Unless Your Team Is In It, It's Not About The Game

Last year's Super Bowl happened to be a fantastic game.   It was great action all the way to the end.  But generally, the Super Bowl really isn't about the game itself.

Other than Super Bowl two years ago, between my Bears and the Colts, where I actually cared who won the game, the Super Bowl is about having fun with friends.  It's about enjoying your favorite guy foods, having some brews, and enjoying yourself.  Essentially, it's a holiday for men.

Seriously, can you remember specifics of most Super Bowls?  Unless you're name is Al Michaels or Chris Berman, probably not.

So when you watch the game tomorrow, unless you're a Steelers or Cardinals fan, just enjoy the fact you have an excuse to sit around with your friends, eat wings and pizza, drink some beer and enjoy.

Because hey, when else can you do this and have it be an accepted practice any other time of the year?

Ask your girlfriend or wife or significant other any other time to go out on a Sunday to watch a sporting event with the guys.  See how that goes for you.

Take advantage of tomorrow.  Those of you who can't get enough football, this is your last shot until the crappy preseason action in August.  

Enjoy it now.  Enjoy the game.  And eat some wings.

Who's Going to Watch This? Not Me

If it was on at a regular time, I might give it a whirl.  But the fact that it's on at 3:30 AM Eastern, (2:30 AM Central), really takes away any desire I might have to watch the Australian Open Final.

It's kind of a shame.  If there is any tennis match I'd actually want to watch, it would be a match between the two best players in the world.  Roger Federer will battle Rafael Nadal in the wee hours of the morning Sunday.

Granted, Nadal is apparently so physically and mentally exhausted from the matches prior to the Sunday final that the experts are picking Federer.  Worse yet, it appears Nadal has a hand injury that could hamper his abilities as well.  

This is a match with history riding on it, though.  This is the first time the two are meeting on a hard court to decide a grand slam final, and if Nadal wins, he would have beaten Federer on all three surfaces.  Even more historic, however, is that if Federer wins, he'll tie Pete Sampras for the most grand slam wins all-time (14).  

So the intrigue is there, for any fan of sports.  If only it wasn't at such a ridiculous time.  For people like me, who are less than casual fans of tennis, it's a shame this match couldn't be live at another time.  If more people could watch it, it could have helped the sport get back in the forefront of the sports world.

Instead, it'll go on while we're all sleeping through it.

Like Em or Hate em, They Are There For A Reason

I'm guilty of this.  So are many others.

As sports fans, we're often the harshest critics on those who broadcast sports for us.  We often nitpick at every comment they make.  We expect a lot from them, and we expect everything they say to capture the moment perfectly.

As someone who studied sportscasting in college, and as someone who aspires to be one full time at some point, I'm fascinated by what they say, how they say it, and how they conduct the broadcast.  And one thing I've learned about the profession: it's hard.  

Not many think so, at least from my experience.  Most people think, "describing and discussing a sporting event, ugh, that's real hard."  Listen, I'm not comparing it to brain surgery, but I'm saying it is more difficult than people think.  The people paid to do this for a living are entrusted with big money television and radio events, and are expected to make them informative and entertaining for a mass audience.

Since everybody is exposed to it constantly, everyone seems to think they could be a broadcaster.  Everyone thinks they can do it better than those currently paid to do it.

There are blogs like "Awful Announcing" and posts like this on Yahoo Sports.  Everyone is always quick to trash the guys in the plum positions, constantly taking cheap shots at them and constantly running their names through the mud.  They're easy targets.

After all, it's not like by criticizing a network broadcaster, they'll tell you, "then why don't you give it a try, and see how you do".  Why don't they?  Because they know most of us wouldn't be able to handle a minute.  Most of these guys have a tremendous confidence about them, and a tremendously thick skin, because they know that everything they say will eventually be scrutinized by bloggers, and worse yet, their colleagues often.

Here's my suggestion to all those who do this constantly:  relax.  Lay off.

By saying this, I'm not saying that there aren't times when it is completely fair to criticize a broadcaster.  I think you can criticize a broadcaster for being unprofessional, or for making critical fact errors in a broadcast.  If anything, we should expect that those being paid to bring us these games are prepared and take their jobs seriously.

But doesn't it get tiring to just bash these people because there's no repercussion to do so?  

It's like an American League pitcher throwing at his opponent.  It's much easier when you know you don't have to get in the batters box later in the game.

These guys are chosen because they have been successful in the past.  Those on the network level have been doing this for a long time, and big time executives must think they're good.  After all, these guys are the liaison between the network and the public.  It's not like these guys aren't chosen extremely carefully.  The business is subjective, sure.  So naturally we'll prefer some broadcaster's styles versus those of others.

But until you've tried it yourself, and you appreciate what these guys are doing, don't be so quick to criticize.  It's getting old at this point.

As Usual, They Got It Wrong Again

Every single year, in every sport, there's a player or two that is some how, some way, left off an All-Star game roster.  Now, I know that a lot of players say they don't care.  A lot of fans say (and they're right, largely) that it doesn't matter, who cares?

Well even if we're operating under the assumption that no one cares, and it doesn't mean that much, there's just certain levels of stupidity that even I can't tolerate. 

You could make honest cases for Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Jason Terry, Paul Millsap, Rajon Rondo and others.  

But, let's be fair here, just as easily you could also make solid cases against each of them.

Allen only is scoring 18 ppg, and two other Celtics made the team.  Carter is having a great season, but how many Nets can you take when they're playing as poorly as they are?  Melo's missed about a month, and even so, his numbers aren't staggering by any stretch.  Terry's a 6th man that's putting up a great scoring season, but others on the team have better overall numbers.  Paul Millsap is having a solid season, no doubt, but, there's better players at his position that didn't make it.  Finally, Rondo's has truly had an up-and-down season and though most of it has been up, he just isn't playing better than the other points on the roster.

The issue I have is the blatant one, the biggest one, literally.  One Shaquille O'Neal, being selected as a reserve.  Forget the fact that The Big Cactus or The Big Aristotle or The Big Bad Contract Situation or whatever he calls himself nowadays doesn't even always play on back to back nights.  Forget the fact that he's only averaging 18 points a contest.  Forget basically everything about him.  The issue isn't him, so much as whose spot he is taking.

Why, under God's green earth, Al Jefferson wasn't selected is so far beyond my normal, human, non-NBA-insider's mind that I struggle to even finish this post because my brain hurts so much.

Consider that Jefferson is only one of three humans in the NBA that average at least 20 points and 10 rebounds a game.  Consider further that of these three (the other two are in the game, by the way--Duncan and Howard), he is averaging the most points per game, by three.  Consider even further that some how last year, despite averages over over 20 and 10 at the break, he also wasn't selected.  

The only possible explanation I can think of is that his inclusion in the game would be representing the worst team out of any of the other selected players.  Still, the Wolves are 7-3 in their last ten, and frankly, aren't very good.  Not all Jefferson's fault.  

How this has happened twice now, is simply astonishing.  Jefferson, at only slightly above 2 mil a year could be the biggest bargain in sports right now, but he won't be an All-Star.  

Why?

 

I have no clue.

The Biggest Story of Baseball's Spring Training? Not the WBC...

When March 2nd rolls around, the most fascinating story in baseball will not be the World Baseball Classic.

Nor will it be your favorite baseball team training in Florida or Arizona.  Nor will it be where big named free agents like Manny Ramirez will sign.  

