NBA Draft - ho hum

I'm not that big a NBA fan, but the NBA draft is always interesting. It's not on the same level as the NFL draft, so I didn't sit and watch it beginning to end. One reason is that I was sitting at the bar at my local Hooters because they had $2 Coors draft, and Wednesday night is all you can eat wings. Plus, there are waitresses with big knockers. So, this isn't a draft diary so much as thoughts written on the edges of a newspaper that took with me so my staring, I mean, looking around is less noticeable. And don't hold going to Hooters against me. I don't have the dirtiest mind around. In the latest Maxin, they had a panel of sports experts to talk about reader voting on sports topics. One was "Hottest Female Athlete" which include the Sharpovas, Kournikovas, Jennie Finch etc. Then Shaquille O'Neal added Michelle Wie. Isn't she 16?

To begin with, I knew I was lucky (or more than I originally thought) to be at Hooters because the TV volume was low, and loudmouth Stephen A Smith was one of the commentators. The unfortunate part was most of the players were wearing normal looking suits. No bright orange or avocado green. What did they think they were there for - to meet a loan officer? My theory on this draft is this: if you need immediate help, take Brandon Roy; if you can wait a year, take LaMarcus Aldridge; if you can wait two or more, Tyrus Thomas is the choice.

Things started off with some Italian with a girl's name going first which was a big surprise because ESPN had been reporting that for the past half hour. Aldridge goes next Chicago, but they are only pretending because he's already been traded to Portland. Then Charlotte takes Adam Morrison. I don't really care for Morrison. It's my belief that you should have to play some defense in the NBA, and he plays none. In fact, it's my belief that Michael Jordan drafted him because he wants to play pick up games with the Charlotte players, and he needed someone around for him to score 40 against. Morrison fits that bill.

Besides that, I've been trying to figure out why so many "pundits" insist that Morrison has the most "star power" and would be the biggest rookie draw. He's a goofy looking guy with a bad haircut and 70s style pornstache. How appealing is that? Wannabe Marxists aren't that popular in North Carolina. Just look at what happened in Greensboro (good episode of City Confidential). Speaking of which, does anyone really think he'll "redistribute" his NBA millions? I didn't think so.

Why on earth would Atlanta promise Sheldon Williams that they would take him with the fifth pick? Usually, you promise a player you'll take him so he stops working out for other teams, but no one was thinking of taking Williams with the first through fourth pick so there was no point in making that commitment. Outside of Atlanta, I don't think anyone was thinking of Williams in the top ten. He's certainly not good enough to lock yourself up on. What if Houston wanted to trade picks to get Brandon Roy and threw in a veteran player who in all likelihood is better than Williams? Do you say no because you promised Williams you would take him fifth? That's just stupid and explains why Atlanta sucks every year.

Why would you have both Stephen A. Smith and Dick Vitale on the same show? Isn't one person completely incapable of speaking in a normal tone of voice enough?

I'm so happy that the Sonics drafted that guy from Senegal, because a lot of people thought my favorite team, the Jazz, would take him. The guy averaged three points in Belgium, which is less competitive than the Italian, Spanish or French European leagues. Come to think of it, probably less competitive than the Russian, Serbian or Israeli leagues. Glad to see JJ Redick go to Orlando, because he was the other guy everyone thought the Jazz would take. You know because he's white just like Deron Williams from last year. Oh, wait.... Good news is that the Jazz get Ronnie Brewer who I think will be a better pro than college player, and will be better than Redick.

That guy from Switzerland sure didn't look Swiss, but he did have that solid Swiss name Thabo Sefolosha. One of the highlights of watching at a bar is that one of the TVs has closed captioning, and it's pretty funny to watch the guy keep up with names like that.

Cedric Simmons just went to the Hornets. The little note under his name mentioned his childhood pastimes were building treehouses and shooting things (squirrels and rabbits). Once the team moves back to New Orleans, both skills could come in handy.

Why did they keep saying Adam Morrison was highest draft pick out of Gonzaga since John Stockton? Stockton went 16th which seems a bit lower than third.

Is everyone being traded? And all these trades seem to have cash consideration. Am I the only one that thinks it sounds like they'll send briefcase full of small bills? And are the Suns going bankrupt or did they think the talent level was really low this year? They traded away all their picks pretty much for cash.

Got to love the way the commentators are talking about Marcus Williams' free fall while he's sitting in the green room listening to the whole thing. The basic reasons are that he's fat and David Stern better check his wallet after shaking hands with him. Now, the Knick fans want Williams which means Isiah Thomas will draft someone else. In this case, Renaldo Balkman. You know, I liked Balkman in college. He's a hard-working athlete who never slows down. Still, I don't like Balkman as the 20th pick, because nobody else was going to take him in the first round, and is he really what the Knicks need? One plus of the pick is that Stephen A. Smith was almost speechless. Then later in the first round, Thomas takes Mardy Collins who is a tweener guard without much athletic ability and can't guard anyone with any quickness. My favorite part of his draft bio is "He struggles to shoot from everywhere on the floor." Everywhere? Got a winner here. Do the Knicks think he's better than Marcus Williams? Common sense says take Williams with the 20th pick and if you really want Balkman, don't worry, he'll still be there for the 29th.

