseball. And while it was read for what is was worth through the tubes, when Gonzales "legitimatized" the story by reporting it in the Inquirer, he conveniently cherry picked a few quotes to make it look like JRod was accusing Ibanez of cheating.

This is what the media does. Mass media hounds bloggers like myself for wanting to be the story instead of reporting it, and condemning us for not researching the facts or not having the "inside information" unlike scholars like themselves. It's tired. Truth is, the hoopla didn't start until Gonzales made it front page news and - gasp! - made himself a part of the story instead of - gulp! - not giving us the real facts. Oh, mainstream journalism at its finest.

Please, read the original article. Don't let media heads like The Inquirer spin stories to get you riled up. I won't ever get a gig at a major newspaper because I don't have the credentials, mainly because I dropped out of journalism school. And why? Because after the first day I could tell that the plan was to mold me into the type of writer like Gonzalez, and I rather work my forty hours and do this in my off time than become that type of scum. The Inquirer's profile of Gonzalez claims that the writer was a wannabe politician who got creamed in a bid for Congress. Wow, I wonder where he learned his spin...

Again, if you don't think of steroids when a 37 year old is hitting out of his mind, then you are blind or lying to yourself. It's your duty to be skeptical. Giving the benefit of the doubt is what allowed the Steroids Era to happen, and until big hitters stop testing positive, we shouldn't let up. Get used to it.

By the way, for the real reason of Ibanez's success, Joe Posnanski has the answer.

Kobe Isn't That Important

2009-06-08T20:19:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to hear way too much about Kobe Bryant. I didn't think I would have a problem with it - after all, who didn't see Kobe Fest 2009 coming when LeBron was eliminated? But I wanted me some #24. I wanted to see him make his mark. But he isn't solely responsible for the Lakers' title hopes.

Unless he goes for 81 points again, he is just another player on the court, albeit the best one. But whether or not he wants to win it more than anyone else won't bring home a trophy. Neither will the fact that he is seemingly more nasty and serious in this series then he ever has been before. The Lakers are just a better team, and the better team wins seven game series.

If Courtney Lee makes that alley-oop at the end of Game 2, then what? Is Kobe's extreme focus now a problem? Does his want for a title now hinder his team? Of course not, and it works the other way. The Lakers won because Orlando blew chances, bottom line. But it was close because, for the most part, the Magic played their game. The Game 1 blowout had more to do with Orlando not making any shots than the demeanor of L.A.'s shooting guard.

Truth is, Bryant's importance to the Lakers is crunch time, and we haven't seen it yet because we haven't needed it. We got a glimpse at the end of regulation in Game 2, but it didn't matter. And that's the point. He scored 8 of the Lakers' last 10 points, but it still went into overtime. The reason is that the game has ten players, not one, and the Magic five did their part as well. And the scary part for L.A. is that when Kobe was trying to end the game by himself, J.J. Redick, Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu were matching him. And don't we always side with the "team"?

It was a mix of good defense and Pau Gasol that won that game, not the will of Kobe Bryant. And that's fine, that's the way it usually works out. But stop talking to me about how Kobe is on a mission. So are a dozen other guys playing this game, and they matter more collectively than one man, despite how good he may be.

LeBron Has Entered the Dark Side

2009-06-01T07:04:00.000-07:00

Sometime during the 2009 postseason, it became popular to hate LeBron James. I'll admit he's not helping his own cause at the moment, but where did this stem from exactly? He was The King, more likable than Kobe but just as marketable, a guy who played as hard as he could as long as he could and was making strides as a complete, all-around basketball player. But something happened during that Magic series; he became a closer.

The one knock on LeBron is that he was not clutch. Well, knocking down game-tying free throws, hitting a fade-away buzzer beater and winning an entire fourth quarter playing one-on-five put that notion to rest. Those moments propelled him to Kobe-status, a super stardom James was already at but now it's legitimatized. No doubt this was fueled by the ESPN Kobe-LeBron puppet ads. And there's no doubt this has also led to Lebron's polarization. You know he's big and you know he's legit because now he has more haters than every before.