It will be Barry Bonds' perjury trial.  And if that's not intriguing enough for you, ex-teammate Bobby Estalella (and admitted steroid user) will reportedly testify against him in the proceedings.

I'm not a Court TV guy, although I did watch the Illinois State Senate impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich Thursday afternoon.  But this will be great television.  

Finally we'll see that scum bag Bonds get what he deserves.  He'll go to jail for cheating and lying.  We can finally put the famed asterisk next to his home run record of 762.  We can go back to calling Hank Aaron's 755 blasts the real career home run mark.  

Court proceedings are slow, so it's not like we weren't going to eventually see this trial come for the fairly unpopular slugger.  But it is long enough after Bonds retired, er, didn't have a choice but not to play since no team risked signing him in 2008, that we finally need some closure.  As a diehard baseball fan my entire life, seeing Bonds hit blast number 756 off Washington's Mike Bascik was one of the more unnerving moments I have had as a fan.  

Hopefully, soon after the March 2nd trial begins, we can finally put an end to Barry Bonds' records in baseball.

It's sad really.  The guy was one of the most tremendously talented baseball players I've ever seen.  As someone in my early twenties, there are few players I have ever watched that I marveled at as much as Bonds.  On his own merit, prior to his run with steroids, he was a good enough player by a long shot to earn a ticket to Cooperstown.  His career statistics look like those of a video game slugger that you've simulated ten seasons with.  They're insane.

But he was always a bad guy.  He was never a likable player you could rally behind.  Even when he was breaking records, he never had the adoration (except for in San Francisco) that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa had in their magical (albeit steroid induced) home run race in 1998.  His accomplishments later in his career left a sour taste in the mouths of baseball fans across the globe.

So I'm ready for the demise of Barry Bonds.  He deserves whatever sentence he eventually earns in court.  And March 2nd, I'll definitely be watching the trial.

Say It Ain't So Joe

The only question I have is, why?

Why now?  Why ever?  Did you need the money?  Did you find yourself lacking that hot, white New York spotlight?

What is the motivation for writing this book, especially now, only a year removed from your glorious run (and not-so-glorious ending) with the Yankees?

Torre can't need the dough, lord knows he does enough State Farm crap to pay for food for his family.  Coaching in LA isn't like New York, but it's close.  

As a Yankee fan and pseudo-journalist, I will say I'm legitimately intrigued by the contents of the book.  Johnny Damon a bad teammate?  Secret meetings with Carl Pavano and Randy Johnson?  It's certainly filled with intrigue.  As a future reader, the only worry I have is that, like so many Jim Carrey films, the book has already told me all the good parts in the preview.

What has to bother both fans of and those involved in the Yankees organization is that for years, Torre's big thing was the confidentiality of the locker room.  It was a safe space, and he never spoke bad about players.  Torre would go to bat for all of "his guys", no matter what.  Now, just a year later, he's out dishing dirt on seemingly all of them.

Which is the real Joe Torre?  The lovable one from his days with the Yankees, playing the role of the grandfatherly star/ego handler, or the seeming traitor behind "The Yankee Years".  Time will tell.

Fundamental Basketball, A Beautiful (and Collegiate) Thing

People always say that one of the main reasons they like college basketball over pro ball is because it's a more fundamentally sound game.  

Typically, I tend to find that line of reasoning rather tired.  Maybe it's because I'm jaded, coming from a school in Syracuse where one-on-one ball is not only often practiced, but seemingly encouraged.  I wouldn't say I'm Billy Packer, but I watch enough college ball to know that, just like they do in the pro's, there are teams that don't play "team" ball.  

But, every once in a while, you'll see a play that will make you smile.  That is, if well-designed plays against number one ranked teams in college basketball do it for you.  Whatever it says about me, I grinned.

After Gerald Henderson hit a jump shot (seemed to me like it was the first of the night for him) on the previous possession, the Demon Deacons found themselves not in possession of the lead for the first time in the second half.  A Duke traveling call later, Wake inbounded the ball to James Johnson for a game winning layup.  Yes, layup.  In its description, doesn't sound too pretty?  Sounds more like just awful defense from Duke, not smile-inducing fundamental play.

However, take a look at the highlights.

Who ever is doing this highlight says something like, "where's the defense?", but that's not the issue.  What happened here was, Wake coach Dino Gaudio drew up a gorgeous play.  

Basically, everyone in the gym thought Jeff Teague was getting the ball, so the play should appear to be setting screens for some sort of shot for the number 2 ACC scorer.  And, at first, that's what you get. 

Four players spaced evenly, lined up parallel to the basket, from side to side.  Teague started closest to the benches which had him furtherest away from the inbounder.  He ran through the lane, off screen after screen, and as he got through the second, the would-be third screener popped towards the basket.  The genius in the play is in its deception, obviously.  All of the Duke players so blindly concerned with Teague, they forgot one of the most important tenets of the game:  protect your own basket.  

Is it the most gorgeous thing you'll ever lay eyes on?  I should hope not.  But, it does reinforce the idea that college basketball is fundamental basketball.  If only for a night.

Charlotte a Threat in the East?

NBA teams used to see the Charlotte Bobcats on theirt schedule and breathe a sigh of relief. Since their inception, the expansion Charlotte franchise has been a push over that has seen many bright young college talents come in and fail to take the team to new heights.

Maybe those days are over now.

The Bobcats aren't having a great year by any means. They're just 19-26 this year and they're in fourth place in the Southeast division. Yet they're only a game-and-a-half out of a playoff spot in the top-heavy Eastern Conference.

Charlotte has won six of its last ten games, and is 13-9 in conference play. However, they haven't learned yet how to defend their home court, as they're just 13-13 at the Time Warner Cable Arena. Furthermore, they really haven't learned to win on the road yet, as they're just 6-13 away from home.

But they're quietly building a decently impressive resume, which includes a win at the Staples Center against the Lakers in double overtime last night. It was only the fourth home loss for the Lake Show this season.

They have also beaten Detroit on the road. They beat Portland at home, and beat Phoenix by a whopping twenty-two in Charlotte. They also beat Boston at home earlier this month. Since a 5-10 start to the season, Charlotte is 14-16 since. It's not earth-shattering by any stretch. But when you consider the team has never won more than 33 games in any season since their inception to the NBA (2004-2005), if they play like this the rest of the way they could make the playoffs.

That would be a huge deal in Charlotte.

Larry Brown is getting a young team to learn to play with one another. They have six players averaging double digit point totals. Gerald Wallace is putting up solid numbers on the wing. The addition of Boris Diaw has added some size and presence down low, and Emeka Okafor continues to be a solid NBA center. Oh, and Raymond Felton is starting to show the promise that he flashed when he came out of North Carolina.

They finally have the pieces in place to be a contending NBA team and no longer a joke. They have compiled a lot of young talent year after year and with the addition of a couple veterans the talent is starting to blossom. They're not good yet, per se, but with the way things are going don't be surprised if Charlotte earns the right to get blown out by Boston or Cleveland in the first round of the playoffs this year.

The Bobcats are no longer a team to take lightly in the NBA.

Hump Day Headlines

In this week's Hump Day Headlines, we discuss power crazy football executives, home court perfection, Kelvin Sampson, and Super Sunday...

