Two Things On Wednesday

We only have 5 people in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball League, which is pathetic, everyone must be signing up closer to the draft date. I have set the draft for closer to the beginning of the season. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." 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. Everyone feel free to join.

It's kind of tough sledding these days because most journalists are too focused on the NCAA Tournament and making predictions about what will happen to write bad journalism. Making fun of predictions is just too easy to do, plus there is really no point to it. For someone who tries to post everyday like I do, it gets to be tough to find something every single day. Of course it doesn't stop me from finding something I want to comment on.

Today, I have two articles by two arch-rivals, Jason Whitlock and Mike Lupica. Unfortunately they aren't articles each has written about each other, which would be much more interesting because of the dislike between them. Regardless, they are pretty interesting.

Let's start first with Jason Whitlock's newly posted opinionated column. I like Jason Whitlock but sometimes I really feel like he just says something to sound controversial. He has a way to make the NCAA Tournament even more interesting, and no the idea isn't adding more games, it's much more outside the box and into the world of craziness than that.

Rather than expand the NCAA Tournament field to 96 teams, the NCAA should satisfy its corporate sponsors and television partners by making its elite teams play more often in the tournament.

Sounds great. Kansas has to play two games in one day or they have to play every team in their bracket to prove they deserve the #1 seed? The NCAA Tournament can just last all year, no problem there.

Before I go further, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I’m against changing the NCAA Tournament. It’s not broken. It doesn’t need to be fixed.

He doesn't want to change the tournament, he is just going to write an entire article talking about changing the tournament. See the difference? Jason Whitlock is under the assumption the field is going to be expanded to 96 teams and wants to jump the gun and think of a better, more crazy idea to "fix" the unbroken NCAA Tournament. "Fixing" the NCAA Tournament seems to be a popular thing to write about these days.

But I’m also a realist. America is a country that bows to corporate interest and ignores the best interest of its people at nearly every turn.

Next to this sentence was a "Hooters Fox Bracket Challenge" advertisement, where you can win $1,000,000 dollars by winning FoxSports bracket challenge! Irony anyone?

With a product weakened by one-and-done defections and TV over-saturation, the NCAA is exploring ways to hoodwink a network into overpaying for March Madness the way CBS did in 1999 when it coughed up $6 billion for an 11-year deal to broadcast the NCAA Tournament.

Is there really college basketball over-saturation or is the product of college basketball really being weakened? I don't really see it that way. I enjoy the tournament just as much as I have my entire life. Maybe I am biased because I will watch the NCAA Tournament no matter what, but I really believe the competition is still good.

The quick-fix is to add more teams/games to the tournament.

As I have stated before, I hate the idea of adding more teams to the tournament. There isn't much that can be done about this because if the networks and NCAA want to do this, they are going to do it. They don't care what I think, only what the money they make says to them about the decision.

I also think it is interesting Whitlock calls adding games a quick fix, but that's exactly what his suggestions ends up being.

Word has already gone out to college coaches to start supporting the idea of tournament expansion.

Do I believe the coaches who are in favor of expansion are in favor of it because they are getting pressure from the NCAA? I absolutely do not believe this. I believe Jim Boeheim and Coach K are in favor of expansion, what the hell can the NCAA do to them if they don't publicly support the idea? Get them fired? Refuse to show their games on television? Whatever they do, they will be hurting themselves as well. I don't see any recourse the NCAA has against these coaches who don't publicly support the idea, so I think the idea these coaches have talking points forced upon them is fairly ridiculous.

This week I talked with one of the game’s most respected head coaches and he repeated a talking point: “Sixty percent of Division I football teams qualify for a bowl game and only 65 of some 300 college basketball teams qualify for the NCAA Tournament.”

Obviously the same coaches who support the idea are going to be spouting off the same statistics. It's not a talking point they have to say, it's a talking point that helps prove their point...which I disagree with.

We don’t need any more teams in the NCAA Tournament. We probably need less.

