My Yearly Bowl Picks

I always like to post my college bowl game picks, so if I’m right about a surprise win (I picked Texas over USC last year), I have historical documentation (OK, an internet blog, but it’s dated) to back me up. I can even waffle some. Sure, I picked Georgia, but I can point out I thought the team speed of the the West Virginia Brokeback Mountaineers could cause the Bulldogs problems. And I can also ignore the historical documentation of all of the picks I blew. Anyway, here are this year’s picks (if I’m not clear in my explanation, winners are in italics).

Poinsetta Bowl – TCU vs. No. Illinois – I like NIU’s Garrett Wolfe a lot, but TCU’s defense will be too much for him. Besides, how can you pick against a team called the Frogs named after a Toad that isn't really a toad.
Las Vegas Bowl – BYU vs. Oregon – Mormons vs. Ducks. What else can you say? I'll take the school named after the dude with 50 wives.
New Orleans Bowl – Rice vs. Troy – One team is named after edible grass (or someone named Rice). The other after a city full of people fooled by a wooden horse and subsequently lent their name to a popular brand of condoms. Bet on the Rubbers.
Papajohns.com Bowl – S. Florida vs. East Carolina – Ummm, Pizza. South Florida is in Tampa which is halfway to Georgia. East Carolina is in Greenville which is near the coast. Give ECU the edge for honesty, but they'll still lose.
New Mexico Bowl – New Mexico vs. San Jose St. – New Mexico went 6-6 to finish 5th in the Mountain West. Their reward - a bowl named after their state being played in their home stadium. I'm still taking San Jose St.
Armed Forces Bowl – Tulsa vs. Utah – Utah named their team after the tribe the state is named for. Tulsa's team name in the Golden Hurricane which is a weather phenomenon that isn't gold colored nor found in Oklahoma. Since the BCS has proven that logic has no place in college football, take Tulsa.
Hawaii Bowl – Arizona St vs. Hawaii – AZ State players will have fond memories of the trip. If they go to the beach, because they aren’t winning this game.
Motor City Bowl – Middle Tenn. St. vs. Central Michigan – CMU lost their coach. MTSU didn't. Take the mid-major team that was good enough to get their coach promoted.
Emerald Bowl – Florida St. vs. UCLA – Contrary to what you might think, this bowl was named after nuts, not jewels. Low scoring game as neither team passes the ball or runs the ball well. UCLA’s coming off a big win over Southern Cal while FSU pretty quit down the stretch. Tough call, but take UCLA.
Independence Bowl – Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama – This bowl was much more interesting as the Poulon/Weedeater Independence Bowl. And when it didn’t have two sorry ass 6-6 teams. Take the sorry ass OSU Cowboys.
Holiday Bowl – Texas A&M vs. Cal – Could be a statement game for Cal which means they’ll lose like they do in every statement game they play.
Texas Bowl – Rutgers vs. Kansas St. – Formerly the Houston Bowl, but changed its name to feel bigger. Then showing how big time it is, it signed a TV deal with a pro football owned channel that’s premium in most markets including one of the teams. With the help of possibly losing an antitrust exemption, the NFL is allowing Rutgers fans to watch their team beat KSU (whose fans may not get to watch).
Music City Bowl – Clemson vs. Kentucky – Since this is not a higher tier bowl, UK’s presence is not the first sign of the Apocalypse. Poor Marty Moore. ESPN has this game, so does anyone think they won’t constantly show Moore fumbling after catching what should have been a game ending interception in the ’93 Peach Bowl? This rematch of that game won’t be 14-13 because both teams will score. I think Clemson’s defense will do a better job of slowing Kentucky’s offense than UK’s defense will do to Clemson’s.
Sun Bowl – Oregon State vs. Missouri – Oregon State is rolling. Missouri is fading. Doesn’t mean Oregon St will win, but they will.
Liberty Bowl – Houston vs. S. Carolina – Ah, memories of Memphis in December. I imagine South Carolina fans will be quite surprised by how cold it can be there(except UL isn’t playing in it, so it will probably be nice & sunny). Imagine their surprise when Houston upsets the Cocks.
Insight Bowl – Texas Tech vs. Minnesota – Minnesota can’t stop the pass to save their life. Texas Tech throws on just about every play. I like Texas Tech’s odds.
Champ Sports Bowl – Purdue vs. Maryland – Purdue didn’t beat anybody who was worth anything. Maryland barely won most of their wins. So, Maryland barely beats Purdue.
Meineke Car Care Bowl – Navy vs. Boston College – BC’s coach just left for a conference rival who coaches in the same state as the bowl game. Leaning towards the Swabbies on this one.
Alamo Bowl – Texas vs. Iowa – My how the mighty have fallen. From national champs to playing a 6-6 Iowa team. Actually, I’m still not sure how a 9-3 Texas ended up here, but they are clearly better.
Chick-fil-A Bowl – Georgia vs. Virginia Tech – A de facto home game for Georgia. What happened the last time they had one of those? There will be less scoring, but history will repeat itself.
MPC Computer Bowl – Miami vs. Nevada – I’m sure Nevada is pleased to be here, and Miami isn’t. Truthfully, this is one of the hardest picks to make, because Miami is better, but they could come out flatter than the transsexual hooker that Jon Con…. er, never mind. Or be motivated to send the coach-they-got-fired out as a winner. Coin flip says motivated.
Outback Bowl – Tennessee vs. Penn State – Joe Paterno has an incredible 21-10-1 bowl record at Penn State. Of course, a lot of those wins were when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. As of January, his bowl record will be 21-11-1.
Cotton Bowl – Auburn vs. Nebraska – On paper, Auburn seems like the likely winner, but under Tuberville, they don’t play so well against good out of conference teams. I’m going with the Cornholers or huskers or whatever.
Gator Bowl – West Virginia vs. Georgia Tech – Toothless Redneck Central Tech isn’t good against the pass, and GA Tech has a great receiver in Calvin Johnson. Too bad they have a crappy quarterback in Reggie Ball. The Brokeback Mountaineers run all over GA Tech to win.
Capital One Bowl – Arkansas vs. Wisconsin – When governors do their silly bets on these games, I’m assuming Wisconsin will bet cheese or bratwurst, but what product is synonymous with Arkansas? Stained dresses? Wannabe New York politicians? At least Arkansas football is good this year.
Rose Bowl – Michigan vs. USC – Always seems to be a team that seemingly got jobbed by the bowl system then turned in a clunker. Michigan is this year’s clunker. Just like a Ford.
Fiesta Bowl – Boise State vs. Oklahoma – I would dearly love to pick Boise State to win this, but Oklahoma will be too tough. Plus, they have a guy named CJ Ah You on the team. How do you counteract that? Ia Falo? Just not as good.
Orange Bowl – Louisville vs. Wake Forest – Dammit, Louisville better win.
Sugar Bowl – Notre Dame vs. LSU – Neither team deserved to be in a BCS bowl game. ND only played two good teams and had their asses handed to them both times. LSU didn’t even win their division of the SEC. Still, LSU will handle ND easily.
International Bowl – Cincinnati vs. Western Michigan – Since this game is in Toronto, they probably should have scheduled it before January since people going to the game will need a passport. Of course, with the crowds they draw in the regular season, may not be many. UC’s new coach is from Central Michigan, so he knows Western Mich which will be enough for the win.
GMAC Bowl – Ohio vs. Southern Miss – This is not the same Ohio team that beat UK two years ago. That team sucked. Still, this one won’t beat Southern Miss
BCS Championship Game – Florida lobbied to get into this game. I hope it was worth it when they lose by two touchdowns to Ohio State.

