9 comments Haikus? No, Please.

Last week in TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook continued his weekly tradition of presenting statistics to his readers without giving a lot of statistical context. He said in his last TMQ the average NFL play gained 5.4 yards, but there is a variety of other information we would need to know in order to believe his conclusion that a team would always get around 5 yards per offensive play. Gregg tends to criticize head coaches for not going for it on fourth down because the average NFL play goes for 5.4 yards (what's with the absurd precision?), no matter where on the field a team is going for it on fourth down. If this were true, NFL teams would rarely have to punt since they would gain 5 yards per offensive play. This week, Gregg continues the tradition that everyone (except for one person apparently) wishes would end, the all-haiku NFL preview, which again may not really be a preview anymore than Gregg tells us what he thinks each team's record will be in the form of a haiku. It's even less fun than it sounds like.

On Brett Favre's helmet
beer falls, and the cup crumples.
Sideline in autumn.

So began the very first Tuesday Morning Quarterback, a dozen seasons ago. In the intervening years, these trends have held:

• Each year the asides wander farther afield.

And more pointless. Don't forget more pointless!

• Each year the readership grows larger.

Very depressing to think about.

• Each year the jokes don't get any better.

They are pretty much the same jokes that were told the previous year, so I wouldn't expect them to necessarily get any better.

• And each year begins with America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions. Here they are for 2012.

I probably say this every time I post a TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year. Nothing says, "I don't care to read this" like a mixture of Gregg Easterbrook writing about sports and memories of high school when my English teachers would angrily force the entire class to write a haiku about a given topic when we all hated haikus.

Texas A&M
with cheer-babes not Yell Leaders.
Miami Dolphins.
Forecast finish: 5-11

This doesn't make sense. Texas A&M does have Yell Leaders. They don't have cheerleaders (or "cheer-babes" as Gregg so creepily puts it), they have Yell Leaders. So to say Texas A&M doesn't have Yell Leaders is incorrect.

Then this year came "Why Women Still Can't Have It All," a cover by Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton dean and recent State Department official. Slaughter filled 14 magazine pages with angst about how despite a high-paying super-elite job with lifetime tenure, personal connections in the White House and a husband who does the child care, despite writing about herself for the cover of the world's most important magazine, nevertheless she feels troubled that every moment of her days is not precisely what she wants.

Women like this will soon learn they indeed can't have it all, just as men reached this conclusion a few decades ago. Attempting to have it all and attain perfection will only serve to annoy and frustrate a person until that person is forced to finally admit "having it all" is overrated and trying to find happiness with what you have is underrated.

That's our moment of zen and clarity for the day. Articles about how a certain gender "can't have it all" only serve to irritate me. It's just an excuse for a writer to complain about how troubled his/her life can be, while handing out an air of superiority over his/her readers.

But "all" never meant a woman could have everything she wants at every second without ever facing hard choices or bending over to pick up a piece of laundry. Men can't "have it all" in that sense either. No one has ever "had it all" and no one ever will.

Don't piss on their parade Gregg. It's also a fun and lazy mantra that television writers can use to write female characters who are insufferable in their complaining about how hard the lives they have chosen truly can be and forms a built-in excuse for mistakes made in life. Few episodes (or the movies) of "Sex and the City" could have ever be produced without this "I want to have it all, but I just can't" mantra at the center of most episodes.

I'm such a sucker. The more Gregg's asides tend to wander, the more I tend to chase those asides and comment on them.

But though TMQ thinks the NFL should give on the NFLRA's money requests, if I were a zebra, I would be nervous about the season starting with replacement officials. Everyone assumes the replacements will make boneheaded mistakes that embarrass the league. What if their performance is fine? Then ditch the NFLRA and keep the new guys.

I can't see a situation where the replacement officials perform well. They are going to be under so much pressure and every single call they make is going to be analyzed for accuracy. So when a call is made wrong, it will be blown up and used as one more example of why the NFL should cave to the regular NFL officials. NFL officials will miss calls on occasion and they will be criticized when they miss calls. The perception of incompetency will be magnified when the replacement officials miss a call. The replacement officials are less experienced to the speed of NFL players and when they miss a call it will only serve as an example to prove their incompetency and how the NFL is suffering without competent officials. The combination of the replacement officials' lack of experience and the attention any incorrect calls will receive causes me to think perhaps even if the replacement officials performance is fine, they will be viewed more critically even if their performance is only slightly below the performance of the regular officials.

Recall the 1981 PATCO strike. An air traffic controllers union walked in violation of a no-strike agreement. Ronald Reagan fired PATCO members who refused his order to return to work. Everyone thought the replacement controllers would do a terrible job, and instead they did fine. PATCO members then relented and asked to return to their high-paying cushy jobs, but it was too late.

Air traffic controllers need to be skilled, but there is a difference in replacement air traffic controllers and replacement officials. The difference is that the replacement air traffic controllers were given time to be trained to improve their skills, while the replacement officials won't be allowed a year to improve their officiating skills before calling NFL games. After the 1981 strike, it took ten years for the overall staffing levels to return to normal. Not to mention, the controllers were fired and banned from federal service for life. That's part of the reason the controllers couldn't get their cushy jobs back. Naturally, Gregg neglects to mention this. The NFL can't cut the number of games they play or slow down the games temporarily over a couple year span for the replacement officials to catch up and adapt to the faster NFL players. So replacement officials will have to keep the level of officiating at the normal standard immediately and won't have the benefit of time to get used to the speed of the game at the NFL level.

Hines Ward outruns blast
in "Rises." Can't outrun time.
The Pittsburgh Steelers.
Forecast finish: 12-4

Ward is retired now. I don't know what this has to do with the 2012 Steelers.

Drop Texas QB
for Oklahoma QB.
The Browns (3.1).
Forecast finish: 4-12

Again, being nitpicky...Brandon Weeden is from Oklahoma, but he went to Oklahoma State and not the University of Oklahoma. Since there is a University of Oklahoma, who also happens to be the Texas Longhorns biggest rival (where Colt McCoy went), this haiku could only serve to confuse a reader who may think the Browns replaced a quarterback from the University of Texas with a quarterback from the University of Oklahoma. I do realize it is a losing proposition to analyze Gregg's haikus, but I have always had a soft spot for losing propositions.

Last season Pulaski Academy punted once, and won the state title.

They also won a state title in 2003 before they decided not punting the football was an effective strategy. Two straight weeks Gregg leaves this important point out of TMQ in effort to mislead his readers.

To open its 2012 campaign, Pulaski flew all the way to Los Angeles to face Chaminade Prep, a traditional power.

"We led by three with 2:06 remaining and had a runner break into the clear for a first down," Kelley reports. "If he'd just gone to his knee, we would have run out the clock. But even NFL players have trouble doing that calculation in their heads at game speed. Instead he tried for more yards, and fumbled.

If this were an NFL game then Gregg would blame the me-first running back for trying to pad his own statistics by getting an extra yard or two and then blame the head coach for not teaching his players to get down on the ground to run the clock out. Verily, because he likes Kevin Kelley, Gregg doesn't blame him for his running back not going to the ground to run the clock out and doesn't blame the running back for trying to pad his statistics.

Granted, this is a high school football player versus an NFL player, but the idea of coaching a player to be aware of the clock and Gregg's usual speculation a player only cares about padding his statistics by gaining an extra yard or two should still remain because the player's intent remained the same.

Pulaski never punted, going for it seven times but converting only twice. "For several years we have converted 50 percent of our fourth downs, so I expect the law of averages to swing back our way," Kelley said.

Gregg was fine with the outcome not being a positive for Pulaski. They lost the game and converted only two first downs on fourth down. Gregg is fine with this because he has a point to prove about going for it on fourth down. If an NFL team went for it on fourth down seven times and failed two times, Gregg would have criticism for the type play that team ran on fourth down. Since Gregg likes Kevin Kelley and his success helps prove his point that teams need to go for it on fourth down nearly every single possession as correct, Gregg can accept the law of averages as a reason for why a strategy failed when it pertains to a strategy that Gregg supports. If an NFL team uses a strategy Gregg doesn't support then he bases his criticism entirely on the outcome of that strategy.

If the Atlanta Falcons go for it on fourth down and don't get the first down, then the law of averages won't swing back the Falcons way in Gregg's opinion, it was just a bad play call.

All have done lately
is run of 21-2.
The Green Bay Packers.
Forecast finish: 13-3

The Packers are also on a 0-2 streak in home playoff games and haven't won a game since January 1. I can provide misleading and cherry-picked statistics too.

The league's worst offense.
Maybe should punt on first down.
The Jacksonville Jags.
Forecast finish: 2-14

The Jaguars should never punt. Punting, no matter the situation, is always a losing tactic that tells a team the head coach isn't serious about winning the game.

Were 4-4. Signed
Haynesworth. Then went 0-8.
Tampa Buccaneers.
Forecast finish: 3-13

I am sure there is a correlation between the Buccaneers signing Haynesworth and losing their next eight games. Haynesworth got released back in February, so how are the Buccaneers going to lose thirteen games if Haynesworth isn't on the roster anymore? He was the reason they were losing, right? So if he isn't on the roster this year then the Bucs should win plenty of games.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback was delighted that this summer's Pro Football Hall of Fame class contained four linemen, one running back and one defensive back -- no quarterback! All the Hall of Fame need do is cleave to this ratio for a decade and the linemen/quarterback problem will be corrected.

