O'Hoolix Sunday Picks

It seems that O'Hoolix is doing so well these days, he's traveling and living large with Lom Henn himself--a privilege the rest of us here at LomHenn.com are never afforded. Going 20-10-1 thus far in this year's NCAA Tournament will get you into high company, indeed.

O'Hoolix phoned in his picks today since he is traveling, and as his humble servant (at least, until the tournament is complete), I'm doing the honors of posting them. The O'Hoolix picks for the two regional final games today:

LOUISVILLE -7: Going with the hot team--the Cardinals look like they can beat anybody right now. Will Sparty keep it close?

L-VILLE/MSU UNDER (138 1/2): I think O'Hoolix is crazy to take the under here, but what the hell do I know--I had Missouri and Gonzaga in the final. And the little fuzzy space alien is on a roll.

NORTH CAROLINA -7: It's the battle of the big stars: Blake Griffin of Oklahoma vs. Tyler Hansbrough of NC. O'Hoolix thinks NC will be up to the challenge.

So there you have it. Will O'Hoolix continue to dominate? Will Alex Logan defend the Frontier from Xur and the Ko-Dan armada?

What do you think?

Kicked in the junk, but firing away!

O'Hoolix suffered his first losing day of the tournament yesterday going 1-4. Lets call it BLACK FRIDAY!! Oklahoma and NC proved they are for real, Arizona was exposed. O'Hoolix now stands at 17-9-1--not too bad for a furry space mascot!

Anyway, O'Hoolix is not one to shy away from sports gaming when he has a bad day. He dusts himself off and fires again. When rounds are coming in what do you do? Drop and return fire!!! Do you negotiate with the Taliban or do you go out there and kick ass? O'Hoolix prefers to kick ass! Okay, fire up the planet destroying beam (O'Hoolix's picks) and aim for Alderaan(we'll pretend Alderaan are the sports books or your friendly bookie). FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UCONN -6: Mizzu did impress me the other night, but UCONN is for real and most likely will not be rattled by pressure, late fouling should push this above the number

UCONN/MIZZU under 150: Okay, a ton of points were scored last night, but UCONN plays tough D and their center is a real shot changer.

VILLANOVA +2: I like NOVA in this spot, PITT are winners but have not been playing superb lately. NOVA is hot.

BONUS PICK: VILLANOVA M/L +120: Not bad odds for the wildcats. If you like em plus two, go for M/L as well.

Good Luck to all!

O'Hoolix's Friday Picks

O'Hoolix will be traveling on Friday to attend a mascot convention, so I will post friday's picks now for all you junkies and Alex Logan fan club members. Prepare to cash more tickets and remember to tell the wife its not gambling if it is a lock!!!!

LOUISVILLE/ARZ over 139.5: The wildcats are playing well and I expect the Cards to bounce back. Rick Pitino will look to push against the shallow Arizona club.

SYRACUSE -1: O'Hoolix is riding the hot club. 10-1 ATS in last 11. Plus the Orangemen's strong back court might expose Oklahoma here.

GONZAGA +8.5: UNC has played cupcake city lately and the Zags should provide a challenge. I expect the game to be close, but the zags to cover and maybe lose by 6 or 7 pts.

UNC/ZAGS under 162.5: Both teams can score, but I don't think Gonzaga wants to run with UNC and everything has to go right for this game to go high. O'Hoolix might run out there and play some "D" in this one to ensure an under.

KANSAS +1.5: I like Kansas here although O'Hoolix is a Big Ten fan. Jayhawks big man to make the difference here.

Good luck to all, stay tuned for more O'Hoolix picks throughout the final four.

O'Hoolix=EN FUEGO

Okay sports fans....guess who's back?............he's back.......yes he's back.......O'Hoolix is back (insert house of pain back ground music here!) Boy do I hate to scam a Dan Patrick line, but O'Hoolix is "EN FUEGO!" Yesterday was a great day if you were on O'hoolix's picks, 5-5 weeeners.

Look, yesterday O'Hoolix was Alex Logan and his picks were the DEATH BLOSSOM! I hope some of you were on the same side as the famous video game/universe savior/sports gaming wizard. Sunday's games were decent, not as good as Saturday evenings though. O'Hoolix will raise a glass to Siena after their run, boy were they fun to watch. Mizzu, Mich St were close, Syracuse and Kansas won handily. Before I get to Thursday's picks, I want to make a few observations.

1) I love that they moved the 3 point line to an adult male distance. I was sick of seeing grown ass men shoot 3's from the same distance jr. high boys and girls shoot it from. It has opened up the game and I enjoy it much better. Why do we wish to water everything down in this country because its harder?????? O'Hoolix thinks we are getting soft and sitting on our arses too much.
2) I didn't notice much mascot tomfoolery going on. O'Hoolix, being kind of a mascot himself was saddened to see his furry brothers being held down. Nothing is better than a good mascot fight or a mascot heckling other college students. In fact, I love it when a mascot reacts to a crappy ref call or to a crushing defeat! To see the Syracuse Orangeman ball type thing act like he got shot when they lose a tough game is priceless!!! Is there a gayer mascot than the damn teddy bear thing at UCLA????? I am embarrassed for all my other furry mascot friends due to that sweet honey bear. Maybe I am going a bit far here, but I like to see when me and my furry bro's play against kids at half-time. Usually, some lame ass guy tells us to take it easy on the kids during half-time, screw that O'Hoolix wants to win. If they ever get O'Hoolix out there during a half-time game to play football or basketball against the pee-wee's they are goin down! I will be like Deacon Jones and Brett Favre all rolled up into one, O'Hoolix doesn't like to lose. If its hoops, look out here comes Kobe "O'Hoolix" Bryant on those little punks. They most likely deserve to lose and have been acting bad at home or something. When me and my friend's handicap the half-time pee-wee games does that signal a problem????????

Anyway: You want winners, O'Hoolix wants winners, Warren Buffet wants winners as does Regis....so read em and weep.

Sunday 5-0
Total 12-5-1

MISSOURI +4.5: I like Memphis to win in a close one and continue on, but Mizzu has heart and may even pull the upset.

MISS/MEM over 141.5: I think this will be a shoot out with both teams pressing and gunning, should be fun to watch.


XAVIER +7: Pittsburgh has won, but not convincingly. Xavier shoots the 3 decently and rebounds well, I like them to stay close.

VILLANOVA: Tough team and Duke is vulnerable here after escaping Texas. I probably would take them on the money line, as it might go down to 1 or 1 1/2 by game time and the M/L might offer value.

Good luck, stayed tuned and may the winners be yours.

F.S.

O'Hoolix's picks day 4

Okay ladies and germs, O'Hoolix went 2-1 yesterday with victories on UCONN and WKU. While Maryland got hammered by Memphis. Two great endings with the Zags hitting a runner with .9 seconds left and Duke squeaking by Texas which could have at least tied the game or won if they would have gotten a rebound.