In Balkman's defense, I think he could make a niche for himself in the pro game. Bring him off the bench and have him chase around the other team's top scorer. In fact, I agree with a guy I work with who said Balkman would have a better career than Nets' pick Josh Boone. Of course, Boone did a fine impression of garbage last year at UCONN, so I don't find that expectation to be too high.

And Rondo goes to the Celtics via the Suns. I believe Rondo will be fine at the pro level. Word on the street is the Celtics really wanted him because he abused Marcus Williams and Randy Foye when he faced them in a pre-draft workout for Boston. His shooting will be an issue if he can't improve it a bit, but he shot pretty good with the under-20 U.S. team. Besides, I don't think he needs to become stellar at it to succeed. Tony Parker is a lousy three point shooter. Jason Kidd is a 40% shooter from the field, not just from beyond the arc. Those two have managed to do well by being good at other things. Rondo is good at other things. He's one of the quickest players I've ever seen which is why his defense is so good. He led UK in rebounds, assists and steals. Opposing teams will have to account for him on the floor.

Of course, Dick Vitale disagrees as he calls Rondo a ".220 hitter". Of course, when you spend the past twenty some odd years sucking up to big name coaches like Tubby Smith, you certainly aren't going to like the players who won't kow tow to them. I'm not sure where his expertise comes from. Was it the one time he took the University of Detroit to the NCAAs or the 38% winning percentage he compiled as an NBA coach?

Of course, it's nothing like Stephen A Smith. This guy isn't just loud and irritating. He's borderline retarded. Plus, what exactly does he bring to the show? He just said that he had never heard of Renaldo Balkman until he started moving up draft boards a couple of weeks ago. Smith has his own sports talk show on ESPN2 (so I've heard, never actually watched it). Balkman might be unknown to casual sports fans, but how could somehow who covers sports for a living not know who he is? He was the NIT MVP. Earlier when they were discussing Rudy Gay, Smith said he hadn't seen him play much. You've got to be kidding me. How unprepared can you be? It's bad enough that you're a sports reporter who admits he didn't watch one of the top college basketball teams, but how can you agree to go on the NBA draft show and not go back to watch the top prospects? This guy is a buffoon who has no business being on TV, let alone covering an event like the NBA draft.

Not real sure why the commentators keep ripping Portland's draft. They ended up with Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge, both of whom I liked. Who else ended up with two players of that quality?

I must say that all the trades made for an interesting draft. Just like every other draft, we won't know much for a couple of years who really did well. I was surprised that Rondo was the first point guard taken and he went late. Hated to see Taquan Dean not get drafted, but I hope he catches. Really wish they would get a new broadcast team.

One other point. I am so sick of the commentators who said that guys who didn't came out early didn't get drafted. I love college basketball so I would like to keep as many good players around as possible, but I'm realistic. The NBA doesn't like seniors. Outside of Brandon Roy and Randy Foye, name me one other player who really helped himself by staying until his senior year. Maybe Hilton Armstong (who I wouldn't have drafted). West Virginia had two players, Kevin Pittsnogle and Mike Gansey, who probably would have been drafted last year. This year, neither was. Keith Bogans went back to UK after his sophomore year because he was projected in the second round. After his senior year, he went in the second round. Coming back really helped.

Almost Forgot

I thought I was done with the NBA Finals, but then I saw a column by Bill Simmons on ESPN.com. Thanks to the continuing inanity of the late night start time, I didn't stick around to watch the trophy ceremonies after game 6. Even with California, the Pacific time zone only has about 15% of the population, but God forbid they be inconvenienced. So, I didn't see it happen, but apparently Shaq wouldn't let David Stern hand the MVP award to Dwyane Wade. He had to take it from him and be the presenter. I guess Shaq thinks of it as passing the torch. Except it's not. Wade was their best player last year too.

I think Simmons' point is dead on. Shaq may say all the right things, but it has to be killing him that Wade is getting all the credit. Little does he know that it could (and should) be worse. He's actually getting some credit for the win rather than it being honestly reported that Miami won in spite of Shaq having flaws so bad that he wasn't on the floor at crunch time. Most think that Miami wouldn't have won a title without Shaq to draw double teams. There may be some truth to that, although I thought the team actually played more fluidly (especially in game 6) when Shaq was off the floor. However, that's a debatable point. What isn't debatable is that the Heat probably wouldn't have made it out of the second round with Shaq, but not Wade. They certainly wouldn't have won the title.