$2 Million Doesn't Buy Much Anymore

My only prediction this year for the UL/UK basketball game was that it would be ugly. I think I understated that. Ugly would have been an improvement. This was a game that 11-6 at the 10 minute mark of the first half. The rest of the half got a little better, but one stat puts it in perspective. UL finished the half on a 0-9 shooting streak to end up shooting 26.7% from the field, and they were still only down three. Of course, they improved to 27% for the game. I would like to give credit to UK since it would make me feel better about UL's chances later in the year. However, when a team misses 21 of 24 mostly wide-open three point shots, I'm not sure you can give a lot of credit to defense. Plus, how did they only score 61 points when UL's defense was playing "unintentional double team"? (That's inexplicably double teaming someone with out the ball which is really just not knowing who you should be guarding) Well, they got out rebounded 19-8 on the offensive boards. So, I wouldn't book those tickets to the Final Four for them. Still, they are in much better shape than UL. Fortunately, I have the football team giving me a reason to go to Miami, because basketball ain't crap.

Those who know me know that I've never liked Rick Pitino. His "coaches win, players lose" attitude got old when he was at UK. However, at least when he was doing his schtick at UK, he was still winning. I didn't like Pitino coming to UL (or how they booted Denny Crum out the door), but I assumed he would win. I was a little less than pleased when his first three years included one NCAA tournament win. Then he made the Final Four in 2005, so I thought he turned the corner, but last year's NIT team was disappointing, but this year's may not even make the NIT. That's how mediocre Pitino has been at UL. The Final Four looks like the fluke. At UK, in his six seasons UK was not on probation, he went to three Final Fours with his worst result being a second round loss. At UL, unless things get dramatically better, he will miss the NCAAs in three out of six years with a second round loss being the second best season.

I think the worst thing about Pitino has been his history as a pathological liar (in Boston, the press called him Pitinocchio). At UK, it was always that he hadn't talked to anyone about an NBA job while he's negotiating contracts or that UK would be a better team without Jamal Mashburn. At UL, he lies even more. Every recruiting class is his best ever, but he runs off half of them for not being good enough or even better, he says they aren't ready for college basketball like he did with prized recruit Derrick Caracter. On the radio show before the game, he said UL wasn't struggling (all Big East teams have at least two losses to Atlantic 10 squads), and Randolph Morris is the second best center in college behind Greg Oden (which makes UL's performance even worse since Morris was on the bench most of the game). After the game, he said they played a good game if they had actually hit their shots.

That last line is probably true. However, Pitino's in game performance has left a lot to be desired. Yeah, UL couldn't hit crap from the three point line. So, why were they still shooting so many three point shots? Here's a thought. If something isn't working, make an adjustment. I'm convinced the only reason UL made the Final Four in 2005 was because they got down 20 points to West Virginia in the Elite Eight. When you get to that point, you don't run plays, you just play. Once it was out of the coach's hands and into the players', UL makes a huge comeback and wins. Since that game, they haven't beaten anyone worth a crap. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. The simple fact is Pitino's success has had a good bit of luck added to good recruiting. His Providence success depended on him being one of the few coaches to immediately embrace the three point shot. At UK, college basketball hadn't seen the glut of top high school players jumping directly to the NBA. So, he's able to stockpile talent to the point that he had better players on the bench (say Ron Mercer) than most teams had as their focal point. There also weren't the recruiting restrictions that limited how many new scholarship players a team could sign each year. So, he could run off a bunch of players and replace them easily.

Unfortunately (for me), Pitino seems to be mailing it in. I think that Final Four has caused him to believe that he's "proven" he can still coach after the Boston problems. Another point that he made in the pregame interview was that he's happy now as opposed to when he coached the Celtics. Well, that's great that he has his priorities in order and no longer considers winning the most important thing. Except UL is paying him $2 million a year because they thought they were getting the win-at-all-cost attitude. Not an underachieving team that might not even make the NIT this year. Let's put it this way, Denny Crum was considered out of touch and past his prime. If UL doesn't' turn it around enough to make the NCAAs (unlikely with the Big East schedule ahead), that will be two straight years that UL has not made the tournament. Crum never went two years without making the tournament.

Continuing A Theme

Yes, I'm still talking college football, but that's because it's got a lot going on right now. Ohio State beat Michigan in the “Game of the Century”. They only won the game by three points, so now a lot of people are calling for a rematch in the BCS Championship. Which is crap. To begin with, Michigan was on an emotional after the death of their patron saint. Plus, it was a rivalry game where strange things happen. As the underdogs, Michigan played over their heads (this was their second highest scoring game), so a close game could be an aberration. It doesn't matter to me. I just don’t think any team should be playing in a one game national championship if they didn’t win their conference. The argument is that since Ohio State is clearly the number one team, then a close win means Michigan is clearly the number two team. Well, since Michigan was as close to losing to Ball State as beating Ohio State (Michigan scored their last time with two minutes, left and OSU ran out the clock while Ball State had the ball last with a chance to tie), does that mean Ball State is clearly the third best team in the Big 10 or is Michigan only the fifth best team in the MAC? The rematch argument might have a shot if the Big 10 was the best conference, but it wasn’t even close. Wisconsin is the only other Big 10 team in the top 25, and they got there by playing nobody (best non-conference opponent was 4-7 Bowling Green). Notre Dame lost to Michigan, but overall went 3-1 against the conference, and I’m not sold on the Irish. Hell, the Big East went 3-2 against the Big 10 with the only losses being Ohio State over Cincy and an Iowa win in overtime to Syracuse (worst team in the Big East). Outside of Ohio State’s win over Texas and Michigan’s over Notre Dame, what is the Big 10’s biggest out of conference win? Michigan State over a 6 win Pitt? Michigan over Vandy?

Unfortunately, Wisconsin has become the rule with the top teams from the big conferences. Don’t play anybody hard out of conference and defend it by saying your conference is so hard, you have to schedule patsies. It ignores the fact that Wisconsin has conference colleagues Illinois, Indiana and Northwestern every year. Much like the SEC talks about having a hard game every week, but ignores the fact that their conference includes Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and most years, Kentucky. On a side note, I find the SEC defenders amusing when they talk about the great defenses in the SEC, but LSU was the only SEC school to put up more than 31 points against the Wildcats. Yet, Louisville, Central Michigan and Louisiana Monroe all scored 36 or more against UK.

I think Auburn last year was the epitome of the using the conference affiliation crutch. They started out the season losing to Georgia Tech, but went 7-1 in the SEC with the only loss being at LSU, so by the end of the season some were saying it was a shame Auburn’s loss kept them out of the SEC title game because they looked like the best team in the conference. Well, they lost 24-10 in their bowl game to Wisconsin meaning their only non-conference games against other BCS conference teams was two losses by double digits. If people had looked deeper, they may have noticed something. Auburn had lost to Georgia Tech pretty handily. In the SEC, five of the teams they beat (Ark, UK, S. Carolina, and the Miss schools) were mediocre at best, lousy at worst. So, they only had three hard games in conference. They lost to LSU, squeaked by Georgia and beat Alabama by 10. Simply put, they were a good team, but not anything special, so when they faced a comparable team from another conference, they lost.