James added more gas to the fire by his "poor sportsmanship" after the Game 6 loss. Failing to shake anybody's hand (but more importantly, Dwight Howard's hand) and not talking to the media, for the first time fans and sportswriters alike ripped LeBron and questioned his personality. For years we have been desperately seeking Jordan, but the once James does something purely Jordan-esque, he is condemned for it. I think it's clear that if Michael Jordan was playing in today's game, his legendary competitiveness would be chalked up to thuggery and selfishness.

So, there are two paths to follow now for LeBron. The first path is damage control, to repair his image and regain his status as King. This is the mostly likely route for James to take. But he can also decide that instead of being Kobe, he would much rather be Jordan. That path leads to storming off the court, not even caring who Dwight Howard is, jetting to New York and becoming the most feared player in the league. It is the Dark Side, and I hope he takes it.

Going from hometown boy to the savior of Cleveland is nice, but it's a fairy tale. Real life is mean an nasty, and that's what LeBron needs to be. I say flee to the Knicks, bring Bosh or Wade with you, and become part of the Jay-Z lifestyle you obviously love. The White Sportswriters of America will hate you for it. See how they fell in love with Howard, who is as nice as can be with a million dollar smile. You tried that, but the Magic series brought out the real you. There is no turning back.

The End of Pitch Counts?

2009-05-27T21:42:00.000-07:00

A pitch count is an inherantly awful idea. Coming up with some arbitrary number to tell you when a pitcher should come out of a game is the offshoot of the Misinformation Age, where stats rule the land and bad impressions linger forever. No need to actually watch a pitcher, evaluate and react accordingly. We have numbers that say the best calculated move is to take him out at the 98-104 pitch mark. It's science, not baseball. And it stinks.

In my case against numbers, let me throw some out. From 1891-1999, there was at least one pitcher every season who had double-digit complete games. From 2000-2008, there was not one - NOT ONE - pitcher who recorded more than nine. For over one hundred years, pitchers pitched and managers got the hell out of the way. With the invent of the internet, stats at the whim and money and media to consider, the pressure intensified and pitchers were put on pitch counts to save their managers' careers. Greinke is on pace to throw 17 complete games this year.

Greinke is tied with Toronto's Roy Halladay with a league-leading eight wins. They also sit at top together with 75 innings pitched this year. With very few opposing views, they are the best two pitchers in the American League.

But what about wearing out their arms, you ask? Let's go back to those 2000-2008 years. Three pitchers threw nine complete games in a season a total of four times over that span. Halladay was the one who did it twice, in 2003 and 2008. He has had a 3.15 ERA since that 2003 season.

Of course, you can't just take a young pitcher and throw him out there all day long for an entire season. Unfortunately, their arms have been trained under the philosophy of less is more. That's why the end of pitch counts has to start in the minors or even earlier, so these pitchers can get used to being in those types of situations, the way Halladay has.

And this just might happen. Not only is Greinke someone all young pitchers will want to be like because of his skill, but he is a genuinely good person. He is a role model coaches and parents will want their kids to look up to. Hopefully after the 2009 season, we will be able to say that Zack Greinke not only had an incredible ERA and win total, but that he pitched as much as he wanted.

Because that's what pitching in the old millennium was all about.

NBA's Fab Four Veils Bad Basketball

2009-05-25T09:35:00.000-07:00

Every sport has its problems. Baseball has steroids, football has malcontents, hockey has no fans, golf sometimes doesn't have Tiger and tennis has no Americans. But professional basketball is in a unique position. Its woes aren't off the field antics or performance enhancers. No, their dilemma is much more serious; bad play, awful coaching and even worse officiating.

Everybody will remember Round One's Bulls/Celtics matchup as an epic series, but the reality is that it was sub par basketball. Boston's go-to play seemed to be letting Paul Pierce hold the ball, drive and either freak out and jack up a shot or hope to God that he could find an open teammate that would freak out and jack up a shot. This led us to the Big Baby buzzer beater, which in actuality was an awful play that ended up in a player nobody trusted taking the most important shot of the season. It went in, so it will be featured in future NBA "Amazing" commercials in super slow motion and remembered as a good thing. Not to mention what it does for Baby monetarily.