And we all know the entire purpose of the Pro Football Hall of Fame is to ensure each position is represented at an equal ratio. So who cares if there are eligible and worthy quarterback candidates, let's leave those guys out to make sure the ratio of linemen to quarterbacks is corrected. It's sports socialism at it's best.

Six straight losses last
season -- yet Norv's job secure.
San Diego Bolts.
Forecast finish: 8-8

Turner's job is secure because he has a 49-31 record with the Chargers. Turner certainly isn't the best head coach in the NFL, but he seems to have done a fairly good job with the Chargers, and that's why his job is secure.

The rules require the fleet-average of new cars to rise from the present federal standard of 27.5 MPG to 54.5 MPG by 2025. Aside from the absurd precision of such figures,

How the hell is tenths of a mile per gallon "absurd precision?" Why is Gregg so feeble-minded that he must have numbers rounded perfectly to the closest mile per gallon? I have never understood Gregg's fascination with calling numbers rounded to the tenths of a gallon as absurd. These 27.5 and 54.5 MPG numbers come from repeated fill-ups over a long period of time. Representing these numbers to the tenth of a gallon isn't really absurd at all.

Gregg's typical hypocrisy is on display here. He criticizes the absurd precision of using 27.5 MPG, but is fine with telling us the average NFL play gains 5.4 yards. As always, the rules Gregg sets don't apply if he doesn't want them to. A team should go for it on fourth down, unless a team doesn't get the first down in which case going for it on fourth down was a bad move.

A reader bids farewell to "Terra Nova" in haiku:

Zap! Rawrrrr! Blam! Smooch. Plot??????????????
Cash vanishes through portal:
Terra Nova, poof.

-- Joseph LoSasso, Tampa, Fla.

So THAT'S who reads TMQ and likes haikus. Honestly, if you asked me whether someone named "Joseph LoSasso" liked TMQ, I would give an emphatic "yes." It just seems like the person behind the name "Joseph LoSasso" would enjoy TMQ.

I thought I would end this post with my 2012 NFL Predictions. I realize one game has been played already, but that result won't have an impact on my predictions.

AFC East

New England Patriots: 14-2 (#1 seed)
Buffalo Bills: 10-6 (#6 seed)
New York Jets: 6-10
Miami Dolphins: 3-13

AFC South

Tennessee Titans: 10-6 (#4 seed)
Houston Texans: 9-7
Indianapolis Colts: 6-10
Jacksonville Jaguars: 5-11

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens: 12-4 (#2 seed)
Pittsburgh Steelers: 10-6
Cincinnati Bengals: 7-9
Cleveland Browns: 4-12

AFC West

Kansas City Chiefs: 11-5 (#3 seed)
Denver Broncos: 10-6 (#5 seed)
San Diego Chargers: 8-8
Oakland Raiders: 5-11

NFC East

Dallas Cowboys: 11-5 (#3 seed)
New York Giants: 9-7
Washington Redskins: 6-10
Philadelphia Eagles: 6-10

NFC South

Atlanta Falcons: 13-3 (#1 seed)
Carolina Panthers: 10-6 (#6 seed)
New Orleans Saints: 7-9
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 5-11

NFC North

Green Bay Packers: 12-4 (#2 seed)
Chicago Bears: 10-6 (#5 seed)
Detroit Lions: 7-9
Minnesota Vikings: 2-14

NFC West

Seattle Seahawks: 10-6 (#4 seed)
San Francisco 49ers: 8-8
St. Louis Rams: 7-9
Arizona Cardinals: 3-13

AFC Playoffs

Buffalo Bills over Kansas City Chiefs, Denver Broncos over Tennessee Titans
New England Patriots over Buffalo Bills, Baltimore Ravens over Denver Broncos
New England Patriots over Denver Broncos

NFC Playoffs

Dallas Cowboys over Carolina Panthers, Seattle Seahawks over Chicago Bears
Atlanta Falcons over Seattle Seahawks, Dallas Cowboys over Green Bay Packers
Green Bay Packers over Atlanta Falcons

Super Bowl

New England Patriots over Dallas Cowboys

I already hate my picks.

0 comments David Stern Is Just Being an Asshole Now

I'm not a big fan of David Stern. A full discussion on this issue is probably better suited for a different post where I can explain better. He seems like a man who believes he is more competent at his job than he truly is. He has vetoed NBA trades, let the Sonics leave Seattle, and is commissioner of a league where the players have all the power and can determine what personnel moves his team makes. He really believes he does a fantastic job and I'm not sure sure this is true. Mostly, Stern is still annoying me by taking a shit on the NCAA with the one-and-done rule and then asking the NCAA to clean up the mess.

I'm not going to deny the NCAA has problems and issues. I could probably spend 10,000 words describing them to you and you would already know what many of these issues are. As I have written repeatedly, the one-and-done rule is an NBA rule. It wasn't created by the NCAA nor does the NCAA like the rule. This doesn't stop Dictator Stern from giving suggestions on how the NCAA can work around the rule. NBA Dictator David Stern a few weeks ago decided to take shots at the NCAA concerning the one-and-done rule, as if this is something the NCAA needs to figure out and has nothing to do with him.

I'm not going to argue the NCAA shouldn't do more to figure out how to handle one-and-done players in terms of having them go to class and graduate. The NCAA needs to figure out how to better handle the one-and-done players, since this rule isn't going away completely anytime soon. Stern had smug and completely unrealistic ideas in a recent press conference for what the NCAA should do in order to help fix the problem the NBA has created. He's so damn smug for a guy who exercises his NBA dictatorial powers only when it is convenient for him to do so.

David Stern has some ideas about how to solve the problem of so-called “one and done” players at the college level — you know, guys who go to school for just one year simply because the NBA’s age limit makes it impossible to declare for the draft straight out of high school.

I'm not asking for David Stern to solve all of the NCAA's problems, but if he sees the one-and-done rule as some sort of a problem (which he seems to) then why can't he see the NBA's own culpability for part of the problem? I have a great idea about how to solve the one-and-done "problem." Let players come to the NBA straight after high school. Or, make the players stay in school for two years and then go to the NBA. There are solutions, but Dictator Stern chooses to be a dick about it and refuse to discuss any solutions outside of the one-and-done rule or making college athletes stay in school for two years and then go to the NBA. Much like what happened in the lockout, his inability to compromise is hurting a third party.

But they aren’t necessarily serious, and they aren’t necessarily ideas that the NCAA might want to hear.

Because the ideas suck and aren't really ideas, but snide comments Stern has made that aren't workable in reality. I would hope Stern wouldn't be such a smug asshole to the NCAA since it helps market future NBA players for the NBA. The NCAA puts these players on the radar to become more popular in the eyes of basketball fans prior to entering the NBA. How many people would know much about Anthony Davis if he didn't play at Kentucky this year? Not very many. The NBA doesn't want to lose the NCAA as a free marketing wing of the NBA, so they refuse to budge on the one-and-done rule.

He essentially put the onus on the schools for making sure the players keep their ends of the bargain where classes and scholarships are concerned.

So as opposed to putting the onus on the NBA owners and general managers to properly evaluate high school talent, Stern keeps the rule and forces the NCAA to adjust so the NBA can look better? He puts the onus on colleges to make sure students who have zero interest in attending class and participating in school, are attending class and participating in school. Dictator Stern is smart because he knows NBA owners and general managers are a generally incompetent bunch and won't be able to properly evaluate high school players and the NBA will get negative publicity if players come straight from high school and bust. Typical Dictator Stern. I know he is looking out for the NBA's best interests, but does he have to do it on the back of so many other people?

Granted, there are egregious examples of poor evaluation of college talent who aren't one-and-done. Hasheem Tha-bust and Jordan Hill are great examples of this. Both players were drafted too high and have struggled in the NBA. Teams are going to miss on talent and it happens in every sport. The issue is a public relations problem when the NBA has players come straight from high school and don't succeed in the NBA. Therefore the one-and-done rule was implemented in order for the NBA to say, "Hey look, this player went to college for a year. NOW he is mature enough for the NBA."

I favor players having to stay in college for two years, then going to the NBA, but I also realize this is unrealistic. While I think going to college for two years and learning significantly can help a player's overall game, I also understand this isn't necessarily fair to the student-athlete. There are certain players who are ready for the NBA after high school.

“A college could always not have players who are one and done,” Stern said.

That is absolutely true and some programs choose not to take on one-and-done players? Someone is going to end up taking these one-and-done players that other schools will choose not to recruit. David Stern knows this, so his simplistic solution won't work. It would not be in the best interest of the student-athlete if basketball programs banded together and said they would not recruit this specific person because he is going to be one-and-done. At that point, Stern and the NBA's one-and-done rule would possibly be denying this student-athlete even a year's worth of an education in college. It sounds easy to just say, "don't recruit these players," but it is much harder to do in practice.

“They could do that. They could actually require the players to go to classes.

How do you require John Wall to go to classes after he has declared for the draft on April 2? Take away the scholarship he isn't going to be using? Don't worry, Dictator Stern has a solution for this as well. This is a guy who can't resolve the NBA's issues sufficiently, but he certainly thinks he can fix the NCAA's problems.

