Your Week #2 Chicken Little Checklist

Alrighty, let's go over the checklist.

1. Lose your 4-time NFL MVP quarterback for an extended period.

Check!

2. Sign a replacement QB who was retired to be the starter because the guy who was your backup has a regular season QB rating of less than 10 and should not be allowed anywhere on the playing field.

Check!

3. Complete #2 less than three weeks before the regular season starts.

Check!

4. Go out the first week and lay a craptacular egg against a division rival.

Check!

5. If your a season ticket holder you should immediately go out and sell your tickets to all future Colts games.

Che...WTF!

Well, according to WTHR in Indy, they seem to think that Colts ticket holders will be jumping ship now that the team is facing a different kind of adversity we haven't had to face in quite a while.

INDIANAPOLIS - A blowout loss in the first game could prompt Colts' season ticket holders to sell or give away some of their tickets.

WTF! REALLY! Do you really think the sky is falling at this point? While the blowout loss to Houston was a tough one to swallow, it was also a page out of the Worst Case Scenario book. I don't expect Kerry Collins to have the same issues in the first quarter of the Browns game and end up in a 17-0 hole after one quarter.

And considering this weekend's game is the first home game, I don't think most ticket holders are in a hurry to try and make some cash versus seeing the game.

If we are 0-8 at the mid-season point, then we'll have a different story altogether.

It's more than just a first game loss. The first game without Peyton Manning in which the team barely showed a pulse might turn into an opportunity.

Again, see my previous point.

"I thought it was bad," said Brian Williams.

I thought he actually said, "I thought is sucked donkey balls!" But it is broadcast TV, so they had to clean it up.

Ticket brokers say it's a little early for a mass exodus but with the Cleveland Browns coming to town it could be a bellwether game. If the Colts play poorly again this weekend, the hometown faithful may decide to take advantage of the Steelers visit the following week, since Pittsburgh fans are known to travel well.

So basically you already proved you are jumping the gun with this article.

"Pittsburgh is a good traveling team. They can't get tickets to their own stadium, so a lot of times they go on the road. They got a lot of fans that travel, so we are still seeing a lot of demand for that game," said Kyle Kinnett with Sport Events.

This is actually true and was proved in the playoff game in 2006. Fans thought we would walk into the next round and people made a few bucks. Oops!

But some Colts fans aren't so quick to get rid of their tickets.

No shit, Sherlock!

"No, I wouldn't sell them. Not to them, no. No, I don't think I would sell them at all," said Shari Jordina.

"I'd sit through anything the Colts gotta do," Williams said. "No matter what. I'm a die hard Colts fan."

I think this is what most season ticket holders are saying. If you are that quick to sell your tickets before the first home game, then you are probably not much of a Colts fan in the first place.

On the Eyewitness News Facebook page, reaction was much the same Monday.

"I don't have them, but if I did, I would still be at every game. I'm a true blue bleeder, no matter the time. Standing behind a time that has taken us farther than I ever thought possible," said one fan, Gloria.

"Anyone who sells their tickets just because the #1 QB is out hurt is not a true Colts fan," wrote another fan, Rhonda.

Wham! Wham! Wham! (Sound of my head hitting the desk)

For now demand is steady, but there is a crack.

There are still plenty of fans who want to see a Colts game. With or without Manning. Even if the Colts are 0-8, I'm still going to go to a game and have a good time. It is all nice when your team wins, but you tend to take with you the overall experience of the game. The atmosphere, the camaraderie, the lighter wallet and the cheering are all part of going to the game.

"Demand is definitely the same. The prices have dropped a bit. I would liken it to when the economy took a dive a few years ago - predominantly our business was corporate America, corporate America, corporate America and the price was high. When that happened, the pricing came down and gave the opportunity for fans and people who haven't been able to attend these events in the past the opportunity to go. It's the same; I mean, it's a good team. It's a team sport. Prices are down but it's giving the opportunity to fans who couldn't afford to prior the opportunity to go now," Kinnett said.