• Good for LaDainian Tomlinson. He wants to return to San Diego despite the fact his General Manager is one of the biggest blowhards in sports. This he said in an interview in Tampa on ESPN's "Jim Rome is Burning". Chargers GM A.J. Smith mocked Tomlinson publicly this week when the All-Pro running back was quoted on his blog reiterating to media that he had no intentions of leaving the Chargers. Tomlinson then had to read that his GM made almost an identical quote regarding LaDainian's status to the San Diego Union Tribune. That had Tomlinson publicly confused and it lead linebacker Shawne Merriman to lash out at Smith, saying "That [stuff] doesn't help bring a Super Bowl to San Diego...and that [stuff] needs to stop, period. It needs to stop now." Smith has since responded by apologizing to L.T., telling the Chargers team website that it was important to him that Tomlinson knew "exactly what happened." So let me get this straight, A.J. You mocked your star player publicly, because you're an arrogant, power-crazed jerk, and now you're trying to save face? Good for L.T. that he wants to remain loyal to the Charger fans that adore him. But if that were me? I'd demand a trade.
• The Cleveland Cavaliers are unbeatable at home. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. With last night's win over the miserable Kings, the fighting Bron-Brons are now 21-0 at the Quicken Loans Arena. That is pretty remarkable. The next best home records in the NBA this year are the only two teams with comparable records to the Cavs overall. Boston is 22-2 at the TD Bank North Garden, and the Lakers are 23-3 at the Staples Center. The best home record in NBA History is 40-1, accomplished by the 67-15 Celtics at the old Boston Garden between 1985-1986. (The 95-96 Bulls that went 72-10, the best overall record in NBA regular season history, went 39-2 at the United Center.) If the Cavaliers keep up this torrid pace, they could be the most dangerous team in the playoffs this year. If you knew the team never lost at home, would you want to play there in a playoff series? I don't think so.
• Kelvin Sampson is appealing his five year ban from college basketball coaching, as reported by the Indianapolis Star. The former Indiana basketball coach was give then "show cause penalty", meaning that he can't get hired by another school unless that school convinces the powers that be that he should be allowed back. I guess assistant coaching the Eastern Conference's eight-seeded Bucks isn't doing it for Mr. Sampson. Sampson was pink-slipped in the first place because he and his assistants made more than 100 illegal phone calls to recruits. Apparently these recuits he racked up the phone bill trying to land aren't so great after all, considering IU basketball is the worst in the Big Ten this year. At 5-13 overall and as the only team winless in the conference (0-6), new coach Tom Crean will have some work to do. The program seems to be in good hands though, considering how well Crean's former club Marquette is doing this year.
• Oh yeah, I should probably mention something about the Super Bowl here since that is a recurring headline this week in sports. Yesterday we had the Media Day, which really wasn't all that great, but as Scott chronicled Tuesday, it can at least be entertaining. Here are the storylines I think you'll hear about most as we head towards Super Sunday: Larry Fitzgerald's father is a sportswriter who is covering his son at the game. The star wideout also attended college at Pittsburgh. Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer if he wins the Super Bowl? Mike Tomlin is the 3rd African-American coach to lead his team to the Super Bowl. Ken Whisenhunt is the former Steelers offensive coordinator. What ever happened to Matt Leinart? Are Anquan Boldin and offensive coordinator Todd Haley still fighting? The Cardinals are the sports team with the longest championship drought of any sports franchise other than my Chicago Cubs. (A tear just rolled down my face) Can the Cardinals cover the seven point spread? Get ready for Super Sunday...

Media Day, My Way

The week before each Super Bowl, the players from each team are trotted out and are met by masses of media members.  Some real, some not.  Some serious, some definitely not.  Some funny, some clearly not.

As something of a jokester myself, some of the media day questions I've enjoyed most have been the craziest, the funniest, the silliest questions.  There's only been one guy I've seen that's truly captured the essence of what media day should be (see below).  

If I was running things, these are just a few of the questions I'd ask if given the opportunity at one of these carnivals.

To an offensive lineman:

• Does it bother you that there's probably only five people that live within 700 miles of your home stadium that can identify you without a helmet on?

OR

• How far along are you?  In the pregnancy, how many months in?

To Larry Fitzgerald:

• At what point did you decide that the look you wanted to go for was the Predator look?  Also, did you speak with him (or, it, I guess?) about just jacking his 'do?

To Kurt Warner:

• Some of us are a little confused, and have something of an office pool going on back East.  How important of a role would you say God has played in your life, we weren't sure.  Feel free to go on as long as you please.

To Edge James/Anquan Boldin:

• If it was socially acceptable, would you clone yourself, then marry yourself so you could never stop looking at how great you are?

To Hines Ward:

• If your knee isn't that bad, why are you treating it like a madman for two weeks straight, and waking up at all times in the middle of the night?

To Ken Whisenhunt:

• OK, honesty time, what were you honestly thinking when Big Ben got into his motorcycle accident?

To Byron Leftwich:

• Let's say Ben gets hurt, how low would you say your chances are for success?  If I poured water on you, would you just grow into the ground?

To any one:

• Have you been to or plan to go to one of Tampa Bay's 43 wild and crazy strip clubs? (as opposed to the serious, business-approach ones elsewhere in the country)
• Both are dead, but who would you rather see alive, 2 Pac or Biggie?  
• What player in the NFL do you want to see get wrecked in the most non-life threatening way possible on a football field?  That isn't a wide-receiver...
• Do you think Shaq could play offensive line in the NFL?  
• What's the deal with this economy? (no, seriously, how hysterical would it be to hear a bunch of millionaires try to make it seem like things are going terribly for them too)
• If Barack Obama played football, what position would he play?  Would he be any good?  Would you take a free shot at him if he was coming across the middle on you?

Those are the sorts of things I'd like to see asked at Media Day.  It's the only day a year where the questions are not only expected to be off the wall, but are basically encouraged to be.  So, reporters, heed my advice and take advantage of the once-a-year freedom and ask some real questions.  Enough of this, "if you were a tree, what type of tree would you be?" nonsense.  If you want a moving picture example of the best version I've seen of a reporter taking advantage of a media day opportunity, take a look at this clip.

Now, that's how it's done.

My Favorite Super Bowl Ad

Now, this exact advertisement may not have appeared during the Super Bowl, but the line was so successful that spin-offs, such as this one, were created.
 

MSNBC listed their top-10 Super Bowl commercials, and also drops some business knowledge on the economic impact of the spots.

What are your favorites?

The AP Poll is Right, The ESPN/USA Today Poll is Wrong

If you never watch college basketball, start. But if you're unfamiliar, there are two competing polls that determine which teams are the Top 25 in the country. The bias teams receive from these polls often determines their NCAA tournament status, or at least within a seed or two, so neither poll can be taken lightly.

This week, the Associated Press Poll, better known as the AP Poll, accurately omitted Notre Dame from the Top 25. At 13-7 prior to Monday night's defeat at home to Eighth-Ranked Marquette, the Fighting Irish had the most losses among any Top 25 team. With the loss Monday to the Golden Eagles, the Irish now have eight defeats. Georgetown had the second most, with six, and they're ranked #25.

The ESPN/USA Today Poll, on the other hand, decided to rank Notre Dame 22nd in the country. That's despite the fact that the Irish didn't win a game last week, even though both games were against ranked teams. (@ #8 Syracuse, vs #3 Connecticut)

There are two reasons, in my estimation that the Irish still received some love from the voters of the ESPN/USA Today poll, even though the Irish has now lost four straight:

1) They're Notre Dame.

2) They lost to good teams.

That's it. For those of you who think that's enough reason to keep them in the Top 25, fine. Or as Dennis Green would say, "if you want to crown their ***, crown 'em!" But they are not at all deserving of that ranking.