I'll be perfectly honest. I don't really like Shaq. I got tired of his knocking people into the stands to go to the basket without a charge being called, and then whining that he gets hacked all the time. If a defensive player isn't allowed to position defend him, what else can they do besides foul him? Besides, if he'd learn to hit a free throw, they probably wouldn't do it as often. I've also had to listen to him give interviews where he thinks he's a comedic genius, but he's really not that funny (why does Ozzie Guillen get grief for calling someone a fag, but Shaq gets away with calling Sacramento the Queens?). Of course, he also thinks he's talented outside basketball, but that leads to Kazaam, Shaq Diesel and Shaq Fu. Half his interviews degenerate into "Look at how great I am", and then he ends up giving himself multiple nicknames like The Big Aristotle (can't wait for Shaq's philosophical treatise). Yet when Eric Dampier outplayed him in game 2, he hid from interviewers. Think of it this way - if I don't like Terrell Owens for being a "me,me,me" braggart, why would I like Shaq when he does the same thing?

I don't like Kobe Bryant either, but I think the problems that the Lakers had their last year together weren't just Bryant's fault. Neither of them liked sharing the spotlight, and unlike Wade, Bryant was not going to be subservient when he knew he was just as important to the team. I'm sure it had to be irritating to him that he was expected to carry the load while Shaq was "playing" himself into shape, but Shaq was bragging about how he would be the one carrying the team in the playoffs. Many observers thought the Lakers made a mistake when they traded Shaq, because they believed the Lakers wouldn't be able to sign Bryant if Shaq stayed. That's just stupid. Bryant is much younger, and Shaq is clearly on the downside of his career. Keeping Shaq over Bryant would have been a good idea if they could have gotten someone like Wade, but what's the likelihood they could have? Does anyone think the Lakers would have made the playoffs this year with Shaq, but not Bryant?

So, we're left with a new superstar in Wade, and an aging diva in Shaq who still wants to be relevant. Actually, it kind of reminds me of the director's commentary on the Big Trouble In Little China DVD. Their idea was to flip flop the leading man character and the sidekick, with a little subtlety. Apparently, they were so subtle that no one knew. Kurt Russell's Jack Burton was seen as the hero even though he was really a doofus, and Dennis Dun's Wang Chi was the sidekick even though he did most of the ass kicking. Shaq thinks he's still the hero, but he's now the sidekick.

Re-thinking (or not) the NBA & World Cup

OK. I didn't get my complete wish in the NBA Finals. Mark Cuban didn't win a title with his hippie kraut, but Dwyane Wade screwed it up for me. No one (outside of Dallas) is going to remember questionable calls in his favor. They are just going to remember Wade's incredible performance in dragging that somewhat lifeless Heat team to a title. I wanted to puke when I kept hearing that Shaq delivered a title to Miami just like he promised. Sure his 13 points and 10 points were pretty good, but considering his "Superstar" status, it's not really all that. Plus when you miss 34 out of 48 free throw attempts (and 3 of your 4 wins are by 3 points or less), you were a lot closer to losing the title for your team than "delivering" it. Alonzo Mourning and Udonis Haslem were more important to the team in Game 6 than Shaq was.

Then there is the Pat Riley who is given credit for a great coaching job to win it. Well, to begin with, if Wade hadn't hurt his ribs before game 6 of the conference championship last year, the Heat would have been in the Finals then without Riley or the "veteran" supporting cast. Yet, somehow Riley is a genius for taking a highly paid team and making it slightly better. Of course, he wasn't an idiot when the Heat looked like crap in the first two games when the plan was to force it into Shaq. The genius apparently came from him making "adjustments". Is that the new term for "give the ball to Wade and get out of his way"? Yeah, no other coach would ever have thought of putting the game in the hands of their best player instead of an out-of-shape former star who can't hit a free throw.

Still, I do have the jerk-off Dallas fans crying conspiracy, so at least there is some taint to the win, but not enough. After all, "pundits" rave about Michael Jordan finishing his Bull career with a game winning shot against Utah, but they rarely mention his push-off to get the shot off. However, the Dallas fans are entertaining in their whining. I heard an email from one into Dan Patrick's radio show that actually complained about a foul not being called when the non-call favored the Mavs. On their last shot, Dallas needed a three and Jason Terry tried to get open for it. He did, but before he got into shooting position, Gary Payton grabbed his jersey. The refs ignored it and the shot missed. Everyone knows the last thing the Mavs wanted was for a foul to be called. It would have been on the floor, so at best they would have had two free throws instead of a fairly open three point shot. I bet the same moron would have whined that the refs shouldn't have made the call if Terry had hit a three after the whistle blew.

Now, the World Cup. As I said before, I wasn't nearly as impressed with the American side against Italy as so many others were. I couldn't believe so many thought the U.S. were a lock to beat Ghana. Ghana beat the Czech Republic. We were embarrassed by the Czech Republic. Sure, we could have beaten Ghana, but we didn't and I wasn't that surprised. When you don't score a goal (remember, Italy kicked our only score in for us) in your first two games, why should expect a big performance in the third? Losing 2-1 wasn't that surprising to me.