Dude, the prices have dropped because your franchise player is not playing. It's not like trying to sell tickets to the Brickyard 400. You still have plenty of people who want to go see the Colts. However, since you are not sure what kind of play you are going to see at this point, you are not going to get the top dollar you were getting in previous seasons.

If you normally don't have the opportunity to attend Colts games, this could be your year. Tickets are going for face value.

And that is not necessarily anything new. When I checked Stub Hub there were some going for under face value, but they were the upper level sideline seats in the upper rows. Not sure why they are charging $69 face value for those seats, but they were selling in the mid-$40's. The cheap end zone seats were going for a few bucks over face value. So, like any event, there are some bargains. It's not like it is a pre-season game where you can't give the tickets away.

"It was tough to watch, but I would give them another chance. They are our Colts, so we have to give them a chance," Jordina said.


It's not like you're going to a game and being forced to watch Ishtar or Nothing But Trouble! The Colts are going to win games this year. The Colts are going to lose games this year. Kerry Collins will get more on track and the rest of the team will buck up and actually start showing up. It is not time to throw in the towel and play for a high draft pick. We do not know how long Peyton will be out. If the Colts can hover around .500 and Manning can come back after 8 games, then they may still have a shot at the playoffs.

Even without Manning for the season, the AFC South is winnable for the Colts. I'm not giving up on them yet, and it looks like most fans are not ready to either.

It's All About the Benjamins

One of the big topics of discussion in the coming weeks will be the likely expansion of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Vito Forlenza thinks that if the NCAA wants to be so greedy, then they need to pay the players who are making them all of this money. I think he's a ginormous fucktard, but that may just be me.

NCAA Needs to Show Players the Money

Let's talk about money.

Personally I’d prefer to talk about sex, but since this is your article and you brought it up, we can talk about money.

After all, it's the only thing NCAA officials can think about. Well, they're not exactly putting it that way. They're framing it as expansion of the NCAA tournament.

The NCAA is going to give many reasons for desiring to expand the Men’s tournament to 96 teams. Money is obviously the biggest and I have not really heard anyone shy away from that fact.

But don't be fooled. The NCAA is threatening to add 32 teams to the Big Dance because it thinks it can make more money. That's it and nothing more. Money is not the underlying factor that has the NCAA mulling expansion. It's the only factor.

First of all, fucktard, they are threatening to add 31 teams. Let me try and explain this so your small brain can comprehend this without exploding. If there are currently 65 teams that make the tournament each year and you want to expand to 96 teams, 96 minus 65 equals 31. I have not seen anything anywhere stating the NCAA wants to expand to 97 teams. You’ve pretty much lost all integrity by your little oversight. Plus, shitcan the editor, if there is one, who did not catch this before it was released.

You didn't really think it was about giving more kids the opportunity to experience the thrill of the tournament, did you?

No. I know several coaches that would like to make the tournament every year to give them some additional job security. If a coach does not make the tournament every so many years, they are generally shown the door. Adding 31 teams gives coaches some additional chances every year.

It's all about money. So let's talk about money. And let's finally get serious about giving players their fair share of the mountains of cash the NCAA rakes in.

I would say money is probably 80-90% of the reason. The other 10% I would attribute to the coaches wanting a better chance of making the tournament and the kids having the opportunity as well.

The NCAA can opt out of its current 11-year, $6 billion TV deal with CBS after the Final Four and begin shopping around the tournament broadcast rights this summer. It expects suitors to wage a fierce and expensive battle over this lucrative piece of Americana. The negotiations could potentially lead to unconventional bids and partnerships among network and cable sports broadcasters.

The NCAA has already requested proposals from the networks in regards to the new bidding process should the NCAA opt-out of the current contract. Adding another week, an additional 16 games to the current format, could result in a few billion extra dollars. Whether or not CBS can maintain its stranglehold on the tournament will be hard to tell.

Despite making a ton of money with the current format, the NCAA wants more. And apparently, the yet-to-be-determined sum from a new TV contract is not enough to satisfy its greedy appetite. Before heading to the negotiating table, the NCAA is prepping to sweeten the deal by expanding the field to a whopping 96 teams.