I am excited for today's games because my boy Raftery will be working them. I love "the kiiiiiissssssssssss off the glass" line! He really gets into the games. I still miss Al McGuire when he did the games, he had some great lines and insight as well. Anyway, you want winners, O'Hoolix wants winners, here you go:

KANSAS -8: I don't think Dayton is any better than ND ST and Kansas looked good against them. I'll take the Jayhawks.

SYRACUSE -2.5: I think the Orangemen are tough in close games, after all didn't they play like 10 of them the other night?

SIENA +11.5: See my write up the other day on Siena.

MISSOURI -3: Their pressure will be too much for Marquette. If James was 100% I might like the (insert lame nickname here where a cool hard-ass Indian name used to be).

MICH ST -4: Should be close, but I think State has too much D for the Trojans.

Yesterday 2-1
Total: 7-5-1

Good luck and enjoy the games.

Ohoolix Day 3 commentary and picks

Let me say sports fans that last evening is everything that is right in gaming and in college basketball. I do not provide commentary on the media, I let the other experts on this site do that and they do it well.

The Siena v OH State game last night was a great game. Both teams traded punches throughout regulation and both overtimes. Siena drilled big shot after big shot, I am a new fan of their swing man Kenny Hasbrouck, point guard Ronald Moore and their big dude Rossiter. I love the way they play! Ryan Rossiter is a big time hustler. As a matter of fact, O'Hoolix has not even looked at the Louisville/Siena line yet, but I am going with Siena, just because they play right and karma is with them.

On to yesterdays results and today's picks.

O'Hoolix went 2-2-1 yesterday. With Siena, Syracuse in the win column. WV and Pitt in the loss and ND ST. got a push. O'Hoolix is now 5-4-1. Here is today's winners(hopefully)

Maryland +10: I love Memphis this tournament, but I think Maryland has enough to keep it under the number.
WKU +11.5: I like the Hilltoppers to stay in this one and maybe fade late, but under 10 points.
Oklahoma -7.5: OK has too much for the Wolverines who won the other night, but faded down the stretch.
UCONN -10: UCONN has too much for A&M, even without their coach.

Good luck to all. I hope the betting gods give you "the kiiiissssssss" of the glass!!!!

It's Like Hitting Yourself In the Head Over and Over With a Hammer

...it just feels so good when you stop.

Tuning on the local radio dial to listen to the NCAA Tournament this afternoon, and was dismayed to find that the local Jim Rome Show affiliate kept his show on the air instead of having the tournament games! Of course, I then listened for awhile, which is always a bad idea.

First off, while giving NCAA Tournament scores, Rome started playing a "Bracket Alert" alarm with an annoying klaxon sound (think "Red Alert"). This went on for two minutes. Why? North Dakota State was down by one to Kansas with seven minutes remaining in the first half.

Yes, an upset alert. With the underdog still losing. With seven minutes to play in the first half.

Next, Rome decided to be the latest guy to condemn Morgan State's Ameer Ali after his take down of Oklahoma's All-Everything Blake Griffin in Thursday night's NCAA match up. If you missed it, Ali flipped Griffin over his back after the two got locked up under the basket. Ali was ejected from the game. Rome's take (I'm paraphrasing):

"Griffin should have gotten up and taken a swing at Ali. I'm surprised he didn't, though it showed remarkable restraint to not hit a guy who is trying to hurt you. Ali is a chump and didn't belong on the same floor...what was he (Ali) thinking? He was trying to take out or injure the best player in college basketball."

I'm not defending what Ali did. He was ejected for what he did, and deservedly so. However, it's possible that Ali wasn't trying to hurt Griffin on purpose; perhaps in the heat of the moment during some physical play he did something he shouldn't have. I know that Rome probably has never played a sport, but it's not too hard to imagine that sometimes a player can get caught up in what's happening and overreact. Again, I'm not defending Ali, and he deserved to be ejected. But he's not automatically evil.

After Rome went on and on about Ali for awhile, he then started talking about how Griffin must have had "Yakety Sax" playing in his head. So we then heard "Yakety Sax"--over and over and over.

And then I drove into a ditch.

Rah! Rah! Rah! Cheering From the Broadcast Booth

A disturbing trend in radio sports broadcasts has taken hold the last few years. Specifically, the trend of broadcasters to cheer for the team for which they broadcast. Within the broadcast industry, people who do this are known as "homers."

There are notable homers working today, such as Bob Lamey (Indianapolis Colts radio network), Hawk Harrelson (Chicago White Sox broadcasts), Michael Kay (New York Yankees), and Ron Santo (Chicago Cubs). Lamey, Harrelson, and Kay do play-by-play, while Santo does color commentary (at least, is supposed to do that).

What has happened more and more recently is for the broadcasters--usually the color commentators, but sometimes the play-by-play announcers, too--to become cheerleaders during the broadcast. This includes cheering to the point of not providing meaningful analysis of the game. Of course, we look no further than Ron Santo for one of the best examples (this comes from a Cubs/Brewers game in 1998 when Cubs left fielder Brant Brown dropped a routine fly ball that lost the game for the Cubs).

In this afternoon's radio broadcast of the Butler/LSU opening round NCAA Tournament game on the Butler Radio Network provided another example of bad broadcasting. Butler color analyst Nick Gardner constantly referred to Butler as "we" throughout the game. Evidently, Gardner thinks he still plays for Butler--either that or he had a mouse in his pocket.

In either case, it's very hard to have credibility as a broadcaster when you include yourself as part of the team. It's one thing for fans to do that--who cares, we're not supposed to be objective--but as a broadcaster, there should be some sort of separation between you and the team.

Of course, it didn't help that Gardner's analysis was lacking, too--such gems as "you want to score here" when Butler had the ball did not provide any insight into how the Bulldogs could best accomplish that.

Butler lost today, so there won't be any more opportunities for Gardner to provide non-analysis this season. Perhaps in next season's opener, one of Gardner's keys to the game will be for Butler to score more points than the other team.

O'hoolix day 2

Ok, O'Hoolix went a mere pedestrian 2-2 on his picks with American and The Zags covering while Butler and Cal dissapointed ole F.S. American looked great in the first half and the lags looked not so good, both did a role reversal in the 2nd half and still covered.

No real buzzer beaters yet, as of Thursday before the late games. Here are O'Hoolix's picks for you to cash in on Friday. Just tell the wife that this isn't gambling since it is a lock!

West Virginia -9: I like the strength of schedule aspect here as the Mountaineers have been through the brutal Big East and most recently beating Pitt.

Siena +3.5: Although the Buckeye's are playing basically at home, Siena is tough and can score. Should be a close game, I'll take the points.