I still think soccer will always be problem for the U.S.. The reason is that so many of the premier athletes in this country are tracked into basketball, football or baseball. Think about Hakeem Olajuwon. He started out playing soccer, and only went into basketball because he was tall. Now, think about the athletes playing other sports in this country. Look at the speed and footwork of a Barry Sanders when he played football. Maybe he wouldn't have other attributes to be a great soccer player, but I think the necessary athleticism is there. And he's not alone. I just think the other professional leagues are full of guys who could have been great soccer players if they had chosen that sport at an early age. As long as the NFL, NBA and MLB are a more attractive destination than professional soccer, the U.S. will be fielding teams that are considered overachievers for simply making the quarterfinals of the World Cup.

Money can buy a ball team, but not class

Let's see. A Miami Herald columnist has said Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban screamed obscenities at NBA commish David Stern, and then followed it by accusing the NBA of being rigged. Cuban denies it and a lot of people don't believe he said it. Who knows (well, besides him and Stern) if he really said it, but for some reason I can't rule it out of hand. Actually, it's not some reason. It's the fact that I think he's a paranoid nutcase who is irrational about his team. He's also a condescending dick.

Let's look at his acknowledged behavior after the game. He says he stared at Stern, but didn't yell at him, and just because the camera showed him doing so is no reason to think otherwise. He also went on the court and screamed at the referees. Then he proclaimed that Dwyane Wade made a backcourt violation on the inbounds of his game winning shot. He was wrong, but he's rich-man Mark Cuban so he doesn't have to admit it. In his defense, just because he constantly criticizes the refs, I don't think he ever said he actually knew the rules. Of course, does anyone think he would be so critical of the officials if they had incorrectly called the backcourt violation and Dallas got the ball? Me neither. To top it off, he answered reporters with the F-bomb and a sneer. Since that wasn't enough, he blamed them for asking him a question in his house (I didn't realize Dallas' home arena was in Miami), and that it was a waste of time. Hate to tell you Mark, but you're an owner. There's no requirement to talk to reporters at all. If you don't want to waste people's time, don't talk. Unfortunately, I don't think Cuban has the ability to keep his trap shut.

Cuban got fined $250K which is like me getting fined $2.50. He got off easy. I think the NBA should collect the money for their general fund (secretly offset it to their charities) rather than make it a donation. I bet Cuban wouldn't be so cavalier about it if he couldn't write it off. If the NBA wants to really stick it to him, they should ban him from his sideline seats. Does anyone really think owners should be running onto the floor to confront referees after a game? If he wants to act like your average jerk fan, let him. Just make him play by the same rules as fans.

I just find it funny that Cuban is so bitchy about officiating. Did Wade shoot a lot more free throws than anyone else? Sure. Was the last foul pretty ticky-tacky? Absolutely, but it was consistent with the rest of the game for him. Was there a foul differential? Sure was, but how many were part of the hack-a-Shaq away from the ball? Wade did shoot a lot of free throws going 21 out of 25, but I don't remember Cuban getting so put out when a star player went 21 for 24 from the line in a one point game earlier in the playoffs. Of course, since it was Dirk Nowitzki doing it against the Spurs, it was just good officiating. Come on, if 25 free throw attempts in an overtime game is excessive, 24 in regulation is just as bad. You can't even make the argument that about free throw differential. Yes, the Heat shot 24 more than the Mavs, while against the Spurs, the Mavs only had 18 more. I figure there were at least six attempts by Shaq that were directly the result of the Mavs intentionally putting him on the line.

Frankly, I don't care for either team (although I do like Wade), but since they both can't lose, I really hope the Heat win, but that everyone thinks it was rigged because the league doesn't want Cuban to win a title. Actually, I would like the Heat to win and there actually be some evidence that the league did rig it (but not enough to vacate the title). Then, Pat Riley will get a tainted title (see my May 21 post why I didn't want him to win), but the horse's ass Cuban won't get the title at all, and it will be all his fault. He used his money to build up the team so that he could posture and preen for the TV cameras. How great would it be if all those histrionics undid the success his money bought him with that team?

Soccer - When nothing else is on

I am once again attempting to give soccer a chance, mainly because I didn't feel like going anywhere and the U.S./Italy game was pretty much the only thing on. So, it was that or the Discovery channel showing something on killer ants. Granted, if the show on ants was two hours long, I may have chosen it. Still, while I may regret watching, I decided to record my experience for posterity.

The last time I really paid attention to the World Cup (or soccer in general) was when the Cup was here in 1994. I gave it a shot, but when the final ended up as a 0-0 tie and decided by penalty shots, I ignored it. I just don't think soccer is ever going to be that popular in the U.S., because it's what you know. Soccer's more popular in other countries because it's always been the main sport. In this country, it's always been way behind the home grown sports of football, basketball, baseball, NASCAR etc.. I can see a sport building in popularity (i.e. basketball in Europe and baseball in Latin America) if it's only competing with one major sport. Here, you've got to go through at least three.

