At Least It's Not In Black And White

As a Butler alumnus, it probably comes as no surprise that I follow Bulldogs basketball. Given their recent success and the growth of the program over the last 6-7 years, Butler has gotten more national interest and more games televised this season.

That's the good news. The bad news is that every game that ESPN has televised involving Butler has been in standard definition (SD) instead of HD. I guess ESPN doesn't feel that Butler deserves to be shown in HD? I know that the Horizon League isn't a power conference, but it still seems ridiculous--especially since Butler has been ranked in the Top 25 nearly all season.

And it's not like ESPN doesn't have the resources. I mean, how many people do they have on the air during their Monday Night Football broadcasts? They commit something like 8-9 broadcasters and "analysts" for every MNF game, but can't commit to showing every college basketball game in HD? This isn't 2003, where HD was still pretty new, but 2009, right?

Why not show the game in black and white? Just think about how much cheaper it would be! Better yet, why not just show a black screen and only carry the audio? Talk about a new trend--radio on TV! And it would be appropriate given that today's game is at Butler, which plays in legendary Hinkle Fieldhouse. What better way to celebrate the tradition that Hinkle represents?

Perhaps I should trademark those ideas.

Murray, Welcome to the Internet Age

Hey, Murray Chass! I know you are an aging sports writer who, supposedly, writes a blog. No, wait, Murray doesn't like blogs. He writes online articles. Crappy, online articles at that.

Murray's latest whine? He is saddened that Major League Baseball is no longer printing the Green and Red Books that detail information on each club - team records, finishes, managers, executives, statistics, etc. There is one book for the AL (Green) and one for the NL (Red). MLB has printed these for 70+ years.

Now, before you jump on the Murray bandwagon and light your torches or grab your pitch forks to march on the MLB offices, let's make one thing clear. Yes, the MLB is no longer printing these books. However, for the first time, the books will only be available online.

The books do include a vast amount of information that new and old writers should access for writing various articles. MLB and the teams have determined that there was just not enough interest for the amount of expense to print and mail the books every year when most of the information is duplicated every year. In this age of the Internet and companies going green, I can understand why this decision was made. Murray! If you can supposedly write an online article, I don't see why you cannot easily get this information.

I love how he bemoans in his article how woeful it is he will no longer have his printed copies. It is not like you have to access the Internet every time you want to access the information. You log on and download the information once! If you really want a printed copy - then print the fucking things off you lazy fucktard! Are you pissed because it will not be in a nice green or red book cover?

If you are not going to advance with the times, then get off the Information Superhighway. The last thing we want is you slowing us down with your turn signal stuck on.

Sayonara, Marvin

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good bye!

It is definitely not, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"

The sad fact about sports and salary caps is that sometimes teams have to let go of the players you hate to see go. But sports teams ARE a business and they have to do what is best for the business and not necessarily what fans want. Even if that player is a future Hall of Famer. Marvin Harrison's salary cap price was just too steep for the amount of output he was expected to generate next season. With Reggie Wayne becoming Peyton's favorite target and Anthony Gonzalez growing in his second season, Marvin became expendable. Not to mention the fact that the last two seasons were below par, mainly due to injuries and partially due to age.

I would love to see Marvin stay with the Colts and there is some small hope that he could re-sign with the Colts if no one chooses to sign him. Marvin will be 36 and just does not seem to be the player that he was before his injury in 2007. I think Marvin could still be quite a contributor to a team, but his $13.4 million cap figure was too much for a #3 or #4 receiver. I cannot blame Marvin for asking to be released. He thinks he can get more than what the Colts were offering. More power to him.

Fans can be mad if they want. I'm sure just as many would be upset if they had resigned him.

Marvin will be missed. They ought to enshrine his spot at the end of the Colts' bench that he would occupy by himself while not on the field. Marvin was not a flashy or attention-getting player like T.O. or Ocho Cinco, but he let his playing on the field speak for himself. It is interesting in that while Marvin was never one for interviews or talking much with the media, the media never really vilified or hated him for that.

I know everyone will have their favorite memories of Marvin and I am sure we will share those often down the road when he is elected to the Hall of Fame and inducted into the Colts' Ring of Honor. However, the two memories that quickly come to mind are the one-handed diving catch against the Titans a couple of years ago and the playoff game against the Broncos where Marvin caught the ball, no one tagged him and he got up and ran for a touchdown.

I hope Marvin is able to get a couple of more productive years in the league, but sadly it will not be in a Colts uniform.

Its Here!!! Well, Almost.

Baseball season is finally here, at least sort of. Its Spring Training season and players are all reporting to Florida or Arizona this week to begin prepping for the real thing in April. So I thought I would take a moment to ramble on about a few things to start off the pre-season.

Nate McLouth re-signs with the Bucs

I was a big fan on Nate’s when he was with the Indianapolis Indians and have enjoyed following his progress in the Majors. Nate batted .276 with 26 HRs and 46 doubles, which was tied for first in the NL last year. I am both happy and sad that he stayed in Pittsburgh. I am happy to see him get a nice contract and will hopefully have a nice long stay in the Majors. I am sad that he is on a team that has not had a winning season since Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla were playing for the Pirates. Congrats, Nate, and I am looking forward to another great year out of you.