Syracuse -11.5: I think this game will be close in first half but in the end with the powerfull Orangemen and the fouls I think this will push over the 11.5.

ND ST. -10: Call O'Hoolix crazy, but I think the Bison will give Kansas a run for their money. This team will not be intimidated by the Jayhawks. Kansas may still be rusty from their early exit in the Big 12 tourney.

Pitt -20: The Pitt D should be too much for the overmatched Buccaneers, they have not played a D like this all year.


Good luck to all!
Day 1: 3-2

F.S. O'Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolix

Heeeeeeeerrrrrrr's O'Hoolix!

Heeeeeerrrr'sssss Ohoolix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me introduce my self, I am O'Hoolix......F.S. O'Hoolix. I will be a regular blogger here on Lomhenn.com and you probably will grow to love or hate me, but will O'Hoolix care..............heck no! I will blog on sports, politics, gaming, life in general and yes more gaming.

NCAA tournament starts tomorrow, this is the best damn two days in sports. Beers, basketball, gambling and buzzer beaters. Please tell me that when I die heaven has this on the TV's.

For those of you who want more than 65 teams in the tourney, get bent! Sure, lets water down another great event so we can be FAIR, I think not. Fairness has run amok in our society, everything from scoreless youth games to having classes in a certain Midwestern state's basketball tournament. Johnny needs a trophy to feel good about himself these days waaaaaaaaaaaaaa(baby crying), never mind the real world will kick him in the balls and send him home to mamma. Educators and administrations suck these days and all they want is O'Hoolix's hard earned cash so these damn kids can click away on computers and go to school in fancy looking buildings......I digress. Stay tuned for more socio-economical, political and good humor.

On to a subject O'Hoolix loves very much........sports betting. This years tournament will be great and I expect many upsets. I will post a few plays on here for your gaming pleasure or to heckle me mercilessly, either one. I'll post more plays on friday. Read em and weep:

Butler +2: The dogs should be angry with their seeding and they play good D and shoot the 3 well, should be close throughout, I'll take the points.

American +16.5: Yes, they will be in Villanova's back yard, but they have a certified stud at point guard Mercer. This should be a close game, much closer than the 16 points they are getting. This team is on fire, yes its the Patroit league, but this could be a barn burner, might be worth a look on the money line.

WKU +5: This team is worth a look, especially since Illinois is erratic. WKU defeated Louisville earlier in the year, so you know this team is probably better than a 12 seed. I think the Illini will win, but under the number.

GONZAGA -12.5: O'Hoolix would like it better if it was under 10, but after further research it looks like the Zags have too many weapons.

CAL -1: Don't ask, I just like em.

Of course O'Hoolix will be available for you to send emails saying "you suck" or "your great" after tomorrow.

Good luck to all and I look forward to your crappy ill conceived emails.

F.S. O'Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolixxxxxxxx

Or Maybe He Wanted To Help John Clayton Look Dumb

Ever noticed the question-and-answer sessions between reporters and anchors on news/sports programs? For example, when they bring in the "expert" to explain an ongoing story or to provide more information?

John Clayton is the NFL "expert" on ESPN's SportsCenter. Clayton was brought in this evening to provide insight on the latest developments in the Julius Peppers saga. To sum up, Peppers wants to be traded from the Carolina Panthers and has a four-team wish list. ESPN reported this about a month ago, and the only team identified on his wish list was Dallas.

Today, there is a story that says that the Patriots are one of the four teams on Peppers' list. This story comes a day after another story claimed the Pats were close to trading a 2nd-round draft pick for Peppers.

On tonight's 6 p.m. EDT SportsCenter, anchor Brian Kenny asked Clayton "who the four teams are" to which Peppers would accept a trade. Clayton's response: "it's irrelevant...if the Panthers don't want to trade him, it's not going to happen."

In other words, "I don't know." But Clayton couldn't just say that, could he? Never mind that every report regarding this story quotes a source "close to Peppers" who has identified the Cowboys, the Patriots, and two unidentified NFC teams as the four teams. Why doesn't Clayton say that? Perhaps because it's not a story that ESPN broke? The original story is a month old. The only thing different about the story now is that we know a second team (the Patriots) that Peppers would accept going to in a trade.

The typical rule for this type of interaction between the anchor and a reporter is for the reporter to feed the question to the anchor before they go on the air. This is so the anchor doesn't ask a question the reporter has no answer for. Did this not happen here? Kenny's focus was on the four-team list, while Clayton's focus was on saying that the deal is unlikely to happen.

It would just be nice for Clayton to admit when he doesn't know something, which would likely happen a lot.

Every Time I Think I'm Out...

...he pulls me back in!

Joy mixed with anger at Purdue

Apparently, the Big Ten Tournament result doesn't matter. They might as well have played the Purdue-Ohio State final next Thursday on the moon for all it impacted the NCAA selection committee's decision.

On the moon...with Steve?

Little Bobby Kravitz is probably right, the Big Ten Tournament Final didn't matter as to where Purdue was seeded in the NCAA Tournament--or to where Ohio State went, either. And why should it? It's one game--shouldn't the "overall body of work" (i.e. the whole season) matter more than one game?

Riddle me this: How does Purdue tie for second place during the regular season and then win the Big Ten Tournament title -- win the tournament in a conference ranked second in the nation -- and earn nothing better than a No. 5 seed?

Nice up-to-date "Riddle me this" reference, Bob. How about a KAPOW!! in the article, too?

Now to his question--perhaps it's because the Tournament Selection Committee looks at the whole season, and not just one game? Yes, the Big Ten was the second-rated conference this season. Purdue finished tied for 2nd in the conference and ended the season with an RPI of 20 or 21 depending on who you look at. If the Committee uses RPI as its guide--which it says it does--the Boilermakers are exactly where they should be. You could even make the argument that they could have ended up with a 6-seed.

But I'm using logic and reason in my analysis. Bob is using...well, nothing.
Then, if the Boilers beat Northern Iowa in the first round, they would likely play Washington in semi-nearby Portland, Ore.

It could be worse. You could have to play a 1-seed about an hour away from its campus.

Here's how unimportant conference tournaments are:

Among the four No. 4 seeds (Wake Forest, Washington, Xavier and Gonzaga), only Gonzaga won its conference tournament.

Among the four No. 5s (Purdue, Utah, Florida State and Illinois), Purdue and Utah won conference tournaments. And Purdue wiped out Illinois in the conference semifinal.

Wow--one more 5-seed won its conference tournament than the 4-seeds! Stop the presses!!

Of the 4-seeds, only Gonzaga had an RPI higher than 20 (26). Of the 5-seeds, Purdue: RPI 21, Illinois: 22, Florida State: 14, and Utah: 9. If anyone should be bitching, it's Utah--why aren't the Utes a 3-seed?