Yep. Is that necessarily wrong? I can’t really say no to that. While I have to say I enjoy the current format and was definitely against it when talk of the expansion began, I can definitely see good and bad points to expansion (hopefully another entry on that topic will be coming soon!).

Disgusting, I know. But not only because it's going to ruin the country's best sporting event.

You know, people said the same things when the NCAA expanded the tournament to include 64 teams in the 80’s. While I do not enjoy the fact that the Selection Committee will no doubt add a tenth Big East team to the tournament over a more deserving second or third mid-major conference team, adding another round of 16 games between teams of more equal caliber could lead to some exciting games. Change is not always bad, Vito.

What frustrates me even more is the NCAA's hypocritical, blatant and reckless exploitation of the players. The current set-up is bad enough. Still, it wants to squeeze even more cash out of the cash-strapped kids.

I hate that fucking analogy. I’m not sure what portion of basketball players are “cash-strapped”, but you will not squeeze more cash from the players. If you are going to gripe about how the NCAA exploits basketball players, then you better be griping about how they exploit the football players as well. I have not seen anything regarding them in here yet.

So go ahead, NCAA. Expand your tournament. Grab your billions of dollars. But pay your players.

They are paid you fucktard. They get an education in exchange for reaping their college some major bucks to fund the rest of the athletics at their school. They get free room and board. If you want to bitch about players needing cash, then bash the NCAA for allowing players to have more ability to work while in school. If you are going to pay basketball players, then how can you not pay the soccer players or hockey players or the underwater basket weavers? Yes, the basketball and football programs bring in the monies to help fund all of the other programs. But how can you can you justify paying only some of the sporting teams?

A radical change to college sports' highest-profile event requires a radical change to the overall structure. Stop the charade and float some cash to the kids.

Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? No, he got rich in college!

Because if you expand this tournament and make these kids play half an NBA season, all this talk about getting an education, upholding the integrity of the intercollegiate athletics and playing for the glory of Dear Old State will morph into lip service. And make no mistake, we're poking at that threshold now. One-and-done players, academic scandals and kickbacks to high school coaches already cloud college basketball's culture.

You are adding one game to the current tournament format. ONE FUCKING GAME, DICKHEAD!

One-and-done players are not the NCAA’s fault. I don’t think the NCAA went to the NBA and asked them to install the one year of college rule in order to get more NBA caliber players to go to college instead of straight to the NBA. The NCAA does gain some benefits from these players, but they tend to harm the schools more unless they can make it to the Final Four or win it all.

Academic scandals and kickbacks have been present for decades in all sports so don’t try and blame those on a single sport’s tournament. Douchebag!

Now the NCAA wants to expand the tournament, add another week to the season and pull these kids out of even more classes? Unless it's all a ruse, how can the NCAA approve this proposal and pretend to uphold its core values? How can it believe it's still looking out for the best interests of the kids? And - oh, don't get me started -- how can it extend the basketball season, but claim a football playoff is impossible because the players will miss too much class time?

One, adding a football playoff would require adding more than one week to the football season. Two, you are only modifying the existing basketball tournament versus modifying the current football bowl structure. The BCS conferences, bowls and bowl sponsors do not want that cash cow to go away and no one has come up with a good solution to satisfy everyone…yet. Class time might be their excuse, but this is definitely one where the money going to the BCS conferences is dictating the stance against a football playoff.

The only way the NCAA can even think about expanding the tournament while maintaining a sliver of dignity and curtailing corruption is by paying the players. I'm not suggesting millions of dollars. I'm advocating a flat stipend allocated across the board -- in both men's basketball and football.

OK, now you finally mention football.

Of the money that currently goes to the conferences and teams, I’m sure that there is not enough there to pay players and paying for the other sports at schools. At most schools, those monies do not even cover the cost of the other sports as it is! Now you think they should pay the players too?

Some of the money schools make from men's basketball and football supports the non-revenue sports like soccer, lacrosse, hockey, wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. If the big-revenue sports are able to subsidize their smaller-revenue brethren, that’s a great use of the money. But the actual people responsible for making all that money - players - must benefit from it, too.

