13 comments The Premise of These Articles Stinks

Today is the 2nd birthday of this blog. If I had realized this earlier I might have done something special...that's probably a lie I tell myself though. 2 years ago this blog was started for no real purpose and today that lack of purpose still stands and is upheld every day in the posts that are made. That was a good celebration, now more reminder before I get to the post for today.

I started a Fantasy Baseball league in Yahoo if anyone wants to join. I have put the max teams at 10 but I would be willing to open it up to 12 teams if we had enough interest. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." I did some default league settings with the intention of changing them later. So if anyone who wants to join has recommendations or preferences on how the league is set up, just use the message board for the league to say what you think. Anyone feel free to join and I will open it up to 12 teams if necessary. Also, I have started a NCAA Tournament Bracket Pick 'Em in a Yahoo league if anyone is interested in joining. The ID is "8624" and the password is "eckstein." Feel free to join and of course we won't be able to make the picks until the brackets are announced. We only have 3 people in the league right now and that is pathetic.

I don't even know where to begin with today's post. It's kind of all over the place, but that's just the way my mind works some days. If you knew how much time I spend trying to find a title for my posts, it would embarrassing for me. Once I write something, a title should come pretty easily, except it doesn't always. It takes me 5 minutes sometimes to think of a title for my posts, which really is too much time since everything the article is about is contained in walls of text below. Anyway, so I just went with the simple title for today, because it's true.

I have 3 articles that I thought stunk and 1 act by a group of fans that I just didn't understand, and now I want to talk about it.

Johnette Howard starts it all off with inventing a new curse for the Red Sox.

It’s not a move that’s likely to approach the cosmic significance of the Curse of the Bambino,

This was not cosmic, but instead was a curse invented by Dan Shaughnessy to sell books. Just so we are clear on that.

the Boston Red Sox — whose front office rarely makes big mistakes — will regret letting free-agent first baseman Mark Teixeira fall to the archrival Yankees last winter.

It's the "Curse of Tex!"

It’s staggering when you think about it: The balance of power in the AL East and all of baseball swung because the Red Sox balked at paying Teixeira an extra $1.5 million a year

Two things:

1. Saying the balance of power swung in all of baseball is a bit of an overstatement. The Yankees won 1 World Series with Teixeira at first base. They may win another World Series, but at this point they haven't had the chance to do this yet. The Yankees are still beatable. I know it is a lot of fun to make it seem like they aren't beatable and do things like try to change the divisions around so the Yankees can't dominate until the end of time, but we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit. There are still good baseball teams in the American League and the National League capable of winning the World Series.

2. An extra $1.5 million per year WOULD NOT have signed Mark Teixeira. If the Red Sox had offered more money, the odds are very good the Yankees would have made a counteroffer that would have exceeded the Red Sox offer. It's not like when the Yankees get outbid for a player's services they just back away and look for another player to sign. The Yankees would have ultimately outbid the Red Sox for Teixeira's services, I have very little doubt about that. They outbid the Braves for AJ Burnett last winter and they would have done the same for Tex's services.

So refusing $1.5 million per year DID NOT cause the Red Sox to lose out on Tex. Bidding against a hungry and playoff-deprived Yankees front office caused them to lose out on Tex. I don't know if the amount of money offered would have made a huge difference in the end because the Yankees would have tried to top it.

For $1.5 million a year, the Red Sox deprived themselves of a switch-hitting, extraordinarily consistent first baseman who not only hung up an MVP-caliber season for the Yankees last season, but fits the Red Sox’s profile of the perfect player even better:

I think Mark Teixeira fits every team's profile of the perfect player, not just the Red Sox. And also, if the Red Sox had raised the offer to beat the Yankees offer, the Yankees would have just beaten that offer. How is this hard to understand? More importantly, when have the Yankees ever been outbid for a player they really wanted? So how did $1.5 million per year make a difference again?

He hits for power, hits for average, plays great defense, comes up big under pressure and earns raves as a good clubhouse guy.

That does sound like a Red Sox guy for sure! No other team in Major League Baseball wants a guy like that on their team at all. This is why the Red Sox are such a great team. Other teams see a guy who hits for power, hits for average, plays great defense, comes up big under pressure and earns raves as a good clubhouse guy and thinks, "What the hell do we need that guy for? We have Mike Jacobs playing first base, that's all we really want."

“I don’t want to think where we’d be without him,” Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez said many times last season.

He was actually talking about his half A-Rod/half horse portrait he keeps over his bed. I guess Mark Teixeira was pretty helpful to the Yankees too.