“Or they could get the players to agree that they stay in school,

Good luck with that. If the intent is to have more high school players go overseas like Jeremy Tyler and Brandon Jennings, this would be the way to do it. I think it would be 100% easier just to get rid of the one-and-done rule, but I guess I'm not quite as smart as David Stern believes himself to be.

and ask for their scholarship money back if they didn’t fulfill their promises.

Haha! These kids, many of whom come from a background to where they couldn't afford college without a scholarship, are going to PAY BACK their scholarship for daring to pursue their goal of playing in the NBA? You think the NCAA is viewed as treating the players like unpaid employees now? Imagine if the NCAA essentially forced the students to work off their athletic scholarship or forced them to pay it back all because the NBA and Dictator Stern won't allow them to join the NBA out of high school. This idea simply won't work.

There’s all kinds of things that, if a bunch of people got together and really wanted to do it, instead of talk about it …”

Right, because a bunch of people should get together and really try to figure out a way to work around the inane one-and-done rule that the NBA has imposed on college basketball in order to make themselves look like they give a shit about their players. The easiest solution isn't to simply abolish the one-and-done rule and replace it with a better rule that isn't a restraint of trade, but for the NCAA to get together and "talk about it." Again, in his typical smug way David Stern is passing off the one-and-done rule as an NCAA problem, which it is, but only because he fails to recognize the NBA's culpability in creating this problem. Stern passes the buck to NCAA colleges because he doesn't want to deal with the issue of players coming to the NBA directly after high school. Yes, how to manage the one-and-done rule falls to NCAA colleges, but the NBA is creating the problem the NCAA has to manage.

But Stern was largely light-hearted in his suggestions, and talked bigger picture about young players whose primary goal is to secure a place in the NBA.

As long as he can be lighthearted about a serious subject, no big deal. It's all fun and games for Dictator Stern as long as we aren't talking about his brilliant guidance which has led to many NBA teams losing money. Of course Stern doesn't think that is his problem either nor does he believe it is a reflection on his leadership.

“Years ago, I said to the NCAA, I’ve got a great idea,” he said

The NCAA should institute a dress code for players?

The NCAA should randomly prevent players from transferring to certain colleges even though the college the player is transferring from has no issue with it?

The NCAA Tournament should last for two months until the average fan is simply tired of watching them?

These are all brilliant NBA idea that could translate to the NCAA!

‘We’ll insure a select group of basketball players. And that will make them more likely to stay in school, because they won’t feel the loss of a big contract.

But these players want to play in the NBA. This is the issue. The issue isn't whether Anthony Davis is concerned about losing a big contract or not, the issue is he wants that big contract RIGHT NOW while playing in the NBA.

We’ll designate a pool, and those that are lucky enough to be drafted and make money will pay us back, and those that don’t, it’s our expense.

I'd love to know how this select group of players would be chosen. David Stern doesn't tell us that. This doesn't sound like a bad idea, except for the fact the NCAA has players who want to go pro in different professional sports who want this same guarantee. I'm sure Title IX would have something to say about this policy as well. This is yet another simplistic solution from David Stern that is nearly impossible to institute.

The NCAA I think took it to a committee, that takes it to a census, that took it to a conference, then they have a congress and they came back to me and they said, well, it will only work under our rules if we do that for all sports. And I said, I don’t think that’ll work.”

I like how Stern mentions all the levels this idea had to pass through. It's weird not having a dictatorship in place, isn't it?

Yes, so this idea wouldn't work. It was not a bad idea, just not a workable idea.

But what would work, at least for the NBA, is a longer period of time to evaluate talent at the college level.

Because Dictator Stern views the NCAA as a free farm system for the NBA. In return for providing a free farm system, Stern provides the NCAA with the inane one-and-done rule.

“I agree with the NCAA that it would be great for us — I’m not concerned about NCAA, and our rules are not social programs,” Stern said.

But the rule is a social program. It causes high school basketball players who may want to go to the NBA to go overseas, play in the D-league or go to college for one year. It's intent isn't to be a social program, but in a few ways that is what it has become.

“We don’t think it’s appropriate for us to lecture kids as to whether they should or shouldn’t go to school.

And yet, that is exactly what the NBA is doing. They are saying, "We don't want you in the NBA immediately after high school, but wait one year and then you can come to the NBA. We're not saying you should or should not go to school, but we are saying you should not be in the NBA." Kids know their best chance for exposure is to play college basketball for a year, hence they go to school. I don't care what the intentions of the one-and-done rule are. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact the one-and-done rule has on colleges and from what I understand it isn't a positive impact.

For our business purposes, the longer we can get to look at young men playing against first-rate competition, that’s a good thing.

I understand business. I get how the NBA views the NCAA, as a free farm system for future NBA talent. I do believe it is a bit unfair for the NBA to view the NCAA this way, but that's reality.

Because draft picks are very valuable things.

These aren't college athletes to David Stern, they are draft picks, which are "things."

For us, it’s one more year. We proposed to the players two more, and it was sufficiently contentious around that.

I know this is irrelevant, but have you asked your free farm system, the NCAA, what they want? Not that it matters of course. Getting kids to go to class is each specific college's problem, not David Stern's. He is comfortable with the one-and-done rule because it absolves him from much criticism and places the criticism on NCAA head coaches who dare to recruit a player who may want to stay in college for only one year.

We agreed, as all good negotiators do, we referred it to a sub-committee and we’re going to have meetings about it to see how that works out. “

More meetings is always the best solution. Fortunately David Stern has provided a resolution to this issue earlier in this press conference and he didn't even know it. Here's what David Stern could do to fix this issue...

What if you get a bunch of people together in one room, and you really wanted to resolve this issue, instead of talking about it...

Stern and Silver were careful to point out that they have an excellent relationship with NCAA president Mark Emmert, and again, even the shots came with big smiles and laughs all around.

It's just part of the smugness of David Stern. He can't help but smile at his good fortune. He rules like a dictator and has had quite a few controversies on his watch, and yet he seems to have a better reputation than every commissioner except Roger Goodell. So I can't blame him for pushing the one-and-done rule back on the NCAA. He'll get away with it.

I realize Stern has been commissioner for a while, but in the last fifteen years Stern has overseen two lockouts (both causing NBA games to be missed), a betting scandal among NBA officials that called into question the legitimate outcome of playoff games, and as of December Stern was overseeing the personnel moves of a team the NBA owns because the league still hasn't found an owner for that team. Just imagine if this happened in baseball. Imagine if Bud Selig has presided over two lockouts in the past 15 years and an umpire had been caught fixing playoff games. People, mostly Murray Chass, would be calling for his head and for Selig to immediately retire. After all, we are told to see Bud Selig as a bumbling idiot who doesn't really know what he is doing.

Dictator Stern still lives on though. What's irritating isn't that he is really incompetent, because he isn't incompetent, but his hubris makes you wonder what the hell he is so proud of. David Stern has helped bring the NBA to the point the players are more important than the owners and coaches to where one unhappy player can topple the direction of a franchise. He's presided over a league that has seemed to alienate many of those who became fans of the NBA during the 1980's and early 1990's, so Stern's response to this was to institute a dress code, which naturally fixed everything. Attendance is up...sort of and if people weren't so apathetic to the NBA, many would probably be wondering why the growth of the league has felt so stagnant.

I'm just ranting now.

But it’s clear that Stern believes the “one and done” problem is an NCAA-only issue,

That would be true...other than the fact the one-and-done rule is an NBA rule. I know, details, who needs them?

and it isn’t one that he seems to have any interest in helping to solve at any point in the immediate future.

Of course not. Stern is comfortable with using the one-and-done rule as a way of getting free marketing for future NBA stars, while not being concerned with how this rule affects the NCAA. The one-and-done rule is a good situation for the NBA. It prevents NBA scouting departments from having to do their job as well as they should have to do their job. I am personally not enamored with the one-and-done rule and can live with it to an extent, but as long as David Stern and the NBA Player's Union don't let high school basketball players go to the NBA directly from high school, then David Stern should stay away from making any more lighthearted or serious "suggestions" for the NCAA.

5 comments The Anatomy of an Apology of Sorts

I feel like I have become one of the official Tom Brady apologists out here on the ol' Interwebs. I have defended him from being called overrated a few times on this blog. I still feel he isn't overrated and I don't really blame him necessarily for the Patriots loss in Super Bowl 46. Sure, some of the blame falls on him, but I don't think we can point all the blame on him. I was going to cover Eric Wilbur's angry message board-type rant about the Patriots loss, but I noticed by the time I had a chance to start writing about it there had been several other developments. Wilbur wrote the article, the day next day stood by the story and then the day after that he apologized for it. So apparently he is sorry, though I don't know for what exactly. He wrote a shitty column, he didn't commit a crime of any sort, but he apologized the day after he wrote the column. Color me confused. Let's look at the original column, the "standing by my story" comments and then the somewhat forced apology seemingly made so people would quit emailing him about how bad he sucks.

This column is written about on par with a message board rant. Wilbur states he was trying to mirror the emotions of a Patriots fan in writing this. I'm not sure what holding a mirror up to the Patriots fan base would accomplish, but that's neither here nor there. What we do learn is the loss was mostly Tom Brady's fault. This screed was written on February 5th.

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

Tom Brady's line from the three Patriot victories compared to his line from Super Bowl 46:

2001 Super Bowl: 16-27 for 145 yards, 1 TD, 86.2 rating.
2003 Super Bowl: 32-48 for 345 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT, 100.5 rating.
2004 Super Bowl: 23-33 for 236 yards, 2 TD, 110.2 rating.
2011 Super Bowl (Super Bowl 46): 27-41 for 276 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 91.1 rating.