Adam Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals

I have never really figured out why so many sports writers are so negative against Adam Dunn. Yes, I know that he strikes out quite a bit. Adam had 164 strikeouts lat year, but that was only third best on his team! However, he has hit 40 HRs each of the past four years and ranked ninth in the NL with an OBP of .386. So while he does strike out a lot, he still gets on base more than most and can clobber the ball as well. At 29 years old, he still has a several good years left in him and should be a boost to the Nationals. Although sadly like the Pirates, they will probably suck as well this year.

David Eckstein signs with the Padres

The poster child for short, white, average skill baseball players signed a one-year contract with the Padres to help give the team someone with playoff experience and a couple of World Series rings. Because that is the only reason I can see a team signing the Eck. And do not go mentioning he has a boatload of intangibles, GRIT factor or how he isn’t afraid to get dirty. If the man was 6’2” he probably would be in the minors at this point. But since he is short, white and has a couple of rings, GMs seem to have a hard on for the man.

Remember this comment from last year

If the Dodgers do make the trade and they somehow win the World Series, I will kill something.

Allow me to update it for this year:

If the Whale’s Vagina Padres win the World Series with Eckstein on the team, I WILL kill something.

Steroids

I am torn on the steroids topic at this point. I am tired of the whole discussion on the Steroids Era and whether records and statistics should be thrown out or whether the players from that era should not be voted into the Hall of Fame or whether Jose Canseco needs an apology from MLB. Yet I am not sure how I feel about Alex Rodriguez’s most recent explanation of why, how and what he took from 2001-2003. If you are going to come out and tell the truth, then tell the whole truth. His interview was full of contradictions from his first interview, suddenly there was a “cousin” involved, the stuff he took was supposedly available over-the-counter in the Dominican Republic, the two drugs he tested positive for, primobolan and testosterone, could not have come from one drug, he sad attempt at shedding a tear while looking at his teammates, the list goes on and on. I want to know more, but at the same time, I don’t care anymore.

This happened several years ago and he has not tested positive since. He won two additional MVP since the first one he won in 2003, so he is still a very good player without the PEDs. People have pointed out that his home run totals during the three years he said he took PEDs are higher compared to the years after he stopped. However, you cannot necessarily point to steroids as the main factor in the increase. A-Rod signed with Texas in 2001 and Arlington Stadium is a hitters ballpark. After the 2003 season, A-Rod was traded to the Yankees. Yankee Stadium is not suited for A-Rod to hit as many home runs. So this would have also attributed to the decrease in home runs after 2003.

Bud Selig

You’re still a fucktard!

Wrigley Field

I have had the pleasure the past couple of years to bask in sun in the bleachers of Wrigley Field. There is nothing like sitting in the bleachers with a group of great friends with a beer in one hand and a brat in the other, baking in the sun and watching a baseball game in one of the greatest stadiums around. As a Cardinals fan, I’m definitely not a Cubs fan, even though I would like to see them actually win a Series so they can go another hundred years without one. But Wrigley is one of those places where it doesn’t matter what team you are rooting for, you are there to take in the whole experience of “the friendly confines”. I am looking forward to making another trip or two this year.

Like every other fan of our national pastime, I am so looking forward to the two words we long to hear every year:

“PLAY BALL!”

Let It Die

"It's not my fault!"

This phrase has been declared many times throughout antiquity. Reportedly, Custer said it at Little Big Horn. Han Solo said it when the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive wouldn't work trying to escape the clutches of the Empire after leaving Hoth. And now, this fucktard has said it:

Is it too early to give the 2009 Fucktard of the Year Award?

Anyway, on to the Wallace Matthews article in Newsday:

Commissioner Selig defends his record

Bud Selig to baseball fans: Don't blame me. In a lengthy telephone interview yesterday, the commissioner of baseball strongly disputed the widely held perception that he was in any way complicit in the proliferation of steroids in major-league baseball during the past 15 years. "I don't want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn't care about it," Selig said.

"That annoys the you-know-what out of me. You bet I'm sensitive to the criticism. The reason I'm so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we've come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible."

Yeah, why would anyone say that the commissioner "turned a blind eye" to the steroids issue? Are you kidding me?

Selig pointed to the reduction in the number of positive steroid tests among major- and minor-league players during the past three years, as well as the institution of amphetamine testing as evidence that baseball's 2005 drug policy is working.

Sure--Major League Baseball has had a testing policy since 2004. I think it's reasonable to say testing is a huge success after a three-year decline in positives. Of course, by "reasonable" I mean, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND????

MLB has made progress, sure. The fact that there is even testing now is a progress compared to five years ago. But come on. Even the commissioner can't say that MLB's program has been a success, right?

He also defended his efforts to stop the use of performance-enhancing drugs as far back as 1999, the year after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, two now-suspected steroid cheats, staged a seasonlong (sic) home run derby that helped pull baseball out of the tailspin it went into after the work stoppage of 1994.

Selig's "efforts" included waiting for a report on the effects Androstenedione (what McGwire was taking during the 1998 season) and doing nothing else.