This year is supposed to bring a fresh start for the Red Sox. It just doesn’t feel like that when you listen to the doubts that keep floating up from Fort Myers.

The doubts caused by moronic writers who are still stuck on the 2009 free agency winter spending spree the Yankees had instead of focusing on the players the Red Sox currently have. Hey, that's you Johnette Howard!

Most writers when they detail the "doubts" floating up from Fort Myers would quote some players or other Red Sox-affiliated people on the doubts they have, but Johnette Howard isn't most writers. She just sort of lets this comment hang out there with no real verification of the "doubts" that are floating.

if Lowell is even still around — are hoping to compensate for their questionable offense with what they rightly think can be the best starting pitching in baseball. They’ve added John Lackey to a mix that already included Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.

Pitching? What good is that if the team can't spend $1.5 million more dollars that would hypothetically and probably not have gotten Mark Teixeira? No one wants pitching. Pitching doesn't win championships.

At some point this season, they can finally make their long-rumored trade for Padres’ first baseman Adrian Gonzalez to get another big bat.

Well, I guess the Red Sox could get the Mark Teixeira (somewhat) clone, but what about the "Tex Curse?" Can Adrian Gonzalez beat the "Tex Curse?" Adrian Gonzalez is cheaper than Teixeira and the Red Sox can use the $1.5 million that wouldn't have gotten Tex signed to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez after they trade for him. What's the fun in that though? Throw in the conversation I had with Anonymous in the comments for the Saturday MLB Previews this week and there is even a question of where the hell the Red Sox would even put Gonzalez on the field. Plus, there is the whole "Tex Curse" thing hanging over the Red Sox now so even if Gonzalez could be traded for, it would never work because of the "Tex Curse."

Adrian Gonzalez' statistics.

Mark Teixeira's statistics.

Tex is a superior player, but not by that much.

But a lot can change between now and the trading deadline. What if the Padres don’t deal their homegrown star?

Then they are morons. They are going to deal Gonzalez. They have to. Jed Hoyer used to be in the Red Sox front office and he knows the prospects so he knows best (assuming he can find somewhere to put Beltre and Youkilis) what he wants from Boston and if the Red Sox decide Beltre isn't working out and they want a good hitting first baseman to move Youkilis to third base, there is room at that point. That's assuming the Red Sox/Beltre marriage isn't working out. The Red Sox can compete without Adrian Gonzalez contrary to popular opinion.

The Padres are going to trade Adrian Gonzalez to some team. This makes too much sense not to happen.

What if the Yankees get too far ahead in the AL East?

Then one player wasn't going to make a difference in the season anyway. Any more panic questions?

What if Teixeira has another season that rubs in all he could be doing it for Sox instead?

Then the world as we know it will end. This is the beginning of the "Tex Curse."

But 2009 proved the Red Sox might have another problem: The 34-year-old Ortiz had a hot-and-cold season that suggested his age or life without steroids is catching up to him.

Actually, Ortiz was cold at the beginning of the season, but he was a pretty good hitter towards the end of the season. There is decent reason not to worry too much about him, but I agree the Red Sox could use another hitter in the middle of the lineup.

Boston’s best hope might be just to get into the postseason somehow, because once there, the Sox's superb pitching makes them better built to dominate in the playoffs than over a long season.

So the real problem isn't the Yankees having Mark Teixeira but ensuring the Red Sox win the Wild Card? Because if the Red Sox make the playoffs they are going to be difficult to beat? So the entire premise of this article is pointless?

In a seven-game series, a rotation of Beckett, Lester, Lackey and A Starter To Be Named is good enough to silence anybody. Even the Yankees.

So this worry has nothing to do with Mark Teixeira and not signing him nor does it have anything to do with the Yankees? As long as the Red Sox make the playoffs, they should have a chance to win the World Series. Again, so what's the point of this article?

Still, not signing Teixeira has to be a huge regret, even if no Red Sox will ever admit it.

Perhaps they don't admit it because its not true. The Red Sox are probably smart enough to know they couldn't have outbid the Yankees for Tex.

But the Sox abruptly left the meeting when Boras told them their offer wasn’t good enough. It was startlingly out-of-character when Henry fired off a tart statement later that same night announcing the Red Sox were out of the running for Teixeria.

Probably because they knew at that point they wouldn't be able to offer enough money to get Tex.