You can clearly see his hideous performance in Super Bowl 46 wasn't too different from his other hideous performances in the three Super Bowls the Patriots managed to win.

It was one thing when you led the game off with a safety, which surely put plenty of faith into the heart of Patriot Nation, but just when you have the game, just when you might be able to run off the clock, you huck the thing downfield.

I will say again...I take Gronkowski over Blackburn in that situation. Was it a great decision by Brady? No, it wasn't. It also wasn't the primary reason the Patriots lost the game. Brady took a chance and it didn't pay off. If Manning's pass to Manningham down the sidelines had gotten intercepted everyone would be asking how he could throw into double coverage along the sidelines like he did.

fans will place the blame either way, but what happened to being safe in that situation? What happened to the Patriot Way and clock management?

The Patriots, at least from my point of view, aren't known for playing it safe and running the ball down team's throats. You have Tom Brady as your quarterback, have him throw the ball and trust him to do this well.

What an embarrassment for the Patriots organization and Bob Kraft.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl with the 31st ranked defense by four points to a team that beat you earlier in the year is the height of embarrassing. I don't see how a Super Bowl loss by four points is in any way embarrassing.

So now the Giants have taken Lombardi from you twice, and you haven't looked this bad in a playoff game since...well, two weeks ago against the Ravens.

That playoff game where the Patriots looked bad was against the Ravens. This win caused them to make it to the Super Bowl. Let's not act like an entitled brat. Whining the Patriots looked bad in the AFC Championship Game, a game they won, is acting entitled.

The Patriots haven't won a title in seven years,

Seven years! You are such a cursed city! Get Dan Shaughnessy and Bill Simmons writing articles about this immediately!

Even if Wilbur is trying to write like the Patriots fans think, this is obnoxious. The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl in seven years? That's his complaint? There are teams that haven't made the playoffs in seven years, much less whined like an entitled brat the local team hasn't won a Super Bowl in that time.

but even worse, they're now turning into the Buffalo Bills, with the Giants being their Cowboy daddy.

Buffalo got pretty well beat in three of their Super Bowl appearances and never won one. The Patriots have been competitive in the last two Super Bowls they lost. They aren't the Buffalo Bills.

But, there you are, Tom. That's what you have become. Your legacy has been stamped, but you're turning your Joe Montana status into one of Jim Kelly.

Jim Kelly: 0-4 in Super Bowls.

Tom Brady: 3-2 in Super Bowls. Brady is exactly like Jim Kelly, if Jim Kelly had won three Super Bowls.

Granted. But when you begin the game with such a boneheaded play, then proceed to make random mistakes, sorry, Tom, game is on you.

I don't know if Brady's safety was a boneheaded play. Brady isn't the most mobile guy and if he had gotten sacked by Justin Tuck then the Giants would have had a safety anyway. So Brady threw the ball to an open area and hoped intentional grounding wasn't called. There weren't too many other options other than to escape the pocket and throw the ball out of bounds. Sure, maybe he should have been more decisive with the football, but that area of the field is where a quarterback has to be careful not to throw an interception.

These "random mistakes," I don't really get what those are. Maybe Brady was inaccurate on some passes, but I'm a little confused as to what other "random mistakes" he made during the game.

Welker was the closest thing to Asante, and the eeriness compared to the Tyree play will be discussed for decades to come.

Yes, the eerie comparison between a fourth down play which resulted in a receiver catching a ball on his helmet with a defender draped all over him and a second down play where a receiver drops a pass thrown a little behind him while he was wide open. They were pretty much the same play as long as you ignore all of the differences.

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

The Giants didn't win the game. Tom Brady lost the game.

You denied your coach No. 4. You let down your teammates.

You aren't a real Patriot either! Ever since you married Gisele you are too focused on anything but football!

Eli and Peyton now have as many rings as you combined over the past five years.

That's right. Two Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks have as many Super Bowl titles COMBINED as Tom Brady has. Clearly, Brady is a huge bum.

You haven't sniffed one in seven. How's that hit you?

I would say going to two Super Bowls over that seven year span is sniffing a Super Bowl, but what do I know? I'm not a reactionary sportswriter/fan.

Maybe it doesn't hit you as hard anymore, and maybe that's the problem.

TOM BRADY DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE BECAUSE HE'S TOO FOCUSED BEING MARRIED TO HIS SUPERMODEL WIFE AND HANGING OUT IN HOLLYWOOD! THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW OBSERVATION AND COMMENTARY ON TOM BRADY'S INABILITY TO WIN A SUPER BOWL!

The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them.

Because the game was over at that point in the first quarter and the Patriots had no chances to come back during the game. It's not like the Giants fumbled the ball three times, any Patriots dropped passes during the game nor was Tom Brady under any type of pressure when he threw the ball which drew the intentional grounding call.

And there's nobody to blame but Tom Brady.

Absolutely, the offensive line isn't at fault for not blocking. The Patriots receivers aren't responsible for not getting open. The Patriots coaching staff isn't responsible for calling a passing play that close to the goal line which resulted in no players being open. It's all on Tom Brady. The same Tom Brady that completed 16 straight passes at one point in the Super Bowl.

However hard it might be to swallow, the glory days are gone.

The Patriots will have a hard time finding any talent in this upcoming draft with only two 1st and 2nd round picks. It's all over. The Patriots only made the Super Bowl this year and are in a position to only get 1-2 impact players in the upcoming draft.

Even Montana handed off to Mallett at some point, right?

Joe Montana never handed off to Ryan Mallett. Burn! Also, the indication that Tom Brady should hand off his starting quarterback job to the backup is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

Then in an interview with 98.5 The Sports Hub, Eric Wilbur stood by his story. This was on February 6th. Wilbur still seemed defiant and stood by what he wrote. All indications are that he didn't write a knee-jerk article and really believed what he wrote. He apologized a day later in a column, but does it sound like 24 hours earlier he regretted what he wrote?

Why he thinks so many people were upset with his column:

“I guess because I dared criticize the god of New England. If he had won that game we would’ve lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever so if he messes up in the game and loses it why can’t he take some of the poison? It seems like fans can’t admit that.”

If Brady had won that game I would not have lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever. What Wilbur is doing here is proving a fake argument wrong and only looking at the extremes. If you believe Wilbur, his article was him giving Brady some of the poison for the loss. That's not what the article was though. Of course Brady is somewhat responsible for the loss, but the article put the loss nearly completely on Tom Brady. That's not "some" of the poison, that's nearly all of the poison.

If he still believes what he wrote last night now that he has had some time to sit back and reflect on it:

“I still believe it.

He would issue a mea culpa 24 hours later. So was he forced to issue the mea culpa, really had a change of heart or just issued the apology to get the fans off his back?

There were a lot of people saying ‘you know sleep on this and you’re going to look bad in the morning.’ It was a little over-the-top and I admit that but I think that was purposely so just because like I said if he would’ve won the game it would’ve been ‘oh Tom Brady’ so you know what? Let him get a little bit of the criticism. I guess that’s what people don’t get. It was a little over-the-top and purposely so but then again you don’t understand Vancouver writers either so.”

Not to mention the article got Eric Wilbur in the national discussion. How great is that for him?

Again, he fails to understand what his own article was saying. It wasn't placing a little criticism on Brady. It was placing nearly all of the blame for the Patriots loss on Brady. Remember this part?

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

Or this part?

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

So the article wasn't giving Brady some of the blame, but giving him nearly all of the blame and repeatedly saying the loss was on him.

Whether or not he thinks Welker should’ve made the catch:

“The pass was bad but he should’ve had it. I think the most egregious play was the interception that Brady threw. It was ill-advised, it’s not what they would do in the past in that situation, and was a real head-scratcher.”

Was it an ill-advised throw? Probably. Gronkowski usually gets that jump ball and it wasn't like Brady threw the ball directly to a Giants defender. It was an ill-advised gamble that didn't pay off.

So it doesn't seem Eric Wilbur really feels differently about what he had written the night before. Notice there isn't a mention of him trying to write like Pats fans think in this excerpt from the radio interview. This reasoning for the article being written magically appears in Wilbur's mea culpa as to what his aim in writing the article truly was. Speaking of mea culpa, on February 7th Wilbur writes a column where he suddenly realizes the error of his ways. It's entitled "Uncle." I see four reasons Wilbur would write his original article, back up what he was saying in a radio interview a day later and then the day after that appear to change his mind.

1. He really did think what he wrote was wrong and after a time of reflection on what was written thought he was being a tad harsh.

2. Wilbur's article had served the purpose it was intended to. It got his name in the national discussion, got him some radio interviews, and got his columns some press. So it was time to not make himself look like a huge asshole.

3. His editors asked that he issue a mea culpa. I hope this didn't happen.

4. Wilbur really isn't issuing a mea culpa, but he believes if he says he was somewhat wrong everyone will get off his back.

To the hundreds that have demanded my immediate dismissal, the fan who hoped I got clipped by the Green Line, and even the Neanderthal who wished cancer upon me, I issue a mea culpa.

Clearly, I never intended Sunday night's column, written in the immediate aftermath of the Patriots' loss in Super Bowl XLVI, to garner quite the widespread attention - and negativity - it happened to find over the course of the next 24 hours.