And who draws up the "Pierce better make a good decision" plays? The horrendous coaches. Guys like George Karl who have six-foot-nothing Anthony Carter inbounding the ball with the game on the line against Lamar Odom. Guess what happened. Luckily, there was enough time between that Game One and Game Three, where there was another chance to inbound the ball at crunch time. Guess what happened. Karl must take coaching lessons from John Calipari, who feels just because you screw up one facet of the game routinely doesn't mean you should ever practice it.

I won't even waste words on officiating. We all know it's bad. Let's move on.

What's saving the NBA and making the postseason seem so great (and really, it's not) is the Fab Four: Kobe, LeBron, Carmelo and Howard. Four teams, four elite superstars. And more importantly, four American superstars. The Redeem Team went from friends and mentors to fighting each other for the title. This is the intriguing storyline, the veil covering the fans' eyes. LeBron's buzzer beater was that Jordan-esque shot we've all been waiting for. The Kobe/Melo matchup is high drama, as is Anthony's "I'm becoming a man" run through the playoffs, which is probably due more to being on a good team than him becoming a better person. Unfortunately, we're stuck with Howard other than D-Wade, but we'll take what we can get.

But all of this isn't basketball, it's a soap opera, which explains why the 2009 postseason has gotten people so giddy. All of the close games aren't enough to keep me interested if they get blown at the end by bad coaching moves. Game Two of Cavs/Magic was the one shining moment for me so far, where Hedo and James had dueling game-winners that weren't the product of bad defense, just two stone cold assassins draining their shot. But even that was ruined with the Game Three Foul Fest. It was if the refs got payed by the whistle, and completely obliterated any positive feelings the previous game gave the series.

I want the NBA back, where the players are professional and the game is better. But David Stern & Company are reaping the rewards of big names in the headlines, and the non-fans who are paying attention love drama and scripts, which is exactly what the league has become. I can only hope for a Denver/Orlando title matchup, a big "F You" to a league that doesn't even care that the quality of their game has been reduced to D-League basketball. Because if there is a Kobe/LeBron Finals, then there is no chance in hell Stern will care about anything but the hype.

"Kobe Doin' Work" Is All Ball

2009-05-18T16:28:00.000-07:00

Sports is about inference. Some calculate the stats, others piece together any other evidence they can find. Whether it be how a player acts off the court, how much his teammates like him, or how he portrays himself to the media, we will find something abstract to make conclusions about one's game. With the easy availability of stats and tangibles at our fingertips, it's only natural seek out the intangibles as a way to learn more. And often we get it wrong.

Which brings us to "Kobe Doin' Work", Spike Lee's documentary profiling a 2008 regular season game between the Lakers and Spurs. The title explains just about everything. It's 90 minutes of Kobe Bryant explaining why he's shooting or passing, why he's on his man or roaming the court. It's NBA 101 and Professor Bryant is about to school you. No drama, no headlines. Just a student of the game giving us an inside look on what it's like to be the game's biggest star. On the court, that is.

And that's what makes "Kobe Doin' Work", well, work. We will never really know why Lee decided to do this film the way he did. But I suspect it was to somewhat humanize a man who has played the villain role most of his career. And an hour and a half of Kobe with his family or attending charity events would seem too contrived, and the haters would see right through it. Here, Bryant is in his element; just talkin' hoops. He doesn't have to worry about saying the right things or playing a specific part. And through all the lessons and insights, we realize how being a celebrity is nowhere inside of his DNA. Basketball is what Kobe knows, and he knows it better than anybody. Shaq was celebrated by the media because not only could he ball, but he could play the media game as well. It came natural to him. The only thing Bryant has in his blood is a pure passion for hoops, and sadly it has led to him wearing a black hat.

There is a reason that the gold #24 jersey outsells everyone. Whether we think he is a bad guy or not, one message leaks through to the kids: Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest players of all time. "Kobe Doin' Work" gives us a little glimpse why. And for 90 minutes, the only important factor is how he performs on the court. Which is the way it should have always been.

The Worst Article Ever Written

2009-05-14T18:44:00.000-07:00

In my time as a writer and an avid reader, I have come across some horrendous articles. The kind that leave you with a smaller IQ and a sudden urge to binge drink. Admittedly, some of my own probably fall into that category. But one has risen of the rest, the cream of the crap crop, if you will. And to some, it will be no surprise that the name signed at the bottom is that of one Jason Whitlock.