I agree with Kravitz in that it seems clear that conference tournaments didn't matter to the committee. Where we disagree is that Kravitz thinks they should matter--I prefer to look at the entire season.

(And yes, I know the committee uses a variety of factors for selection to the tournament, including records over the last 10 games, which means that winning a conference tournament should help you in terms of being a "hot team." But I don't think winning a conference tournament should count more than going 8-2 or 9-1 over the last 10 games).

Look at the very top of the brackets, where Pittsburgh, Connecticut and North Carolina lost in their conference tournaments and still maintained their No. 1 seeds.

Unless you're a bubble team making a miracle run to a conference tournament crown -- or Syracuse -- this week was utterly meaningless.

Yeah--Maryland (RPI-52, 10-seed in tournament) didn't benefit at all from its conference tournament...I'm sure the 2-1 record Maryland had in the ACC tournament meant nothing.
Profitable, good for TV and the host cities and the winners who get to wear cool new hats, but ultimately meaningless.

I agree with Kravitz on this point. In fact, I'd like to see the NCAA give the automatic berth from each conference to the regular season winner, instead of whoever wins the conference tournament. But I know that will never happen.

Purdue should have been at least a No. 4 seed. That's not only based on the fact they had a marvelous weekend here in Indianapolis and won the tournament of one of the nation's deepest conferences, but the fact that when their team has been healthy, they are one of the 10 or 15 best teams in the nation.

So, using that logic, shouldn't St. Mary's have gotten in to the tournament? They lost Patty Mills for 5 weeks, and you could definitely make the argument that the Gaels are one of the best 32 teams "when they are healthy." Same with Davidson--Stephen Curry was hurt for a few games, but when he is healthy, Davidson is a deserving team.

See how stupid an argument that is? I know the committee can do what it wants in its selection process, but seeding teams based on what they "might be" compared to how they actually performed is a ridiculous idea.

And Purdue got a 5-seed...and Kravitz is acting like the Boilers should be pissed off about not getting a 4-seed. I mean, it's not like it was a top 2 RPI team that got screwed down to a 9-seed (keep reading...)

Does one seeding spot make that much difference? Not really. If form holds, the Nos. 4 and 5 seeds will play each other in the second round, anyway. And even given the geographic disadvantage of possibly playing Washington in Portland, there's a lot to like about Purdue right now against anybody.

So now you're saying a 5-seed is okay? Do you always write stream-of-consciousness style?

Sure, one seed makes little difference between a #4 and #5. But I'd say there's a tremendous difference between #7 and #8...

Big picture, the Big Ten really can't complain. Seven teams was exactly the right number, with four teams in the top half of the bracket (Michigan State, Purdue, Illinois, Ohio State) and three as double-digit seeds (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin).

I disagree. For the third year in a row, the NCAA selection committee has made a concerted effort to reward the big conferences and eliminate the at-large selections for mid-majors. The Big Ten did not deserve seven teams. Creighton (RPI-40), St. Mary's (46), and UAB (41) should have been considered before Michigan and Wisconsin.

As for Penn State, consider this equation: If your RPI is within 20 of Joe Paterno's age, you don't get the NCAA bid. So no whining.

Joe Paterno=82 years old. Arizona's RPI=62. Arizona is the #12 seed in the Midwest.

It's funny, pathetic, and sad all at once that the only time Kravitz uses RPI in his article, he fucks it up.

As for the other in-state team, Butler, the selection committee got it right. The Bulldogs could have been an 8 or a 9, which makes absolutely no difference. Sorry, but if you fall short in the Horizon League Tournament final and lose at home to Loyola, an 8 or a 9 is as high as you're going to rate.

Purdue lost at home to Northwestern. Now I'm not suggesting that Purdue be seeded lower than Butler (though their RPIs are very similar), but citing one loss as a basis for a seeding is stupid at best.

Butler has been in the Top 20 or 25 RPI all season--currently 22. How this warranted a 9-seed--who the fuck knows? Yes, Butler lost in the Horizon League championship game and went 7-3 over the final 10 games. So does that one tournament loss hurt you that much, especially when it's to a good Cleveland State team that has played well all season?

I know that Butler's strength of schedule isn't much--ranked 96th--but the Bulldogs had a great non-conference schedule, which included a road win over Xavier.

Let's compare Butler to a wildly successful mid-major: Gonzaga. Both Gonzaga and Butler have been ranked in the Top 25 all season--not that polls matter--but they've both been consistently good all year. Both teams are 25-5. Gonzaga won its conference tournament and went 9-1 over its last 10 games, and the one loss was against Memphis. However, Gonzaga's RPI is 29--seven spots worse than Butler.

What about strength of schedule? I mentioned already that Butler's is 96, but Gonzaga's is only marginally better: ranked 92nd! Somehow, Gonzaga is a 4-seed while Butler only got a 9-seed. Evidently, playing well at the end of the season is worth a whopping five spots in seeding. And for Butler, not only does the 9-seed give Butler a tough first round game against LSU, but it also means that if Butler wins, it gets 1-seed North Carolina in the second round.

As we've mentioned before on Lom Henn.com, many of us are Butler fans, myself included. Of course I'd like to see them seeded higher. But the NCAA has clearly been punishing the mid-majors over the last three seasons. At this point, I don't think Gonzaga qualifies as a mid-major anymore, despite the fact that it plays in a weak conference.

Back to Kravitz--the question he should be asking here regarding Butler and Purdue is why Purdue's conference tournament win didn't seem to be a factor in the selection committee's seeding, yet Butler's conference tournament loss did seem to be a factor. Shouldn't he notice and inquire about the inconsistency?

If they can beat LSU in an interesting first-round matchup, they'd have to face North Carolina in Greensboro, N.C. Apparently, the Dean Dome was booked at the time. Good luck with that, gentlemen.

That's it. That's all the analysis Kravitz has regarding Butler: "if you can win your first round game, forget about the next one." With North Carolina looming in the second round, isn't it more important Butler have gotten a higher seed? Maybe at least humor the Butler faithful a little by saying that it's too bad they got a 9-seed for that reason? Something? It's obvious during the season that Kravitz couldn't find Hinkle Fieldhouse if he ran into it with his tractor, but I'd think that Butler deserves a bit of coverage based on what they've done over the past few seasons. Not to mention that Butler is located in Indianapolis, after all, which is the same city of Kravitz's employer...

But no, we just get the same amount of meaningful analysis we've come to expect from Kravitz, which is none at all. At least he's consistent.

Does It Get Any More Redundant And Repetitive And Redundant Than This?

Watching the "instant classic" Big East Tournament Quarterfinal between Syracuse and Connecticut on ESPN, which is now in its 4th overtime. Great game, except that at the end of the half and each overtime, Bill Raftery has exclaimed, "It doesn't get any better than this!!"