Ok, I don't know about that. I think 64 is a good number for right now. Enough good teams make it and really quality teams aren't being left out, especially this year. I don't mind change, but let's keep the NCAA Tournament where it is currently at...since it is working well and all.

I was appalled this week watching South Florida, an alleged “bubble” team, knock off DePaul in the Big East tournament without making one basket outside of the paint.

Why does a team have to score outside the paint to win a game? It is not a sign of a team's weakness they are able to score most of their points in the paint. Not shooting jump shots well isn't a sign a team is weak if that team can win without scoring outside the paint.

I wasn't aware there are rules for the proper way to win a college basketball game. Is Georgia Tech weak in football because they don't throw enough touchdown passes? The answer is no. So why would South Florida be a bad team because they won a game without scoring outside the paint? They may be a bad team for another reason, but not because of this reason specifically.

South Florida is a bad basketball team. The Bulls are no fun to watch. Adding them to the NCAA Tournament would not enhance a thing.

Guess what? We know now this bad basketball team didn't make the NCAA Tournament. So no harm has been done. The good name of the NCAA Tournament stands for one more day. I think we can all agree adding more teams to the NCAA Tournament is a bad idea, but it still doesn't explain why Jason Whitlock's argument (we will hear it in a minute) will work. One idea doesn't work well simply because another idea doesn't.

Hell, some of the tournament “locks” don’t belong, either. Texas has tremendous talent and the Longhorns were great in December, but do they deserve a reward for losing eight of their last 15 games?

It depends on who they lost to. Texas lost to Kansas State (#2 seed), Baylor three times (#3 seed), Texas A&M (#5 seed), Missouri (#10 seed), Kansas (#1 overall seed), Oklahoma (did not make tourney) and UConn (did not make tourney). Texas is a #8 seed and those are all these games they lost this year.

They went 24-9, had some major injuries, and beat 5 NCAA Tournament teams. I would say they deserve to make the NCAA Tournament. They really don't have a bad loss all year. They deserve a reward for not having a bad loss and going 24-9 in a strong conference.

You can leave the Missouri Tigers at home, too. Any team that can be blown out by Nebraska on a neutral court doesn't deserve a dance invitation.

Well obviously because they lost one game they don't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament. Neither does Kentucky because they lost to a #6 seed, University of Tennessee, and the University of South Carolina, WHO DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE TOURNAMENT! You don't deserve it Kentucky, go home!

But I say don’t add more teams to the NCAA Tournament. Exploit the good teams even more.

Ready for a bad idea?

After the first weekend and the whittling of the field to a Sweet 16 make the tournament a best-of-three series.

I get it! So take the one thing that is unique about the NCAA Tournament this time of year in that it is single elimination, reduce the amount of tension for a potential upset by giving the higher seeded teams two more shots to win, AND make the NCAA Tournament even longer than just adding 32 more teams would? Where can I sign up for this?

Why not just make the players shoot on 11 foot goals and have random holes in the floor where tigers pop up on chains and try to eat the basketball players. It will add ratings and it is just like the movie "Gladiator!" No one hates that movie, so no one will hate this idea either!

Rather than add teams to the field, let's just change EVERYTHING about the NCAA Tournament that works.

Think about it for a minute. Take your time. I’ll wait.

I've thought about it. This idea sucks.

In the second weekend, there are four predetermined neutral sites that host two best-of-three series. Two sites play on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. And two sites play on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

This is an improvement apparently from the predetermined neutral sites we have now where each site hosts games on Thursday and Saturday and the other sites host games on Friday and Sunday?

This would be great for fans because when they traveled to a site they would be guaranteed two games.

Fans are already guaranteed this many games, just not of the exact same team playing in each of these games. Have I mentioned I hate this idea?

The next weekend there would be a Final Four at one location. The games could be played on Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.

I’d make the championship series a home-and-home (Tuesday and Thursday) with the if-necessary third game in Indianapolis (Sunday), the home of the NCAA headquarters.