Because thrashing the local starting quarterback immediately after he performed slightly above average in the Super Bowl is sure to avoid any type of attention. Where did all this negativity come from? All he did was write a screed about how Tom Brady should give way to Ryan Mallett, blamed the entire loss on Brady and compared Brady to a quarterback who never won a Super Bowl in four tries. Where's the controversy?

As I've tried to convey, perhaps with illustrious failure, the over-the-top tone of the piece was intentional, meant to convey the frustration that Patriots fans had to be feeling after the crushing loss to the Giants.

So it was meant as a parody of Patriots fans? Consider your attempt at hilarity and satire to have fallen short of its goal then, which I am sure Wilbur is aware of at this point.

The biggest problem I find with this excuse is that nowhere in the article did Wilbur talk about Patriots fans or any of their feelings after the loss. Nowhere in the article did Wilbur feature any of the anger directed at the Patriots defense, Wes Welker or the bad luck of Rob Gronkowski being injured. I could probably accept this excuse if anything but how this game was all Tom Brady's fault had been mentioned. Since only Brady was mentioned, I can't believe it was meant to convey the frustrations of Patriots fans. I'm guessing Patriots fans would have more angry over other aspects of the loss, rather than just focused on Brady's performance solely.

I intended to write something while the emotions were still bubbling, creating a destination where Pats fans could vent their own frustrations over another devastating Super Bowl loss.

There are so many other various places Pats fans can go to vent their frustrations. This is weak. Also, you just wrote "another devastating Super Bowl loss." Cry me a river and stop acting like the Patriots are entitled to win a Super Bowl every four years.

I still think Tom Brady was most at fault for the loss, but it wasn't directly because of the safety as I noted.

Granted, it did lead to forcing the defense on the field for most of the first quarter, but it wasn't the quarterback who happened to be the 12th man on the field.

The day before Wilbur said he knew what he wrote was over the top, but he stood by it. Now, he is mealy-mouthing his way around not fully blaming Brady anymore.

But rational thinking doesn't come to head in such a moment, and frankly, that was my intention; to present the knee-jerk reactions of what the fan base had to be feeling at that very moment.

Even if this was the intentions of Eric Wilbur, which I don't necessarily believe, why didn't he put any blame in the column on Welker for not making the catch or for Belichick for challenging the catch by Manningham on the sidelines? I'm not saying these two plays caused the Pats to lose, but why only blame Tom Brady and then insinuate Ryan Mallett should take over as the starter? Did Wilbur not believe any of the Pats fan base would blame Welker or blame the coaching staff for having 12 men on the field? How about the Pats fan base being upset the team couldn't recover a Giants fumble? Wouldn't that be a part of the knee-jerk reaction? The original article was way too focused on Brady's shortcomings for me to believe it was supposed to represent the reaction of the Pats fan base.

As it turned out, there was little anger directed toward the Patriots. Disappointment, yes, but the anger was at a minimum.

There was little anger because the Patriots lost a close game and didn't play terribly in the loss.

That, apparently, was reserved for me.

When you pin the blame solely on a player who should not have the blame pinned solely upon him, these things tend to happen.

As many Twitter commenters noted, my avatar's four picks in a Super Bowl is embarrassing, to which I say, "Lay off Drew." But that's a debate for another time.

Lay off Drew Bledsoe, who threw four interceptions in one Super Bowl, but let's blame Tom Brady for throwing one interception in a Super Bowl game. Makes sense to me.

It was an intentional, heat-of-the-moment analysis that did not work.

Come on. This wasn't even analysis. It was an angry message board screed. It was heat-of-the-moment, but I fail to see what kind of analysis involved comparing Brady to Jim Kelly. Even though Wilbur takes this comparison back, he still characterizes this as analysis, which it isn't.

Tom Brady is not Jim Kelly. At worst, he's John Elway in reverse, but the story has yet to be completed.

Except John Elway's teams got blown out in the Super Bowl, while Tom Brady's team lost two Super Bowls that came down to the final minute.

The erroneous blame I laid on Brady was a commentary that wasn't fully-flushed out, and thus immensely unsuccessful.

So far the article has been described as intending to be a reflection of the feelings Pats fans were feeling at the time, an analysis of Tom Brady's performance and now is being characterized as a commentary on Tom Brady. I'm not sure it can be all of those things. Specifically, if the article was intended to be a heat-of-the-moment reflection of the feelings Pats fans had at the time, I'm not sure how it can also be called an analysis of his performance.

If the Patriots had won the game, the initial reaction would have been that Brady is now Montana, that he had joined the ranks - like he hadn't already - of the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. He would have graced Sports Illustrated (again), gone to Disney World as the MVP, and sat in the Letterman chair occupied by Eli Manning last night.

And the Patriots didn't win, so Brady gets some blame.

But when they lose, everyone labels it a "team game."

You can't have it both ways.

Here Wilbur goes with this "everyone" argument again. He seems to enjoy characterizing a point of view that supports his contention as a point of view "everyone" holds. Quarterbacks usually get too much credit for a win and too much blame for a loss. No one is arguing the loss wasn't some of Brady's fault, but to go to the extent Wilbur did to blame Brady was a bit overboard.

In a rush to present a forum, I incredibly misjudged the audience, and that is my most crippling error.

It was a pretty short article. I'm a little confused how it could have served as a forum for the frustration of Pats fans, an analysis of Brady's performance, as well as a commentary. It certainly didn't come off as anything but the venting of a frustrated fan.

So, to the fans who called me one step below Skip Bayless (gulp),

Eric Wilbur wrote one bad article. Let's not get into calling him vile names that can't be taken back or forgotten.

Spring training starts next week, though I can't promise many gumdrops and rainbows about the Sox. I'll apologize for that now, too.

I can't wait for the first "Every Red Sox loss in the month of April was the fault of Adrian Gonzalez" article.

So what do you think? Think Wilbur regrets the article and his intention was to provide a commentary or a forum for Pats fans to vent? I think he probably regrets writing it, but it wasn't intended as a commentary, and he only regrets the response the article got and not what he wrote.

0 comments We're Mad As Hell and Are Going To Type In Mildly Coherent Sentences About It

From time to time I like to look at The Vent, which is basically an Atlanta Braves one sentence message board where morons can write sentences that sound like a fifth grader wrote them. Then they get graded for "the best vents" by their fellow morons. This could not be a more mediocre idea to put on the AJC's Braves page so I have to read them.

They are fun to read because mostly people write them in anger, like when I emailed Matt Doherty and Ronald Curry in 2000 drunk and angry at their actions on the basketball court. I should not have done this but I am sure Ronald Curry showed at least one of his friends what I wrote and I felt better so it worked out for everyone.

I don't care if Smoltz can only roll the ball to the plate. Sign him or be gone, Wren. Like, we're gonna be a contender, duh?

This was the second highest rated comment over the past 30 days. I am trying to decipher this and can only come up with the fact the writer wants Frank Wren to quit if he doesn't sign John Smoltz, regardless of Smoltz's ability, because the Braves are not going to win any games this year so they may as well re-sign Smoltz.

Duh?

I love how this franchise always tantalizes us with possible big name deals, fizzles and winds up with signings the equivalent of fish bait.

Why do I feel like someone is typing this in broken English? Along with the mixed metaphor or analogy or whatever the hell this person was trying to say, I don't think he/she realizes the franchise does not tantalize him, it is the media who reports the story and then this person probably gets his hopes up.

So the Cubs won't give the world for a pitcher either. Good job Cubbies.

This is a Braves venting board and someone took the time out to compliment the Chicago Cubs...how perfectly relevant.

I wonder if we could steal some of the Yankees' prospects (Hughes or Kennedy) for cheap since they don't seem that high on them anymore.

Oh absolutely, I am sure the Yankees are just looking to give away the players they thought enough of to not trade for Johan Santana last year really, really cheap right now. I don't think the New York media would notice that at all. Not all franchises are as stupid as you are.

What a great job Braves GM must be. Do nothing and get paid for it.Team sinking like the Titanic, but we have hope. Genius!

I am not even 100% sure what the hell this guy is referring to. I have a feeling at least 60% of the people who write this stuff in are heavily medicated and see little purple men following them around all day.

Anyone else getting worried we are going to panic and toss our $40 million out the window on this years worthless second-tier players?

You mean Javier Vazquez or constantly injured players like Rafael Furcal and A.J. Burnett?

Would you rather have Ross with his .222 or Corky Miller? I'll take Ross without even knowing who he is!

I would rather know who David Ross is and then make a decision. I love it when fans of teams admit they have absolutely no clue who a player is but he HAS to be better than what the team currently has. Then this person feels the need to post his opinion publicly.

I'd love to have Peavy, but shortstop is a very important position and Escobar will be one of the best for years to come.

Yes, shortstop is a very important position, even though two teams have won World Series with David Eckstein as their starting shortstop. I would have to say Peavy is one of the best pitchers right now, and if given the choice, I would rather have a pitcher who is one of the best as opposed to a shortstop...and so would everyone else on Earth. Good reasoning though.

-Bill Simmons talks about pro wrestling and the new movie "The Wrestler" with Mickey Rourke.