You remember 1998? Sosa/McGwire? In case you missed it, McGwire and Sosa both eclipsed Roger Maris' single-season home run record of 61, set in 1961. McGwire ended with 70 homers, Sosa 66 (Barry Bonds then set the current record with 73 homers in 2001). In '98, an Associated Press reporter noticed a bottle of Andro- supplements in McGwire's locker and asked Selig about it. Selig's response? Wait for a study, then do nothing.

"I'm not sure I would have done anything differently," Selig said. "A lot of people say we should have done this or that, and I understand that. They ask me, 'How could you not know?' and I guess in the retrospect of history, that's not an unfair question. But we learned and we've done something about it. When I look back at where we were in '98 and where we are today, I'm proud of the progress we've made."

Proud. Of the progress that's been made. Like this progress?

Selig said he pushed for a more stringent drug policy during the labor negotiations of 2002 but ultimately settled for a watered-down version out of fear that the players association would force another work stoppage. "Starting in 1995, I tried to institute a steroid policy," Selig said. "Needless to say, it was met with strong resistance. We were fought by the union every step of the way."

Yeah, blame it on the union. It's all the players' fault.

In fairness, the MLB Players' Association is the most powerful union in sports. Since the era of collective bargaining began in sports in the late 70s, the MLBPA has seldom had to give in on anything. When the owners have tried to stand firm and make the players break, it hasn't worked out well for the owners.

But Selig admits that he "settled for a watered down version" because he was afraid of another work stoppage. Even if that were true, why would he have worried? The players would have had to publicly say that they were against testing, which would have given MLB the moral high ground. Selig at least could have tried!

Also, note that he pushed for a more stringent policy in 2002--four years after McGwire/Sosa. Why not push for it before then?

As bodies expanded and home run totals ballooned in the late 1990s, Selig said he consulted with baseball men he knew and trusted, such as Diamondbacks manager Bob Melvin (then a coach with the Milwaukee Brewers), Braves president John Schuerholz and Yankees general manager Brian Cashman to gauge the extent of the problem. "They all told me none of them ever saw it in the clubhouses and that their players never spoke about it," Selig said. "[Padres CEO] Sandy Alderson, as good a baseball man as you'll find, was convinced it was the bat. Others were convinced it was the ball. So a lot of people didn't know."

Except all the players who were using. And the trainers who were injecting. Did Selig or anyone else in his office ever think to ask players or coaches--you know, people actually close to where the drugs may have been used? I mean, there was no evidence of anyone using steroids before 2002, right?

Selig said that although only eight major-leaguers have tested positive for steroids in the past three years, he continues to be concerned about the possible use of human growth hormone, for which baseball has no approved test. "On HGH, I'm as frustrated as anyone," he said. "Right now, we're funding a program at UCLA with Dr. Don Catlin to come up with a test, any test, that's reliable."

That's good--it's needed. Then again, MLB could just talk to these people, who may be pretty close to offering a test up for widespread use.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person criticizing Selig today. However, this article shows how much of a fucktard Selig is.

This website does a pretty good job of explaining the role Selig has played in this whole steroid mess and his lack of action throughout the years. To sum it up, Selig did nothing when McGwire was linked to Andro, mainly because Selig was too worried that any noise about it would ruin the attendance boom baseball enjoyed in the late 90s. Then, he ignored all of the allegations and stories (Jose Canseco, Ken Caminiti) from former players who said steroids was a problem. When MLB was finally pressured by congress to have a policy with teeth in it, he first instituted a weak program, then modified it after widespread criticism (and more pressure).

One thing that's sad is that Fay Vincent, baseball's commissioner until 1992, was working on a plan of random testing that he outlined in a 1991 memorandum. So if Selig did "all he could do" to try to combat the steroid problem, why did he do absolutely nothing until 1995 (if you believe Selig, though there is little evidence to support that he did anything of consequence before 2002)?

This whole thing needs to go away. MLB now has steroid testing (with penalties) in place, and presumably a test for HGH is on the way. It should be a dead issue. However, with Selig saying stupid things like he might alter the record book in regards to players who are associated with steroids (statements which he has since backed off of), Selig is showing how much he doesn't want to get blamed. Suggesting to alter the record book is idiotic, since the players who have admitted to or accused of using weren't breaking any rules in using steroids! Oh, sure, there were rules against using steroids in place before 2004, but there was no testing, and no penalties! Even if a player had injected right in front of Selig, there was nothing he could have done to penalize the player. So why threaten belated punishment now?

Yes, the players are the ones who used steroids, so they are the most responsible (those that did use, anyway). But for the commissioner to say that he and MLB are not at least partly responsible is just stupidity and arrogance on his part. Bud, you are a fucktard.

And to the media who keep rehashing the same goddamn story: enough! Let the fucking thing die already!

Phelps vs. A-Rod

This is from a couple of days ago, but I could not get the chance to post it. Enjoy.

Phelps gets suspended, A-Rod gets ... nothing

On the surface, this statement is correct…at least for now. It has only been two days since the story broke. We do not know if any of Alex Rodriguez’s sponsors will drop him like Kellogg’s did to Michael Phelps.

So why does it seem like A-Rod is getting off scot-free? Glad you asked.

My opinion on this is the fact that A-Rod actually came out and said that he did in fact take steroids. Roger Clemens did nothing but deny, deny, deny that he took steroids. Barry Bonds claims he did not know what he was taking or putting on his body. Mark McGwire pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress. Rafael Palmeiro testified before Congress he did not take steroids and then tested positive the next year.