Instead, they're overrated.

That's my take, anyway. But here's the argument for both sides of this, and you the reader can decide which you like.

The Case For Them:

Notre Dame has gone through a tough stretch, yes. But look at the teams they've played recently? Their last four games have been losses, true, but the Irish has lost to ranked teams each time. (@ #23 Louisville, @ #8 Syracuse, vs #3 UConn, vs #11 Marquette) And, Notre Dame beat Texas, albeit on a neutral floor, but Texas was #6 at the time. And, the Domers beat Georgetown, when they were ranked #11 at home by six. They've had some good wins, and they've weathered a brutal schedule that has had them face seven ranked teams already. This is definitely one of the Top 25 teams in America. They're only at this record because they play in arguably the toughest conference in the country. If Butler is in this group, we should be too. (Butler is #13)

The Case Against Them:

This is ridiculous! This team is 13-8. No matter what your schedule, you should be better than that to be ranked. And they say they're schedule is so tough, but if they were really that good, wouldn't they have more than two wins against ranked teams? 2-5 against the best competition is all you need to know. They shouldn't be rewarded for wins over Loyola Marymount or South Carolina Upstate. This team played North Carolina on a neutral site court and lost by 15. In the Dean Dome, you could understand it. But in Maui, a loss by 15? When you're supposed to be the #7 team at the time? They lost to Ohio State at home. They lost at St. Johns, a team that is 11-8. This team is only ranked because they were supposed to be good, and the media is slowly starting to learn they're not so good. Good teams win some of these games. Notre Dame is a talented team, but if they were Top 25 worthy they'd actually win some games where they're tested.

Where do you stand? Feel free to post a comment...

When Did Campaigning Become A Part Of The All-Star Game?

LaMarcus Aldridge, Rajon Rondo, Danny Granger, Al Jefferson, Devin Harris...

The list goes on.

These are just some of the players that have campaigns out there (either involving them or on their behalf by the organization) to try to get out the vote and get them into the NBA All-Star game.

When did this start? Don't these coaches and organizations have enough to worry about (uh, Indiana and Minnesota, I'm talking to you...) in the already arduous task of winning games? Isn't putting out a competitive product, and trying to defeat your opponent with a sound game plan enough? I guess not.

Though, despite my cynicism, some of these campaigns have been pretty good. For those of you not too familiar, here's a look at some of the more fun ones...

Chris Bosh, last year...

Again, I know they only play once a night, but, where are they finding the time to not only come up with these ideas, but film them as well? Jeez...

Al Jefferson, this year...The T-Wolves have sent out Al Jefferson-themed GPS systems to Western Conference coaches.  Included in the packages are highlight videos, road maps, and the fact that Big Al is one of only 3 humans averaging 20-10, and has the highest ppg of the trio (Duncan and Howard rounding it out).

Devin Harris...this year.  Politically-aware, humorous...and it has a Yi cameo (we can only pray he has a speaking role next time...)

How adorable is he?

Amar'e Stoudamire...this year.  Needs to brush up on his acting skills...The Shaq part though, priceless.

And lastly, the New Jersey Nets, again...Mostly ehh, but the Ryan Anderson blip, only white guy in there, is to die for.

Quickly...of these cats, who should make it?  Granger, Harris and Jefferson.  Numbers don't lie, Mr. Aldridge, 17 and 7 just ain't good enough.

New BERNing on Sports Podcast Available

In this week's podcast, Scott and I talk Super Bowl party food, Joe Torre's shot at the Yankees, and a new segment called "The Hail Mary".

Check it out by clicking HERE.

And, as always, you can find this podcast at anytime on the right of your screen in the red tab. Have a great week everybody! Enjoy the Super Bowl.

Maybe The Only Time Winning Will Get You Fired

A couple of weeks ago, the Covenant School and Dallas Academy girls' basketball teams squared off for what would appear to be a regular season matchup between two high schools in Texas.

Covenant's coach, Micah Grimes, had taken his school from 2-19 in his first year to state championship contenders last season.  This was his fourth year as head coach.

Not that out of the ordinary, yet.

Then, the game happened.  And Dallas Academy got absolutely wrecked.  We're not talking about a lopsided 30 point beating, or something similarly embarrassing.  No, this one tops the charts (and this comes from a kid that played on a team that lost once by 75).

Final Score:  100 to 0.  

I can't figure which is more improbable:  a girls' high school team scoring 100 points, or a girls' high school team not scoring any.  I'm not sure whether or not I'm supposed to be in awe or disgusted.

Apparently, the Covenant School knew exactly how to feel.  On Sunday, after Grimes posted a disagreement to the school's on-line apology to Dallas Academy, the school fired the fourth year coach. 

In a statement, Grimes maintains that despite the "wide-margined victory" (um, ya think?) his girls "played with honor and integrity and showed respect to Dallas Academy."  Yeah, right.  And Mark McGwire's brother cares more about his brother than selling a book.

How on Earth a team gets beat 100 to nothing is beyond my comprehension.  As bad as it is for the victorious coach, I'd have to imagine it's just as bad for the other side.  If I was coaching the team that was getting annihilated and I knew that we just weren't even close to good enough, it's goon squad time.  

It may not have worked out well for a certain Temple coach, but I wouldn't be having my girls hurt anyone.  Just rough 'em up.  Basketball isn't football but there has to be some level of pride.  You can't just go out there and let someone put up a century on you, while you can't get a single bucket to fall.  

Either way, mark this down in your calendar.  While all other coaches are getting fired for the normal offense of not enough winning, Micah Grimes has gotten the axe for doing too much of it.

I'm Trying To Watch This, But...

...I can't watch this coverage on Versus.

The NHL needs to get itself off Versus.  Immediately.

If you don't know what Versus is, it's a bizarre sports network that can sometimes not be found on your basic cable.  You sometimes can't even locate the channel it's so far down the list.  They show lots of outdoor shows, a show called "Sports Soup" and unfortunately, the NHL.

I'm not a regular watcher of this network, but I'm forced to watch it for the NHL All-Star weekend.  As a renewed hockey fan, I wanted to check out the five Blackhawks players participating in the weekend.  Instead of an enjoyable experience, as I expected, it has been more aggravating than anything else.

Yesterday, while watching the skills competition, they started festivities with the fastest skater competition.  Each of six skaters got to do one lap around the rink, with boundary markers show where they could navigate the ice.  Yet, the stopwatch graphic didn't work, and you couldn't tell how fast the skaters were skating until the broadcast team of Doc Emerick and Brian Engblom told you after the fact.  All you could see was a hockey player skating in a circle.  There was no suspense to see whether a record was broken or which skaeter was the fastest.  It looked like it was someone's YouTube video.

Still, I watched.  I watched as they showed the breakaway challenge, while never explaining what the skaters were supposed to accomplish.  They didn't show how much time was left until the players had five seconds left, nor did they tell you how much time they had.  So you couldn't gauge how quickly the players had to take their shots.  And it appears they're going to assume on all-star weekend they're only getting diehards to view the events.  Brutal.

But here was the kicker of the night.  Sideline reporter Chris Simpson (that's a woman) asked one all-star a question while using the word "sucks" in it.  I can see that from a talk show host, but not from a sideline reporter or a play by play guy.  She asked the player a question, "kinda sucks doesn't it?"  I don't remember the context, probably because I was so shocked by the usage of the word I blocked out the rest of the moment.