Which begs the question, does he mean at the end of each overtime that the "this" he was referring to previously has gotten better, so that "this" keeps elevating itself? Meaning that "this" is able to improve, so that every time Raftery exclaims "it doesn't get any better than this!!" he means that "this" can never be eclipsed, since it is self-aware and constantly evolving/improving?

Or maybe he just can't think of anything better than "this" to say, so he just repeats himself. Over and over. Repeatedly.

**UPDATE**

Now heading into the 6th overtime (!?!?), and Raftery has made the exclamation in each OT.

As a sidenote, this game is a pleasure for me, as I have a sick pleasure in seeing games go into multiple overtimes--no matter what sport. 25-inning baseball games, 4-5 OT basketball or hockey games, 2 OT sudden death NFL games--you name it. So this is fun!! I want to see 10 overtimes!

**UPDATE 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO**

The game has finally ended, with Syracuse winning 127-117. "This" has finished evolving...for now.

WFNI - Brainless Broadcasting

We all know that sports talk radio in general has its flaws. While there are diamonds in the rough on the radio dials, idiots that think they are experts proliferate the airwaves. In the past 24 hours I have heard a couple of whoppers that make me shake my head.

Last night on the Kravitz and Eddie Show on WFNI 1070AM, I heard this lovely tidbit from Eddie White:

"The only time you see sports on the front page is when there is bad news," regarding an article on the Indiana Pacers' statement they need help from the city to help pay the $15 million per year in facility costs of Conseco Fieldhouse.

Really, Eddie? They only put bad news on the front of the newspaper? What kind of fucktard are you?!?

I'm pretty sure that when the Colts won Super Bowl XL, that was on the front page of the Star. The front page of the Sunday edition of the Star after the Indiana Boys High School Basketball State Finals always has a story on the finals. The day after the Indianapolis 500 always has a picture of the winner on the front page.

It may seem that the front page only has bad news, but come on! Eddie, you've been hanging out with Bob to long and it is starting to rot what little brains you had left.

Then just a few minutes ago on the Tirico and Van Pelt Show again on WFNI, Mike Tirico dropped this shit-bomb of a comment on the Butler-Cleveland State game (paraphrasing):

"You know, I was watching the last two minutes of the game last night and I was thinking that Butler lost the game so that two teams would make the tournament and make more money for the conference."

Yes, Mike feels that Butler tanked on purpose since they are a lock to make the Big Dance and letting Cleveland State win give the Horizon League two teams in tournament and resulting in a large piece of the tournament revenue pie. While it is true that the Horizon League, Butler and Cleveland State will benefit financially since Cleveland State won, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you fucking think that Butler fucking threw in the towel so they could fucking get more fucking money out the deal!

You fucking fuckheaded fucktard!

Mike, I thought you sucked to begin with, but you have reached a new level of fucktardedness. You are not quite down to the level of Tony Kornheiser or Bud Selig, but you are close. The only reason I listen to you is because I hate the shows on the other two shows in your time slot more than yours (and shit like this that I can post here).

So basically WFNI and ESPN Radio are staffed by idiots, but then we already knew that didn't we.

Set Phasers to 'Stun', Not the Headline

Sadly, the Butler Bulldogs were unable to win the Horizon League Conference Tournament and lost a close game to Cleveland State 57-54 last night. We all know this is a wonderful and busy time of year for college basketball fans and sports writers. However, this is what evidently happens when someone gets assigned a story that has not done any background research and is writing the story to meet their deadline. I do not have a problem with the article, just the headline.

Cleveland State stuns No. 17 Butler for Horizon title

OK, I am willing to accept the fact that the Vikings upset Butler since the Bulldogs were ranked 17th and Cleveland State is not. However, if this lazy fucktard, how must be a relative or previous understudy of Bob Kravitz, should have looked at the previous meetings this year. He would have realized that Butler won both games by a combined four points. The first game was won on a last second shot by Gordon Heyward and Butler had to hang on by a thread to win the second at home. Therefore, it should not have been a surprise that the Vikings gave up quite a fight and won the game. They were not the #8 seed. Cleveland State was the #3 seed in the tournament. Cleveland State was the pre-season pick to win the league, Butler was picked to finish fifth. Hence, no stunning or surprising here.

Dude (or Dudette, as the author is not listed as it is an AP story), take two fucking minutes to do some research on the Internet, flip through the game program, look it up on your cell phone or even ask a Butler fan near you could have filled you in on the matchups that occurred this season. Everyone else who was a Butler fan at Hinkle may have been sad about the loss, but they were definitely not stunned!

Congratulations to the Cleveland State Vikings. Hopefully they can work another first round upset like their last trip to the Dance in 1986. Remember 1986, when they were a #14 seed and upset the #3 Indiana Hoosiers? Luckily, Butler has a good enough resume to still get into the dance, but there seeding with take it a hit with the loss. I just hope the NCAA Slection Committee at least gives them a seeding where they have a chance to make it to the second weekend and possibly in the Midwest bracket where they would play in Indy. Wait, they tend to be fucktards as well, so they will probably be an #8 seed and be shipped out west. I'll save my rant against the Selection Committee and it's failure to acknowledge the mid-majors for next week.

Might As Well Be Black & White

ESPN, you are the deuce!

And by "deuce" we mean a good ol' #2. You are not da' bomb, you are a giant stinking piece of shit!

I get that economy is a giant shit-burger right now, but the cable companies and subscribers are paying you to provide HD content for YOUR HD channels. So why the fuck am I watching men's and women's basketball conference championships on ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD in standard definition you cheap, ass-munching fucktards!

As Slut mentioned in a previous entry, this is not the first time ESPN has done this. I am willing to suffer through a SD broadcast for a Horizon League regular season game. I am definitely not thrilled about it and I still would like to bust your balls over it, but I will tolerate it. I am not willing to tolerate it for the conference tournaments and especially a conference championship game. Granted, I do not know what the cost is to broadcast an event in SD versus HD. I am sure that the cost for an HD broadcast is more expensive, but I do not think it is that much more to justify not broadcasting it in HD. ESPN owes the viewers (literally) an HD broadcast on THEIR HD channel.

I scanned the ESPN schedule and as much as I would like to say I am shocked, amazingly the only conference tournament games that will be in HD are from the BCS conferences. So the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, ACC, Big 12 and SEC tournament games are all in HD. Every other mid-major and smaller conferences are left to suffer in SD.

Not only do I think that sucks, it pisses me off. As much as I would like to grab my pitchfork and torch and march on Bristol, we all know it would not do much good. It basically sucks that millions of us get to pay for SD on HD.

Fucktards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indiana Won the NCAA Tournament In 1987, So They Should Be In This Year

It's an exciting time for college basketball right now, with all of the conference tournaments this week. For many, this is as exciting or even more exciting than the actual NCAA Tournament, which begins next week.