A-Rod bucked the trend of other current and former players and owned up to the fact he did it and why he did it. He did not do anything illegal under Major League Baseball rules at the time. Baseball did not suspend players for a positive steroids test in 2003. It was frowned upon but that is MLB’s fault for not implementing a stricter steroids policy sooner.

Phelps got caught doing something illegal in smoking marijuana, something he could have gone to jail over (and possibly still could). The IOC is extremely strict on any drug use. Phelps knew this. Yes, this is minor compared to if he had taken steroids. However, marijuana is a banned substance by the IOC. It shouldn’t be a shock to him or anyone else.

The league knew that this was going on, but Bud Selig and the other owners did nothing about it. They were profiting from the boom in attendance because of the home run races of McGwire, Bonds and Sammy Sosa. After the strike in 1994, the league and owners were happy to have fans flocking back to baseball. Only after a few elected representative threatened to look into revoking MLB’s anti-trust exemption did they finally start cracking down on steroids.

Had A-Rod came out and denied he took steroids or stated he may have taken something but didn’t know what was in it and he would be dragged through the streets and tarred and feathered if it was proved he had knowingly taken them. We will not know the full extent of any backlash from this coming out for a while. Will this have any effect on his potential Hall of Fame voting? No one can really say at this point. The HOF voters have shown intolerance to known or suspected steroids users up to this point, but they are going to have to face the fact that there was wide use of the drug for that baseball era. They will be forced to either blacklist the entire group from that timeframe or judge the players by a different set of criteria.

Another influence on the lack of impact on A-Rod is the fact only his name was released from the list of 104 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003. Since only he was outed by Sports Illustrated, I believe that may have minimized some of the retribution against him. Likewise, who knows how he would have been affected if all 104 names had been released and what other superstars may be on that list?

Were A-Rod and Michael Phelps subject to different standards? Yes. However, that is due to the different standards between the IOC now and MLB then. Phelps is still a young athlete who did something incredibly stupid in smoking marijuana and even more stupid in getting his picture taken doing something illegal! Olympic athletes are expected to be squeaky clean and the sponsors of Olympic athletes also expect that. MLB athletes can get away with a lot more in the media. That’s just the way it is. I don’t think the punishment of Phelps was too extreme and I do not feel that the lack of punishment of A-Rod is too lenient either.

One other tidbit that rankles me. Why do sports media writers continue to think that if you take steroids your numbers should drastically increase? Athletes do not take steroids just to potentially increase their power number. They also take them to help recover faster in the case of pitchers or more endurance over the entire season. Oh, maybe that is why you work for ESPN. They hire morons and put them on TV.

You may think I am way off-base on this but I’m sure that is nothing new. Opinions are like assholes – everybody has one.

Let It Out (Pffffht)

My what an interesting smell you've discovered. No, it that is not manure that has recently thawed, it is another Bob Kravitz article.

It's been a couple of weeks since we've picked on Bob Kravitz and I was beginning to go through some withdraw symptoms. Thankfully, Bob wrote another of his typical articles and I get to calm my shakes by tackling some hack journalism.

Let It Out (Sports):

Or

I have nothing to write, so I am pulling from any and everything I have heard or read from other people better than me (Sports):

A word of advice for Pacers coach Jim O'Brien, who, I'm quite sure, treasures my input on all things hoops: Play the rookies.

No, I imagine that Coach O’Brien thinks your as much as a fucktard as we do!

Seriously, get Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush out there and let's see how they develop.
I understand O'Brien wants to get to the playoffs -- as do Herb Simon and Larry Bird -- and he's merely doing what he is paid to do. But after those terrible home losses to the Knicks and Timberwolves, it's apparent that even in the woeful Eastern Conference, this team isn't going to make the playoffs.

Probably not with the way they are playing, but Larry and Herb are trying to put and keep butts in the seats. Trotting out Hibbert and Rush mean the Pacers are announcing they are throwing in the towel for the season and might easily scare away what gains the team has made attendance-wise this season.

If we are seemingly eliminated with a month or so to go, then you might re-address this issue, but right now, the Pacers have to live in the now and not in making the future.

No knock on Rasho Nesterovic, but what's the point in giving big minutes to a guy who won't be a part of the Pacers' future? If the Pacers are going to lose, lose with Hibbert and Rush and give them the opportunity to grow in game situations -- which, I'm happy to say, has been the case the past two games against Philly and Orlando.

Wow! And we sucked in both of those games! Now might not be the time to make sure everyone plays.

>I swear, Tony Dungy could write a casserole recipe on a bar napkin and have it debut at No. 4 on the New York Times bestseller list.

I don’t know about you, but I would be interested in a Tony Dungy casserole recipe.

Yeah, I'm bitter: My book on the Colorado Rockies' first year is now available on Amazon.com for one penny.

Huh, I would have thought someone would have to pay me in order to get your book. I would say a penny for your thoughts, but I don’t care about your thoughts.

>I'm not forgiving Michael Phelps for forgetting that with big money comes big responsibility, but aren't there more heinous crimes being committed in South Carolina than one involving a 23-year-old taking a bong hit?