It sure was no shock to me. I've never been a fan of Whitlock, who has made a living injecting racism into any and every topic known to man. In J-Dubb's world, the previous sentence is proof that I secretly hate black people. It's a shortcut to thinking and offensive.

So I now present to you his worst, in my opinion. "Cuban's out of line and it's Stern's fault" deserves attention. As you already know, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban apparently called the Nuggets' Kenyon Martin a thug to his mother's face, along with reports that many Dallas fans were harassing family members of Nuggets players. Here's my problem:

Does Stern not understand the culture of the league he oversees? Does he fail
to comprehend the position Kenyon Martin is in if he fails to publicly (and
perhaps physically) defend his mama?
Right or wrong, disrespecting a black man's mama publicly has always been a
drop-the-gloves moment. When a billionaire white man does it, it becomes a
ride-or-die episode for the entire neighborhood.
Last I checked, Martin plays in a league dominated by black men hailing from
the don't-talk-about-my-mama culture.

Yes, this is about race. And it's news to me that black men are the only people in this country that take offense to people disrespecting their parents. What's amazing to me is that a champion of race like Whitlock seems to allows fuel the stereotypes rather than seek the reality. Well, not that amazing. It's what he does. The "thug" culture, which is so reviled by minorities, thrives on ideas such as don't-talk-about-my-mama.

Most stereotypes cannot be avoided. Fried chicken and watermelon simply taste good, eat as much as you want. And you should feel anger at anyone stepping up to your mother. Fact is, we all feel that way. To corner the market of loving your mom and act as if it's a higher transgression because it's happening to you is what causes contempt, from both the majority and minority. Injustice is injustice. Cuban was wrong, not because Mrs. Martin has dark skin, but because his actions are indefensible in and of itself.

And I'm just getting started.

He's a billionaire owner who should be well above mixing it up with
fans.

The difference between (Ron) Artest and Cuban is a few billion dollars and
a fair complexion.

There are two different kinds of people. Those who think Cuban is a loudmouth, and those who are glad to see "one of them" owning a major sports team. Most of the time, I fall into the latter group. In this instance I fall into both. Cuban was wrong, and it was his loudmouth persona that made him say the things he did. But I don't set him to a higher standard because of his bank account, and I enjoy the fact that an owner can still be himself (even if that means we have to experience his asshole-ish ways). And by no means do I think he deserves different treatment because he is white, as Whitlock clearly states above. I mean, could you imagine if Tony Kornheiser or Rick Reilly said that Mo Cheeks needs to approach white refs in a different way than Phil Jackson because he was black? J-Dubb would be all over that one.

And one more thing:

I was shocked Wednesday night when Charles Barkley and Chris Webber pretended
that Cuban's apology was enough justice. Sir Charles and C-Webb sounded like
Cuban enablers. They must all play in the same charity golf events.

That's right boys and girls, Barkley and Webber are Uncle Toms! The fact that they didn't immediately join Team Black is proof enough that all their tee-times with The Man have turned them from FUBU to J. Crew. Ridiculous. There is no bigger divider in the world of sports than Jason Whitlock. He draws the lines, he makes you choose a side. Disrespect is different if the two parties have different skin. He does his small part to kill any progress of race relations that has been built in the last few decades. It's as if he is uncomfortable with equality. He commentates on an industry that is minority-dominated, but cannot come to grasps that a white/black confrontation is just a human/human confrontation.

The seeds of discontent and chaos take root in the absence of justice.

Actually, they take root in the presence of hate and ignorance. Two things that consume the public persona of Whitlock, and garner a bank account much closer to Mark Cuban's than yours or mine.

Brett, don't go away mad, just go away

2009-05-11T15:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not a Packers fan, and I will never be able to express what their emotions are or what the legacy of Brett Favre will mean to them in the years to come. From what I hear, they range from homicidal anger to cynical distance, so who really knows what Favre fans fell. Hell, they probably don;t even know themselves. Which makes this whole scene interesting (for once). Nobody has confused, alienated and infuriated a fan base quite like Favre has. And my feelings have subtly gone from boredom to fascination.