One thing I must say before the game even starts is that it's nice the American women are getting with the soccer program, and going with the less is more clothing philosophy. Brazil has the most scantily clad fans and they are the favorites, in spite of having a player who goes by the name Kaka (Doo Doo was apparently left off this year's squad). So it's nice to see American girls trying to help Team USA along.

Watching the Italians come out, I'm reminded of a line by Minerva Mayflower in the movie Hudson Hawk. "That's why we hired the pasta slurping guinea". Of course, none of these guys actually look like Danny Aiello. Actually, as a team, they look a bit taller than the U.S. squad. In fact, the Americans are playing a couple of midgets. Hopefully, head shots won't be that important.

That's pretty funny. The Italian goalie just kneed his own teammate in the butt. And he's down and getting his butt sprayed with the numbing spray by a trainer. I wonder if the trainer had to take a class of spraying ass.

I am shocked. American Brian McBride just went down and actually came up with a bloody face from an elbow shot. Usually when I see a soccer player go down, it's after minimal contact, but they act like they just got gunned down. Come to think of it, some of the best floppers in the NBA (think Vlade Divac or Manu Ginobli), come from countries with big soccer followings. Coincidence? I think not.

Ha Ha. Italy just kicked it into their own goal. Hopefully, if the U.S. pulls out a win, the Italians are more forgiving than the Columbians. I don't know that much soccer history, but I do remember when the World Cup was here, a Columbian scored an own goal which gave the U.S. the win. He was later shot when he got back home.

Not really understanding the criteria for these red cards (ejections). The Italian guy got one for elbowing someone in the face, but the American got one for a slide tackle that was a bit late. Maybe I don't understand soccer, but there seems to be a big disparity between the degree of offence. What really gets me is the commentators keep saying the American red card was a make-up call. A make-up call? For what? The Italian red card? These same guys were saying the Italian red card was the proper call. If the Italian deserved to get tossed for his actions, but the American didn't, how is that a make-up? If that's the case, the U.S. got screwed because a make-up call was unnecessary. Was it done so the Italians wouldn't have to play 3/4 of the game down a man? In that case, why eject them anyway?

Second Half Thoughts
Without a doubt, the stupidest thing in soccer is the time. To begin with, does any other sport count up rather than down? Plus, what the Hell is stoppage time? They apparently add time to the end of the half/game to make up for when the clock should have stopped during play. Here's a thought - just stop the clock. They didn't even know how much stoppage time there was really going to be. They said they were going to add "about" two minutes of stoppage time. It ended up being 2 minutes and 13 seconds, and we didn't know that until the referees pretty much just stopped play.

This was actually one of the better soccer games that I've seen, because they didn't stall for a good chunk of the first half. The last time I tried to watch the World Cup, too many of the games were the soccer equivalent of North Carolina's pre-shot clock Four Corners offense (actually, it was just stalling, so I think calling it offense is the epitome of crap terminology). Granted, today's match is still not Phi Slamma Jamma, but at least both teams seemed intent on trying to score even if they only managed one apiece. Well, Italy scored two, but one was for us.
Great, we start the second half with another American being ejected for a late slide tackle. This is like the NBA ejecting a player for throwing a punch, and then tossing a couple more for a charging foul. If they keep this crap up, I definitely won' t be back.

The Italians are offside a lot. I looked up the rule, and it's about as clear as their yellow card rule. Now, the U.S. just had a goal negated for some kind of interference because an American was between the kicker and the goalie. Of course, the shot was from 25 yards away, and the interfering player was about dozen yards in front of the goalie. So, if that was really the correct call (I'm not trusting the clowns refereeing this game), I've got to mark this down as another stupid rule. No wonder 2-0 is a blowout in this sport.

On the plus side, I was afraid the U.S. would go into a stall while being a man down. Instead, they are still attacking. In fact, they seem to have more life than the Italians even with fewer players although guys from both sides appear about dead. Not that it does any good. The game ends (in stoppage time, of course) in a 1-1 tie.

From reading some post-game thoughts by those who know more about soccer than me, apparently we did rather well. I'm not so sure about that. I know the Italians are supposed to have great defense, and the U.S. did seem to go at the goal a lot, but we never kicked the ball into the net in almost 100 minutes of play. In soccer, a tie must not be like kissing your sister, but since I don't have a sister (or predilection for incest), I've never really understood that analogy. I will admit that unlike other soccer games I've watched, I didn't feel that I'd lost two hours of my life for this one. Heck, if a miracle happens (beat Ghana and hope Italy beats the Czech Republic), I might even try to catch the second round game for the U.S.. Of course, speculation is that the number two team out of America's grouping will end up playing Brazil with their fans in the skimpiest of outfits.