“All signs pointed to him going to the Red Sox,” Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said back then. It wasn’t until five days later, when the Yankees offered Teixeira $160 million over eight years and Boras called Cashman back about an hour later to talk details that Cashman thought, “I felt momentum. I remember calling Hal (Steinbrenner, the Yankees’ managing partner) and saying, ‘We’re the lead dog.’ ”

Because they were offering more money that the Red Sox couldn't match, or wouldn't match, because the Red Sox knew the Yankees wanted him and were willing to pay what it took for him.

Maybe the Red Sox figured they’ve been excellent at making tough calls on stars such as Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez, and they’d survive this as well.

The Yankees have one 1 World Series with Mark Teixeira. It is incredibly too early to hit the panic button and think all is lost. For the record, Johnny Damon contributed to the Yankees World Series title as well and for some reason Johnette Howard doesn't think the Red Sox rue the day they let him go. Granted, he is not the impact player Teixeira is, but Damon was still a fairly productive player and he helped the Yankees win a World Series last year.

With him, the Red Sox would be the frontrunners.

That is very possible. The Yankees would probably have Adrian Gonzalez or another great hitting first basemen at this point though. Also, with how Tex hit in the playoffs last year the Red Sox still may not have beaten the Angels. So the Yankees could have won the World Series with another good first baseman in this hypothetical world where Tex plays for the Red Sox.

Without him, they’re back to being haunted again by another slugger they let get away.

You mean like they were when Babe Ruth was traded away, which led to the direct result (naturally) that the Red Sox didn't win another World Series until 2004? Red Sox fans considered yourself permanently screwed by the "Curse of Tex."

-JemeHill thinks the punch thrown by the Baylor women's basketball player isn't that big of a deal compared to other punches thrown in sports.

All punches are not created equal.

So if the punch doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of damage, it's no big deal? I see that JemeHill looks at the outcome of a situation to determine the punishment. I am not sure how I feel about this.

As much as people would like to equate Baylor's Brittney Griner punching Texas Tech's Jordan Barncastle with LeGarrette Blount decking Byron Hout following last September's Oregon-Boise State football game, the fists belonging to Griner and Blount are both separate and unequal.

Right, one happened in a women's basketball game no one cared about or watched and the other happened in a nationally televised game between two highly ranked teams on the opening game of the NCAA football season. One involved a woman, the other involved a man. Those are really the only differences.

Griner's fist connected with Barncastle's nose after the two jostled in the lane.

There was no "connected" about it. Brittney Griner swung her arm in a huge attempt to hurt the Texas Tech player. There wasn't any doubt what that was an attempt to do.

It was a typical example of rough play between aggressive players -- who also happen to have a chippy history. In fact, the two reportedly had a verbal confrontation after a game last month.

Clearly not preventing the punch was the official's fault then. They should have known about the history and prevented it from happening...obviously, or someone should have done something. Either way, Brittney Griner's punch was not a big deal to JemeHill.

Griner's punch is hardly in the same league as Blount's,

I guess I am missing the difference. In both cases punches were thrown and landed.

and it's certainly not remotely close to the reprehensible actions of Elizabeth Lambert, the New Mexico soccer player who became infamous because of her MMA-esque takedowns during a heated match with Brigham Young late last year.

This is one of JemeHill's favorite things to do when she is arguing a point. She loves to mix her message up with another incident so the reader's focus isn't on the actual incident she is discussing but how that incident compares to another incident. It is an attempt to help prove her point here by lessening the severity of Griner's act compared to another sports-related violent act.

"Elizabeth Lambert was more out of line than Brittney Griner so Griner's punch shouldn't be treated as harshly."

Blount, like Griner, was provoked. But Blount coldcocked Hout after the game ended,

So it is worse to hit an opponent AFTER the game is over than it is to hit an opponent during the game? I would say I understand this, but I really, really don't. I don't exactly see how hitting an opponent during a game is not as serious as hitting an opponent after a game.

and then made matters even worse by exhibiting belligerent behavior toward fans as he was being escorted off the field.

So the belligerence towards the fans made the punch that much worse? If Blount had punched Hout in the face and then calmly walked off the field as he was called racial slurs and whatever else he was called then everything would have been cool? This doesn't make sense to me.

I never believed Blount's irresponsible and irrational behavior should have cost him the entire season,

Well, then you were right. Congratulations, let's get back to the purpose of this article.

And while I believe Lambert's punishment was fair (she was suspended indefinitely), let's not forget that we watched Zinedine Zidane head-butt Marco Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup final.

See what JemeHill does? She starts getting off topic in an attempt to dismiss how serious the punch Griner threw was.