This is really why I wish there was a college playoff. Teams would have more incentive to play tougher out of conference schedules, because a loss to a good team wouldn’t hurt as much as it does now. In football now, a second loss completely takes a team out of contention for the title. If Texas hadn’t scheduled Ohio State, they would be in consideration for the BCS championship because (assuming they replaced the Buckeyes with a cupcake) only have one loss since then. With a playoff, they would still have a shot because as winner of the Big 12, they would get in. Another reason is that this year, the assumption is made that Ohio State and Michigan are the top two teams, but since they haven’t played anybody from the PAC-10 or SEC, how do we know they aren’t where they are because the Big 10 is down? We don’t. In a playoff, they would have to face a top team from another conference. As much as I like going to bowl games, they are really a crap way to settle a championship.

OK, I've updated

At Matt & Kara's Bar Mitzvah party or wedding or whatever they had that served beer (lots of beer, for which I thank them) that I went to, a couple of people griped that I hadn't updated my blog. Of course, some others criticized my dancing which is patently unfair because I suffer a disability - lack of rhythm (which should be classified as one if it isn't). I have good reasons for not being able to update my blog. For one, Little Guy died, and I was completely devastated or at least as devastated as one can be when their favorite rodent passes away. I'm not really sure where that falls on the grief meter. However, the main reason is that it's football season, and I do a weekly report for it at my fantasy website which get pretty long. WARNING - the site is for adults only and people who aren't easily offended. Actually, if you aren't easily offended, there is a good chance you might still be offended. Just remember, the target audience is male and friends of mine.

Ironically, another complaint was that the last post before my recent hiatus was about college football. Well, so is this one. Once again, I think college football needs a playoff. There are too many teams that I think could win it this year. I have season tickets for Louisville football, so obviously I have a bias towards them. However, before they defecated on themselves in losing to Rutgers, I could not believe how many people were arguing that an undefeated Big East team was undeserving of a shot in the national championship game. That's ludicrous. If Rutgers wins out, they will be 12-0 with wins over top 10 teams Louisville and West Virginia. I think this weekend showed the fallacy of thinking the Big East is a lesser conference.

Does the Big East have as many good teams as the SEC or Big 10 or other BCS conferences? Probably not, but that's because the Big East only has 8 teams while the others have between 10 and 12. So, obviously, the depth isn't there. However, if you break it down, I think it looks a lot better. At the top of the conference is Rutgers, Louisville and Toothless-Redneck-Central-Tech (commonly referred to as West Virginia University). I would put those teams up against any of the top teams from the other conferences. Would they win every time? No, but they wouldn't lose every time either. Rutgers hammered Illinois 33-0, but Ohio State barely beat them last week. Maryland is tied for first in their ACC division, but were destroyed by WVU. The same Kansas State team that UL beat by 18 on the road without their starting quarterback just beat Texas.

However, it's not just the top of the conferences. Contrary to popular belief, the other conferences have some crap teams. UConn is the second worst team in the Big East. They beat Indiana, a Big 10 team that will go to a bowl if they can beat Purdue next week. Syracuse is the worst team in the Big East, and they beat the worst team in the Big 10, Illinois. So, I think it's pretty obvious that the middle and bottom of the Big East match up pretty well with the middle and bottom of the other conferences. Southern Cal is probably in the driver's seat to be the one loss team playing Ohio State (who should beat an overrated Michigan team) in the title game. Yet, USC lost to Oregon State - an unranked team that lost 63-27 to UL last year and 42-14 to Boise State this year. Want to tell me again about their tough schedule?

The SEC is the conference that really irritates me. For the record, I think top to bottom, the SEC is the best conference in college football. However, I don't think it's by much. Outside of LSU, no one beat a decent Kentucky team like Louisville did. The problem with the SEC is that they rarely play nonconference road games, but claim they can't go undefeated because the SEC is so tough. We don't know that because they only play patsies outside of the conference. Auburn is the epitome of this. They had eight home games. Of the four road games, they squeaked by mediocre South Carolina and bad Mississippi and lost badly at home to Arkansas. Yet, going into this weekend, they were considered one of the top one loss teams in the country. Then they lost to a Georgia team best described as mediocre. Florida is the other SEC team claiming greatness with a loss. They've managed to keep winning, but not well. They barely held off Georgia. A close win over Vandy. They needed a blocked extra point and field goal to beat South Carolina. Surprisingly, the best team in the SEC, Arkansas, gets about as much respect as a Big East team even though they are undefeated in conference. My guess is that it's because the SEC doesn't want to mention that their best team lost to a PAC-10 school by 36 points.

I think Ohio State is the best team, but they only beat Illinois by 7 (at home). I think if they had a 16 team playoff, there are several teams that would have a shot at it. Michigan, Texas, Southern Cal, Florida, WVU, UL, Rutgers, Cal? All are good teams. Does anyone really think George Mason was the fourth best team in the country last year in basketball? Yet, they made the Final Four. College football needs to decide a champion on the field.

College Football

As I sit here watching the start of the college season, I realize college has just as many schmucks calling games as the NFL. South Carolina was punting when a Mississippi State player breaks through and was about to block it. The punter quickly realizes he's not getting the kick off, pulls the ball back at the last second and takes off for a first down. The commentator calls it a fake. That's a heck of a fake if he held the ball out in front of him until the defender was two feet away before taking off. Fortunately, the other guys in the booth did say it was probably an unplanned play.

This is why polls aren't to be trusted. These are the people who vote in them. You should only listen to me if you want to know who will win a national title. Actually, don't listen to me. I look at this year's college football scene, and I can't figure out crap. Last year, it was pretty much Southern Cal and whoever won the Ohio State/Texas game. This year, it's wide open. Take a look at the preseason rankings. Six teams in each poll is getting first place votes. Ohio State is way ahead, but I can't figure out why. They've got most of their offense back, but lost almost all their defense, and they still have a coach who doesn't seem to like offense. A lot of people like Notre Dame, especially opposing quarterbacks. They do get most of their defense back, but they weren't worth a crap to begin with. Texas is still popular, but I saw too many games won solely by Vince Young last year. There's no college freshman who can replace that. Auburn's a trendy pick to win it, but they'll find a way to blow it. The only time they went undefeated, they played a crap schedule the same year two other teams went undefeated. Southern Cal is still hanging around the top of the polls, but I'm not buying the idea that they won't be hurt by the guys who went pro. Their defense actually wasn't very good last year. I don't see it getting better, and I don't think their offense is good enough to overcompensate again. Finally, West Virginia. They are only good when it's unexpected. They always screw up when expectations are high. Actually, any of those teams could go undefeated. Or, as I think, none will. So, I have no clue who will win the National Title, so I will be an unabashed homer and say the Louisville Cardinals. Now on to conference winners.

ACC
You know it's wide open when we last saw Miami, they were getting destroyed in the Peach Bowl, but I'm picking them to win the ACC. Actually, I think that loss was a fluke. I do think they will drop on defense and their offensive line is suspect, but who is going to catch then them in the Coastal Division? Georgia Tech will beat someone they shouldn't but lose too many others to contend. NC, Virginny and Duke aren't good enough. I'm not sure Duke is good enough to win the Ohio Valley Conference. Virginia Tech is the main competition. Again. However, while losing Marcus Vick was good for P.R., there's really no one to take his place. Add 12 other starters lost, and I think VT could drop out of second in the division. Now, who is Miami going to beat from the Atlantic Division for the ACC title? Trendy pick is Clemson, but I'm not buying it. Tommy Bowden is a good enough coach to keep from getting fired every year. They are returning a lot of starters, but they lost quarterback Charlie Whitehurst, who wasn't that good, but the guys they have now couldn't take his job. BC will go to another bowl, while Wake, Maryland and NC State will hold down the bottom of the division with at least one of them getting their coach fired. So, that leaves a stagnating Florida State to lose in the ACC championship.