Still, I can't say I'm sold on this sport yet. First, there's that clock thing. I just don't understand how you can end a game not knowing how much time is really left. Can you imagine a basketball game ending with neither side really knowing how much time is left? Second, what's with the fouls? Modify the offside rule so you don't have it called 30 times in a match. Plus, it's rather stupid to me that you could conceivably make a team play 10 on 11 for almost the entire match. Even if you feel someone has earned an ejection, let the team substitute. This is like someone fouling out of a basketball game and the team not being able to put someone else in. Even the closest equivalent sport, hockey, only makes them a man down for a set period of time. This seems to give too much power to the referees, and probably makes it more likely a team goes into a defensive stall for a good chunk of the game. I don't see the advantage here. Lastly, what's the deal with limited substitution? I've always heard how well soccer players are conditioned (and they are), but these guys were gassed late in the game. A bunch of guys standing around sucking wind didn't make for an exciting ending.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb

When I heard Ben Roethlisberger was hurt when his motorcycle hit a car, my first thought was who was driving the car? Marvin Lewis? My second thought was how stupid can someone be? You're making millions of dollars with the possibility of millions more playing football. Why are you jeopardizing it by riding a motorcycle a month before training camp, and doing so without a helmet? As a friend of mine who rides once said, "It's not if you'll wreck, it's when and how bad." Well, early indications are that Roethlisberger may not miss time because of it, but that just means he was incredibly lucky. Kellen Winslow was out for the entire season last year after his wreck. Jay Williams hasn't played in three years after having one.

As someone opposed to the nanny state, it's fine with me if people want to ride motorcycles, and I personally disagree with helmet laws or for that matter seat belt laws (at least for adults). If you want to mess yourself up by smashing your unprotected skull against pavement or going through a windshield, have at it. However, that doesn't mean I won't call you stupid for riding a motorcycle (especially Suzuki's fastest production model crotchrocket) without a helmet. Roethlisberger made the point last year that he was a safe rider, and he could be. So what? Motorcycles are dangerous as much for the other traffic as for their own riders. For one, they are hard to see. Plus, fender benders tend to be quite a bit more serious than if it's in a car. A small wipeout in a car is unlikely to send me head first into a curb. (When the BenOnABike issue came up last year, Joey Porter had the best comment: "The concrete is undefeated") Let's put it this way, a few years ago, my pickup was hit broadside by a woman coming out of a parking lot doing about 50 mph who just happened to not see me until it was too late. Think what would have happened if I had been on a motorcycle instead of safely ensconced inside a truck?

I just don't understand wanting to take the risk. A minor injury for me could be a huge one for an NFL quarterback. A broken hand for me would just make typing harder (two broken hands might cause me other problems). For Roethlisberger, it just might affect his ability to hold a football. If I wrecked a motorcycle even as bad as Jay Williams, I might miss a bit of work, but I wouldn't be out of work for a full year, let alone three. It probably wouldn't affect my future earnings that much either unless I came out like a vegetable (even then my coworkers might not notice). A little different for Ben. Even out for one year could have pushed back Roethlisberger's first contract extension which will be significantly more than what he gets now. A Jay Williams injury and he's viewed as damaged goods. Real smart to risk that just to have the wind blow through your hair.

If he was just an individual athlete, I would just mention the stupidity of risking your paycheck and say it's his tough luck. However, as a member of a team, there's a certain level of selfishness in such risk taking. If I had such a wreck, it might inconvenience my coworkers who have to pick up my slack while I'm healing, but it isn't likely to affect the bottom line. Even if it was someone with actual importance to the company were to miss time after an accident, it probably wouldn't ruin the company's fiscal year. If Roethlisberger had been out for the year, it would have affected a whole lot more people than him. I would pretty much write off the season for the Steelers, and I actually like Charlie Batch who would most likely be the starter in his absence. I also liked Tommy Maddox, but after his performance last year, I would cringe if he came back to be anything but third string. Yet, if Roethlisberger had torn up his knees worse than road rash (and it might still be too early to tell), that's what Pittsburgh would be looking at. Who else could they get with training camp a month away? Kerry Collins is the only quarterback of any account that's still available, and I don't see him as an upgrade over Batch. His bike riding would have put his teammates in a poor position for this year. I realize it's a free country and his neck, but I think team athletes have to recognize that when they sign a contract, they do have some responsibility to their team and teammates. One of those responsibilities is avoiding injury off the field.

Odds & Ends

I think what I found most interesting in this story about the three Gitmo prisoners committing suicide was the fact that Saudi Arabia has a Human Rights Group. That name is the biggest misnomer since the Soviet's called their official newspaper Pravda (Truth in Russian). I have to wonder if the person writing the story was able to type "Saudi Human Rights Group" with a straight face. I also like how some Saudis don't believe they killed themselves because suicide is a grave sin in Islam. Unless you take out a bunch of Jews and Christians when you do it. Then it's OK.

Does anyone really go to Sam's Club looking for a $900 purse?

I hope Phil doesn't find out about the Vietnamese karaoke story because he may try to implement it on the ski trip, and I don't want to have to write a "self-criticism" report for not singing.

Of course, he will be proud to know that the iPod is more popular with college students than beer. Actually, I think it's because the modern college student has been spoiled by overindulgent parents who give them enough money to buy hard liquor (or foo foo drinks), and they don't have to buy beer. When I was in college, bourbon was for special occasions. Beer (usually Stroh's or Keystone) was much more cost effective.