Yes, your writing could be considered a heinous crime against journalism.

I'm hesitant to drop the bomb on a young guy who did some of the stupid things I did during my wayward youth, but Phelps needs to understand that with all those millions in promotional dollars comes added responsibility.

There are worse crimes, but Phelps is a big household name and it made for big amounts of press. Was it blown out of proportion? Possibly. But when you are getting paid MILLIONS of dollars, you have to keep that squeaky clean lifestyle or pay the consequences.

>The more I hear about all the NFL job cuts -- and that includes the Colts -- the more I wonder, "Why was this necessary?''

While the economy is a shambles, it seems to me the NFL is about as recession- proof as any business in this country. The teams are still getting their TV money, still selling out, still getting sweetheart leases from their local municipalities.

The NFL is not recession-proof. The Colts have an advantage of having a long run of 12+ win seasons, a recent Super Bowl win and a brand new stadium. If the Colts had gone 8-8 or 7-9 this year, you could have had a mass exodus in the backing of the team and left Colts really struggling financially. Even with all of the good times for the team, this is still a small market and I’m sure the Colts are trying to gear up for some possible rough times ahead.

And when businesses like the Colts decide to cut costs, why is it always the lesser-paid employees who get the axe?

We’ll, generally those lesser-paid employees are either expendable and/or in jobs that the team can live without. I did not see a breakdown of the job titles that were being cut, but some of them may have been for season ticket sales, promotions, and public relations or places where they had duplication that they no longer needed. Since the Colts have a long (at least for now) waiting list for season tickets and no problems filling the arena, the Colts may have felt they could do some cost cutting.

I'm not buying the NFL's poor-mouthing act. It is nothing more than a transparent attempt by the league to position itself more favorably before the collective bargaining agreement expires in 2010.

Even if they came out and said that, it makes good economic sense to do so.

At some point, I want a coach or a player to step up and agree to bear some of the financial load. That's how it happens elsewhere. At our newspaper, everybody must take an unpaid, one-week furlough. At my radio station, everybody is taking a 3 percent cut.

Why should a player or a coach take the pay cut? Without them, the team doesn’t make any money. Why don’t you ask the executives at your newspaper to contribute more so you wouldn’t have to take your unpaid furlough? They would just laugh as they had you escorted out the door. Your readers can only hope that your job will be cut, preferably sooner than later.

How about the players who make millions? When do they start to shoulder some of the load?

For now, most of the NFL teams are probably doing well enough to at least get by. If teams really start struggling financially, then I would expect some players and coach to shoulder more of the load.

>Somewhere, the late, great Paul Newman is turning over in his grave.

Yes, because you mentioned him in one of your articles.

His race team, Newman/Haas/Lanigan, has signed the spectacularly unprepared Milka Duno to drive for them. There is only one reason -- well, many millions of reasons -- why the Venezuelan got this gig: She is bankrolled by the country's deep-pocketed oil company.

Considering how hard it has been for racing teams to find or keep sponsors lately, the fact that Milka is bringing sponsors and backing money to the team, I really can’t blame them. I’m sure that she was not the team’s first or probably second choice.

I REALLY do not care for Milka “The Dangerous Back Marker” Duno as a driver. Although part of that may have been her previous team. With a better team now, she may be able to excel and become just “The Back Marker” Duno.

>News: David Beckham says he wants to stay in Italy and does not want to come back to Los Angeles.

Have you seen American soccer? Compared to England, Spain and Italy, most U.S. soccer teams would be in the second or third tier leagues. The only reason he came here originally was the money ($25 million per year) and the fact no one in Europe really wanted him at the time. Now that AC Milan is interested in keeping him, I would want out too!

Views: David Beckham was in Los Angeles? Really?

Shut up, fucktard! You’re not funny. Stop trying.

>It's going to be interesting to see how these most recent Purdue and IU football recruiting classes turn out.

The Hoosiers' Bill Lynch filled his class with in-state talent. Conversely, first-year Purdue coach Danny Hope hit Florida hard -- Purdue had more Florida signees than any non-Florida school -- and did not sign a single Indiana high school player. It was Hope's contention recently that Indiana just didn't have many worthy players, and the few that were opted to go elsewhere.
If Purdue improves, Hope will be lauded for extending the school's recruiting scope. If he loses, fans will howl at the lack of home-grown talent.

Overall, most of the nation’s high school football talent comes out of Texas and Florida. So that may actually be a good thing. I don’t think most alumni care where their players come from, just that their team wins. I’m sure they’ll be pissed if the team loses regardless.

>For the record, I remain completely in agreement with the Pacers' decision to turn Jamaal Tinsley into a non-person.

Damn! I sadly have to agree with him on the one. Ouch, my head hurts now.

You say it hurts his marketability? I've got news. Everybody around the NBA knows he's got issues, the most important issue being his inability to stay healthy. If he'd been allowed to stay around the team, it would have turned into a Stephon Marbury-like circus.

Tinsley is under contract, but that doesn’t mean the team has to play him, just pay him. Tinsely has known his fate since the end of last season. Unfortunately, no other team really wants him, at least at his current salary. So I agree (Fuck that hurts!) that making him persona non grata at the Pacers facility was the best for the team.