Big East
Easy one. Louisville. Actually, it's more than my bias talking. West Virginia did beat UL last year, but it was in triple overtime in Morgantown. Trust me, UL is a completely different team at home. I'm more worried about the game in Pittsburgh because it's on the road. Now, that could be stupid on my part, but it wouldn't be the first time, and Lee Corso has made a nice career in broadcasting based on stupid picks. Rutgers could also be a problem for a lot of teams, but they are still a step down. Fortunately, South Florida has to come to the Bluegrass to lose, because they won't contend for the title, but they can screw it up for someone else. UConn, Cincy and Syracuse will be better than last year, but I don't see them threatening the top.

Big Ten
Let's start with who won't make it. Illinois and Indiana suck. Minnesota will start somewhat fast, and drop off drastically. Northwestern... nope. Purdue will be better, but still not good enough. Penn State lost everybody, and they haven't had good back to back seasons in years. Penn State didn't really lose everybody, because Wisconsin lost even more. Some people are picking Michigan, but I'm not falling for them again. No one blows them out, but lately they are good for at least two mind boggling losses. I actually like Michigan State as a dark horse candidate, but that's only because I think Drew Stanton is the best quarterback in the conference. Still, I'm not sure if it's enough to catch Iowa or Ohio State. Iowa does look awful solid with balanced offense and a pretty good defense. Ohio State did lose a lot of people, but it's Ohio State, they'll replace them. I'm not sure Ohio State can win the National Title, but they will win the Big Ten.

Big 12
My first prediction is that the Big 12 Champion will come from the Big 12 South. Why? Because I'm picking Nebraska to win the Big 12 North over Kansas, Iowa State, Missou, Colorado and Kansas State by default. They aren't that good, but they aren't bad enough to fall behind the other five. So, who wins the South? A lot of people liked Oklahoma, but that was until their starting quarterback got kicked off the team for selling enough cars to make a five figure salary on a summer job that he rarely showed up for. Oklahoma State stinks. Baylor is actually better than normal, but their normal is so bad that they still aren't very good. Texas Tech can win a lot of games, but they'll blow a couple, and Texas A&M could very well get their coach fired. Texas will start a freshman quarterback, but the rest of the team is good enough to win the Big 12.

PAC-10
As I said, Southern Cal has lost a lot, so not only do I not pick them to win it all, but I don't pick them to win the PAC-10. It's one thing to lose your quarterback or running back or big play all-purpose player, but it's quite another to lose all three. As I also said, there defense dipped noticeably last year, and I just don't think the replacement offense will be enough to compensate. The team I think wins the conference will have the most balance and the best player in the league. California's defense was the best in the PAC-10, and it goes with one of the best players in the country in Marshawn Lynch. If they can get some good play out of quarterback, they'll be tough to beat. Which means they'll get beat by UT right out of the gate. As for the rest of the conference, Oregon will be near the top, but not near enough. Arizona State will linger, but not do too much damage while UCLA will really drop. Arizona will rise, but not very high, and the States (Washington & Oregon) will fight for bowl eligibility. Stanford and Washington will suck hind tit again.

SEC
Well, Florida wins the East by default. Vandy wasn't very good with Jay Cutler. Without him, they are only a threat to Kentucky who will be close to bowl eligible. They have three should wins out-of-conference (Cent Mich, LA-Monroe, Tex St), and three teams they are as good as or better (Vandy, Miss, Miss St). They won't be bowl eligible because under Brooks, they always lose a game they shouldn't, and they never win a game they shouldn't. Tennessee may bounce back, but that's just to a winning record. Georgia is replacing a lot of players, but most notably at quarterback. I've seen Joe Tereshinski play, and if I was an opponent, I wouldn't be concerned. So Florida wins the East. Will they beat the West champion? No. I don't think they are as good as either of the two contenders - Auburn and LSU. While both teams lost a lot of linemen, receivers and defensive players, Auburn is the safe pick because they don't have a quarterback controversy. Of course, it could be because LSU has two QBs who are better, so I'm taking LSU. I also think Arkansas passes Alabama for third in the division. Ole Miss and Mississippi State both suck and wouldn't contend in CUSA this year.

Non BCS conferences who are pretty good
Conference USA
For the East, I have to go with Central Florida. I think they have the most talent in that division. I think Memphis was more than D'Angelo Williams, but they couldn't win the division with him, so I can't see them higher than second. Southern Miss and East Carolina will be mid-pack. I think Marshall could bounce back after a sub-par season, but not high enough. UAB is in total rebuilding mold. In the East, everyone seems high on UTEP, but I'm not sold on Jordan Palmer. I think they fall behind Tulsa who can put up the points. In fact, they could fall behind Houston if Kevin Kolb can put it together. SMU could improve some, but not to the top. Tulane won't be very good, and Rice will be horrible. I think Central Florida takes down Tulsa for the CUSA title.

Mountain West
It's between TCU and Utah. I think TCU has the better running game which will be the decisive factor. BYU is a throwback to the old WAC teams in that they can score a lot of points, but are hampered by the fact that their opponents will too. San Diego State will move up to the middle where Colorado State is moving down, and Wyoming is staying. Air Force is ironically deficient on defense, while UNLV is a bad team.

WAC
As is every year of recent memory, it's a two team race. Boise State or Fresno State. Even though they struggled at the end of last year, I'm taking Fresno State. Mainly because Boise State is replacing their head coach which could cause a little slippage. Hawaii or Nevada will finish third depending on whether or not Jerry Glanville (yes, that Jerry Glanville) can improve the Hawaiian defense. I'm leaning Nevada third. Louisianna Tech replaces too many good players to be much of a factor. Utah State, Idaho and San Jose State haven't had enough to be a factor in some time. New Mexico State has even less. Actually, I was going to predict New Mex State would at least win a game this year, but they did before I could post this.

Not quite so random thoughts

I think naming a bridge after Chuck Norris would be a good idea. As this website shows, he's more than just an actor.

I'm not surprised more Americans can name the Seven Dwarfs than can name Supreme Court justices (although I think answering Dopey should count for a Dwarf and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). After all, we've allowed a very small group of politically connected lawyers take on an inordinate amount of power without any way to get rid of them. So, knowing their names is about as worthwhile as knowing the Seven Dwarfs.

There's an old saying about never betting more than you can afford to lose. So, how big do you think the junk was on this Latvian in order for him to cut off part of it?

I don't know how I could have ever thought Al Gore's environmental crusade may have been political opportunism rather than altruism. What's next? Staunch environmentalists like the Kennedys opposed to a major wind project because it might get in the way of their yachting? Or a major political figure admonishing SUV drivers, and then leaving in an SUV. (And no I don't find driving one that uses 85% ethanol E85 to be a good excuse because it's hard to find and studies have found it burns as much fossil fuel to produce as it replaces.)

Some naked news. A Swedish woman caused a stir when she laid out topless on an Albanian beach. What I find interesting is that an Army patrol was sent to check it out. I'm sure little effort was made to communicate with her because then she might have put her top back on.

I'm sure there are better ways to stop the Girls Gone Wild bus.