Roger Ebert has got nothing on Bill Simmons. (Speaking of Ebert, this is my favorite movie review of all time and honestly one of the best lengthy put downs I have hear also. The review by Roger Ebert for Deuce Bigalow 2)

Anyway, Simmons' article contains wonderful cinematic relevatory tibits like this:

The hardest achievement in acting—in my opinion, anyway—is nailing a role that absolutely nobody else could have played. Pacino owned Michael Corleone … but DeNiro could have owned it as well. Who else, though, but Val Kilmer could have nailed Jim Morrison? Does anyone besides Will Ferrell pull off Ron Burgundy? Could anyone other than Sly Stallone play Rocky? It's something you can learn only after the fact.

I do love all those movies but it is very hard to read a sentence comparing the character of Ron Burgundy, written by Will Ferrell, to the character of Michael Corleone, which was written by Francis Ford Coppola. I don't think DeNiro could have pulled that role off anyway, because I don't think he could have been as subdued, yet simmering in the role as Pacino was. (I know that sounds weird since Pacino is doing impersonations of himself now and yelling a lot but it was true at the time.)

I do wish someone would point out to Bill it is easier for an actor to play a role that actor actually wrote for himself like Stallone and Ferrell did, as compared to what Val Kilmer and Pacino did in their respective roles.

-What a shock, Carlos Boozer plans on becoming a free agent after this year.

Since last time he tricked a blind man into letting him out of his contract with the intent he would re-sign with the Cavs and then lied, I wonder what tricks he has up his sleeve this time to become a free agent? Is he going to offer to roll Jerry Sloan's mother in a wheelchair around all day and then leave her in the street, then declare free agency or will he just go a more simple route and go to a food shelter, throw food in the face of the homeless, and walk away to declare free agency?

Color me intrigued.

"I'm opting out. No matter what, I'm going to get a raise regardless," Boozer told ESPN.com. "I am going to opt out, I don't see why I wouldn't, I think it's a very good business decision for me and my family, but I'd also like to see what happens with the Jazz and stay here."

I like how he just comes out and says it is all about the money. At least he is honest...unlike last time when he lied to a blind man and caused the Cavs to look for a power forward worth a crap for the next 4 years.

Currently, Atlanta, Memphis, Portland, Miami, Detroit and Oklahoma City are among the teams positioned to have the most cap flecibility.

Apparently cutbacks have stopped ESPN from being able to hire someone to proofread their articles.

-Rick Reilly Gets Paid Millions to Write Things Like This Once A Week.

Do you really have to pay someone millions of dollars to write a puff piece about Tyler Hansbrough? They pretty much write themselves these days. He is hard working, tough, smart, dedicated to being a good player in college and overseas in Europe next year, a good kid who just wants to win, and the person you would want your son/daughter to date.

He'd like to. "Sometimes, when I get an elbow to the face, I'd like to just punch somebody," Hansbrough says. "Hard."

Sometimes when I see him go over someone's back for a rebound, lean into that person while shooting to initiate contact, and then gets a foul call, I would like to punch him in the face. Very hard. Unfortunately, we can ask Gerald Henderson, that would just lead to Hansbrough crying and I would get suspended one game for touching the ACC's golden boy. He is the only person I know of who doesn't bitch about getting fouled all the time by talking about how he does not bitch about getting fouled all the time. He also leaves out the part where he leans into every shot he takes, initiating contact EVERY TIME, and if you watch him closely/at all you can see how many times he commits fouls by elbowing other players in a spastic attempt to get a rebound.

I am not a Tyler Hansbrough fan.

Less humorous are the chants meant for his mom: "MISS Mah-ZOOR-ee!" (Which she was.)

She is also now an employee with the university. Not suspicious at all that his mom gets a job with the university. Of course good ol' Roy Williams would never do anything like that, so gosh darn it I should just quit accusing him.

"I'm not changing anything," he says. "That's my style. I just hope I don't drop dead."

Sadly, I am called an asshole when I wish the opposite as I watch you climb another player's back or come close to tears if a player even comes near hurting you as you flail away with spasms trying to shoot the ball.

-The Red Sox have limits?

"We all have limits," Red Sox owner John Henry said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Eight years is a very long time in baseball and everywhere else."

Was that a Barack Obama crack right there? Count John Henry as someone who is not going to want Obama re-elected for a second term!

Seriously, I do like how he doesn't have a problem with the $200 million dollars Tex wants but actually has a problem with the 8 years he wants the length of the contract to be. I can just see the Red Sox/Yankees signing Tex to a 5 year $140 million dollar contract here soon. At least then it won't be for 8 years.

I like how ESPN felt the need last night to break the news Tex was not going to Baltimore. As if this is news. He is going to the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox, we should all just prepare for this. I don't know how there has ever been any doubt, because when those two teams are bidding for a player, all other offers will pale in comparison. I say there is a 70% chance he goes to Boston.

-As if Indiana basketball did not have enough problems, now Eric Gordon says the team had players that tore the team apart with drug use.

Gordon declined to identify which players allegedly used drugs, but said D.J. White and two others still on the team were among those who did not.

Gordon and White were the two best players on the team last year, so I can't understand how this really negatively affected the team if the scrubs were the drug abusers. I am kidding, kind of. Call me insensitive but it sounds like it was players who did not even play that often, so they should have just been kicked off the team. The only reason they were not is because Kelvin Sampson, who apparently is not a hypocrite and allows his players to cheat and break rules like he did, was the head coach.

Then-coach Kelvin Sampson tried to stop the drug use, Gordon said, but Sampson "was just so focused on basketball and winning and everything."

Now that is a ringing endorsement for Sampson to be the next head basketball coach wherever the hell he gets hired next.

I thank God every day I am not an Indiana Hoosiers fan.

-Sammy Baugh died.

I know I am in the minority on this issue and I have respect for my elders but I can't ignore the fact these players who played football in the 1930's -1960's would never have made it in the NFL today. I know everyone accepts this but still some idiots feel the need to compare today's players with past players.

Baugh was the best all-around player in an era when such versatility was essential. In 1943, he led the league in passing, punting and defensive interceptions. In one game, he threw four touchdown passes and intercepted four as well. He threw six touchdowns passes in a game twice. His 51.4-yard punting average in 1940 is still the NFL record.

This can not happen in today's NFL, not because the players are not athletic enough, but because the competition is too tough and playing one side of the ball is complicated enough as it is. I am not saying Sammy Baugh was not a great player but at some point it has to be acknowledged he played at a time when the players who played the sport were not nearly as athletic and gifted as they are today, not to mention minorities were not allowed to play.

"There's nobody any better than Sam Baugh was in pro football," Don Maynard, a fellow West Texas Hall of Famer who played for Baugh, said in a 2002 interview. "When I see somebody picking the greatest player around, to me, if they didn't go both ways, they don't really deserve to be nominated. I always ask, 'Well, how'd he do on defense? How was his punting?'"

Is this really what you would ask? Congratulations, Sammy Baugh played three positions, and that is great, but at what point can we acknowledge it was so much easier for him to do this because the game was 10% as advanced then as it is now. I am not trying to pick on old people here and I think he was a great player but to make statements like Don Maynard made in 2002 shows a complete lack of respect for where the game is at now.

"I'll watch it all damn day long," Baugh, who often sprinkled his conversation with mild obscenities, told The Associated Press in a 2002 interview. "I like the football they play. They got bigger boys, and they've also got these damn speed merchants that we didn't have in those days. I'd love to be quarterback this day and time."

Exactly. Sammy Baugh was an above average athlete in a time when there just average athletes. I am not questioning whether Sammy Baugh was a great NFL player but it also has to be mentioned very few players specialized in playing one position at his time so no one was simply great at one thing and there were few to no minorities who played the sport. This really diluted the pool of players and their skills. Players are drafted now just to be kick returners, if that shows you how much specialization occurs.

I know I am being an asshole but the same thing goes for George Mikan. Does anyone really think if he had played against any of the players from the 1970's he would have been as dominate as he was? I certainly don't. I have respect for my elders but it is also wrong to fail to mention they played at a time when the talent pool was diluted for racial reasons and the fact the sport has grown in complexity since the earlier eras.

I am done picking on old people now.

I think I am going to quit while I am way behind.

2 comments MMQB-Tuesday Edition: When I Slowly Lose My Mind

I was going to lay off Peter King today and let J.S. have the floor for his Chinese Democracy-esque promises to release an NFC Preview but I can't. In this MMQB-Tuesday Edition, which King Peter does because he does not want to interrupt half the useless drivel he puts in the MMQB edition with boring things like reader feedback and prefers to spice the MMQB up with stories of colonscopys and car rental stories, he is speaking directly to me. I think I am slowly losing my mind and think his columns are directed towards ME and I have to answer immediately.

The problem with preseason football, other than the fact it's preseason football, is you never have any idea what it means. Never.

Or Point G as I called it yesterday. I think you made this point and then contradicted it repeatedly. Apologizing for it?

Having said that, I am questioning all the love I've thrown the Browns way this off-season.

Nope, doing it again.

"Everyone knows there is no such thing as leprechauns and it is insane to believe this. That being said though, my daughter's fourth grade class did have green footprints on the walls."

It would impossible not to, after being in the house for the first 17 minutes -- which took about four days -- of Cleveland's preseason loss to the Giants here Monday.

"It would be impossible to believe leprechauns don't exist knowing this. I am Peter King and I make no sense. Let me tell you about the testicular cancer exam I had today!"