What's noteworthy here is that for the first time, a superstar could turn his fans against him because of nothing more than indecisiveness. What's fueled Favre's retirement/comeback/retirement/comeback isn't some Madhoffian grab for money or clash of heads with management, but a honest-to-God confusion on what to do with his life. Unfortunately for him, he is a star at the highest level, and his somewhat embarrassing lack of decision making is in front of the world to see. And his image of a backwoods tough-guy gunslinger is morphing into that of a neurotic, spoiled golden boy whose life is as disoriented as a teenage girl's. And this, above all else, is extremely sad to witness.

It's no longer about whether he can, wants to, or should still play. And it's not about Favre playing in the NFC North, or betraying Packers fans. It's about destroying a once untouchable image that Favre and the media have created. It's a superhero coming down to Earth. Whatever the dilemma is, it's on public display. A fragile mind further being crushed under the weight of mass scrutiny.

Most importantly, it sure as hell ain't football.

Just Manny Being Like Everyone Else

2009-05-08T07:52:00.000-07:00

Like most people with boring, unfulfilling jobs, I find myself spending roughly 5-7% of my time at work day-dreaming about what I would do if I won the lottery. Part of this fantasy is imagining my reaction to instantly becoming a millionaire. Would I flip out and run the streets naked and laughing? Perhaps I would would break down and cry in a fit of joy. And maybe, just maybe I would show up to work the next day as drunk as Dudley Moore in 'Arthur', walk into my boss's office, and happily sing "Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye" while urinating on his carpet. Yeah, I have a lot of downtime.

Which got me thinking; what would my reaction be to hear any baseball player of the past two decades tested positive to steroids. Manny Ramirez was one I thought I would drop my jaw over, but in reality, I merely shrugged and went about my day. So would anyone one name surprise me? Here's one: Greg Maddux.

Now, considering Maddux was a precision pitcher and not a rocket arm, there's somewhat like a 1% chance he used. But as Lloyd Christmas once said, so you're telling me there's a chance. And if Maddux was doped up, EVERYONE was doped up. That news would rock baseball's foundation as much as the initial steroid stories did. But Manny? Another one bites the dust, construction on the new wing of the Hall is already underway. That's what this whole bloody mess has become; a separation of stats. We can no longer compare Manny to Aaron or Clemens to Ryan. Until all of these players are retired and out of the picture, baseball will exist in a bubble and will be judged as such.

Just don't tell me that Greg Maddux was juiced. That would be worse than performing my "Na Na Hey Hey" dance with last week's Powerball numbers.

Tony Gonzales : Kansas City Folk Hero

2009-04-24T08:56:00.000-07:00

The entire Kansas City metro area is at DEFCON 5. Suicide watch is on, pharmacies are running out of Xanax. Sports shops look like Old West ghost towns. Citizens are walking around aimlessly with a cold, lifeless stare in their eyes, as if they're extras in a George Romero movie. Things have gotten so bad that people were actually seen in the Power and Light District wearing untucked shirts. My god, the apocalypse. What has happened to my fair city?

Of course. Tony Gonzales has been traded. And the inevitable has begun; Chiefs fans are starting to question Lord Scott Pioli and his Patriot ways. How dare he run the most beloved athlete in KC out of town! The Chiefs might as well pack it in for 09-10. Hell, the 2nd round pick we got for him is for next year's draft anyways. Isn't ironic that a Patriot seems to show no loyalty at all? Might as well pay attention to the Royals.

Except, you know, that this was the RIGHT move. Actually, it was the right move last year, where King Carl put the amount of butts in the seat as a priority over number of wins. Where Gonzo would have warranted multiple draft picks. Where the youth movement could have started a year earlier. But we couldn't let go of Tony G. So when the win total plummeted down to two, we ran Carl out and cried for a GM that would make the necessary sacrifices to build a winner.

Well guess what Chiefs fans, that man is Scott Pioli, and he is doing what's necessary. Letting go of Gonzales, bring in Matt Cassel, and probably trading down on Saturday is what needs to be done. he has no sympathetic loyalties to this team, and that is a good thing. Tony didn't want to be here, as he expressed numerous times. He, like most Kansas City sports fans, doesn't want to wait for a team that is rebuilding. He wants to win now. And he doesn't care if it's in a Chiefs jersey or not. Gonzo is just like every other athlete, not some saintly super-performer who catches touchdowns by day, and saves babies from burning buildings at night. He is no more loyal than anybody else.