When I first heard this story, it just said a DUI instructor at the police academy was busted for driving drunk. Then I read that she had no pants on. However, I find the fact that she was in this state with two dogs the most disturbing. I'm actually quite glad the arresting officer didn't ask what the dogs were for.

I heard on the radio that adult film star Darien Vain is performing at Solid Platinum which means double cover charge. Why do they charge more for porn stars? Does anyone get their DVDs to watch dancing?

Hey, Iran just sentenced a woman to death by stoning for the crime of adultery. The good news is that these things have theoretically become more rare. Except Atefeh Rajabi, but she wasn't stoned. She was hung, and may have had more than one episode of premarital sex which certainly outweighs the fact that she was a mentally incompetent 16 year old girl (I must say I'm a little concerned that Amnesty's issue was with her age and not her "crime"). Of course, it was the stupid girl's fault. If she had just claimed she was raped, she probably would have gotten off with 100 lashes. On the other hand claiming homosexuality would have been a problem. Iran has a habit of hanging them too. Fortunately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to write long, pointless letters and has a PHD which is apparently important in some way that I don't particularly see. Unless it's because as an engineer he knows how much weight a rope can support without breaking.

Yet, a Nobel Peace Prize winner wants to kill George W. Bush. Not Ahmadeinejad. Not Saddam Hussein. Not Kim Jong-Il. Not President al-Bashir of Sudan. George W. Bush (I must stress the W because I assuming she's not in the mood to kill his father). You know, I never liked Bill Clinton for political reasons, but it never occurred to me to find virtue in his foreign political enemy, Slobodan Milosevic, just to make Clinton look bad.

Now for the really important news. Two weeks until the UK/UL football game. I know it's just another bad day for UK football fans, but at least you're undefeated right now. Only a few days after that is the first game to open the NFL season. The NFL has become so big that the Emmys were moved so they wouldn't conflict with the NFL regular season. It's football, then everything else.

Ruining Monday Night Football

I hate sportswriters. Actually, it’s mainly the columnists that I hate. Oh, there are some good ones – Chuck Culpepper and Mitch Albom come to mind. Most suck. A really bad trend of recent years has been columnists trying to sound "street" which means they write like a rap song - short, choppy sentences and lots of slang. Many of the ones that don't write "street" are old and a bit senile. Half of them seem to be boosters on the local team payroll, while the other half seem to believe nothing good should be written about the local team. Their sanctimonious behavior tends to get nauseating. Every columnist at some point has done the obligatory "People pay too much attention to sports which aren’t really that important" column without recognizing the fact that they wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for people who care too much about sports.

What I really hate is the whining. Rick Bozich of the Louisville Courier used to complain every year in one of his columns because UL was forced to play bowl games in Memphis or Mobile. Let’s see. To go those bowl games, I had to use vacation time, get a hotel room, pay for gas to get there, buy my own meals and purchase a ticket to get in. His employer picked up his expenses while paying him to watch a football game that probably included a free buffet for reporters. What an ass. It was the same way with the Super Bowl in Jacksonville a couple of years back. One columnist for ESPN.com constantly declared it would be a disaster. Why? Because Jacksonville is a relatively small city (for a Super Bowl) which would lead to traffic problems. How horrible. I’m sure the millions of people at home were devastated at the thought that the 70 some thousand people who were actually going to the game might be inconvenienced. It was like the Atlanta Olympics. In order to make a profit, the games were held at large venues so more paying customers could go in. Sportswriter whined constantly about the crowds and congestion. The idea seemed to be the Little People should stay home and just read about the Olympics. Well, F U, buddy. Someone needs to tell these jerk-offs that major sporting events are not put on strictly for them.

Then, there are ethical issues. I’ve seen these guys intentionally try to stir up crap with coaches or teams that their paper cover, and by doing so, they become part of the story. Jay Marriotti picking fights with half of the Chicago sports scene certainly comes to mind. Yet, these guys are still allowed to cover the team. One of the worst cases was somewhat local. Pat Forde was investigating UL athletics during the Crum years, and he decided to phone a NCAA tipline with info he couldn’t verify. The Courier suspended him for six months, but he was still allowed to cover UL sports when he came back.

Now, my Monday Night Football will have a columnist in the booth. I was originally happy that ESPN didn't bring the whole worthless Sunday Night Football team over for MNF (just the worthless Joe Theismann). Even worse, they didn't bring in a decent columnist. They brought in Tony Kornheiser. What? Did they get a package deal for Pardon The Interruption and decided to save money? I think PTI is a crap show. Usually, he and Wilbon agree and just shout back and forth to make it seem they are having an argument. When they don't agree, arguing points becomes restating your original point, just louder. I actually used to listen to his radio show when it was on locally. I stopped because he did a monologue on how he would be willing to vote for Bill Bradley because he used to be a basketball player, and basketball players were used to working together. How stupid is that? I don't care who he wants to vote for (if I cared about political leanings in entertainment, I would have very little to watch), but don't give me some stupid, lame-ass excuse like that. Tony, you work for the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. Saying you'd vote for the liberal candidate is okay. Working together? Mobsters work together. Would he vote for John Gotti, Jr.? Stupid, pointless drivel.

Actually, my main opposition is that he's unnecessary. I don't know anyone who watches a sporting event just to listen to the announcers. They could tune in, but you're not going to get them long term. I've never understood why ABC, and now ESPN, feels the need to put three people in the booth. The best MNF team was when they just had Al Michaels and John Madden. Stick with two. One play-by-play and one color analyst. It doesn't get cluttered with too much talking. Just call the game. Unfortunately, the three man team seems to be a sacred because of the original MNF team of Howard Cosell, Don Meredith and Frank Gifford. I'm sorry. I never thought much of Cosell. He seemed to be using the broadcast to show how smart he is, but for some reason, people liked him (or at least ratings were good, but my belief is that it was because most of it was pre-cable). ESPN seems to be hoping Kornholer is more Cosell than Dennis Miller who is the other booth analyst who didn't have a playing or broadcast background. Actually, I liked Miller fine, but he never meshed well with Michaels or Fouts. Given time, it might have worked out.

As I sit here watching the first MNF (preseason version) on ESPN, I have a bad feeling about this Kornheiser experiment. I noticed that the next day the print media was overwhelmingly positive about the whole thing. For obvious reasons. They want to be next. Kornheiser could have spent the whole time loudly passing gas, and those morons would have declared it innovative. Actually, it might have been more entertaining. You see, I'm not real sure what he is supposed to be bringing to the broadcast. Supposedly humor and an outside perspective, but I don't see him enhancing anything. Early in the show, I was thinking Kornheiser was going to be Sam Bowie doing UK basketball games. He wasn't saying much or adding anything to the conversation. Unfortunately, I was wrong. He began to say things that added bad things to the conversation. Most of his jokes were forced, and few were remotely funny. In fact, Theismann was funnier which isn't good at all. When Kornheiser did ask a detailed question, it sounded like he had written it down during the week and was waiting for a good time to ask it. Then he had to beat the "Duante Culpepper or Brad Johnson" argument to death. It was like he was verbally writing a column. There's no time for that during a football game. Actually, he tried to argue everything. Well, not actually argue. Theismann made the statement that an Oakland assistant who had been out of coaching for several years was in a better position to return than Joe Gibbs because he had spent part of that time as a college football coach (still in the game) while Gibbs was totally focused on NASCAR. Made sense to me and had nothing to do with who is a better coach, but Kornheiser couldn't figure it out. Even worse, he didn't ask follow-up questions. He just kept asking (in a louder voice a la PTI) if Theismann really meant it until Mike Tirico explained it for about the fourth time. Is he a complete idiot? I don't want to listen to long arguments while watching a football game.