See my response above.

To make it happen, an independent body needs to be brought in to study all the different revenue streams from men's basketball and football - from TV rights and gate receipts to sponsorships and jersey sales. Then, it would determine a fair athletic grant that changes on a yearly basis to keep up with the money the NCAA, conferences and schools are taking in.

If there are 344 NCAA Division I teams that are eligible for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and 12 players per team, that works out to be 4,128 players. How much money are you proposing? $500 per month? At $500 per month for 9 months per year (assumes they do not get paid during the summer months) that would equal $18,576,000 per year. Granted, that is a drop in the bucket of the billions the NCAA receives from CBS. But what about football? Granted, there are only 119 Division I BCS schools, but if the average team has 60 players, that is another $32 million. Over 10 years you are talking over $500 million dollars. I don’t think the NCAA is willing to part with that much to pay players that are already receiving scholarships plus room and board.

Please, please, please don't tell me that college athletes are getting enough from a free education and room and board. That doesn't mean a thing if their parents back home can't pay the rent. That need inevitably leads to cheating, whether in the form of side deals with agents, extra benefits from boosters, stuffed envelopes from well-off alums or some combination of all three. When the kids aren't seeing a penny of the millions they know they're generating, it's hard to fault them for accepting something under the table.

So, do you expect an athlete will take the $500 a month stipend and sent it to his parents so they can make their rent? Get real.

Dude, this is not the 80’s where the stuffed envelopes, free cars and police looked the other way. Universities and coaches have staff that enforce that this does not happen, because when they get caught, it will not only cost them their jobs, it affects the players, the university and the conference. Granted, it still does happen but most of these coaches have probably already left before the shit hits the fan.

These kids are already getting between $5,000 and $100,000 in free tuition per year plus a place to stay and free food. Just to play basketball or football. Something they obvious love to do. Some in the hopes to make it to the pros, others just for the love of the game. For every student athlete that come from a poor family scrapping to get by, how many come from a Carmel or a Cathedral-type school?

If you think the payola is at a high point now, just wait until the NCAA arms all the agents, boosters and alumni with new ammunition of an expanded tournament. It'll be that much easier to convince these kids that everyone in the Ivory Tower is taking advantage of them.

Again…ONE FUCKING ROUND OF GAMES IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT BIG OF A FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO THE PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!! The NCAA will get more revenue and that revenue makes it to the conferences and schools. I’d rather a school have the ability to offer lacrosse or underwater basket weaving than pay student athletes.

The NCAA and its member conferences and schools have gotten away with hoarding all the money for far too long, while the players have been left with empty pockets. It's time to pay up.

Go crawl back into your little hole, Vito. Like it or not, change is going to happen. If not this year, the seed has been planted and we’re all going along for the ride, like it or not.

Forget Bob Kravitz

Congratulations to the Butler Bulldogs on making their first Elite Eight appearance! I'm not sure if they can necessarily wear the Cinderella crown like George Mason in 2006 at this point, but the clock has not struck midnight for them yet.

As much as we would like to forget about Bob Kravitz, our standards dictate that we cannot. We are the standard bearers for bad writing on bad writing. It is articles like this one that we banded together to shine a light on the travesties of wretched sports media writing.

Forget 'Hoosiers'; these 'Dogs are for real

Or...Forget Bob Kravitz; another Turd-burger special awaits!

Oh, great. Since we are in Indiana, why does everyone feel the need to incorporate the movie Hoosiers into any type of small school vs. big school basketball (or seemingly any sport) match up?

Here comes America, armed with its tape measures and Hickory High story lines and features about how Brad Stevens is the lineal descendant of Norman Dale. Now that the Butler Bulldogs are one West Regional victory from writing one of the great college basketball stories ever told -- Butler in the Final Four in Indianapolis -- it's fair to assume the land's journalists are prepared to show up and go all Jimmy Chitwood on us.