Nothing like a fetid pile of feces courtesy of Gregg Doyel to ruin all of the fun.

Pssst, selection committee: In case of Davidson, break rule

The NCAA tournament selection committee needs my help. That's one of the things I learned during a mock selection exercise last week at the NCAA offices in Indianapolis. The selection committee needs my help.

They do? I would imagine they have plenty of people on the committee.

Not a lot of my help. The committee is hooked up better than I dreamed. Even before arriving for the annual media exercise, which in Year 3 finally got around to inviting me, I knew the committee had access to reams of stats and notes and updated information. What I didn't know was the level of electronic sophistication it had reached. The Internet search engines designed specifically for the committee. The high-speed voting they do online for each team, each seed, each little line in the bracket. Electronically speaking, and this is a little bit humbling considering my place of employment, the selection committee is more hooked up than I am.

Dude, you work for CBSSports.com, not ARPANET or SkyNet. I'm sure what you have access to is great, but the NCAA has been doing this for quite some time now. And since it's for a specialized purpose (i.e. selection of the NCAA basketball tournament field), it's not too hard to come up with specialized software.

And I hope you're kidding about the NCAA "finally getting around to inviting" you. I know you work for CBS, which thinks it runs the NCAA Tournament, but I'll just assume you were kidding.

But the selection needs my help nonetheless.
It needs my help with Davidson.

Oh? Really? Do you have SSS (super-specific-software) about Davidson that no one else could have? I'm guessing not.

See, I know what the selection committee knows. I know what information the committee will consider, and what information the committee will ignore. So I know the committee will be instructed to ignore one of the most vital pieces of information available.

Maybe Doyel has a scoop here: what vital piece of information could the NCAA Tournament Committee be ignoring? What a huge story--that the committee will knowingly ignore vital information about a mid-major school. What a conspiracy! It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma!

The committee will be instructed to ignore last season.
When Davidson reached the Elite Eight.

Oh. Never mind--it's just stupidity.

It didn't happen, as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned. Davidson, which is perched dangerously on the bubble unless it wins the Southern Conference tournament, didn't reach the Elite Eight in 2008. Didn't beat Gonzaga in the first round, Georgetown in the second, Wisconsin in the Sweet 16. Didn't almost beat eventual national champion Kansas in the Elite Eight.

Actually, Davidson did do those things, and it was wonderful. How exciting would it have been for Davidson to reach the Final Four? Even so, Davidson again showed how mid-majors should be better considered for the NCAA Tournament than they have been.

Didn't happen, selection committee. Don't consider it. That's a guideline, and not just an implied guideline. So it is written, in the inch-thick folder given to every selection committee member upon arrival in Indianapolis:

Materials not influential:

Performance by a team in a previous NCAA Tournament.

To which I say: You must be joking.

To which I say: you are a Fucktard. Why would last year's performance be a consideration for this year's tournament?

Last year happened. Last year was real.

Yes, I already said that.

And while college teams do change from year to year, Davidson didn't change that much. The Wildcats return three starters from their 2008 Elite Eight team, and they return 10 of their top 13 scorers

Good for them. They should have been very good this year, with a successful team returning so many players. Making the NCAA Tournament really shouldn't be a problem.

Those numbers are all well and good, but in reality, this is all the selection committee needs to know:Stephen Curry is back. And so is Bob McKillop.

Okay...their best player and their coach is back. See above.

Curry was the humble star who put Davidson on his back and damn near carried his team into the Final Four. He had one of the most prolific four-game scoring totals in NCAA tournament history, and he's a better player this season. McKillop, meanwhile, is the coach who made it happen. Designed the offense to free up the heavily guarded Curry. Designed the defense to stop Davidson's bigger opponents. Gave his team the confidence and toughness to believe it could do things logic said couldn't be done.

But as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned, none of it happened. None of it can be considered. When the committee convenes next month, Davidson -- which has lost two consecutive games -- will clearly be on the far side of the bubble with its CBSSports.com RPI of 54. Davidson would be behind, presumably, Michigan (No. 48 RPI), Miami (49), Cincinnati (50), Boston College (51), Creighton (52) and Baylor (53)...

This article is a bit old, so I'll update: Davidson is 25-7, but its CBSSports.com RPI is now 73. This is a team that likely needs to win its conference tournament to get in.

Which would be a travesty. None of those schools has done a damn thing in the NCAA tournament in years.

And that has what exactly to do with this year's tournament? Oh, yeah--nothing!

The primary duty of the committee, if I'm not mistaken, is to put together the strongest NCAA tournament field possible. With that as the most important guideline, this Davidson team -- one year after that Elite Eight run -- gets in. Simple as that.

The RPI and the strength of schedule and any other bullcrap statistic the committee considers won't take into consideration this: Davidson did it last year, and its most important pieces -- the star and the coach -- are back.

Yeah, RPI is a "bullcrap statistic." All it does is try to rate teams objectively based on strength of schedule, wins over quality opponents, etc. Objective measures are bullcrap, man!! Let's use stuff that has nothing to do with this year instead, like last year's performance or the number of players with size 12 1/2 shoes. Fuck yeah!

This isn't even a Davidson argument. This is a common sense argument. Three years ago, underdog George Mason reached the Final Four. If the Patriots had entered the 2007 selection phase on the bubble (they didn't), and then been left out without the committee even considering their Final Four run from 12 months earlier, that would have been imbecilic bordering on irresponsible. Whoever the darling is this year -- and there will be a Davidson-like darling this year -- that team will deserve this same consideration if it's on the bubble in 2010.

So let me get this straight--you're saying that if a team is on the bubble (which at the time Doyel wrote the article Davidson was), if it had a good performance in last year's tournament, it should be automatically included in this year's tournament, even if its not as deserving as another school based on this year's performance?

This makes absolutely no sense. As you said already, the job of the selection committee is to put together the "strongest NCAA tournament field possible." How would rewarding a team for last year's performance accomplish that?

This is common sense, people. Let's assume Davidson doesn't win the SoCon tournament. Upsets happen, so let's assume one happens to Davidson. Even so, Davidson already has played its way onto the 2009 NCAA tournament bubble. This isn't a below-average team needing a sentimental gift from the selection committee. This is a team that has earned its way onto the bubble thanks to its 2008-09 victory total and its RPI.

And from the bubble, Davidson played its way into the 2009 field by nearly playing its way into the 2008 Final Four.

Yes, Davidson has played its way onto the bubble--not into the tournament. Playing its way onto the "bubble" just means Davidson should be considered. Lots of teams are on the proverbial "bubble." How will the selection committee decide who gets in and who doesn't? By using objective measures such as RPI and strength of schedule.