Plus, the Pacers management had to make a statement to its fans, just as they did by unloading all the other jokers: They weren't going to let Tinsley's presence poison the focus of this year's locker room.

[I refuse to comment on this as it may cause my head to explode if I agree again.]

>News: Lisa Leslie said she will retire from the WNBA after this year.

Views: Good timing. There might not be a WNBA at this time next year.

The WNBA is still around?

>With a healthy Robbie Hummel, Purdue is an Elite Eight team or maybe better.

Without him, the Boilers can lose the first week of the NCAA Tournament.

News flash, the Boilers can lose the first week with him! Yes, they are a better team with him, but any team can lose in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Butler has a better chance of being an Elite Eight team than Purdue does, even with Hummel at this point.

>Now that Larry Coyer finally has been named the Colts' defensive coordinator, a quick piece of advice (and I'm sure Larry will appreciate my input): It's OK to blitz once in a while. Really.

If they can shore up the secondary a little bit more, then the Colts should blitz more often. If they had tried blitzing more last season, I think we would have gotten burned more often than we succeeded.

Thus, we end another trashing of Bob Kravitz’s attempt at an article. Bob, don’t quit your day jo…no, wait, please quit your day job! Pretty please?!?

Something's Gone A-Foul

One bad call deserves another. At the end of the Pacers-Cavaliers game last night, Lebron James, NBA superstar, was the object of an extremely rare occurrence. He was actually called for a foul in the last second that cost his team the game! I know, it is totally shocking, huh?

Honestly, the Pacers were the beneficiaries of a make-up foul call at the end. Why, do you ask? Because Bennie Adams, one of the referees, called a foul against Danny Granger because he touched Lebron on an alley-oop pass. Granger did make contact with James, but it did not seem significant and Lebron got the "star" call. He made both free throws to tie the game with 0.4 seconds remaining.

On the Pacers inbounds pass, Lebron might have had better position because the inbounds pass was a little short, but he ran into Granger and was actually called for the foul by Joe Crawford. Lebron's foul seemed to be more legitimate that Granger's but I don't think either one should have been called. Crawford's call on Lebron seemed to be more of a make-up call due to the poor call on the other end. Or you can look at it as if the other ref is going to call it with 0.8 seconds left, then I am going to make the same call with 0.4 seconds left.

Cleveland coach Mike Brown was livid about the call. Evidently he feels that his star player should get the Jordan superstar treatment. Brown went on a tirade that will likely get him a hefty fine from the league.

"I don't care if I get fined. It is what it is. I saw the two plays; just a bad call determined the outcome of that game," Brown said. "If they want to fine me for telling the truth, fine me. This isn't me. I never do this."

"It was predetermined from the call that was made at the other end of the floor, and it is very unfortunate," Brown said. "We got the game taken away from us. Absolutely horrible."

OK, Coach. So you are willing to admit that the call at your end of the floor was a bad call and the refs were predetermined to make another bad call to even things out and take the game away from you?

It is just nice to see that the refs can actually call a foul at the end of the game and against a "star" even!

There's No Crying in Baseball!!

One of Jimmy Dugan's best lines along with his autographed baseball - "Avoid the Clap - Jimmy Dugan."

Due to a lawsuit against the IHSAA and against Bloomington South High School, they have both relented and allowed a girl to try out for the baseball team. Why all the stink in the press? Well, because BSHS has a softball team, both felt that girls do not belong on the baseball team.

Under previous IHSAA rules, if a school offered a girls "equivalent" of a boys sport, then they could exclude girls from the boys sport. So if a school offered boys and girls basketball, a girl cannot try out for boys basketball. However, the IHSAA believed that baseball and softball were equivalent sports. According to Blake Ress, the IHSAA commissioner, he states, "he believed that baseball and softball were comparable sports because each involves a bat and a ball, similar positions and baselines on the diamond, and six outs in an inning." Yep, they are the same in those manners even though the field dimensions are different...the balls are different...the pitching is different...but, yeah, they are the same.

Personally, I do not have a problem with a girl wanting to try out for the baseball team. She has been playing co-ed community baseball since she was 5. She and her parents must think she is good enough to file a lawsuit for the right to tryout. I might have a problem if she doesn't make the team and then sues to try and get on (assuming she was legitimately cut.) But she should also know that she could be benchwarming for most of the year. Yet, I would not be surprised if turned out to be an average every day player.

Just because she is a girl doesn't mean she should get special treatment to play. She should be graded on the same criteria as the boys, nothing more, nothing less.

The IHSAA is griping about making the change because it feels it would probably lose the lawsuit and the fact that several other states have already made this change. So, why it is such a problem, IHSAA?

Honestly, I hope she kicks some ass!

Super Bowl Remix

Sorry for the lack of posts this week, but work and family have kept me away this week. So I am going to catch up on a few posts, some which may be a little old at this point.

I hope everyone enjoyed our Super Bowl comments blitz. It made for an entertaining evening and kept us involved in the game when it was a little dull in the middle. We may have to try that for some of the road Colts games next year.