It's no secret the NHL has done a number of moronic things to decrease the popularity of their league.  But maybe the dumbest thing they ever did was associate with this terrible network.  There are students at college TV stations that probably watch this and think, "I'm good enough for this!"

Please, go back to ESPN.  I criticize them sometimes, sure, but they know how to put a sporting event on TV.

Why Records Don't Matter (In College Basketball)

Nearly ever team ranked in the Top 25 has an excellent record.  That's why they're ranked in the Top 25.

The top few teams have one loss.  The teams at the bottom of the rankings fit into one of two categories: either they are teams that no one thought would be there, so they have great records (#25 Illinois is 17-3), or they are teams that people expected to be better, haven't quite fulfilled expectations, but are still considered quality teams (#19 Notre Dame is 13-7).  So every team in that group is in the same ball park, generally.

Everyone always talks about records.  But the biggest difference between all of these teams is coaching.  Coaching determines the type of characters on a particular team.  Coaching determines philosophy on offense and defense.  Coaching determines how a player reacts when the pressure is on and a player relies on what has been drilled into him in practice by his coach.

That's why teams similar in record in college basketball can be completely different.  

They're records don't even begin to tell their stories.

(Yes, the conference a team plays in can have something to do with it.  An exceptionally talented team in a weaker conference can have a gaudy record that they might not have in a better league.  But generally speaking, in conferences of similar talent level, records are inconsequential.)

The best example of this, ironically, might be two teams that have the same colors.  Number 8 Syracuse (at least number 8 until the newest rankings come out Monday) is 17-4, while 25th-ranked Illinois is 17-3.  While they're separated by just one more Syracuse loss, they're completely different in how they're coached.  They got to their similar records in nearly opposite ways.

Syracuse is loaded with talent.  They might have enough talent that if they were better disciplined they could be the best team in the country.  Jonny Flynn and Eric Devedorf are former McDonalds High School All-Americans.  Paul Harris was a High School Jordan All-American.  They've got size on the inside with Arinze Onuaku and Rick Jackson, and the three-point shooter that every team needs in Andy Rautins.   It's that talent level that suggests to the voters that they should be among the top ten teams in the country by rank.  But they're undisciplined, they don't run an offense, and have lost three of their last four games because of it.

Illinois on the other hand is very disciplined, and lacks the talent of Syracuse.  It's debatable which player on the Fighting Illini is the best, between Demetri McCamey, Chester Frazier, or Mike Davis.    And neither player is really that good.  They don't have a player averaging more than 12.5 points per game (McCamey) and they don't have a player that appears to be equipped to play at the next level.  

But they look like a team poised to surprise people come March, thanks to their disciplined offensive and defensive approach, while Syracuse looks like a team poised to disappoint in the tournament.

It's hard to argue with the success of Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim.  The hall of fame coach has amassed 788 life time wins, which ranks him eighth on the all-time list.  The only names ahead of him are coaching legends: Bob Knight, Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp, Jim Phelan, Mike Krzyzewski and Eddie Sutton.  (And just in case you were wondering, those names are in order from most wins to least.)  Boeheim relies on his talent too much, however.  He puts too much faith in college kids to police themselves on the basketball court and to know how to set up a basket when needed late.  He often doesn't get the best out of his talent on a basis consistent enough to lead it deep into the NCAA tournament.  And with all the talent he stock piles on a yearly basis, Syracuse should be winning games in the tournament year after year.  They haven't won one in four consecutive tournaments.

Bruce Weber on the other hand doesn't have the track record of Boeheim.  He has only been a head coach for ten years.  After serving as an assistant at Western Kentucky in the 1979-1980 season, he was an assistant for the legendary Gene Keady for eighteen years at Purdue.  After a five year run at Southern Illinois where he lead the Salukis to the NCAA Tournament twice (once to the Sweet 16), he's been the coach at Illinois for just five years prior to this season.  He did lead the Fighting Illini to the National Championship in the 2004-2005 season, but he did it with Bill Self's recruits.  Now, in his sixth year, his recruits are finally there, and they're doing well.  He doesn't have the fanfare of a Boeheim, or even close.  But the mark of a Weber coached team is incredible discipline on both sides of the floor.

So when you try to compare a team that is supposed to be in the Top 25, like Syracuse, or a team not supposed to be there, like Illinois, the difference ultimately is which coach can get his players to respond best down the stretch.  While they have nearly identical records now, the team that finishes the season with the most success will likely be the team that is best coached.  Players ultimately win games in any sport, and must execute their game plans well enough to win.  But it's the coaches with the best game plans, especially in college sports, that ultimately leads their teams to victory.

Jim Boeheim has better talent than Bruce Weber.  And he has won far more games all time.  (788 for Boeheim, 248 for Weber)  But it is Weber's team, if both teams continue to play as they are, that will ultimately go further in March.   It's Weber's team that has the discipline and execution to get things done.

They're records right now, and later on, won't matter.

Hello? You Play To Win The Game?

The headline has nothing to do with the post, at least not in meaning.  But, what else do you think of when you think of Herm Edwards?

Herm was fired on Friday, for reasons that are quite obvious.  He's gone 15-33 in three seasons, he's practically ruined Larry Johnson's career (though arrogance and spitting in women's faces will also do it) by giving him such a heavy workload early on, and he's failed to develop any young quarterbacks.  Those are just among the failures.

No one is going to sit here or stand here or do anything to tell you that Edwards was or is a great coach.  He's a fun guy, players seem to enjoy him because he can relate as a former player himself, and he's good for a sound bite.  As a coach, on the field, not so much.

In his Jets days when he was at least competitive on the field of play, he was known for being way too close to the vest with his play calling.  In his Kansas City days, he was known for just being plain bad, for any number of reasons.

To many, I'd imagine, it was a head scratcher that he wasn't fired two years ago, after going 4-12.  So, on its surface firing him now isn't much of a big deal.  However, my question is, why specifically now, as in Friday, January 23rd?

Were the Chiefs waiting until all of the good assistant coaches had been scooped already?  Did they want the Steve Spagnuolo's and Rex Ryan's of the world to get hired, and then fire their coach?

What changed from say, November of 2007 to this time period that made it necessary to fire Herm now?  

I have none of the answers to these questions.  But, it's clear to me at least that when an organization makes a decision like this, boneheaded in its timing, it's just further proof of why they are a bad organization.  Good luck trying to convince Shanahan or Gruden to take over the reins there in KC. 

Good When He Wants To Be?

The buzz player in the NBA, before the LeBrons and Dwyanes and Carmelos, was a man that played north of the border.  Hailing from one of the more sacred institutions in college basketball, Vince Carter was supposed to be it.  The next big thing.

And for a while, he was.  For the first three years of his career, Carter dominated.  Dunking over people, jumping over people and then dunking on them, Carter was all over highlight reels.  He was a force and in some crazy circles because of his collegiate heritage, considered to be the next MJ.

Now, since his Airness has left the game, the public has been desperate to find some unwitting sole to fill his shoes.  No one can, no one will.  To ask Carter or LeBron or Wade or anyone else to do it is a bit much.  Still, Carter ultimately wilted under the enduring pressure to live up to his UNC predecessor.  But that wasn't what changed Carter into the man we see today.

No, it wasn't the pressure of being the next Jordan, or even all of his injuries.  Those two things contributed, sure, but the biggest issue came on a spring day in 2001.  Carter, staying true to a promise he'd made to his mother, had finished his requirements at UNC, and was going to graduate.  He wanted to walk with his classmates.