He wasn't just clueless about the game that one time. Shouldn't this schmuck know quite a bit about football. It was pretty bad that Theisman had to continually explain football to him like he was talking to a retarded child. It was really bad that some of the stuff Kornheiser was saying was so ignorant that Theisman sounded like a genius.

There was one area that he did fine which was when he was answering an email. Of course, he probably had them for several days in which to formulate a response. That is why I think this whole thing will flop. Doing color on a game means coming up with commentary on the spot. Sportswriters are used to putting something on paper and tweaking it over time. He doesn't do his TV show live, so they know what they'll be talking about well ahead of time. In fact, that's one thing I hated about the show was them trying to act spontaneous when you know it's been thought out (whether it's been thought out well is debatable). Even his radio show was about sports stories from the day, not something happening live. So, even the phone calls were about issues he had already researched. If ESPN wants to put Kornheiser in some role with MNF, put him in the studio and have a segment where he answers the emails. Unfortunately, I'll probably have to do MNF like I did the Sunday night game the past several years - watch it without volume.

Who Gets To Define Offensive?

Our intrepid correspondent is writing from the wilds of the Missouri bootheel. I was reading a column by Mark Steyn, and he made a very good point about the Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitism. Apparently, Gibson's diarrhea of the mouth anti-Semitism is somehow more egregious to many people than say a Muslim-American practicing his anti-Semitism by shooting several Jews in Seattle. Now, is Mel an anti-Semite as so many have said or was he just drunk as some of his defenders say? I wouldn't be surprised either way. You sometimes can't tell, but I do know one thing. Mouthing off is not near as bad as shooting someone.

Of course, whether someone being offended gets media play depends too often on who is offending and who is offended. The Mohammad cartoons were big news, and newspapers in this country were more than willing to kowtow to offended Muslims by not showing the pictures. Here’s a thought. How are readers supposed to know if the Muslim rioting over the cartoons was unreasonable if they never actually see the offending cartoons? Actually, I think we all know the real reason why papers like the NY Times didn’t want to show the cartoons. They didn’t want the Religion of Peace to firebomb their office. It’s a Hell of a lot easier to offend non-Muslim religions because they have a tendency to not do such things. There’s a play out there that depicts Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals which I find much more offensive than a couple of cartoons of Mohammad. Yet, while there have been some protests and hollow threats, I don’t see the Christian community rioting over this.

With this fresh on my mind, I come across something that makes me think any entertainment figure that jumps on Gibson is a hypocrite because they haven’t said a thing about Madonna. Gibson made some rather unpleasant comments about Jews while drunk. Madonna has deliberately taken the Crucifixion, one of the holiest acts in Christianity, and appears to be mocking it in a concert. I freely admit I have a long way to go to be a good Christian, but how on earth can someone look at what she’s doing and not think it’s highly offensive to Christians. Yet, the only complaints are from religious leaders. No one from entertainment or politics is demanding that Madonna apologize. Why not?

I really shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve never thought that much of Madonna’s singing ability or her choice of songs. One of my fraternity brothers was a huge fan, but he could never get me to understand what the fuss was about. I always figured his little head was the part that liked her. Oddly enough, Shane was a big Madonna fan, but he thought the song by the Divinyls, “I Touch Myself”, was disgusting. I guess a female singing about having a little afternoon delight by herself is bad, but doing it onstage with a Puerto Rican flag is okay. Suffice to say, I never “got” why Madonna was so popular. When I’d hear her songs, the best ones were listenable, but that’s not really an endorsement. For the most part it’s been pedestrian dance music. As with most straight white males (Jesco White being the exception), I can’t dance so I certainly have a bias against dance music.

However, the career of Madonna has been as much promoting herself through outrageous behavior as it has been about her music. Usually when you have to do that, your music doesn’t stand on its own. For example, Marilyn Manson was nothing when it was fronted by a somewhat normal but unattractive man named Brian Warner (unattractive isn’t a problem for male rock singers, just boy band members). Get a makeover to look like an idiot and tell everyone you’re satanic and suddenly you have a following. It doesn’t matter that your music is still crap.

I just think that what we accept and reject as religiously offensive is skewed quite a bit. However, I must admit that Madonna's antics did lead to a great quote from the Daily Gut website - "It's funny that Madonna's greatest achievement in her life will be the unification of religious leaders under one belief - that Madonna sucks."

Steroids: Should I Care?

When I read that Floyd Landis failed a drug test during a major event that I care very little about, I was absolutely shocked. Shocked, I tell you. He's a cyclist. They're the biggest dopers in the world. There's no way Landis should have let himself get caught. These guys are the experts at beating the drug tests. Most of the guys who get suspended or kicked out of races didn't fail tests. They were implicated by association with drug supplying doctors or their team cars were found to have more drugs than a Tijuana pharmacy. To be honest, I was surprised he was busted for testosterone, because testosterone is good for building up during training, but wouldn't be that swift for a one day boost. And as a member of a sport awash in performance enhancers, he should know that. I would expect that he used steroids or something like them (HGH) while training. Nothing against him personally, but I find it very hard to believe that so many cyclists get caught doping, and they couldn't win the Tour de France. I just can't see someone riding completely clean beating out a whole lot of guys who aren't clean, but not getting caught. Yes, I am saying that I think Lance Armstrong probably used steroids.

That's the bad thing about steroids in a lot of these sports. If you don't want to take performance enhancing drugs, you will have trouble competing when so many others are. I'm not naive. I know Barry Bonds is the tip of the iceberg in baseball, especially when a lousy pitcher was using an undetectable item like Human Growth Hormone. As much as I love football, I know the league can't keep up with science when it comes to steroids. At times I'm ambivalent. If people want to mess with their long term health by taking that stuff, should I really argue with that? Besides, we don't think anything of players getting very high tech surgeries or using painkillers to get on the field. Of course, those are just getting players back to their natural level, and I still think you need to fight it simply because there are players who probably don't want to resort to steroids just to stay in the leagues. Why make it harder for them?

Testosterone has popped up in the case of Justin Gatlin, but that's another sport I don't really care about. Actually, I don't care too much about baseball either, but I find their latest steroid controversy fascinating. Baseball Hall of Fame voting is getting ready to begin this fall or winter (I don't really care), and Mark McGwire is eligible. Rob Neyer polled several baseball writers (it was ESPN insider so I can't link it) and found there wasn't much support for McGwire to be elected to the HOF. The main reason was his suspected steroid use, and more specifically, his testimony before Congress where he didn't admit or deny anything. Actually, I was really surprised by how sanctimonious the writers who responded were. I probably shouldn't have been. These are the same dorks who stuck their head in the sand for years when it was obvious something was going on a long time ago. If Brady Anderson hitting 50 home runs in 1996 wasn't an indication that junk was being used, I don't know what they were waiting for. Oh, I do know. It took a federal investigation and raid on BALCO for most of these morons to admit what was right in front of them.