I would like to clear up a couple of issues we had with the game. It was interesting to hear various sports people give their comments on the officiating of the Super Bowl. I heard both that the officiating was fair and that the officiating was heavily in favor of the Steelers. There were a couple of instances we felt that Rothlisberger should have been called for intentional grounding that we commented on. It turns out we were guilty of not knowing the rules fully on intentional grounding. Even though no was remotely near both of Rothlisberger's passes, they were both past the line of scrimmage and that does not constitute intentional grounding.

I am still bewildered and somewhat pissed about the lack of a review at the end of the game on Warner's "fumble". I understand the statement the NFL gave out afterwards, but I would think that given the dramatic impact of the play, you would have at least given a token review on the field or at the minimum, have the ref give an explanation stating the booth did not feel a review was required. Bad judgement on the NFL's part, personally.

I have tried to find the rule regarding the passes and fumbles, but the NFL.com is a bit lacking on that front. I know the rules have changed a few times of the past few years and even though the ball was coming out of Warner's hands, he did get the ball forward.

While the 4th quarter and the ending of Super Bowl XLIII were both dramatic, I do not feel it was the "best Super Bowl ever." I hate the pundits who have been stating that this week. It may have been in the Top 10 overall and possibly the Top 5 finishes, but I find it far from the best ever.

Now that football season is over, we'll see if we can hang on until Spring Training! It's going to be tough, that's for sure.

One Arrogant Sportcaster Takes Over For Another

You may have heard this earlier this week: Bob Costas has signed a deal to join the new MLB Network this upcoming season. Costas will "host original programming and serve as play-by-play commentator" for some of the live games broadcast by the network this season. He actually had some airtime today, as an interview Costas did with Joe Torre aired.

Costas will keep his job at NBC, but will give up his show on HBO called "Costas Now."

I suppose this is a good move for the MLB Network, as the move brings a big-name announcer to its lineup. The down side is that along with the knowledge and love of the game that Costas will bring, the MLB Network will also have to make room for his tremendous ego and arrogance, which has the potential to overshadow some of the other things on the network.

Of course, my cable provider is yet to add MLB Network. Fucktards.

Anyway, since HBO had an opening for a small, nerdy announcer, it decided to fill it with the only announcer more arrogant than Costas: Joe Buck. According to the announcement, HBO is still deciding on the content and format of Buck's show, and when it will begin. Buck will keep his job at FOX doing NFL and MLB games.

Buck is knowledgeable, and he's certainly a good play-by-play announcer. However, he's easily the most arrogant one out there. I'm sure that will be more than apparent on his new HBO show.

Black Sunday

We here at LomHenn.com are trying something a little different. We've decided to do live posts during the Super Bowl. We are anxiously awaiting the start of this years facade that is a "Championship" game. As always, the media have already given us plenty of fodder. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. I know we will!!!

Click on the "comments" link below to see the fun. You can also email myself, Slut, Zinglebert, and Lom if you'd like to comment, too.

Day of Reckoning

In honor of it being Super Bowl Sunday, I thought I'd take a look back at the few articles concerning NFL predictions that were posted here at LomHenn.com this past season.

How well did everyone do? Let's find out!

First off, I went after Michael Lombardi for his three stats that will define the Super Bowl teams. Lombardi's first prediction:

I can promise you with a 99.0 percent degree of certainty that the final four teams in the playoffs will be ranked in the top eight of point differential in the first half.

This year's final four playoff teams were Philadelphia, Arizona, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. I responded to Lombardi's prediction at the time by showing that this prediction was wrong for the 2007 season. Also, why would first half scoring differential be more important than overall scoring differential? I then predicted that the Super Bowl participants would be in the top eight of overall scoring differential.

In 2008, Philadelphia (at #2, +82 in points) and Baltimore (#6, +58) were in the top eight in first half scoring differential. Pittsburgh was tied for 11th (+34), while Arizona was...28th (-53!!!). So Lombardi's first prediction--which he promised with "99.0 percent" certainty--was only 50% accurate.

For the overall scoring differential, Baltimore (tied for #1, +141), Philadelphia (#4, +127), and Pittsburgh (#5, +124) all ended up in the top eight. Arizona was 18th (+1). My "prediction"--that the two Super Bowl teams would be in the top eight--was 1 for 2, also 50% (if I had phrased my prediction like Lombardi had--saying that the final four teams would be in the top eight--I would have had that pick 75% accurate).

In any case, I think this supports my original point that first-half scoring differential is no more a meaningful predictor of playoff success than overall scoring differential. Arizona is a good case in point--the Cardinals were blown out in the first half of a couple of their games this season, which made their first-half scoring differential much worse than their overall scoring differential.

Let's see if Lombardi fared any better for his second can't miss Super Bowl prediction:

Throw the ball in the first half -- often

Lombardi's rationale here is that teams that establish the passing game in the first half are more likely to score in the first half, and therefore have a higher first-half scoring differential. Besides the obvious issue of Lombardi's second prediction being related to his first, my problem with his assertion is that it doesn't really tell you anything. Using 2007 statistics (since the predictions were made at the beginning of this season), 29 of 32 teams passed more than ran in the first half, so there's really no meat to his prediction.