I know that the Butler bandwagon is growing and will swell if they make the Final Four and are the lowest remaining seed. I think that is great for a small school from a mid-major conference. Add in the fact they would be playing in their hometown is noteworthy. It only becomes one of the great college basketball stories if they make it to the final game or even win it all. That is a story to remember. If they make it to the Final Four, it is noteworthy, but not necessarily great by any means. Noteworthy, Bob, not "great", got it.

(OK, Sparky)
Here's the deal:

Butler, a 63-59 victor over No. 1-seeded and fourth-ranked Syracuse on Thursday night, is no fluke, no Little Team That Could, no come-from-nowhere Hickory High, even if I'm pretty sure that was Shooter lingering near the end of the Butler bench.

For the love of God, please stop the Hoosiers references!

Too bad it was not a shooter trying to put your computer in his sights so we would not have to read this.

The Bulldogs went athlete for athlete, face to face with an imposing Syracuse team, and showed they were not only more composed and poised, but more athletic than a team that was supposed to be the best in the nation's best conference. (Number of teams in the Elite Eight: Big East 1, Horizon League 1).

No doubt that the Big East was the most hyped conference coming into the tournament this year. I am not sure if it was due more to the Big East being that up or the rest of the conferences just being more down. The Pac-10 just plain sucked ass and it was a minor miracle that Washington made it into the Dance. (Just goes to show that any team that makes the Dance can dance more than once.) The Big Ten has some really good teams in Ohio State, Michigan State and Purdue, but the bottom of the conference was atrocious. The Big East sent eight teams to the tournament and yes, it is surprising that only one remains into the Elite Eight.

Who saw that one coming?

Me. But that is more due to the fact that Mrs. Bembledack is a Butler grad and being a Butler homer than pure outright foresight.

Butler, the coaches and players, they saw that one coming.


No, they did not see it coming, Assbag! I'm pretty sure that Brad Stevens did not have a Nostradamus moment and foresee just how far the team would go this year. The Bulldogs have worked their asses off all year and have played their way here. No one knows just how far they can go until they play.

"We don't need to hit a bunch of 3s to win,'' Butler assistant Matthew Graves said an hour before the game. "We've got to stop them in transition, we've got to make sure we hang in there on the boards, and we've got to attack them in the paint and on the baseline. We haven't even talked about 3s.''

No, but it definitely helps their game when they do hit 3s. When Butler can hit their outside shots, the inside can open up for Matt Howard. Thankfully, Butler is athletic enough and plays team defense to be able to win without requiring 3s.

So what did they do?

I bet you're going to tell us, huh?

They shot a miserable 6-for-24 from 3, although they hit two monster 3s in the final minutes -- and won.

While hitting 25% of your 3s is below their season average of 34.2%, I would not really call it miserable.

Bottom line, Butler won with defense, forcing 18 turnovers and reducing Syracuse's vaunted offense to mush. Willie Veasley, charitably listed at 6-3, kept 6-7 Orange star Wesley Johnson under control. Ronald Nored, who said he ran "a marathon'' chasing sharpshooter Andy Rautins, flustered his opponent into bad shots down the stretch. Once Butler overcame the late four-point deficit and went up by a point, Syracuse panicked.

Wow, something Bob is correct on. Syracuse did seem to panic when Butler went on their 11-0 run to take a 61-54 lead, but they collected their wits some and nearly came back at the end.

Syracuse likes to play fast, play in transition, so we wanted to make it an ugly game for them,'' said Nored, who stole the ball at game's end to seal the deal. "We saw on films, when games were tough and ugly, they weren't as good as when they were out in transition, hitting 3s and getting dunks.

"And we could see them getting frustrated. You could see it in the first half, and then the last few minutes of the game. We got to them.''

Another reason why Butler is still playing and Syracuse is heading home early...again.

Afterward, Syracuse's players looked like they'd just taken the collar from some pitcher throwing 82-mph slop. Yet, the Bulldogs shot atrociously from 3-point range and still knocked off the Orange. And they played a good portion of the first half without foul-plagued Gordon Hayward. And they had to survive for a stretch when Matt Howard got his fourth foul with 8:23 remaining.