I could maybe, just maybe, handle a best-of-three championship game, but that's where I draw the line. Otherwise, this is too much basketball and will suck all of the fun out of the tournament. The single elimination concept is what makes the tournament work so well.

I know. Some of you think the single-elimination tournament is what makes March Madness great.

I believe nearly everyone thinks this. Somehow Jason Whitlock has made the expansion of the field to 96 teams sound like a great idea.

You think there would be far fewer upsets and Cinderella stories if it was a best-of-three tournament. And you probably think there’s no way sixth-seeded North Carolina State and Jim Valvano win a best-of-three series against Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma.

I don't THINK there would be fewer upsets, I KNOW there would be fewer upsets. N.C. State would never have beaten Houston in a best-of-three matchup. Villanova also wouldn't have won in 1985 over Georgetown in a best-of-three matchup. This idea basically takes upsets being possible out of the equation and I don't like this idea. I like upsets.

Generally speaking, the upsets occur in the first weekend, which I wouldn’t change.

Sure, let's just assume this is true. It doesn't mean this idea is any better.

As for Valvano and N.C. State or the eighth-seeded 1985 Villanova squad, the more the tournament expands the less likely those stories become. Valvano won the last 52-team tournament. Villanova won the first 64-team tourney.

Which is exactly why I am against expansion to 96 teams. Is it too hard to just not do anything positive or negative to the NCAA tournament? Leave it alone and just let it be a lot of fun. Why is this too hard?

Expanding the field to 96 favors the top seeds. They would get byes.

Playing the Sweet 16 on as a best-of-three also incredibly favors the top seeds. Ask Syracuse, Villanova, and Pittsburgh how much getting a bye helps a team. In the ACC, you can ask Florida State and Maryland. A bye isn't always a good thing. So the supposed benefit of a bye for the top seeds doesn't always work out that way.

What makes the tournament great are great games. The more the top-16 teams faced each other the more great games we’d see.

In the process it would rip away exactly what make the tournament so much fun. Seeing more basketball doesn't mean I want to see more basketball that becomes more predictable because more games are played. I don't want to see more top-16 teams play more games. I have seen that all year. I want to see if in one game, given one shot, New Mexico State can beat Kansas. I don't care to see this matchup 1-2 more times. It sucks the fun out of it for me.

Change the format. Leave the mediocre teams in the N.I.T.

So Jason Whitlock's argument is the format of the NCAA tournament is going to be changed, so why not add more games, which by the way will absolutely never happen, and in those more games you get to see more good teams play? Instead of letting mediocre teams into the tournament for one week he would rather change the entire format of the tournament. If it came down to the expansion to 96 teams or Whitlock's idea, I would choose expansion.

I guarantee changing the format of the tournament will have a much adverse effect on competition in the tournament than adding 32 more teams would. At least if the NCAA adds 32 more teams the format and what makes the tournament special, single elimination games, stays in place.

-For some reason, I am routinely defending A-Rod on this blog. I don't mean to, but columnists call him a choker in the postseason and then say other things which seems to cause me to semi-take A-Rod's side. Mike Lupica wants A-Rod to give answers about his relationship with Dr. Galea.

I don't like Mike Lupica. I dislike how he sits forward in his chair on "The Sports Reporters" and ALWAYS interrupts someone while they are talking on that show. He seems like a little, pompous ass who has a Napoleon complex. He may be a nice guy, even though I really haven't heard anyone say a positive story about him. I don't care too much for A-Rod simply because I am not a huge fan of his team and he is sort of a fake guy...or so it seems. I have no doubt he may still be lying about his use of steroids, but I don't base my suspicions on the same things Mike Lupica does, namely the fact A-Rod has an attorney to deal with this whole matter.

Maybe A-Rod was taking HGH, maybe he wasn't, but the fact he hired an attorney to represent him shouldn't indicate one way or another.

Here is the question that Alex Rodriguez will eventually have to answer, for the feds, for the Yankees, for Major League Baseball.

Why are his lips blue at times?