Only problem, it was the morning of an obviously enormous game for the Raptors---Game 7 of the Eastern Conference semis against the 76ers.  But still, Carter was assured that he'd be able to make it back from the ceremonies in time to play in the game.  He'd wind up missing the game-winner with 2.0 seconds left, leaving many to blame his frequent flyer miles as the reason for his poor performance.

For doing something that most athletes are condemned for not doing, Carter was punished in the public sphere.  His desire was questioned, his motives and "heart" as well. 

And so, since that point, the Carter we see now is a shell of himself.  He sleep walks through games, rehabs, and even seasons.  However, his greatness is proven in that he only once has averaged under 20 points per game, and has a career average of nearly 24 a game.  

So you may be wondering, who cares?  And if not that, why are you telling me this now?  Well, kind readers, I bring this to your attention because last night I watched VC play against the Spurs and he continued to remind me how great of a player he is when he wants to be.  Jordan railed against that cliche in a previous post, and I can't argue with him.  I hate when people say that, but it rarely is more true than with Vince Carter. 

He's one of the only players I've seen that can so effortlessly float through a game, barely making an impact, and then coming away with 25 points and 7 boards.  Then another night, drop near 40, and hit game tying and game winning shots.  

All this says about him is that he's maddeningly uninterested.  His numbers and effort this year remind us of how great he is, but yet he seems content to stay on a team building for god knows when.  

Great when he wants to be...Cliche, certainly.  But, in this situation, frustratingly true.

What Makes a Good Owner

As a sports fan, there is one singular characteristic I want from the owner of my favorite sports franchise: the relentless pursuit of a championship.

That's it.

All week long, as the sale of the Chicago Cubs becomes closer to a reality, the buzz around the Windy City has been whether apparent buyer Tom Ricketts will be a good owner for the team. Most fans want him to lower ticket prices, upgrade Wrigley Field, or add a Cubs regional sports network. They're glad he's a diehard fan who grew up around the ballpark and met his wife in the bleachers. That's all fine and dandy.

I don't care about any of that stuff. All I want is for him to put them in the best position to win.

It doesn't matter to me how much of a diehard he is. It doesn't matter to me if he met his wife in the bleachers, the nosebleeds, or behind a pole. And while it would be nice, it doesn't matter to me if he lowers ticket prices or upgrades Wrigley Field, so long as the primary objective is getting the Cubs to win.

The best owners in sports are the ones that consistently surround themselves with good people to ensure the constant success of the team. They don't have to be rowdy off-beat types like Mark Cuban, and definitely shouldn't be old and cheap like the late Carl Pohlad. They don't have to be polarizing figures like George Steinbrenner. But they should be constantly evaluating their product, and should be keenly aware that no matter what the most profitable scenario for any sports team is whether they're succeeding on the field.

Cubs bashers will point to the fact that they've stunk for years and continue to sell out the ballpark. That's true. But when they've won, albeit just division titles or a playoff series, the profits are through the roof. Ricketts has inherited a team capable of doing big things. It is his job to surround himself with the right people and provide the resources to take them to the next level.

If that means they have to add Jake Peavy's hefty salary via a trade? Fine. If it means another move? Fine. But all he needs to assure me as a fan is that he's committed to them competing for the Fall Classic every year.

Look at the the best run franchises in sports: the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cowboys, the Lakers and the Red Wings. The common characteristic for those teams is that they consistently pour money back into the on the field, court, or ice product to continue to reap the benefits of success. They'll gamble on a particular player if it means he could be the difference come the post season. If other teams stopped crying poor and took financial risks like these teams do, maybe they would be competing on these teams' level more consistently.

That said, some people will say it's not always about how much money you spend. "Look at the Yankees since 2000," they'll say. "They increase pay roll year after year but haven't won." Obviously there's a balance that must occur between overspending on players and investing in the draft and your farm system. That's true across all sports. But the common demoninator remains that the most successful teams, more often than not, spend what it takes to win.

I hope Tom Ricketts will do the same. And that's all I hope he does.

What Is The Point Of It All?

What does all of this tattle-telling do? What do we all get from this back and forth bickering nonsense?

Former players ratting out teammates, brothers dropping dimes on brothers. Trainers and confidants coming from out of the woodworks. And so I ask, where are we now?

Where are we after knowing all of this? How much different are our lives after the infamous Mitchell Report?

Players seem to take one of two paths. They either deny it and do so arrogantly (Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens) and are later found to be guilty. Or, they come clean, maybe cry, and are forgiven (Jason Giambi, Andy Pettitte, Marion Jones etc.).

I, for one, am tired of the whole charade. I don't want Congress involved any longer (concentrate on the more important things) or ever again. I don't want to watch some ga-gillionaire get on TV and either cry for forgiveness or wag a finger in my face like I'm a jerk for even thinking he did steroids or HGH or whatever.

My view on the game is already tainted. As Jordan mentioned, McGwire had already been convicted in the court of public opinion. But, the honest truth is, we all have players in our own minds, Mitchell Listed or not, that we think did steroids. Personally, there's about 20 or 30 players that I wouldn't be surprised to hear about having done something.

And so I ask, where do we all stand? Baseball's popularity's at an all-time high, people are flocking out to games in record numbers, and, despite a recession, teams are still spending money. Hell, the Cubs are about to be bought for nearly a billion dollars.

Does finding out that a certain player did steroids make you not want to watch the game? It would bother me, sure, but I'm not just going to stop my love. So, I beg, let's stop this. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss, and this is one of those times.

A lot of these guys messed up, and there's no defending that or making it right. But, after a while, it's time to move on. Until there is some real action taken on these players (like strike some records from the books or ban someone from the Hall), I'll be content being kept in the dark.

Brotherly Love

In the court of public opinion, Mark McGwire was found guilty of steroid use and cheating a long time ago.

There was the discovery McGwire was taking androstenedione during his record break season of 1998 when he hit 70 home runs. The controversy that followed was the validity of his records, and whether the drug later just referred to as "andro" really was a steroid. Turns out, technically it's not. And, andro was allowed by Major League Baseball at the time.

We found out a few years later that McGwire was in fact taking performance enhancing drugs, or at least, he was suspected of it. While it hadn't exactly been proven, McGwire testified under oath at a 2005 Congressional hearing probing into Major League Baseball's steroid problem. McGwire's body language oozed guilt, his facial expressions defined guilt, and his answers to questions lacked any substance, giving the impression that he was immensely guilty of performance enhancing drug use.

After that episode that murdered his already dwindling reputation, we find out this news today: McGwire's own brother Jay is writing a book detailing Mac's steroid use. It's name? "The McGwire Family Secret: The Truth About Steroids, A Slugger and Ultimate Redemption".

What a cosmic slap in the face: profiting off his brother's downfall.

"Mark is a man I think most would like to forgive because his reason wasn't nefarious--it was for survival," the proposal on his website states. "My bringing the truth to the surface about Mark is out of love. I want to live in truth to see the light, to come to repentance so he can live in freedom."

I'm sure Mark feels very loved right now.

Jay has successfully slung his brother through the mud one more time. He has only given further confirmation to something most of us already assumed. And it's not like McGwire hasn't already suffered consequences from his actions. While Mark was living quietly away from the limelight, as people were starting to forget about the man whose hall of fame votes are dwindling year by year, Jay has to bring this upon his former superstar brother. The two haven't even spoken for years. This is how Jay plans to reconcile with Mark? Publicly embarrass him again?