Speaking of being drunk or getting over it, some guy got quarantined on an Australian cruise ship because he was suspected of having stomach flu. He says he was just hungover. Usually it's opposite as one blames his hangover on stomach flu.

Normally, I'm OK with topless women wondering around, but not quite sure about this sheriff's deputy who got fired for it. That's a hard looking woman. And yet, in the picture (fully clothed) that was in the story, she's got her arms crossed in a "modest" pose.

To go with topless, there's bottomless as an escapee from the circus drove a motorized cart around the store with her pants down.

In the ultimate public nudity, two teachers had to quit when students saw them having sex in a classroom. Here's a thought. Wait until the school day is over. I'm sure they'll blame their public boning on a mental problem. Amsterdam just opened a clinic "for people who can't leave their joysticks alone." Although in this case, it's for video game addicts.

Although, I'm supportive of English only policies in this country and do give the proprietor credit for helping immigrants learn the language, I'm trying to figure out how you order a cheesesteak in Spanish. It's a cheesesteak. I wouldn't go to a Mexican restaurant and ask for a steak tortilla wrap instead of asking for a burrito. Of course, after that Hardee's commercial for their cheesesteak hamburger with the two Philly cab drivers that needed subtitles to be understood, I'm not sure my English will suffice there.

Of course, crime fighters are in the pizza industry. I don't find a pizza delivery guy catching a purse snatcher all that strange, but the fact that the pizza joint makes their delivery boys dress like superheroes is a bit odd. Hopefully, he won't find himself getting sued by the scumbag criminal like the guys at an Auto Zone did. With gall like that, you hope his cellmate finds him purty.

And finally, in the government is retarded segment - a town council in England is concerned about the safety problems inherent in palm trees. Not any concern like them falling over on people or the danger of someone climbing them (Keith Richards could visit) and falling out. No, they are concerned a leaf could get in someone's eye. One idiot went so far as to compare having palm trees to having a tigers running loose. Tax dollars at work.

What's the appeal?

I don't understand the hoopla over Roger Clemens pitching for the Lexington Legends. Is regular season baseball so boring that a guy coming out of retirement to play for a third place team is cause for media to descend on Lexington to see him throw three innings? Considering he's going to be around for just over half their games, how much impact can he really make? He'll probably pitch fewer than 20 games, so how many more wins will that give them (it's highly unlikely he'll win every game he starts) compared to the rest of the staff?

Why the excitement for locals? Sure, he's a great pitcher, but so what? Cincinnati is an hour away and they get good pitchers going against major leaguers. Clemens pitched three innings against development players. It might as well have been batting practice. I don't remember people getting this excited when the Bulls and Michael Jordan came to Lexington to play an exhibition in the late 90s, and they were the defending champs. They were also facing other NBA players, and yet I don't think that game was even a sellout. Someone told me Clemens pitching for the Legends was bigger because he would be pitching for the local team. That's crap. How many people know how the Legends are even doing this year? How many people know whether or not Lexington won the game he started? Plus, single A is a development league where winning is nice but secondary. That's why training and rehab starts are often done there. They don't want to disrupt the major league lineups while finding out what someone can do.

I do have to give Clemens some credit. Of all the names mentioned as possible steroid users by Jose conscious, he and Barry Bonds were the only ones that weren't called before the Congressional committee investigating steroids in baseball. Come to think of it, Clemens has pretty much been given a free pass on the steroid issue. Of course, just because he looked washed-up and out of shape at the end of his Red Sox career, but managed to turn it around and have career years up into his 40s is no reason to think steroids could be involved. That would be silly. Late career resurgence by power pitchers are very common. There's Clemens and ...... well, Clemens. Still, assuming he might take steroids during baseball's steroid era is just plain wrong. It would be like assuming steroid use when a hitter who never had more than 46 home runs during his first 14 seasons suddenly averages over 50 late in his 30s. And, coincidentally looks like he ate another player. Still, that's just unfounded suspicion. He could very well have gotten back into shape through hard work and human growth hormones.

Actually, I always figured Bonds got a lot of steroid grief for several reasons. He was connected to people at BALCO when the proverbial steroid crap hit the fan, had doubled in size, was breaking records and hadn't retired like Sosa and McGwire. Plus, he's an ass. But so is Clemens. He burns bridges whenever he leaves a team. He gets it into his contract that he doesn't have to go on road trips when he isn't scheduled to pitch. He indicated that he would want to sign with a playoff contender if he un-retired then turned down three of them to sign with a sub-.500 team that offered more money. He's so obsessed with himself that he set his latest contract at $22,000,022 because his uniform number is 22. He also gave names that begin with "K" (abbreviation for strikeouts) to all his kids. What is there about Roger Clemens that would make me root for him?

Remember when winning was the story?