Why exactly did you need to go to a Canadian doctor one who can't practice medicine in New York to get anti-inflammatory drugs for a hip that may or may not have been "inflamed" at the time?

That is actually a great question by Mike Lupica. My only answer would be that possibly A-Rod didn't want to get pills from a normal hospital and wanted to go to someone he had heard other baseball players or athletes recommend. I am not a doctor, but I am pretty sure sometimes people take anti-inflammatory drugs for something that is not necessarily inflamed.

This column is even more difficult to read if you can hear Mike Lupica actually saying the sentences he typed here. I can just see him leaning forward in his chair saying sentences like:

I don't mean to be a cynic or skeptic with the Yankee third baseman,

Yes, you do. That's pretty much all you want to do. You want to ask the obvious questions in a urgent manner that makes it sound like you just discovered something crucial that is more important than what anyone else knows and THAT is why you have to interrupt what they are saying.

He couldn't get anti-inflammatory pills from the Yankee team doctors or at New York Hospital?

Very possibly not. I am not sure. I am not a doctor nor a pharmacist...but neither is Mike Lupica.

But apparently we are supposed to believe that Dr. Galea, who is on record about how much he likes human growth hormone as a way of keeping himself young, is as much of an expert on anti-inflammatory pills

I would think logically if Mike Lupica and others can paint him as a genius when it comes to HGH and how to help athletes take it and not get caught, then Dr. Galea could also be a genius when it comes to anti-inflammatory pills. If we are supposed to believe he is an HGH mastermind, then obviously he could also be an anti-inflammatory pills mastermind. It's not like he can only be smart in one facet of being a doctor. Logically, I think this is right.

If the whole thing is so easily explained, if Rodriguez is "at ease" with the whole situation as he told the media in Florida the other day, how come he hasn't cleared some of this up already, no matter how lawyered up he is.

Because he is a highly paid athlete who doesn't have to clear anything up publicly. To infer that A-Rod is guilty because he has an attorney representing him is just plain false. There are federal investigations going on and I personally wouldn't speak to anyone about this case or say anything to anyone without my attorney's approval and presence...even if I was innocent.

Sometimes people bring lawyers with them when they talk to the feds because they want to make sure they don't incriminate themselves.

Sometimes people bring lawyers because they have $250 million dollars and can afford to do so and it would be stupid to meet with federal investigators without an attorney present when you are as high profile as Alex Rodriguez. I like how Mike Lupica has obviously been watching a ton of episodes of "Law & Order" and just assumes when someone hires an attorney it means they are guilty and plan on lying to the cops or stonewalling the investigation. It doesn't mean this is true or actually going to happen in this situation.

Actually, Mike Lupica probably sits on the edge of his bed yelling at the television during these "Law & Order" episodes because he wants to interrupt the dialogue to say something. It wouldn't shock me.

But if that's the case with A-Rod, you're probably thinking:

Incriminate himself about what?

Let's just make a huge leap in logic. Let's assume the only reason a person would hire an attorney is to not incriminate themselves, so given this astoundingly stupid assumption, A-Rod's hiring of an attorney means to Mike Lupica he is afraid of saying something that will incriminate him. That's really the only conclusion that can get us from the act of hiring an attorney to immediately thinking this means a person is hiding something.

Rodriguez keeps saying that this isn't about him, it's about somebody else. That means Galea. Boy, it sure is.

It probably actually is. The feds haven't been able to get Galea so they are working their way down the food chain in the effort to drum something up about Galea to convict him. They figure if they put some public pressure on Alex Rodriguez he may give them something to make this all go away. So they want to meet with A-Rod in order to get this information and A-Rod hires an attorney to attend this meeting with him.

Is it possible that A-Rod did use HGH after his hip surgery? Sure, but it is also possible A-Rod knows nothing of substance to give the investigators. His act of hiring an attorney really means nothing, other than the fact he can afford to hire an attorney.

They probably want to know if Dr. Galea, whom his assistant said isn't allowed to practice medicine in the United States, treated any of these ballplayers in this country the way he treated Tiger Woods in Florida.