I'm not saying Mark McGwire is truly a victim here. McGwire deserves the flack he has taken for cheating the game of baseball and taking performance enhancing drugs. For those who will say "well, everyone was on steroids," that might be true. But that doesn't mean McGwire doesn't deserve blame. The fact is, he was breaking records. And in a sport where records are sacred, players who break them deceitfully should pay the price for their actions.

But who would have thought that the guy to finally out him would be his own brother?

That's some kind of brotherly love.

Back and Forth: 100th Post Edition: Big East or ACC?

Jordan:  For our 100th post Scott, on this momentous occasion, I say we go a little Back and Forth.  Shall we?  100 posts really has me pumped, considering were this little blog started just a month and a half ago.  But what also gets me pumped is a little college hoops discussion.  Everyone knows the two best conferences in college basketball are the Big East and the ACC.  But which is better?  We're both Big East alums and fans, but I've gotta go ACC here.

Scott:  Well before I get fully involved, knee deep in proving how wrong you are (again?), let me say it's been a fun century.

J:  It has.  Certainly has.

S:  Come on dude, how can you honestly tell me the Big East isn't better than the ACC?  Let's look at the Top-25 first, OK?

J:  Go ahead.

S:  OK.  I'm going to give your "North Carolina Division" some props.  Much needed.  1 and 2 in the country.  Great job.

J:  Thank you.

S:  But, outside of that, only two others are in the Top 25.  My conference (should I say, our conference before you became a Benedict Arnold) has eight.  EIGHT!

J:  True.  But as I eat my Eggs Benedict while debating you this morning, here's why the ACC is better.  The Big East is bigger, and has more teams available to be ranked in the Top 25.  Second, when you have the top TWO teams in the country, (Wake Forest, home of your idol Tim Duncan, and Duke) and you have a team in North Carolina which currently is ranked 5th but everyone and their mother thought might go undefeated this year, the cream of the crop is in the ACC.  The Big East has a lot of good teams, but the ACC's best are better than the Big East's best.

S:  Maybe so.  But here's the flaw:  Sure, Pittsburgh was upset already from their number one spot.  But your darling Demon Deacons were dropped last night too.  So you can kiss that number one ranking good-bye.

J:  True.  But when your Hoya Saxas went down to old Cameron Indoor Stadium for a classic Big East/ACC match-up, what happened?  The Dukies slapped them slapped them in the mug.

S:  Kind of like when the "and their mother" UNC squad got handled by Boston College on their own floor, no?

J:  BC is in the ACC, pal.

S:  Ok, so?

J:  So it means that a team at the bottom of the conference is still good enough to beat the best in the conference, showcasing its depth.  I doubt Jerry Wainwright's DePaul Blue Demons would come within twenty points of Marquette, Louisville, UConn or Pitt.  Same goes for your Rutgers squad in lovely Piscataway, or Bobby Gonzo's Seton Hall club.  

S:  Clever reasoning.  I like you.

J:  I like you too.

S:  Yet the same could be twisted to say the opposite.  The bottom tier squads in the ACC can beat the so-called best team any night, showcasing that the teams at the top really aren't as great as everyone thinks.  It's a matter of perception, clearly.

J:  Yes sir.

S:  Don't penalize those top teams in the Big East because the conference is too big.

J:  I'm not, but you and I both watch a lot of Big East basketball.  While the top teams are very good, do you see any particular Big East team as a favorite for the Final Four?  I see some teams I think are certainly talented enough to get there, but not one that seems like a lock.  In the ACC Carolina and the Dukies both look like Final Four teams the way they're playing this season.  Not to mention Wake, which despite their loss, was the last team in the country to drop a game.  And, when Carolina played Notre Dame (in the Maui Invitational) they beat them by 15 points.  The only thing the Big East is leading the ACC (besides number of ranked teams) is the number of family members who have charged the court.

S:  I don't know.  I think this year in college basketball is so wide open, I wouldn't be shocked to see either of those two teams making the Final Four, nor would I be surprised to see a team like Pitt or UConn make it.  So as far as the Final Four talk is concerned, I think we're a bit premature.  In fairness, it's not even February yet, so March talk seems a bit soon, no?

J:  It's never too early for that.  Just ask Joe Lunardi.  He's had "bracketology" out since probably August.  

S:  Anyway, in depth, we've got you.

J:  That point is true, yes.

S:  Top heavy, maybe the ACC is.  Maybe.  But the Big East is a better conference on the whole.

J:  But I say you judge a conference by its best.

S:  But here's the thing, as of a week or so ago, the Big East had the top team in the land.  And both conferences still have four teams in the top ten.

J:  True enough.  But so far, in the limited head to head match-ups, the ACC has the edge.  And at this point, numbers one, two and five.

S:  No denying that.  But the head to heads are too limited.  I discount those because of where the games were played and the sample size.  Let's see Duke play in DC or UNC play in South Bend.  You are obviously well aware of how big of a difference home court is in college basketball.

J:  No question.  But I think these teams are good enough to win on the road in the Big East.  Unless they play as well on the road as our Syracuse Orange.  Then the Big East wins big.

S:  Had Syracuse beaten Pitt, I think I'd have a better argument.  

J:  Yes, but we could never be so lucky.  You know that.

S:  No.  I'm well aware of that.  It would have knocked Pittsburgh off the top, but SU would be higher up.  Maybe even top 5.

J:  Yes, but oh well.  Let's let our readers decide.

S:  This should be interesting.  A lot of our readers didn't go to ACC or Big East schools, so I'm interested to read what they have to say.    

Hall of Fame Personality? No. Hall of Famer? Yes.

Jeff Kent is planning to retire Thursday afternoon.  The all-time home run leader among second basemen hit seventy-four more home runs (351 as a second baseman, 377 overall) than the previous record holder, hall of famer Ryne Sandberg (282 career home runs, 277 at second base).

He was the MVP of the National League in 2000, and was a five time all-star.  Kent was the most feared hitter among second basemen once Sandberg retired, and he put together some fantastic years for San Francisco during the peak of Barry Bonds steroid induced run.

There's no question that he should get into the hall of fame one day.  After all, how could a guy that holds the record for most home runs at his predominant position not get a call to Cooperstown?  

Kent was a great hitter who hit more than twenty home runs in nine straight seasons (1997-2005).   But his surly personality and his unwillingness to back down to teammates is what he might be remembered for most.  If there's anything that keeps him out of the hall on the first few ballots, it will be his tumultuous relationship with the media.

Is it fair?  Maybe not.  Though the fact remains that the way a player is perceived by the Baseball Writers of America, those who vote for him, is immensely critical to his potential enshrinement.

Jeff Kent had his famous shouting match with Barry Bonds in the dugout, which made him look good to people that knew Bonds was a terrible clubhouse influence at times.  But it didn't help his image in the media.

Nor did his lie to media that his 2002 motorcycle crash happened because he 'fell while washing it'.  When San Francisco Chronicle writer Henry Schulman found later that he fell off his bike while doing a wheelie, when the Giants had distinctly told him and Bonds not to, he became much less friendly to the writers in which he had previously confided.

Jeff Kent was never considered one of the good guys.  And he never had enough clout to be so surly.  While former teammate Barry Bonds was smashing the single season home run record in 2001 with 73 round trippers, (granted, we now know he did that using steroids, [allegedly, ha!]) Bonds could afford to act the way he wanted around the media because at the time he wielded such immense power in the game.  Kent was softer spoken, but while he quietly racked up quality season after quality season, he never let the media in, and consequently never received any positive publicity.