When it comes down to it, Gonzales and Pioli only care about one thing; winning. And the only way either of them was going to get what they want was to part ways. This is how it works. Throughout the entire Peterson Era, there was nothing but bitching about how the Chiefs never went over that hump. Well, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, which is what Pioli is doing now. And look, the fans are bitching about that now. You can't have it both ways.

I wish Tony Gonzales all the best with Atlanta. I'm sad to see him go, but it had to be done. Hopefully Chiefs fans can start to realize this and understand that it's going to be a rocky road to the top, but man, it's worth it.

Angels and Devils

2009-04-17T14:00:00.000-07:00

The early 2009 MLB season has been plagued with deaths. Harry Kalas passing away swept sadness over the league and fans. Upon hearing Mark Fidrych's death, there was a collective "hmm, that's too bad, that guy was awesome". But the loudest responses were those of anger geared towards Andrew Thomas Gallo, the man who crashed into and killed Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart.

Outside of the Los Angeles area and of deep baseball circles, nobody knew who the hell Adenhart was. But the outrage over his death makes you think that he was some kind of sports icon. Don't get me wrong, the whole scene was and is tragic and unfortunate. What I can't understand is, well, why anybody cares.

What seems to get everybody hot under the collar is that Gallo was drunk behind the wheel. And drunk driving is so unforgivable that Gallo's family has had to move upon receiving death threats. All you have to do is look at some of the comments from ESPN readers.

If this Family had done a better job or raising this kid....he wouldn't have grown up to be such a screw up murdering idiot.

he's a drunk scum bag

He should be the one dead

I hope he burns for this, period.

And on and on. Which is funny (though not funny ha-ha), considering this is coming from fans of a league that approved Coors Field and Busch Stadium. Where beer flows more than any other sport. You can't watch a baseball game without seeing roughly 2,000 Bud Light commercials. Many parks have beer gardens. Beer, beer, beer. Drink, drink, drink. Have a safe ride home.

Now I know, promoting drinking doesn't promote drinking and driving. I'm not saying it does. But sports is alcohol-fueled entertainment, and any crime that involves booze probably shouldn't be further demonized by sports fans of all people. Adenhart's death was horrible, and Gallo will get what's coming to him through the justice system. Just stop acting like this was a bigger tragedy than every other drunk-driving death in this country just because it hit our little world. Before that fateful night, nobody knew who Adenhart was, and it's unfortunate that his legacy will be one that is fueled by hate by the sport's own drunken fans.

Play ball.

NBA Playoffs = Kobe vs Lebron

2009-04-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

Only two words matter in this year's NBA playoffs: Kobe and Lebron. It would take something magical for anything other than a Lakers vs Cavaliers Finals. With Boston out of the picture due to the loss of Kevin Garnett, and everybody in the West out due to lack of talent, the road is paved for a Cleveland/L.A. championship. So, what the hell are we supposed to watch until then?

There is absolutely nothing to look forward to this year. Maybe the Cavs/Celts series (if there is one) will be entertaining, but that's purely from a "what is going to happen?" standpoint. The reality points to something more like a five game series not has little to no drama at all.

So we must all wait for what we really want; the MVP race really determined on the court, the changing of the guard theme, the last chance for Cleveland to hold on to James, etc. It's just all to perfect. Much better than the weak attempt at dusting off the Lakers/Celtics rivalry, which hasn't really existed in decades. And anything is better than a Spurs/Team X series.

The thing I'm looking forward to the most is how the loser in the MVP race shows up. Will Kobe be pissed that everyone is crowning King James while he's still the best player in the NBA? Or will LeBron feel slighted that he hasn't been crowned anything yet, even if he's averaging nearly a triple-double? This is what intrigues me. It's almost as if whoever wins the MVP will be at a disadvantage.

This is what the 2009 NBA playoffs has to offer, and nothing more. The wait will be long, but there's a good chance that this time, it will be worth it.

Twitter and sports: a match made in cyberspace

2009-04-10T06:43:00.000-07:00

On its surface, Twitter brings nothing new to the table. The nucleus is based around a Facebook/Myspace status update, 140 characters or less, with little else going for it other than a background picture. It seems to offer nothing. Made famous by congressmen (so you know it can't be good), the site has been gaining speed based off the membership of one particular group of people; athletes.