Yet, I would still vote McGwire into the HOF. One reason is that I can't hold his Congressional testimony against him for the simple fact that there were too many players I think used steroids (Roger Clemens, for example) who got (and still get) a pass from Congress (and the press). Plus, while I think McGwire did steroids, I don't know. I might disqualify Jose Conseco, because he admitted to using them, but what if McGwire was able to get freakishly big on his own (he did hit 49 home runs his first full season in the majors)? As much as I dislike him, I would give Barry Bonds the same benefit, except a federal grand jury might make that moot if they indict him for perjury for lying about his steroid use. The philosophical argument can also be made whether or not they should be held accountable to steroid use when it wasn't really banned by baseball until 2003. I would probably say yes since it was still an ethical issue.

However, I would still vote him in because the Baseball Hall of Fame is a joke to begin with, and it starts with the location. They put the HOF in Cooperstown because some old fart said Abner Doubleday (who should be better known for his military service) organized the first game there. Modern history has shown he didn't. In fact, Cooperstown doesn't even have a baseball team as they once refused a minor league club because they weren't "a baseball town". Of course, they also induct people for stupid reasons. Candy Cummings is in the HOF for inventing the curveball even though he didn't. Hell, Bruce Sutter just made it in, and the only reason he got in and Goose Gossage didn't is because Sutter popularized (didn't invent) the splitter. Cheating isn't even a problem for HOF voters in baseball. Gaylord Perry admitted while he was still playing that he used an illegal pitch, the spitball, extensively. Didn't matter. He still made it.

To be honest, the main reason I wouldn't hold it against McGwire if he used roids is that I believe pitchers at the time (and now) were also doped up. I've said before, and I'll say it again, how does Roger Clemens not get the speculation others do? A power pitcher whose stats slumped in his 30s but somehow he became better in his 40s? Am I the only one suspicious about this? I do think hitting statistics during the steroid era were inflated, but it's tough to say how much when you consider they may be facing a juiced up pitcher.

Summertime Television

Since I don't watch a whole lot of regular network series, I really don't care that they are in re-runs. I'm just mad that I'm stuck in the deadzone between the end of basketball and football. A lot of summers, the best sport on was the Great Outdoor Games which unfortunately is on hiatus this year which is probably why I ended up watching the World Cup. Still, there was some interesting crap on, and I figured I would review what I had on this past weekend (not necessarily watching because sometimes it was background noise while I did something else).

What I probably would have liked to watch is some classic college football. With digital cable, I have about five Fox Sports Channels, and they like to show classic college football games. Except, Fox Sports Atlantic only seems to show games between Florida and Tennessee. That would be fine except they play once a year so there's not a ton of different games. Fox Sports Pacific is worse. They show two games period. One is last year's Southern Cal/Fresno State which was very good game. Fresno St. led over halfway through the fourth quarter before USC came back to win. Still, I can't even watch it that many times. The other game they show is Southern Cal/Arkansas which was not a good game. USC won by 53 points. Wasn't that interesting. Yet, I can probably catch this game at least once every day of the week if I want.

I did catch some of VH1's top 100 Greatest One Hit Wonders, and too often, I had to wonder what the Hell were people thinking when some of these songs became hits. I also have to wonder who came up with order. Quite a study in contrast when Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back" is followed by Debby Boone's "You Light Up My Life". Plus, how was "Macarena" number one, but "The Safety Dance" was only 83? Still, I must say the show was a learning experience. I had heard "Hot Child In The City" a million times while growing up. Yet, I didn't know that it was about a teenage hooker. And I thought a woman sang it. To be honest, after watching a clip of him singing, it's a good thing that they mentioned his name was Nick or else I might still be under my original misperception.

Actually, any singer who thinks they can write "message music" and change people's minds should watch this show. I could not believe how many songs were hits in spite of no one really knowing what they were about. "Hot Child In The City" wasn't the only song to be a hit because people didn't realize just how risqué or downright dirty the song really was. There was also "Afternoon Delight", "Turning Japanese" and of course "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood. Then there was "99 Luftballoons" which was a huge hit in this country even though it was completely in German.

While not really a golf fan, I did have the last round of the British Open on (I knew Sergio Garcia was toast when I saw he was dressed like a banana). What got me was just what a Prima Donna Tiger Woods is. He bogeyed a hole because he was agitated over someone in the gallery taking his picture with a camera phone. Give me a break, he's got about 20 photographers from news organizations following him around the course taking pictures, but a little camera phone takes him off his game? He's hitting a stationary ball. I saw Aaron Boone hit an 11th inning homerun in game 7 to win the American League Championship while flashbulbs are popping and the crowd is so loud he couldn't carry on a conversation with the catcher. I've seen Adam Vinatieri kick a 45 yard field goal in a driving snow storm to tie Oakland in front of a screaming crowd during the AFC Championship. He would later win it in overtime, and then kick two 40 plus yard last second field goals to win Super Bowls. If they can do that, why can't a pro golfer hit a ball with a little click in the background?

I didn't catch a whole lot of the Tour De France (I wasn't sure where OLN was on my cable), but I did watch the last day to see a guy in need of hip replacement win a bicycle race. Shouldn't the other riders be embarrassed to lose to someone who is riding with a leg injury?
As one who likes trivia, I normally would like a show like VH1's World Series of Pop Culture, but then I saw an episode with a team called Cheetara. Apparently, they were improv actresses which must be a euphemism for "unfunny chicks led by a mouthy midget who makes bizarre facial expressions."

When the NASCAR race I was watching went to commercial, I flipped over to the IRL one on ESPN. It also was in commercial, but they do a split screen so they don't actually leave the race. So, I stuck around to catch the running order, and it suddenly occurred to me that the commercial they were running was the Old Spice one that takes place at a NASCAR race. Considering how condescending hardcore IRL fans are about NASCAR on ESPN.com message boards, I'm not sure this was a good advertising decision. Of course, what I really can't figure out is why Saturday's Busch race was on NBC, but the Nextel Cup race was on TNT.

Then damned if the one show I do normally make a point to watch, The Simpsons, was a rerun.

Fortunately, The Discovery Channel has become a life saver with multiple showings of Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs and apparently more than one show about crab fishermen in Alaska. I thought they were just building tension when the focus was on the rookie crabman working a dangerous spot. Then he fell overboard and I realized it was foreshadowing.

Here Phil

I've put in a post just for you to write that four paragraph response. I don't want you to have to scroll through one of my other posts, because you might find something to disagree with.

It's just driving in circles

I had hoped I wouldn't have to write about the Danica Patrick absurdity again, but it keeps coming back worse and worse. I watched an IRL race on Saturday, and sure enough, the announcers spent more time talking about Danica cruising in fourth place as they did about Scott Dixon beating Dan Wheldon way ahead of her. The write up the next day on ESPN.com made me want to vomit. It was one thing to lead with the fourth place finisher, but the author even admitted he wasn't going to get to the winner until later because he wanted to "focus on Danica's quietly impressive evening." . She did finish fourth, but she wasn't really that competitive. Only six drivers were even on the lead lap, and it was pretty obvious the winner was going to be Wheldon or Dixon.

To top that, half the article was about her possibly moving to NASCAR. The biggest joke in the world is the fact that her "possibly" moving to NASCAR is considered on the level as Juan Pablo Montoya going to stock cars from Formula One. What the Hell? Montoya is a top driver. Patrick is a novelty act. She hasn't even talked about going into the Busch Series to prepare for the Nextel Cup, but Montoya is planning on driving there to gain stock car experience. And Montoya is a much more accomplished driver. He won a CART championship when that series was still the top open wheel racing in the country. During that time, he crossed over to run the Indy 500 and completely dominated in winning. Patrick has never finished higher than fourth in any IRL race (which means she's never won a race). She needed Saturday's fourth place finish to move to ninth place in the IRL standings, and while being in the top 10 means something in NASCAR which has over 30 regular drivers, it doesn't mean much in IRL. Out of nine races, the Indy 500 (with 33) is the only IRL race to have more than 20 starters. So, there's probably only about 18 full time drivers.