I never cared much for spelling bees when we did them in class during grade school. In fact, I would usually try to botch a word early so I could go sit down and not deal with such foolishness. That's why I am completely indifferent to the National Spelling Bee and was rather shocked that they would put it on network television. I guess in some way I should admire these kids for their obsession with learning, but frankly I can't get too excited about someone spending most of their waking time memorizing words that they'll never use in regular life or probably ever hear again. Still, whatever floats your boat. Normally, I wouldn't follow any of it, but ESPN carried it for years before it moved to sister network ABC. In typical ESPN fashion, they pimp the Hell out of the show on their website and news programs, so I'm forced to.

So how did ESPN report who won this year? They felt the need to focus on the fact that the winner was the first girl to win sin 1999. How am I supposed to feel about this? Outraged that female spellers had been oppressed for the past five years? Delight that one girl was able to overcome the male dominated world of competitive spelling to pull out the win? Nope. To begin with, the male/female ratio is usually pretty evenly split, and girls have won the contest throughout history so five wins in a row by males is probably coincidental. Secondly, why would it matter anyway? The number of kids actively engaged in these things has to be incredibly small. Since only a male or female can win in any year, a short run of one gender is an anomaly signifying nothing. Yet, ESPN felt it was the most important fact to report.

Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this PC bull that permeates sports reporting. The biggest at this time of year is Danica Patrick in the Indy Racing League. She's a female in a male dominated sport, and she's cute. She's willing to pose for the men's semi-skin magazines (although I don't think she's hot enough that FHM would give her a second glance if she was Jane Nobody off the street). She's different which gives her novelty status and a much higher profile than her success (or lack of) would suggest. She's a pretty good driver and with a good team, but so far she hasn't shown me anything to indicate she'll ever be more than middle of the pack on the elite level. Still, IRL is smart to make her the face of their league over better, more accomplished drivers, because the IRL is a distant second to NASCAR in this country. In fact, without the tradition of the Indy 500, it would barely be on the auto racing map.

While I understand the IRL pushing her, I don't understand why the sports press does. Regardless about the fact that she's never won a race and only has two top five finishes (both 4th), she's always written up as a major contender. It doesn't matter where she finishes or how she runs. Every article is going to make a special note about where Patrick ended up. When I went to ESPN.com after this year's Indy 500, there was more mention of her (and her eighth place finish) than things like the fact that this was one of the most exciting finishes (which she had nothing to do with) in my memory of the race. Or that a father/son combination from the American royal family of open wheel racing (the Andrettis) almost finished first and second. Patrick was really a non-factor in the race, but you wouldn't know it by the coverage.

You can say that maybe the coverage is just giving people what they want, but there's a high level of dishonesty in the coverage when dealing with her. How many times did sports writers make the point of saying Patrick "almost" won the Indy 500 last year? A lot. The only problem with it is that it really isn't true. She was running about ninth late fairly late in the race when all the cars in front of her pitted, because they knew they probably wouldn't have enough fuel to finish the race. Patrick stayed on the track even though she was in the same shape. Her crew figured their only chance to win was to leave her out and hope for enough cautions that she wouldn't run out of fuel. She also needed them because she would have to run slower to conserve what fuel she had. She did get cautions, but it was obvious when she was in the lead that she was going to get caught. In fact, she was a lot closer to not finishing the race than she really was to winning it. If it wasn't for a caution at the end, she wouldn't have held on for fourth, and probably wouldn't have had enough fuel to finish. Yet, the intellectual dishonesty was so bad that more than one sportswriter said her pit crew told her to slow down as if to say she could have won if her crew had let her. If she hadn't slowed down, she doesn't finish. These sportswriters simply did not want to admit that her leading laps and finishing high was the product of a desperation move.

So, did it get any better this year. Not really. They couldn't hype her as almost winning because I don't think she never ran higher than fifth place. Instead, this year's refrain was that Patrick ran a better race this year (based on finishing eighth after starting tenth) and was a big factor throughout. She may have run a better race, but as I pointed out above that isn't saying a whole lot. Moving up two spots after 500 miles of racing doesn't set my world on fire unless you started third. As for being a factor, she probably wouldn't have been mentioned if she wasn't a she. She has to be considered a non-factor because she never threatened the lead or had an effect on it. In fact, Sam Hornish and Scott Dixon were both black flagged (made to pass through the pits at 60 mph rather than on the track at 200+ mph) late in the race, but still finished ahead of Patrick. Basically, she ran a nice safe race that meant she didn't wreck, but also didn't matter.

But she's a pioneer, right? Not really. Women drove in early NASCAR races of the late 40s which has to be tougher (think no power steering) than driving the high tech Indy cars of today. Other women have raced in the Indy 500 and that goes back to the 70s. So, contrary to popular belief, Patrick's only new contribution so far is that she's had pictures taken in skimpy outfits to promote herself. If she finally gets a win, okay. If she wins the IRL championship, good. If she jumps to NASCAR and wins its title, great. However, until that point, sports reporters need to honestly and objectively report on her career rather than acting as cheerleaders. When they are borderline (at best) lying about what she's done, they go beyond reporting and begin pushing an agenda.