"But nobody did anything to a soccer player 4 years ago in an event that wasn't held by the NCAA! How can you suspend Brittney Griner when the World Cup doesn't suspend it's players for violent acts?"

The World Cup and a women's college basketball game are two completely separate events governed by two completely different governing bodies, who punish players in completely different ways.

The wrong thing for Baylor and the Big 12 to do is to overreact and suspend Griner for the conference and NCAA tournaments if it's done just to prove the point that a woman should be subject to the same punishment as a man for unsportsmanlike conduct.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman or her not being a man. It has to do with the fact a punch was thrown during an NCAA game and LaGarrette Blount was suspended for half the season (actually more) so why is a 2 game suspension sufficient for Brittney Griner?

What's wrong with a woman and man being subject to the same punishment for the same crime when talking about college athletics?

In 2004, five players from the Kansas and Missouri basketball teams were suspended for a postgame fight. It was a melee. A punch was thrown, a player was kicked -- and nobody lost her season.

This is irrelevant. In the 1880's people were hanged in public days after being convicted for a crime, it doesn't mean that punishment should set a precedent for all criminal trials from that day forward. It is fine for a organization like the NCAA to get more or less lenient as the years progress in regards to a punch being thrown during competition. The NFL has progressively gotten more bold with its punishments and the NCAA may want to do this as well. 6 years has gone by since this melee occurred and only 7 months has gone by since Blount threw his punch.

The NCAA or Pac-10 never got to punish Blount because the school did that for them.

Griner's actions are worth a two-game suspension.

So while Blount gets a suspension that lasts over half the season, Griner's punch is worth missing a little over 5% of the season? Screw fairness, this doesn't even make sense.

If you don't think Griner being a woman has anything to do with this, then you're being naive. It isn't fair, but an aggressive woman -- particularly one who is 6-foot-8 -- is going to be judged more harshly than a man.

Actually, if she were suspended for half the season during the next season, then she would still be punished less harshly than a man. That hasn't happened. I completely disagree an aggressive woman will be judged more harshly than a man. More importantly, who cares how she is judged? What's important is the punishment doled out to her to prevent this from occurring as much as possible and showing the NCAA takes punches thrown at opponents seriously.

I don't care what happens to Brittney Griner. They could not punish her and I wouldn't mind, but if we are setting standards for behavior and the NCAA wants to show they are serious about punches thrown, they will give her a stiff suspension. Sure it was a woman throwing the punch, but it was also a woman receiving the punch.

Griner is known for showing the kind of emotion that some consider borderline taunting, and it's irritated a lot of people.

In other words, she behaves the same way as the guys, whose antics are not only tolerated, but often celebrated.

No one has a problem with how she plays the game. Don't create a double standard where there isn't one. This whole issue isn't about how Brittney Griner acts on the court, it is about the fact she threw a punch at an opponent.

True equality isn't giving Griner the LeGarrette Blount treatment, but treating her punch as an unfortunate incident for a great athlete.

So true equality is a not treating a woman athlete the same as a male athlete? Only in JemeHill's world would this make sense.

-Tim Marchman ranks the NBA General Managers. This isn't such a bad column as much as I don't agree with some of the rankings.

In Marchman's defense he does acknowledge there is no real good way to evaluate GM's, but I still shall continue...

Sadly, there isn't any good, objective way to rate general managers. Take the following rankings, then, as largely subjective and based on a few simple criteria having mostly to do with player moves and setting an overall direction for the organization, which are only a part of what a general manager actually does.

After that, not doing stupid things counts most. The reason for this is that while mere uninspired time served won't destroy a team, doing actively malignant things such as making clearly ridiculous trades or signing costly, terrible free agents can ruin a team's chances for many years.

Remember this statement. Doing actively malignant things like ridiculous trades, signing costly and terrible free agents is something that should move a GM down in the rankings. "Should" being the key word here.

3. Brian Cashman, New York Yankees

Sorry Yankee fans who like Brian Cashman, but if criteria like "making ridiculous trades" and signing costly, terrible free agents" is criteria for moving a GM down the list...Brian Cashman needs to be down this list. I wouldn't put him down that far on the list, but not at #3. I am not putting Brian Cashman down because I think he should be high on this list, but just not at #3.