They may very well want to know this. Like I said, they are working their way down the chain for information. As far as I know, A-Rod hasn't refused to give them information. I guess I am a little clueless as to what the exact problem is in that case.

But if you practice medicine in this country without a license, in either Florida or New York, you can get sent away for that for up to four years. This is known as real time.

I think we can all agree that Dr. Galea is probably guilty of some things in regard to HGH, but I still don't get what Galea's guilt has to do with A-Rod. Would he really be stupid enough to use HGH a couple months after his steroid-use revelation came out? If so, why wasn't it detected? I am assuming he was drug tested last year.

I am not excusing A-Rod, but if my wife and I go see a doctor because my wife is pregnant and this doctor does abortions as well as take care of pregnant women...does this mean we are going to this doctor to get an abortion? Obviously not.

Again, I am not making excuses for A-Rod, but it is entirely possible he wanted to get back on the field and found out Dr. Galea knows about good anti-inflammatory drugs that are legal to use by the rules of MLB in helping his recovery from hip surgery. We already know he is a cheater, but is he a stupid cheater too?

Eventually Rodriguez will have to sit down and talk about this. Of course, when he talked about the scheduling of this interview, he made it sound more difficult than scheduling a family vacation to Europe this summer. It doesn't seem to have been too much of a challenge for Carlos Beltran or Jose Reyes to find the time to answer questions about Galea.

First off, Beltran and Reyes aren't quite the stars that A-Rod is and they have been injured, so I am going to assume their time isn't as in high demand like A-Rod's is. Perhaps A-Rod knows something and is hiding it, perhaps A-Rod doesn't know anything and doesn't want to take time out of his schedule to tell this to the feds. I am pretty sure if the feds were really concerned they would subpoena A-Rod to where he HAD to meet with them.

I don't know, I feel like I am making excuses here, and I may be. I just don't see why Mike Lupica can jump on actions by A-Rod in this situation and just automatically be able to assume what he wants to assume.

But the longer this takes, the more A-Rod makes you wonder about what questions he might answer when this interview finally takes place. And might not.

This is true. If this were true, it would explain exactly why he is getting an attorney, but doesn't mean he is actually guilty of anything.

You know who really wants answers, as much of a low profile as they've kept so far? The Yankees want answers. They have a right.

In a normal column, by a normal sportswriter, he may produce a quote that shows the Yankees care, but that would be a normal column by a normal sportswriter. This is a column by Mike Lupica who wants to reach the conclusions he wants to reach. It is possible the Yankees know everything because A-Rod has told them and don't really care about answers because they believe they have them already.

But Tiger Woods and his representatives, bless their hearts must have thought that Dr. Tony Galea, up there in Toronto, was practically the Tiger Woods, world champion of all sports doctors everywhere.

Yes, they must have thought that. I feel like Mike Lupica needed to get a column together and just came up with, "Alex Rodriguez hasn't talked to investigators about Dr. Galea yet and he has an attorney, what is he covering up?"

I think we can file this column under the heading, "We need more information before we can form a judgment."

And to wonder what happens if Galea ever does take any kind of fall with the authorities, in Canada or the U.S., and what he really knows about these guys.

This wonderment (not sure that is a word) would be pure speculation at this point. That's MY entire point. The real question is what "these guys" know about Dr. Galea. Isn't that the entire purpose of federal investigators trying to talk to A-Rod? To find out what these athletes know about A-Rod and not the other way around? I am not saying Galea wouldn't spill information about the athletes, but Lupica wants to make it like the athletes, like Alex Rodriguez, are the ones under the microscope right.

I think it is entirely possible A-Rod did use HGH or had some banned anti-inflammatory substance used by Dr. Galea, but I also think it is possible Dr. Galea is an expert in other parts of medicine outside of HGH, so that is why A-Rod went to see him. Either way, if anyone has more information on this give it to me, but I don't see a reason to write a column about this situation quite yet. Of course Mike Lupica doesn't need a reason.