Look, I love mid-majors. I want to see Davidson get into the tournament. And I would agree that it's a legitimate criticism to say that the NCAA often rewards big conference schools over small conference ones. The fact that there was legitimate discussion about the Big East possibly getting 10 teams into this year's field shows how ridiculous this can be.

And I'd say it's a valid complaint that the RPI favors big conferences. It's been well documented the troubles mid-majors have had scheduling schools from big conferences. Since teams like Davidson, Butler, or Gonzaga play in weaker conferences, their strength-of-schedule suffers because of the conference games. Since schedule strength is a factor in RPI, this gives the big conferences an advantage in RPI.

But you can't use last year's performance as a criterion! And even if you did, you'd have to apply it to everyone. What happens if you have two teams left on the bubble that both performed well last season? Do you go back two years? Five?

Why stop there? Why not reward teams for all-time performance? Indiana has five national championships. Of course IU is having a dreadful season this year, but shouldn't its history of providing exciting and memorable tournament performances be taken into account?

How about Loyola Marymount? CBSSports.com RPI is 319. But remember Bo Kimble and the 1990 Loyola Marymount team that got to the Elite 8, losing to UNLV? The team that dedicated its tournament to fallen teammate Hank Gathers? Why not reward them?

What about Indiana State? Their CBSSports.com RPI is a whopping 200. But remember Larry Bird carrying ISU to the final game against Michigan State? If ISU gets in this season, it could set up an ISU/MSU rematch! Who wouldn't want to see that?

It's a ridiculous idea to use last year's performance--or any other year's performance--as a criterion for selection into this year's tournament. I'll definitely be rooting for several mid-majors who are on the bubble to get at-large berths, and I'll know if they do indeed get in, it will be because the NCAA selection committee thinks they deserve it for this season...period.

They've Been Playing Great Games; Thanks For Finally Noticing

It's been nearly a month since we've done anything on our favorite sportswriter. And by favorite, I mean "shitty like a yak with diarrhea."

Of course you know who I'm talking about: Bob Kravitz!

Girls take center stage with great players, games

In the 34 years they've been holding an Indiana girls high school basketball championship, there's never been a year like this one. Shoot, there's never been a year like this one in Indiana boys high school basketball, either.

Technically, unless every score of every game is the same and every game contains the exact same teams as a previous year's tournament, every year is unique. So by definition, you could say "there's never been a year like this one" about ANY year.

And when it was done, an undefeated Ben Davis staked its claim for the unofficial national championship of high school girls' basketball.

Kravitz does say "unofficial," but let's be clear about this: there is no national championship in high school basketball! Yes, I know some publications do national rankings, but they are completely meaningless. How can you possibly equate teams and schools from 50 states? Do you really have enough knowledge and data to say that the #1 team in Texas is better or worse than the #1 team in Indiana?

Publications and websites do national polls for two reasons: to sell more papers/get more hits and to make more money. There is no credible way of forming a Top 25 national high school poll.

As for this article, we'll see later how Kravitz adds more hype (inaccurately, of course) to the national championship hype machine.

Early in the afternoon, there was Heritage Christian, ranked anywhere from eighth to 14th in national polls, winning its fourth consecutive 2A state title by edging Oak Hill 60-58 in overtime.

Claire Freeman, their guard, had her own Bobby Plump moment, hitting a tough, contested shot off the backboard for the game winner with three seconds remaining.

Maybe she'll open a restaurant someday, call it "Freeman's Last Shot.''

Or maybe not.

If it were possible for the sound of crickets to be imbedded in a newspaper, you'd have heard it here. The online version of this story should have had them added for effect.

Then, in the tournament's much-anticipated marquee game, there were the state's and the nation's Nos. 1 and 2 teams -- some rankings had it Ben Davis-South Bend Washington and others had it South Bend Washington-Ben Davis -- and a game that exceeded all expectations.

Actually, as you can see here in an article from Kravitz's own paper, only one national poll had Ben Davis #1 and South Bend Washington #2. The rest had both ranked high, but in no other poll were the two schools #1-#2. Nothing like over-hyping an already over-hyped fictional national championship idea!

This, too, ended with another Plump moment, this one involving Ben Davis sophomore guard Bria Goss. Her twisting, falling, leaning, praying shot in the lane slammed the glass, pounded the front rim and then fell softly through the net with 1.4 seconds remaining.

Does every last second shot have to be described by invoking the name Bobby Plump? I know that Milan's small-school 1954 state championship is the stuff of legend and of Gene Hackman movies, but isn't there something more recent that can be referenced? Isn't throwing Plump's name into every story concerning a late-game shot a bit cliche now? Never mind that it's often inaccurate--does everyone hold the ball for more than a minute, without moving, before taking the final shot?

The 4A title wasn't just a state title game; it was an unofficial national title game.

You've said this already, despite it still being a stupid notion. More to come on that.

Boys?

Who needs boys?

(That's what I tell my daughters, anyway).

Bad joke aside, why does Kravitz feel the need to compare the boys and girls tournaments? Why is it assumed that the boys games would automatically be more interesting? I would say that NONE of the girls tournaments have needed boys to make them interesting (besides the fact that if the boys were there, it wouldn't have been girls basketball).

But wait; it will get worse.

Clearly, this is a historical anomaly. It's rare enough to have one top high school team named among the nation's top 10 or 15. But three teams in the national rankings, including the top two?

That said, the epic rise of Indiana girls basketball is not some accident of history.

When I first read this, I took a bit of an exception to the idea that girls basketball wasn't great 10 years ago. If you watched Stephanie White play when she was in high school, you know what I mean. But I have to agree with Kravitz here--for as ridiculous as the national polls are for high school sports, I don't believe Indiana has ever had the accolades for girls basketball that it enjoys now.

The next couple of paragraphs Kravitz points out that the rise of year-round play over the past 10 years in girls basketball has made the overall level of talent greater. It is a completely valid point, and I agree completely.

However, Kravitz quotes Garry Donna, the long-time publisher of Hoosier Basketball. At first it seems harmless, as Donna agrees with Kravitz that year-around AAU play has helped girls basketball. But then:

"...Second, the coaching has gotten a lot better in the girls game. There's been a trend over the years and it's gotten to the point where around 80 percent of girls coaches are men. That's not a gender thing, but a lot of girls coaches are former boys coaches and they have more experience..."

Fuck the heck? If that's "not a gender thing," then what exactly is it?

Not only is Donna's statement blatantly sexist, it also exhibits faulty logic. Perhaps Donna is correct that "80% of girls coaches are men" (I've been unable to find numbers for Indiana), but is this a new trend, even if it is true?

As for male coaches who started out in boys basketball before becoming basketball coaches for girls teams, how would that give them more experience? The girls state basketball tournament has been around for 34 years. Isn't that enough time for female coaches who have only coached girls basketball to have enough experience? Is Donna actually suggesting that coaching the same number of boys basketball games imparts more experience than coaching girls games?