If you have a David Byrne-esque questioning phase, first let me explain. Or better yet, let Twitter founder Biz Stone explain:

"I think the appeal there (with celebrities) is not only are they connecting with fans, but they're controlling their messaging. The tabloids aren't."

Granted, Stone there is referring to Demi Moore, not Dwight Howard. But the idea is interesting though. The most famous Twitterer, uh Tweeter, uh Tweet, whatever it's called, is Shaq. While most people will talk about The Big Shaqtus posting pictures of himself sleeping or shaving, the thing that struck me is instances where he'd give away tickets to fans via Twitter. The thought of someone as big as Shaq (status-wise, not literally) telling people "I'll be here, come get some tickets", is something completely different and somewhat fresh.

But where this really makes a difference is the "inside information" once so heavily guarded by the sports media is now open to the public. For example, where else could you have gotten word that on Tuesday night, Coco Crisp went out for some drinks with some friends and didn't get back to his hotel room until 6:00 am? It's the kind of thing we imagine beat writers and line-setters are privy to, and our exclusion is what lumps us together as fans. The "athletes-in-real-life" exposé is ours for the taking. Why read what some mid-life journalist's take on your favorite superstar is, when that same player can tell you himself?

Another subject brought on by Twitter, and more specifically the midnight conquests of lead-off men for the Royals, is that sports are turning back the clock. Upon telling the Crisp story (which I found interesting at the time for purely gambling purposes), the most common response was of positive nature. It reminded people of the good ol' days, when athletes played hard all day and partied harder at night. When they smoked and drank, not shot up in the locker room and wrote autobiographies in their thirties. Not to say Crisp is a throwback who can't say no to a drink or a line. And for all we know, athletes have never changed. But the coverage did, and with it, so did their image. But as Mr. Stone said, athletes get to write their own stories now, not Outside The Lines. And these stories hearken to the golden days of sports. Brett Favre isn't the average Joe-quarterback, but nearly every other QB in the league is. That's refreshing, and it makes sports in 2009 that much more watchable.

5 reasons why the Royals aren't this year's Rays

2009-04-08T13:54:00.000-07:00

If there's one thing nearly every sports writer has in common, it's that they have all proclaimed the Royals to be this year's Tampa Bay Rays. Well, as a lifelong citizen of Kansas City, I can tell you that this year's Royals aren't going to sniff the success that the Rays had. It pains me to say it. But here are 5 sobering facts that point to the bottom side of .500:

1. Not even last year's Rays were last year's Rays.

The thing that made Tampa Bay's run so remarkable is that nobody saw it coming. They were picked either fourth or fifth in the AL East by just about everyone. The fact that these same people are already crowning the Royals as AL Central champs disqualifies them from being the surprise of 2009.

2. The Rays had excellent pitching.

Tampa Bay was third in the majors with a team ERA of 3.82. KC was 22nd. Add the fact that Brian Bannister and Luke Hochevar are starting this year in AAA, Kyle Farnsworth and Horacio Ramirez are key pitchers, and there's legitimate fears that neither Gil Meche, Zack Greinke or Joakim Soria will pitch as well as they did in 2008, then this year's pitching staff is shaping up to be worse than last year's.

3. Joe Maddon was the AL Manager of the Year

It takes a great skipper to turn the losing culture around. The jury is still out on Trey Hillman., though a verdict may come swiftly. One day into the 2009 season, Hillman's decision to leave right-handed Farnsworth in the game to face righty-killer Jim Thome - which turned into the game losing three-run homerun - has Kansas City up in flames already. He hasn't shown any signs of being able to successfully manage a game, not to mention he's done next to nothing in turning our young players into pros. Which brings us to...

4. The Rays' young talent was ready to play. Now.

Evan Longoria won AL Rookie of the Year. B.J. Upton is a star. David Price was the savior of the postseason. The Royals' young guns? Alex Gordon and Billy Butler have been busts thus far. Hochevar has been sent to Omaha. Only Zack Greinke has performed well, and he has the psyche of a bipolar teenager hooked on meth who has recently been dumped, so we'll see how long that lasts.