Finding 2008 statistics regarding running/passing plays by half is like trying to find someone who still thinks Carrot Top is funny. After a couple hours of searching the Internet, the best I could compile were season totals for each team. Seven teams (out of 32) ran the ball more than they passed this season:

Atlanta (56% run/44% pass)
NY Giants (51%/49%)
Carolina (55%/45%)
Baltimore (58%/42%)
Minnesota (53%/47%)
Tennessee (53%/47%)
Oakland (52%/48%)

An interesting list. Discounting Oakland, the other six teams are all playoff teams, including Baltimore, who made it to the AFC Championship game running the ball 58% of the time. The remaining six playoff teams:

Indianapolis (39% run/61% pass)
Miami (48%/52%)
Whale's Vagina (47%/53%)
Philadelphia (41%/59%)
Pittsburgh (48%/52%)
Arizona (35%/65%)

So of the Super Bowl teams, Arizona was pretty pass-wacky, while Pittsburgh was more balanced. However, the league average was 46% run/54% pass, so most of the playoff teams (9 out of 12) ran the ball more often than the league average. Again, it's hard to analyze this directly without the first half statistics, but based on game statistics, I don't think Lombardi's prediction was valid.

What about Lombardi's third "stat that will define winning teams"?

Seven yards per passing attempt

The two teams that find their way down to Tampa for the Super Bowl will have above a 7.25 average per attempt passing for the season.

As I noted in the original article, 11 out of 32 quarterbacks were able to accomplish that goal in 2007. This season, only 10 QBs were able to do it. As far as the two teams in Tampa for the Super Bowl, Arizona averaged 7.42 yards per attempt--Pittsburgh averaged 6.5 (if we go by quarterbacks, Arizona's Kurt Warner averaged 7.66 YPA and Ben Roethlisberger averaged 7.04 YPA. Since I don't know if Lombardi was referring to individual or team stats on this, I'll include both).

Bottom line--sorry Hans, wrong guess! Would you like to go for double jeopardy, where the scores can really change?

I think it's pretty easy to say that Lombardi went 0-for-3 on his predictions.

From the same post, I also made some predictions. How did I do?

The Super Bowl participants will each be in the top 8 in the NFL in scoring differential.

See above. 3-out-of-4 for the teams in the championship games; 1-of-2 for the Super Bowl. For the final four teams, better than Lombardi; for the Super Bowl itself, the same as Lombardi.

Each Super Bowl team will be in the top 14 in offensive yards per game.

Arizona=4th (365.8 yards per game). Pittsburgh=22nd (311.9 ypg). Another 50% success, though Pittsburgh was pretty far down on the list.

Each Super Bowl team will have jerseys that don't read "Kansas City Chiefs."

Nailed that one!!

The takeaway here is that I did just as well as an NFL "expert" in making picks based on arbitrary criteria. My point is not to say how great a job I did in making picks; rather, it's to show how ridiculous it is to make these kind of picks at all. Year after year pundits make their picks, and year after year most of the picks are flat out wrong. And no one goes back and tells them how wrong they are.

Next up, an October prediction Zinglebert made concerning the Colts and Titans and the AFC South race (in an article critiquing the one and only Bob Kravitz):

I’m going to put on my Nostradumbass hat on and predict that the law of averages catches up with the Titans and they will come into Lucas Oil Stadium in Week 17 with a 10-5 record and either the division title or a playoff berth on the line.

Tennessee was 13-2 coming in, and the game was meaningless because both the Colts and Titans had clinched all they could clinch. If the Colts had won one more game early in the season, perhaps the division title would have been decided in the regular season finale. Instead, it was a chance to see Jim Sorgi in action!

To be fair, I had my own bad Colts prediction:

I'll make a prediction now: if the Colts win 10 games, they are definitely in the playoffs.

The Colts went 12-4 and easily made the playoffs. However, New England went 11-5 and stayed home. Obviously, 10-6 wouldn't have been good enough to get in. So another bad pick by me.

Finally, I'll wrap up with this little nugget: some of us here at LomHenn.com participate in our own prediction contest at the outset of each NFL season (we do this despite knowing how lousy our picks will be). We pick each of the division winners and wild cards, then take a shot at the playoffs. Zinglebert took the time to compare our picks to the "experts" at SI.com and ESPN.com to see how we did. Here is the result (correct picks are in white, incorrect picks in red):


Click on the picture to see it more clearly.

The column on the right is the total number of division winner/wild card picks that were correct. Although I'm proud of the fact that I got 6 out of the 12 possible picks correct, what I find more interesting is that of the 25 "experts" making picks, none had more than 5 picks correct. And absolutely NO ONE (including myself) had the Super Bowl matchup right, or even close (though I have to point out that both Dr. Z of SI.com and Mike Sando of ESPN.com had Philadelphia going to the Super Bowl, so at least those two writers had Philly advancing in the playoffs--unlike the rest of us. Those picks are denoted in grey in the picture).

So does my success this season make me an expert? Far from it. My point is that come next year, you have as much of a chance of picking the teams who will play in the Super Bowl as the people you read online or see on TV do. And unless you actually put your picks online, no one will hold you accountable if you pick poorly--just like no one holds accountable the "experts" who get all of their picks wrong year after year. You'll be in good company.

Since I've had soooo much success this season picking games, here's my prediction for this year's Super Bowl:

Arizona 33, Pittsburgh 31 (3 OT). The game will be decided on a safety with less than 2:00 to go in the third overtime.

Yeah, that could happen!