You know it IS possible to not turn your back on the Browns. You could think it is the preseason, which it is...so this would be easy to do.

A few things worry me about Cleveland now. The secondary, obviously.

I love how he glowed about Cleveland in the off season but never mentioned this until now. Holy shit, now he has problems after his prediction looks crappy. I and the rest of the world who have Internet access and can find team rosters could have noticed this two weeks ago. You know find the roster and I don't even have Internet access, I steal it from college students and then buy them beer in exchange, except that one prick who always starts his car from inside his apartment, he is sneaky and I will never buy him beer.

• From Jake Nichols, of Winston-Salem: "You're criticizing Jets fans for poor turnout? Don't preseason tickets cost the same as regular season? I can't get on anyone in this economy for not going to a game, let alone a preseason one. Who can afford it? Gas at $4 a gallon, bread at $2.25, milk at nearly $4 and you're going to razz people for not paying $50 bucks to sit in the nosebleeds and watch a guy for two series? Seriously?''

Exactly what I am thinking.

• From Steven Fishman, of Plainview, N.Y.: "Congratulations on writing the single most ridiculous point in all your years of MMQB. I am a season-ticket holder to the Jets. What stuns me is last week, you specifically wrote about how absurd it is for NFL teams to force fans to buy tickets to MEANINGLESS preseason games. Now you mock Jet fans because they don't want to travel two hours and give up a wonderful summer evening to sit in a football stadium and watch Brett Favre play two series of football in a game that means nothing?

Peter did say this last week in a column but it had nothing to do with Brett Favre, so now King Peter is riled up. It was only two series and it does seem kind of pointless to go if you have something better to do. I feel like Robert DeNiro in Goodfellas and I am just piling on at this point.

"A little bit. You insulted him a little bit. I heard things."

• From Patrick Alexander, of Chicago: "Not a Jets fan, but even if my team lined up Jesus, Confucious, Lao Tsu, Moses and Mohammed, I wouldn't show up to a lame preseason game.''

I am going on record right now as saying if this ever happens, I will be there. I will drive no matter how many miles it takes and watch Moses and Jesus play football. Obviously Patrick is a little upset Kyle Orton was named Bears starter because the opportunity to view Lao Tsu running a reverse is too awesome to pass up.

Okay. Here are my five responses:

1. I love the anger and the bitterness and the raw feelings. Shows you all care, which I appreciate, and I do appreciate your heavy response.

Translation: You are just normal people and I know Brett Favre because I am an NFL Insider. You can all go to Middle Class Hell. (Which is Des Moines, Iowa by the way)

2. Let's say in four years, when Kobe Bryant is considered one of the 10 best players of all time, he migrates to the Knicks in free agency, and the Knicks play their opening exhibition game at Madison Square Garden against the Wizards. You think there'd be an empty seat in the house? Dream on.

If Kobe Bryant was only playing half of the first quarter, then no one would show up. I guaran-freaking-tee it. This is not the same as Brett Favre and the Jets but way to be hyperbolic to distract others into thinking you have a point.

Also, Brett Favre is not one of the top 10 QBs of all time, much less one of the top 10 players, so this comparison sucks even more.

I will argue this point to anyone, everyone, anytime, anywhere. I will argue with Peter until low fat latte and lasagna comes out of his pores. Brett Favre is an all time great but not one of the top 10 QBs of all time. No matter how much you love him.

I don't care if he plays 14 snaps -- which he did -- or 40. If you're a real Jets fan, and you've got tickets, and you're not out of town, you'd be there.

I am a real "my favorite team" fan and have turned down tickets repeatedly to regular season games because sometimes it is better to watch the game on television and not worry about crowds and spending $10 for a beer. Also, it is a two hour drive to the stadium, which can be made during a Sunday for a real game, but for an exhibition seems kind of silly. Especially on a Saturday night, when there are plenty of other things going on.

3. The fans aren't doling out extra money to see this game. They've already paid for the tickets. We're talking about 45,000 season-ticket-holders who chose not to come to the game.

I really kind of agree with Peter that the fans should have shown up but he is absurdly confrontational about this. I doubt he would be this worked up if it was not Favre. He wants Favre to succeed in New York and will pretty much do anything in his journalistic power to make sure he does. Peter seriously has a personal stake in this.

Sorry. I've got a problem with that.

That is too confrontational. We are not talking about abortion rights, apartheid, or the fact the Chinese are Communist and everyone ignores this for two weeks. This is preseason football attendance. Isn't Peter getting a little too worked up over this?

4. And to Steve, the season-ticket-holder from Long Island: What's your level of devotion to this team, really, if you won't give up half of a Saturday to see Brett Favre quarterback your team on your home field with tickets you've already paid for, even if it's only for two series? Sorry. I don't get it.

This tone is out of hand in my opinion. When was the last time you think Peter King had to pay for a football game? He bitches about the price of motherfucking coffee and peanuts on a fucking airplane but he wants everyone to go to every football game they paid for to see his BFF Brett, and if you don't, then you are not a true fan. He is absurdly passionate on this. It is preseason football attendance. This part should have been dropped out of the column originally.

5. I take nothing back.

You are a self righteous prick who thinks he can tell others what to do with their time and money. They should go to the game to see their "new" QB, but if they don't want to, don't fuss like a little kid and call them out in your column.

2 comments Being The Gosh-Darn Favorites

I want to thank J.S. for putting up two great posts this weekend. It was nice to have something up on this blog that I actually enjoyed reading. He seems to have a prodigious output of posts like I sometimes tend to do, so this is going to be a lot of fun.

Let me share something with the world here. I hate UNC-Chapel Hill. I hate the people, I hate the attitude they have, and mostly I hate the sports teams. My sister actually went there and I did not speak to her for 4.5 years and we are just getting to know each other again. So just remember that as I mock them mercilessly and just think of it as sour grapes. One of the reasons I hate UNC is the coach, Roy Williams. I don't hate him personally, I hate his "gosh, we just do the best darn things we can to win and if we don't win I am going to buy the whole team some pop and we can talk on the front porch" demeanor. He is really a basketball killing machine but wants to pretend to be down home. He can go to Hell. I also hate how Duke is considered the Yankees of college basketball while the Tar Heels are not universally hated, despite the fact UNC has won more championships and are always a national powerhouse. They are still loved by most people, except Duke fans, it is insane. I want this to change.

Andy Katz has provoked Roy Williams' downhome demeanor and it is going to give me a seizure. Also, watch for a link-o-rama fest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3493057

North Carolina coach Roy Williams made it clear to his Tar Heels that if they don't put the team first in their quest for a national title, they won't play for him next season.

I guess putting the team first means recruiting violations that are never punished?

http://www.fanhouse.com/2007/09/30/did-unc-break-recruiting-rules/

Sean May was putting the team first even AFTER he left school to sit the bench for the Bobcats.

Of course UNC did an internal "investigation" and found they did not break any rules. They were also putting the team first.

http://carolinabball.blogspot.com/2007/10/unc-finds-no-recruiting-violations.html

You want more blatant violation of NCAA rules that went unpunished?

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2008/04/30/obama-scrimmages-with-unc-tar-heels-but-did-it-violate-ncaa-ru/

I realize every team does things like this, supposedly, but why don't people hate UNC? This bothers me. They commit violations, minor as they are, have an annoying good white player, and get a lot of calls from the refs. I am vexed.

"If I feel that someone is out for themselves, I don't give a darn who it is, they won't play," Williams said last week in Akron, Ohio

I don't give a darn! He does not curse, how high and mighty of him! Golly gee, buddy.

North Carolina is the overwhelming favorite to win the 2009 national title.

As they should be, they lost only one player from the team last year that made the Final Four and have an absolutely loaded bench. I have prepared myself for this fact. This is team is like the 1991 UNLV, 1997 Kansas, and 1999 Duke teams in that if they don't win the National Championship there is really, really something wrong and should be investigated fully.

"I didn't think [there was] any way in Hades that we'd have all three back," Williams said of getting Lawson, Ellington and Green to return on the deadline to withdraw from the NBA draft.

If you don't think "no way in Hades" is something fucking stupid to say then I don't know what to say to you. Just imagine if someone came up to you and said that phrase, and tell me you would not want to punch them in the face and then scream in their ear. You would immediately do it.

I wish Andy Katz would just misquote him and throw the word "hell" in there.

"The '05 team had six or seven guys, but this team has a chance to go much deeper," Williams said. "On the '05 team, we won just 19 games the year before so there was no reason to be fat and happy. None of those guys thought about the NBA and the NBA had no interest in them. They were hungry to show people they were a big-time basketball team.

Gollllllllllllllllllllly, that is a great point Roy. I am sure Marvin Williams the 6th man on that team was not thinking about the NBA when he was ranked the #10 recruit in his class.

http://www.insidehoops.com/high-school-2004.shtml

Oh and Roy, that team also had 3 of the 10 recruits from the 2002 class as well in Raymond Felton, Sean May, and Rashad McCants. I would say the NBA had their eye on them as well.

http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&pid=88&yr=2002

Quit with the "little old me, I just get the best players I can and do what I can with them" act. Andy Katz should have included in the article that this quote by Roy Williams was insanely incorrect and pointed out every starter for that team was highly recruited and would have fit in well in the NBA. I would argue that UNC is the premier recruiting factory in the nation and Roy just continues to pretend he gets very few talented players, but mostly just farm boys from East Indiana who shot on peach baskets when they weren't busy working in the fields.