5. The 2008 Rays were the exception, not the rule.

We loved the story last year because of how strange it all was. Unlike other sports, professional baseball makes it harder for the down-and-out teams to rise to the top. Every year gives us the same old teams who throw money around like Pacman Jones, leaving the Royals of the world with only the hope of getting good prospects from mid-season trades. Good prospects who will in turn become trade bait. I don't expect a worst-to-first run to happen any time soon. And even if it does happen, all signs point away from Kauffman Stadium.

Patriot Games

2009-04-03T08:39:00.000-07:00

The 21st century is a time of overexposure and excessiveness. If there is even an inkling of desire for anything from anybody, the powers that be will stop at nothing to recreate what is deemed as profitable. Scary Movie's success bred the likes of Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, and whatever parody suck fest Hollywood spurts out annually. Survivor's ratings fueled television networks to replace creative thinking with reality shows. But in the sports world, the success of the New England Patriots has created a copycat league, so much so that the mere mention that you've visited Boston on your resume makes you a hot commodity.

First it was Romeo and Charlie. The two "genius" coordinators who banked on the Patriots' winning ways by landing head coaching jobs themselves. Crennel has since been canned, and Weis is seemingly running the once proud Notre Dame program into its own hallowed ground. This should have been enough to deter the popularity of Belichick clones. However, Eric Mangini landed the Jets job after being The Hoodie's mentor. After one good season and one bad Sopranos cameo, Mangini was fired after crumbling Favre's last season.* All is well though, as Mangini has now replaced Crennel as head coach of the Cleveland Browns.

And the train keeps rolling. The Chiefs hired Scott Pioli to save the franchise and build a Foxboro West at One Arrowhead Drive. Pioli's first move was to transplant Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel to Kansas City, starting the ball on his own mini-Patriots. And the Chiefs fans couldn't be more excited. Staying in the division, the Broncos fired Mike Shanahan for the uber-young Josh McDaniels, following the creed that if it's been under Belichick, it must be money. And what has Josh done in his very little time in the mountains? He has successfully run pro-bowler Jay Cutler out of town.

I'm completely, utterly, 100% on Cutler's side. He's proven to be a solid quarterback in the NFL. But McDaniels wanted more Patriots, less Broncos, and tried to get rid of Cutler to make room for his boy Matt Cassel. Cutler was upset, as he should have been. After a bunch of "he said, he said", conflicting reports and VH1-style drama, Denver shipped their franchise quarterback to Chicago.

Maybe it's time that the New England Experiment grinds to a halt. Season after season, the idea of recreating the Belichick dynasty has produced nothing. After all, the Patriots got to where they are by doing things differently from other teams, not copying them. We need a new model.

Enough with the economy, stupid

2009-03-30T16:23:00.000-07:00

What do Dominoes, Charles Schwab, car companies, the President and sports writers have in common? They're all using the black hole that is our economy to sell us their product. Pizza companies and brokers use it in the obvious ways, Obama uses it to sell his plans, and the sports writers of America use it as a gag to get you to read their columns. And it's getting really, really old.

Front page of ESPN on Monday promotes an article by baseball writer Jayson Stark which starts off with an 'enough is enough' cry about MLB's struggle during this recession. Finally. Except, he does exactly what everyone else is doing; using the economy as the backdrop to their otherwise weak attempt at expertise.

The basis of the article is to, I think, rate the most notable players of the game. This is done by breaking them into groups like "The All-Money Player Team", The All-Bear-Market Player Team", "The All-Most-Active-Stocks Player Team", and well, you get the idea. That's right, the best way to stop talking about the economy is to use it as an outline to your own column. Somehow, I think it misses the point.

And it's not like there is anything to actually gain from this market-laden rubbish. Writing about who the best team of all #11's would be (The All-Chapter 11 Team) or who has money-related names (The All-Moneyball-Name Team) is hardly expert analysis, and surely isn't worth the front page headline (I think there's some kind of basketball thing going on right now). It is the pinnacle of laziness.

So please, stop with the economy gimmick. Fans are already gruesomely reminded every time we open our paychecks, see ticket prices or buy a beer at the park, so stop reminding us when we're trying to enjoy life's biggest distraction, and start reminding us why the Worldwide Leader keeps your wallet stacked.

I enjoyed this 2009 MLB preview from Bleacher Report much more.