Media darlings like Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter and LeBron James can do no wrong in the press.  As a result, one day their careers will be revered and celebrated, then validated by trips to the hall of fame.  In the case of Kent, he'll never have the fan fare.  He'll never have the appreciation associated with what was a great career.  Sure, he's not at the level of the three players mentioned above, but because he was never thought of as a good person, he'll never be recognized for a superb and steady seventeen year career.

So if Kent was smart, he'd smile and be cheerful in announcing his retirement.  Because if that's the last image we have of Kent as a baseball player, for his sake, it better be a positive one. 

Hump Day Headlines

In this week's Hump Day Headlines, we discuss the 44th President, the joke that is the Pro Bowl, more from the never ending Roger Clemens saga, and why Cardinals fans should take it easy...

• In case you were in a hole yesterday, you should know by now that Barack Obama is officially the 44th United States' President after his inauguration yesterday. Certainly, as Scott mentioned in his post yesterday, it was a historic day. He's the first African-American president in the history of this country, and it was certainly a day to celebrate. In the sports world, however, it was the best bail out topic for media trying to cover their various sports teams for the last few days. I think I heard ten TV journalists Tuesday ask an athlete, "What are your thoughts about Barack Obama as our next president today?" Chalk this question into the 'cliche questions that the media asks athletes' category. Now, I'm not saying that some of the athletes asked this question didn't have interesting answers, but do we need literally every single athlete and analyst weighing in on this? If I'm tuning into sports, I want to hear about sports. If I want news, I'll watch CNN, or the networks (which I did for about six hours yesterday.)
• Scott and I mentioned this a bit in the most recent BERNing on Sports Podcast, but this weekend next year (that is, the weekend between the NFC and AFC Championships and the Super Bowl), the NFL will play the Pro Bowl, it's miserable joke of an all-star game in an effort to increase interest in it. Adding to its reputation for being a miserable joke is the fact that this year's game, which will still be played in Honolulu after the season, will be missing two of the biggest stars selected play. Brett Favre and Phillip Rivers will no longer be suiting up for the AFC due to various injuries, and Kerry Collins will be taking over in their stead. As if it couldn't get any worse. Instead of watching the future hall of famer Brett Favre light it up at Aloha Stadium, we'll be subjected to watching the much less exciting Kerry Collins. Now, whether Collins deserves to be there over Favre in the first place is a different argument. I'd agree with those that would want to argue that point. But in terms of the game, which already has zero intrigue on a national stage, the fact that the NFL's prima donna and Rivers won't be in the game figure to make this one of the least watched programs on television the weekend after football season ends.
• Known steroid deal Kirk Radomski revealed this earth-shattering fact in his tell-all interview with ESPN's Jeremy Schaap on the network's investigative program "Outside The Lines": he believes his friend Brian McNamee's story and not the one being told by Roger Clemens. Well that's just fine and dandy, isn't it? This is the story Radomski told a federal grand jury recently as Clemens is being tried for perjury. Clemens vehemently denied under oath all the accounts found by former Senator George Mitchell in the famous "Mitchell Report" examining the steroid problem in our national past time. Radomski's story seems to check out with what the court of public opinion already believes: that Clemens is guilty. He claims his old 'roid-dealing pal McNamee initially only told Mitchell part of the story to protect Clemens from further investigation. Apparently when McNamee realized this would put himself in the proverbial legal hot water, he let the rest of the truth come out. It's interesting stuff and I encourage all of you to read some of Radomski's quotes. And, if I were Clemens, I'd look up at the sky to see what little public dignity I have left rocketing down to the ground.
• Cardinals fans should be thrilled at their team's recent success. After all, the perennially  pitiful Arizona squad is representing the NFC in the Super Bowl for the first time in team history. But this kind of action is absolutely moronic. Cardinals fans had been taunting Eagles QB Donovan McNabb all week at his home in Chandler, AZ, leaving a Cardinals flag in his tree and a cardboard box in his driveway that read "Go Cards" and "Beat Philly" on two of the sides. McNabb laughed it off for the week, but not when he found this: fans after Sunday's victory over McNabb's eagles burned Cardinal cheers in diesel fuel into the QB's lawn, costing him $2,000 in damages. Granted, that's chump change for the star quarterback, but what the heck are these 'Zona fans thinking? Maybe more stupid than the fact that these fans could have burned down McNabb's house with the childish prank, was that the cardboard box left in the lawn had the address and name of the man that committed them. Chandler resident Rex Perkins, a 37-going on 15-year-old dope, was charged with misdemeanor criminal damage. His co-dope, Ryan Hanlon also admitted to the pranks. "When they decided to get diesel fuel out and start damaging the yard, they crossed the line," Chandler Police Sergeant Joe Favazzo said yesterday about the incident. Think so, Joe?

USC = Duke?

Well, on its face, the comparison seems quite obvious. Both are powerhouses in college sports, the former more so in college football, the latter decidedly in college basketball.

So yeah, on that level, sure. But, after Mark Sanchez decided to go pro last week, I got to thinking: is this perennial Pac-10 powerhouse putting out a comparable amount of great pro players? (Enough p-words?)

For a school nicknamed "Tailback U", for a school that has a reputation, at least in recent history, for being know for its great offense, the answer isn't as favorable as you might think.

Let's take a quick look at some of the offensive skill players drafted in recent years.

2007

2nd Round - Dwayne Jarrett, Steve Smith

2006

1st Round - Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart

2nd Round - LenDale White

2005

1st Round - Mike Williams

2004

2nd Round - Keary Colbert

2003

1st Round - Carson Palmer

2000

1st Round - R. Jay Soward

1996

1st Round - Keyshawn Johnson

Out of that list, there's only two that I could say have been or were good pro's: Keyshawn Johnson and Carson Palmer. But, both come with asterisks. Johnson's being that he truly was a disappointment, having been a Heisman Trophy winner, and (more importantly) a number one overall pick (only four thousand yard seasons and one 10 TD year in 11?). Then again, if he was a disappointment, then fellow number one pick Palmer would have to be as well. Thus far in his young career, he has been with only having had two really good seasons, the rest either average-poor or injured.

Of the rest, how many do you remember being very good at USC? Having a ton of potential, being highly rated, having bigtime college careers? Most, if not all of them (and that's not even including the John David Booty's and Chauncey Washington's)

Most of those guys haven't been nearly as good (nor project to be) in the pro's. Jarret and Smith have been average receivers early on. Bush has developed a rep as being a soft player, in addition to being a largely useless player. As far as Leinart's concerned, two words sum up his value: Kurt Warner. LenDale White seemed more likely to eat his way out the league before gobbling up all of Chris Johnson's TD's this year. Mike Williams' is obviously the biggest bust as he barely has even played, and Keary Colbert, unfortunately continues to play, just at a very poor level. Finally, Soward never did much in the NFL because of a little thing called reefer.

So, back to the title, USC = Duke? Well, yes. Because, as I've just shown you, USC seems to have developed a reputation for putting formerly great college players into the professional ranks and watch them disappointment.

Duke? Well, we all know their history...William Avery, Jason Williams, Trajan Langdon, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Reddick, Christian Laettner, Shelden Williams...I think I've made my point there.

And thus, my overarching theme here is, don't get crazy over Mark Sanchez because he's leaving early and bucking trends and any of that nonsense. Get crazy because, frankly, USC hasn't produced a ton of great offensive pro's in recent memory. Kind of like Duke.