Williams said the "high character" of this Tar Heels team is a reason he's not concerned that he has "too many guys."

Yeah that 2005 National Championship team had no character. Now someone is not being a team player and trying to sell his ring.

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2008/07/18/tar-heels-2005-championship-ring-is-being-auctioned-on-ebay/

What Williams is talking about is the high character of players like Ty Lawson.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6189197

How many other UNC players were in the car when he got arrested? If you know Ty Lawson, and know what a high character person he is, then you would know the answer is zero. High motherfucking puppie petting baby kissing character. That's all Ty Lawson is.

The only thing Williams still doesn't have a handle on from last season is the perplexing first half against Kansas in the national semifinal.

You get your ass kicked sometimes, I don't see how this is tough to get a handle on. They got out to a 40-12 lead because your team played poorly. This is why I don't like good ol' Roy Boy, he can't just say, "we got our ass kicked." Google it. You will never see him say it.

"It's the most dumbfounded I've ever been as a coach," Williams said of the Kansas loss. "In the locker room, we prepared like we did every game in the ACC and in the NCAA. They'd all been the same and the kids appeared to have a good focus. I'm just dumbfounded, still dumbfounded. Kansas just came in and hit us in the mouth."

I am dumbfounded too Roy. You didn't have your team practice by riding mules around the gym shooting heads of cabbage into a wooden box, pointing out shiny objects in the stands to your players, or putting your shoes on their hands? I have no idea what happened either. Gosh, Roy, I am dumbfounded also.

Maybe Kansas kicked your ass.

UNC won't back down in scheduling once again.

They are the best team in the country and the odds on favorite to win the National Championship. Why would they back down?

Williams is taking the Tar Heels on the road, too, against lower-level teams that could cause problems, like UC Santa Barbara on the way to Maui and Valparaiso in Chicago

How are you going to write an article about how good this team is and then say UC Santa Barbara and Valparaiso are going to give the Tar Heels problems? Andy Katz is playing perfectly into Roy's aw-shucks persona and it kills me. UNC has no business losing more than 2 games this upcoming year. What problems do UC Santa Barbara and Valparaiso reasonably give them?

"The league is so much better and experienced," Williams said. "And in playing Kentucky, Michigan State and the Maui games, I think those kinds of games will get us ready."

How can you write an entire article about how awesome UNC, including things like this:

With those three back, UNC will return its top six scorers, who combined to score 78.7 points, which is more than 319 Division I teams averaged last season.

Add in returning forwards Deon Thompson and Marcus Ginyard, guard Bobby Frasor (coming back from a knee injury) and the infusion of even more talent with ready-to-contribute freshman guards Larry Drew and Justin Watts and forwards Tyler Zeller and Ed Davis, and the Tar Heels are as loaded as any team in recent memory to be challenging for the title.

then even pretend there is another team that is in the same class? UNC is the clear favorite and they deserve to be, I just wish someone would start hating on them for the fake modesty and "aw shucks, look at us" mentality.

I will try to write something less angry later today. We'll see how that goes, without Simmons around, I am running on anger fumes right now.

0 comments You Know That Feeling When...

Why can't Bill Simmons just explain what he feels? If he thought he was having a heart attack he would tell the paramedics, "You know that feeling when you get when it is the bottom of the ninth and you just know your team is going to blow it and your chest gets tight? I think I have Calvin Schiraldi Syndrome." Hopefully the paramedics would then look at him like he is crazy and stop for coffee on the way to the hospital.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3467732

In today's episode he gets Hugh Grant Syndrome. Whatever the hell that is. I think I have Daria Syndrome and I no longer care but just want to mock him. You remember Daria, don't pretend reader(s).

In the days following an improbable Celtics title, two questions have gnawed at me:
1. Have I peaked as a sports fan?
2. Am I headed for a Hugh/Divine moment?

This man is insufferable. They had the best record in basketball, I would not call that improbable. I can't believe these two questions have gnawed at him. I am already looking forward to how dramatic he will be when one of his parents gets ill and then he compares it some sporting event. He needs a priority re-check ASAP if these are his two biggest questions.

1. I don't know what this means, "peaking as a sports fan," but maybe you have peaked. Get a job.
2. Again, not sure exactly what this is, but if it is extreme confidence caused by your team being good, then I would say you reached that point four years ago after the Red Sox World Series win and you thought everyone gave a shit about you, your father's thoughts on anything, and any conversation you have with anyone that the reader does not know.

Remember, I'm a Sawx fan. I know what it's like to be tortured by your team. I know how it feels to spend hours and hours wondering, Why does God hate me so much?

Ah...the Red Sox fans achilles heel. They must be loved. They have to be loved. "We were just like you a few years ago, spending sleepless nights dreaming of ways to make our team's inability to win a World Series seem like a bigger deal than it was, thinking of new "curses" to reason through that would make me feel better, and trying to find a different bandwagon to jump on."

Maybe God hates you because you are a Red Sox fan.

He should try being an Atlanta Braves fan. We don't whine as our team wins 14 consecutive division championships and win one World Series. No one paints the team as "cursed," we are just a bunch of chokers who can't get the job done and everyone still hates us. Also you get to watch your team slowly disintegrate as management is too clueless to realize it. We don't whine, many just accept "injuries" as the reason our team is not good and not "injuries to players who could apply for Social Security" as the reason we need to overhaul the entire team. Try having a team that has a bunch of good young players to build around but they will continously waste them by attempting to not develop a good, young pitcher for 10 years. It rocks, you should try it.
You know who's silently nodding their heads right now? New York Giants fans. They know they'll never beat the experience of rooting for a double-digit underdog that improbably terminated a bid for a perfect season in the Super Bowl. Same goes for Jayhawks fans.

I know a New York Giants fan actually. A couple of them actually. Do you know how many of them have mentioned the Super Bowl win since March? Zero. I know this is a poll of my friends and means nothing, but this is the level I have to stoop to, in the effort to prove Simmons is a drama queen.

Also, college basketball bandwagoneer Simmons, Kansas was favored in that game if I am not wrong, but feel free to keep making shit up. They feel good their team won but they were not double digit underdogs nor was Memphis looking for a perfect season, so this reference really in no way applies.

For sports fans, winning a title after a prolonged wait is like falling for that first girlfriend. Win it in an especially memorable way, and that girlfriend is also the best girl you're ever going to meet.

He's like Al Sharpton for sports fans. He thinks he speaks for us all. Why can't he just type how he feels about winning a title and quit comparing it to shit. It's like he has to dumb it down for us all because no one would understand otherwise. Ego trip time! I don't remember my first girlfriend and my team did win a game or two in a memorable fashion and it had nothing to do with anything else except sports.

Actually, that was the initial idea for this column: my new list of sports dreams now that my three Boston teams have come through.

I will do this Stephen A. Smith style. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU AND YOUR SPORTS DREAMS! THERE ARE THREE REASONS SOMEONE WOULD READ YOUR COLUMN. FIRST, TO BE ENTERTAINED AND YOU QUIT DOING THAT A FEW YEARS AGO, SECOND, TO WRITE A BLOG THAT MOCKS YOU, AND FINALLY THEY MAY READ IT IF THEY ARE A BOSTON FAN JUST LIKE YOU!

I would bet at least a 1/10 of the hits on his columns are from individuals, like myself, who want to mock him in print or hate him.

Note: We'll define "turning into Hugh Grant" as not caring as much about sports anymore, becoming a sports bigamist or channeling that lost energy into becoming an overbearing sports father.

How sad is he? He is so desperate to create some sort of catchphrase that people who read his columns can speak back and forth to each other. This one is actually worse than any other because it is about Hugh Grant. His next column will begin with this heading:

"Dear Readers, Bill wants to be relevant, so please email him and give him his relevance on a scale of 1 to 10. Thank you."

My daughter swam for the first time last weekend, and I reacted like Tommy Lasorda after Kirk Gibson's home run.

Just say you were fucking happy she swam, don't compare it to anything.

Also, I need more updates on your daughter. Does she have your wife's eyes, your mom's hair and your inflated feeling of self worth? Please tell me more.

Realistically, you're getting to the mountaintop only once every 20 years or so, and that means the untoppable isn't likely to be topped during that span without the occurrence of a unique twist. You know, like last season's Patriots morphing into America's No. 1 villain. When the team blew—uh, lost—the Super Bowl, I thought I handled it reasonably well, even writing a coherent column for ESPN.com the following morning.

You were the villains because of comments like "blew-uh, lost-the Super Bowl." That is exactly the type of little bitch attitude that makes 95% of the world hate Boston fans. Every year when I blow out the candles on my birthday cake, I pray that when the fall comes, and it will come Simmons, no one reads your Death Cab For Cutie type columns about how hard your sports life has become. Boston fans have had a good run and that self righteous, cocky attitude about how you blow a game and never lose the game is going to be remembered.

I don't really get this worked up, but I feel like he is fucking with me. He mentions a twist to a season, acts as if he does not know how it happened and then displays a characteristic that shows ex-fucking-actly why they were the villain.

He was so awesome in that Deadspin goodbye to Will Leitch, what the hell happened that made him write this column? I believe he is truly out of material to write about. That's my theory.

And when you get it, you don't have to worry about ending up in a car with Divine Brown afterward.

He should be embarrassed he wrote this.