The Randy Johnson trade wasn't shrewd, the Kevin Brown trade wasn't shrewd, the signing of Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, Kei Igawa, etc. were not good moves, and even to a lesser extent signing Jose Contreras didn't work out. The only reason the Yankees are able to recover from these moves is that Cashman has made some good signings and the Yankees have enough money to where they can sign new players and these bad moves don't hurt them permanently. Otherwise, Cashman would have come close to tanking the Yankees in the mid-2000's if the Yankees didn't have resources to recover from some of his (or who else's) free agent decisions.

I am not saying Cashman is a bad GM, I just think he should be down this list because the years of 2001-2008 were a bunch of mediocre signings and trades by Cashman with decent trades thrown in sometimes. It wasn't the era of the 3rd best General Manager in baseball.

His four world championships don't hurt, but the really impressive thing is that since he secured full control over baseball operations after the 2005 season, the Yankees have spent their money wisely, signing studs like CC Sabathia rather than sure bets for decline, and traded smartly, dealing the fruits of a much-improved farm system for players still in their prime, such as Curtis Granderson.

The CC Sabathia signing was a no-brainer for pretty much every team. There wasn't much of a threat of Sabathia being a bust wherever he went. He was going to the team that paid him the most. The Granderson trade was pretty good, I admit that, but again that is a more recent move. This ranking ignores some of Cashman's previous bad decisions.

Also, I realize Cashman hasn't had completely control over the team the entire he has been in New York, but when ranking GM's nobody knows for sure who really is responsible for the moves many of these teams make. So I would rank the GM's based on what happened in their tenure as GM. I am sure other people had a hand in the free agent signing failures the Yankees have had, just like I am sure other people had a hand in the free agent signing successes the Yankees have had. All credit and blame goes to the General Manager for both of these usually.

Remember Cashman also hasn't drafted and brought an impact pitcher in the Yankees rotation up from the farm system since 1995, Chien-Mang Wang no longer counts, and he hasn't developed a great hitter in the farm system in a while either. Regardless if the Yankees tend to improve their team through free agency or not, organizational development and choosing of prospects to draft is part of the GM's duties as well. That is a part of his job as GM that Cashman hasn't done well or at least he has traded these guys away before they could make the Yankees' team. I would lower him a little bit on this list.

5. Jack Zduriencik, Seattle Mariners

Since taking over the reins in Seattle, he has turned the Mariners into a contender, engineering their abrupt transformation from one of baseball's dullest organizations to one of its most progressive, such as by focusing on defensive studs such as Jack Wilson, Franklin Gutierrez and Casey Kotchman.

Zduriencik had most of his success in the Brewers system when he wasn't actually the General Manager and it is a bit early to say his more defensive change to the Mariners team has worked out. Maybe after we see whether his progressive approach worked he can be ranked this high.

8. Jon Daniels, Texas Rangers

The way Daniels has built up his farm system and kept the Rangers fairly competitive in the AL West, I think he should be moved up this list a little bit. Teams are using the Mark Teixeira trade and some of Daniels' other moves as a blueprint for how to rebuild a team.

16. Jim Hendry, Chicago Cubs

It's tempting to overreact to a lousy 2009 and to heavily count bad contracts doled out to players such as Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley against Hendry, but the truth is that he built a consistently successful team that had every chance to win a World Series at its peak and just didn't, through no real fault of his. The Cubs are now likely in for a hangover as the core of that team ages, but given the team's history he was right to go for it all.

So even though many of Hendry's recent moves haven't really worked at all, it is fine because the Cubs have a loser's (mentality) history and going for a World Series at all costs was the right thing to do? This Cubs team was "at it's peak" for only a year or two, so it's not like they had a long run of success.

The Cubs have won 67, 88, 89, 79, 66, 85, 97, and 83 games since Hendry took over in July of 2002. It's not terrible by any stretch of the imagination but I can see 1-2 years they really had a chance of winning the World Series. I don't disagree with the ranking, just don't get the explanation completely.

The Cubs haven't been bad, but I didn't understand how Tim Marchman thought the Cubs were on the edge of a World Series for a while during Hendry's reign. Then I saw his bio at the bottom of the article.

Tim Marchman lives in Chicago and can be reached at tlmarchman@gmail.com.

I am going to guess he is a Cubs fan. I am also going to guess he is one of those "This is our year!" type Cubs fans.

19. Ruben Amaro Jr., Philadelphia Phillies

I honestly have no idea how to rate Amaro. One pennant in one year is a nice record, and having landed two of baseball's five best pitchers -- Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee -- in trade within a few months is even better given that these were moves he alone gets credit for. On the other hand the truly strange trade sending Lee to Seattle and the odd, if so far successful, decision to sign 37-year-old designated hitter-masquerading-as-an-outfielder Raul Ibanez to a long-term contract have to count heavily against him.