No one has ever mistaken Garry Donna for a classy guy. Several people who have covered high school sports have commented independently that Donna's interest in girls basketball over the years was driven more by a leering motivation than by genuine interest in girls basketball (it was widely noted by some that Donna had an unhealthy obsession with Indiana Miss Basketball Stephanie White while she was still in high school). Even if he has a newfound respect for girls basketball, to say that it's only better because there are more male coaches with "more experience" is idiotic.

Of course, Kravitz does nothing to disagree with Donna--in fact, Kravitz gives him nearly a quarter of the article in quotations.

This is a classic case of Kravitz declaring that girls basketball is now worth watching, because he's just discovered it and declared it so. I'm glad that Kravitz has finally come around to giving the girls' game a chance, and that it's as "worthy" of watching as the boys' game. Perhaps he should have done it sooner, so he wouldn't have missed the last 10 years of great girls basketball.

February Fucktard of the Month Nominations

Greetings from The Bahamas!

We apologize for the lack of posts, but everyone has been busy with writing deadlines, baby diapers, keeping networks running and trying to mold young minds while fighting the urge to bash them with a frying pan. I thought I would take a break from writing to catch up on the site and bring you a new feature - The Fucktard of the Month. A year is just to long to wait and there are way too many fucktards in the sporting world to deal with.

February brought us the latest in the steroids issue, A-Rod's contradictory interviews, a shitty ending to the Daytona 500, Michael Phelps' dope smoking pic, the most awesomest Super Bowl ever (NOT!) and ESPN being ESPN. While there are many topics to choose from this month, the cream of the crop do rise to top or more apt, float to the bottom.

1. Bud Selig

The Major League Baseball Fucktard Extraordinaire, er, Commissioner, Bud Selig, publicly stated, "It's not my fault," regarding the steroids issue in baseball. Yes, the man who turned a blind eye to steroids in the league for so many years wants everyone to know he is not to blame.

Bud, uh, correct me if I am wrong, but are you not the head honcho of the league? Do you not have the power to put the drug testing and penalties in place? And even if the Players' Association tried to balk at the drug testing, could you not have lambasted them in the press?

Nah. You and the owners chose to ignore the issue and enjoy the renewed interest in baseball thanks to the home run chases by McGwire, Sosa and Bonds. You only implemented the drug testing and harsh penalties when Congress started taking an interest and threatening the league.

I do not expect you to come right out and say, "Yes, we tried ignoring the issue since we were making money hand over fist and we are at fault for not taking care of the issue sooner." However, we fans are not complete idiots. Mostly idiots, maybe, but not complete idiots. You cannot say you had no idea of the steroids use in the league and expect us to believe it.

Therefore, Bud, you are awarded a nomination as Fucktard of the Month.

2. Alex Rodriguez

The man, the myth, the legendary idiot. Sports Illustrated was able to determine that A-Rod was one of 104 Major League players who tested positive for steroids in 2003, prior to the League instituting the new drug policy. A-Rod did do what most other players who tested positive had not and admitted to taking steroids from 2001-2003. However, in two separate interviews with Peter Gammons and upon arrival at Spring Training, he gave conflicting answers, suddenly had a cousin who was giving him the steroids, failed at the fake cry and left everyone with more questions than answers.

Not that the steroid problem was ever out of the spotlight in baseball, as baseball's highest paid player and one of its biggest stars, he really started a fire storm around the performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Baseball did not need another black eye on the PED problem, but in this case it got sucker punched. Bud Selig did not do himself any favors as noted above.

A-Rod has the best chance to break Barry Bonds' home run record among the active players within range. People already wanted to have an asterisk by Bonds' name in the record book, now nearly any player from the "Steroid Era" will be suspect for having taken PEDs.

Way to go, A-Hole, I mean, A-Rod!

3. ESPN

Lastly, I nominate ESPN. Why? Because I get more and more frustrated at the #1 network in sports. Not showing sporting events in HD, shitty announcers, shitty anchors, shitty radio personalities, unconfirmed breaking stories that turn out to be false, they may #1, but lately they're acting more like #2, if you know what I mean.

I do not know if they feel this is what the public wants or if they are so clueless they think they can dictate what we want. ESPN's revenues are falling due to a decline in viewership. No shit? Well, yes it is shit and that is why people are not watching. Hello?!? Until ESPN gets a clue, we will continue to be force-fed the drivel they think is sports entertainment.

I'll also toss out a nice Honorable Mention to Michael Phelps for his bong-headed display of getting his picture taken while smoking dope. Idiot...oh, yes! Fucktard...not really.

So your choices for February are Bud Selig, Alex Rodriguez and ESPN. You can vote by commenting or by sending an email to any of us listed on the right-hand side of the page. Remember, vote early and, if you are from Chicago, vote often.

Now back to some Cabo Wabo and some sunning with the ladies. Ciao!

Did Poor Jay Get His Feelings Hurt?

Wah, wah, wah! How dare you think about trading me! Wah, wah ,wah! I am your star QB! Wah, wah, wah! Call me WonderBeard or I'll quit!

Jay Cutler is mad that the Broncos and new head coach Josh McDaniels may have had trade discussions regarding Cutler. The possible three-way trade would have sent Cutler to Tampa Bay and brought Matt Cassel to Denver from New England. The Broncos do not deny the fact, but state that other teams called them and they listened. Now, Cutler is pouting that his beloved team may not think he is so great and feels the team is still trying to trade him. It is not a no confidence note in Cutler. Regardless of whether or not the trade talk is true, Jay needs to quit being a cry baby and understand that it is just part of the game.

There are only a handful of players who are honestly hands-off in trade discussions (both Mannings, Tom Brady, LaDanian Thompson, etc.). Trades are less frequent in the NFL than in the NBA or MLB, mainly because teams do not seem to get as much for a player as you do in the other leagues (i.e. Matt Cassel AND Mike Vrabel to the Chiefs for a second round pick in 2009). I don't think there is a GM out there who would not at least listen to an offer. He may laugh at you or deny you on the spot, but most would at least listen.

McDaniels is coming from New England and worked with Cassel last year. He saw what Cassel did coming off the bench for the injured Tom Brady and I cannot blame him for possibly wanting to bring Cassel in. Cutler needs to grow up and understand the NFL is a business and there WILL BE a time when the team will trade him or boot him to curb when his price gets too high or his output gets too low. Not MIGHT BE, but WILL BE. It is a fact of life in the NFL. It happened to Marvin Harrison this year due to his high salary cap hit. It will happen at some point in the future to Peyton Manning. Colts fans just hope it will be many years down the road and much later than sooner.

Hey, Jay! Keep whining and well keep making Jeff George comparisons. I think we still have a few cases of some vintage 1993 J&G 4th&20 whine? You interested?