OK, Turdfucker! Since when does someone with two personal fouls be considered as foul-plagued? What fucking journalism school did you supposedly graduate from? He may have picked up two first half fouls, but he was not called for any in the second half. I do not consider that foul-plagued by any means. Matt Howard is foul-plagued and has been all season.

Seriously, take away the Butler uniforms, and they could have been one of those Big East behemoths, a Pitt or a Villanova or a West Virginia.

Take away their uniforms and they would be playing in their underwear. I REALLY do not want to see that. Now having the cheerleaders in their underwear, that I would watch!

Now America knows what we've known all along: The Bulldogs can not only play with anybody, they can beat anybody, including Syracuse on a night when they had to rely more on athleticism than long-range shooting. Clearly, this isn't your older brother's Butler team.

The Bulldogs have been able to beat anybody for a while. They lost in OT to Tennessee by 2 points in 2006 when Tennessee was an under-seeded #2-seed. They took the NCAA Champion Florida Gators to the wire in the second round of the 2008 tournament. They've been on the cusp of the limelight for a while. This is just the first time they've been able to put it all together.

Forget about destiny. This is about a wonderful basketball team that defends and cherishes each possession. They've gotten this far. Why not a few steps further?

It is nice to have a team that can actually pass the ball around more than once or twice and can actually play defense. And yes, if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere.

Maybe it's the fact that Butler has never been in the Elite Eight before, but it's like nobody can quite get their arms around the notion. After the game, several of Butler's reserves gathered around a locker room TV as CBS' Seth Davis held court.

"S-s-h-h-h, s-s-h-h-h, I want to hear this,'' someone said.

Davis made the point about how Syracuse desperately missed its injured center Arinze Onuaku -- a point Brad Stevens had made earlier.

The Butler players moaned.

"Man,'' they said, disgusted.

It is easier for the sports media to make excuses for why a higher seeded team lost to a lower seed. We are a society of excuse makers. We cannot seem to comprehend that some teams are going to get beat regardless whether you have all of your players or not. All the sports talking heads were quick to point out that Butler's defeat of Ohio State was due to Evan Turner not playing due to an injury. Yes, I'm sure it would have made a difference if he had played, but Butler handled the Buckeyes pretty well, so you cannot discount what Butler did just because someone good did not play.

Why wasn't Onuaku's absence such a big deal in Syracuse's monster victory over Gonzaga?

Because they won you fucktard! It only becomes an excuse when they lose.

Even as they continue this marvelous march back home, Butler is loath to play up the obvious story line. They know the Final Four is in Indy. They are aware that Butler is located in Indy. Smart kids at Butler. They get it. They see the elephant in the room.

They just don't want any part of it, at least not yet.

The elephant is not in the room, it is sitting on your brain evidently. As Brad Stevens has said all during their current 23-game winning streak, they take one game at a time. They only look to the next game. Yes, they know where their next victory will take them, but they know they have to win to get there.

"I'm going home on Saturday night or Sunday morning, whenever the charter gets here, and we're going to Indy,'' Stevens said. "I just hope we still have season left.''

And we'll be excited for you whether or not you won or lost.

They're not the only ones. America is ready for Butler back in Indianapolis, and if Purdue can follow suit, it's going to be a regular Hoosier-palooza, replete with pork tenderloins and Bobby Plump sightings.

While having both Butler and Purdue in the Final Four would be great for basketball in Indiana, it would be horrible for businesses, but that is a different story.

Great stories don't win basketball games like this one. Great teams do.

And what would you know about great stories. It's not like you've ever written one.

Butler is one of the small fish in the ocean, but they have the teeth to take on any of the teams remaining. The Bembledack clan will be rooting for the Bulldogs all the way and will scream the roof off of my house if Butler wins it all. Do I think Butler could beat the likes of a Kentucky? My answer is yes. If Butler's outside game is on, if Matt Howard can keep out of trouble and they play their current stifling defense, then I think they would at least be in the game to win it at the end.

Sad thing is, if Butler does make it to Indy, I may have to kill someone over the mass of Hoosiers movie reference that will spill forth. FUCK!

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.

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.

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!

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?!?

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!