Wow. Really? The great year Ibanez had last year is being completely ignored while the focus on his defense is what Marchman chooses to focus on. I thought the Ibanez signing was a great deal for what they paid. The Cliff Lee trade not being included, I think Amara Jr. has made some decent moves to help the Phillies compete now and in the future.

27. Brian Sabean, San Francisco Giants

Sabean's skeptics were driven insane for years as no matter how many terrible, decrepit players he signed to absurd contracts, he always had Barry Bonds to make everything right. Once Bonds retired, the Giants immediately fell apart, and the skeptics gloated. Now they're a decent team again because they've developed a pair of aces in Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain. It doesn't matter; the skeptics are still right.

I am not going to argue that Sabean didn't make some bad signings through the years, but I love how the fact the Giants are good again is completely glossed over by Tim Marchman. Isn't Sabean responsible for or at least overseeing the development of players like Pablo Sandoval, Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Buster Posey and others? So he should get a little more credit for the Giants revival despite some of his bad moves in the past, right? I guess not.

29. Ed Wade, Houston Astros

Did you realize that six of eight Astros regulars were 33 or older last year? That five of the six pitchers who got the most starts -- two of whom were Brian Moehler and Mike Hampton -- were 30 or older? And that the team has arguably the worst farm system in baseball? Wade isn't to blame for all of this. But he certainly hasn't done anything about it.

Ed Wade has to be last. I was amazed at how bad he was when I did the Astros team preview. This team was a terrible mix of players in my mind.

Overall, not a bad list of GMs though. I can't say Marchman did a bad job.

-Last thing for the day, and maybe loyal reader "Go" can tell me more, but I was very disheartened to see the Maryland Terrapin fans stormed the court after beating Duke last Wednesday night. Not to sound like Rick Reilly (he just wrote an article on this) but they should not have rushed the court.

Rushing the courts says to me, "We as fans did not expect to win this game and it requires a larger celebration than usual because of this." It tells me the team that won the game and had their fans rush the court consider themselves to be generally inferior to the team they beat and because the did beat that team, it is a cause for a big celebration...and perhaps rioting.

Let me list the reasons why I feel Maryland Terrapin basketball fans should have some pride and should not have stormed the court and then rioted in the streets (but why?) after the big win:

1. Maryland is a pretty accomplished basketball team. They last won a National Title in 2002. Duke last won a National Title in 2001. No matter how accomplished Duke is supposed to be, Maryland is a pretty accomplished team as well.

2. They have a Hall of Fame coach as well. It's not like they were being led by some newcomer who didn't have a clue, Gary Williams is a Hall of Fame coach. He is 7th among coaches in all-times wins.

3. Both Duke and Maryland are 12-3 in the ACC this year and are tied for the conference lead. In fact Maryland has won 23 games this year, while Duke has won 26 games.

4. Maryland was a ranked team playing at home against another ranked team. It's not like the Terrapins aren't a good team. It's Senior Night, they have a great senior class graduating (including Vasquez who is being seriously considered for ACC PoY even before the game) and the crowd was going crazy, why would they not expect to win this game?

5. My last reason why I think Maryland shouldn't have rushed the court is that the way the ACC is set up, each team has "rivals" they play twice every single year...one home game and one away game every year. Duke's "rivals" are considered the University of North Carolina and...not N.C. State which is located maybe 30 miles from Duke University...not Wake Forest, which is only located 100 miles or so from Duke University...but the University of Maryland is the other "rival" that Duke plays every single year. This is because Maryland and Duke have a history of competitive and tough games against each other. Hell, they have even met in the NCAA Tournament Final Four before (2001).

I have all the respect in the world for Maryland and I thought they were going to win the game against Duke on Wednesday night. I just don't get why they still see themselves as underdogs against Duke, because it clearly isn't that way. Mostly, this goes back to how I hate it when fans rush the court. It was a big win for them, but Maryland is a good team.

Good teams don't have fans that rush the court because they expect to win games, so it's not a shock or cause for a great celebration when they do. I don't say these things about Maryland because I don't respect them, but because I DO respect them and obviously think higher of the team than some of the fans do. I know it was Vasquez's last home game and it was an emotional win, but rushing the court is still synonymous with upset victories. It's about having respect for how good your team is and it is fun to celebrate on the court, but is also synonymous with upsets and I don't know if any victory Maryland has over Duke is an upset anymore.