Actually, I think the low number of drivers will be the reason that Patrick stays in IRL. Looking at the race results in IRL, it's very competitive at the top, but not at the bottom. The reality is that there are only six drivers in IRL that I would pick to win week in and week out. Sam Hornish, Jr., Scott Dixon, Helio Castroneves, Dan Wheldon, Vitor Meira and Tony Kanaan are way ahead of the rest. Out of nine races, 32 of the top five finishes were from that group. Only 13 were from the rest of the field. Out of 18 first and second place finishes this year, only Marco Andretti's second at the Indy 500 was from somebody other than the six.

Yet, that could work in the favor of Patrick. She's not a bad driver. She just hasn't shown me that she's better than mediocre. One thing she doesn't do is wreck, which I believe is the same reason that she doesn't win. She's not aggressive which means she spends a good chunk of the race cruising around the track. However, by not wrecking, she just needs six guys to wipe out and she's got a shot. In NASCAR, there are a whole lot more drivers capable of winning a race. Their standings change week to week, and last year's champion, Tony Stewart, has actually dropped out of the top ten. I think she'll have a much better chance at getting that elusive win in IRL. And I don't think racing is as important to her as marketing, so I can't see her wanting to drive as many races as NASCAR has.

Another reason I don't think she'll move is because her popularity won't be as high in NASCAR. It was easy to pick up a following in IRL because no one else in IRL had any fans. Think about it. Two years ago, did you ever hear of a hardcore Scott Sharp fan? If Patrick moves to NASCAR, she's going up against a race series where most of the drivers already have a fanatical following. Jeff Gordon fans aren't going to suddenly jump off his bandwagon onto Patrick's. She'll probably pick up some fans by being a novelty, but it won't be to the same level as in IRL. Plus, NASCAR fans want a winner before they root for you. The closest thing to a built in fan base that I've ever seen in NASCAR was Dale Earnhardt Jr, but he pretty much inherited his father's fans after Dale Sr.'s death. I'm just not sure Dale Jr. would be the most popular driver in NASCAR if his father hadn't died on the track (think Kyle Petty and his "following"). However, Dale Jr. didn't jump right into NASCAR. He spent two years in the Busch Series where he won a pair of championships. So, he was pretty accomplished as a racer when he moved up to the top series.

The final reason I don't think she'll make the jump is she would want to be in a top team because she can't win in IRL with a decent team, so she'll want top of the line. Marketing the driver is important in NASCAR, but I don't think it's as important for the top teams. Sure, the teams just scraping by would want her because she brings sponsor dollars. Top teams want winners, because NASCAR doesn't just have a points race for drivers, they have one for owners. Would a top team boot a proven driver to pick up someone who can cost them points? Unlikely.

I don't care if women race professionally. While I don't like it when someone is pushed ahead in sports for reasons other than merit, it's going to happen. What drives me nuts is when sports reporters are pushing an agenda instead of honestly reporting the story. With her complete lack of race course accomplishments, would anyone care if Patrick moved to NASCAR if she weren't a woman? Actually, yes. That driver would be a laughing stock if he had never finished higher than fourth on a minor circuit, and was flirting with bottom half of the standings, but thought he was good enough to jump to the top racing series in the country.

More Random Thoughts

I was watching a Robert Ryan (one of the great unsung actors of his day) cop movie on TCM, and at the beginning ran the logo for the studio - RKO Pictures. The logo calls it "An RKO Radio Picture". What the Hell is a "radio picture"?

Not being a Myspace aficionado, I have no real clue what kind of anti-pedophile protection teenager have on it, but I really have to question this lawsuit by some woman whose 14 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by someone she met through it. She wanted protection for teenagers against adults, but would she have felt better if her daughter was attacked by a 17 year old instead of a 19 year old? If you're going to tell your kids not to talk to strangers, shouldn't you also tell them not to go find a complete stranger that you meet on the internet?

I'm not a Catholic so I don't really care who they ordain. However, I had problem after reading this article on some chick being "ordained" as a Catholic priest. It's how it was written. Isn't it being dishonest for whoever wrote the article to say the woman was ordained as Roman Catholic priest when the Roman Catholic Church law is that women can't be ordained, and the presiding "bishop" had already been excommunicated from the Church? This is the equivalent to me being fired from my job, and then declaring myself Vice President of the company.

I think Phil ripped off my old "Bad Movie Review" from my fantasy football website.

I can understand keeping your job if you win a couple of million in the lottery. I can even understand keeping your job at McDonalds if you're nuts. I just can't understand why anybody would eat the crap they serve at McDonalds.

From reading several news sources, I can find quite a difference of opinion on who is at fault in the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll just make a couple of points. My brother serves in our armed forces. If he were grabbed by a bunch of radicals, I would not object to our military laying waste to half the Middle East to get him back. In fact, I would expect it. Some may not remember that Hezbollah from long ago, but they were the ones who blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983 which killed 241 American serviceman on a peacekeeping mission (for those who think it was because they were Americans, the French lost 58 paratroopers in similar suicide bombing the same day). Let's look at which side really wants peace. In recent years, Israel has evacuated their southern Lebanon and Gaza buffer zones in an effort to push along the "peace process". How did the Palestinians respond? Hamas declared that they ran Israel out of Gaza and won control of the Palestinian government. Gaza is now a staging ground for rocket attacks on Israel. Come to think of it, Hezbollah uses southern Lebanon for the same thing. Israel gives up land as concession for peace. Two terrorist groups who are still dedicated to the destruction of Israel use that land to launch attacks. Yeah, I don't have to put a lot of thought into whom really wants peace.

And please don't think a captured Israeli soldier is equivalent to a captured Palestinian terrorist. The Palestinian is put in jail where they do things like run for the Palestinian Parliament. Captured Israelis have a tendency to disappear for good.

Finally, since Phil has ripped Wal-Mart for their policies, I will defend them for no other reason than I can. Well, not all their policies. They've never had good service (but most general merchandise chain stores don't). I could really care less whether or not they chant in the morning, but maybe it works better than half the employees showing up hungover like at a place I used to work. Still, Wal-Marts are cleaner than KMart, but so is a stall at Keeneland so that's not really a selling point. The main thing I want to point out is that not all poor people work at Wal-Mart. Other retail stores don't pay that too either (don't bother looking for the BMWs in Meijer's employee parking). Not to mention the spare change waitresses at the Waffle House make (I don't bring up their janitors because I don't think Waffle House has them). The unfortunate fact is that we will always have a class of people who work low wage jobs. I think the high school dropout rate is 20 something percent, and I believe all of us who worked at Toys R Us can name people who jumped from job to job because The Man expected them to do things like show up on time. Or at all. Personally, I can afford to shop at Meijer or Target or whatever. For those who are stuck in low income jobs, Wal-Mart is one of the best things that happened to them. Low prices mean they are spending a smaller percentage of their income on necessities.

Hey, it's now the 20th. NFL training camps start opening today. Football is almost here. College practice starts the first week of August and since I'm not a UK fan, I can watch college football past September too.

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?