We all know by now that Lance Armstrong decided to stop fighting the government's lawsuit against him and has accepted the United States Anti-Doping Agency's lifetime ban. I'm sure some people (ahem, Rick Reilly) will think Armstrong just stopped fighting the ban to move on with his life, while there are others who (rightly in my opinion) believe Armstrong accepted the lifetime ban because he is truly guilty of doping to win his seven Tour de France titles. This inevitably brings to the public discussion whether the money he raised for cancer research is tainted like his Tour de France titles are tainted. I don't think this is true. We have writers who are acting as if Lance Armstrong helped to fund cancer research with blood money or money gotten from robbing banks. David Whitley is one of those asking if the end justifies the means.
I see two Lance Armstrongs. There is the racer who I personally don't like because I find him to be sort of smug, fake and...I can't really put my finger on it exactly, but I just don't really like him as a racer. Then there is the Lance Armstrong who has done a ton for cancer research and that Armstrong I really like. I've heard the arguments about how you can't separate the two. I realize Armstrong achieved his fame from beating cancer, but I don't think this is a case of him committing a severe crime to help fund cancer research. He cheated, got fame, and used his fame for a positive. That's how I see one part of Lance Armstrong. I'm not downplaying Armstrong's doping, but in the grand scheme of things cheating to win a few Tour de France titles isn't overshadowed by what Armstrong has done for cancer research. It doesn't make his doping right, of course. Cheating in sports is very serious and we are all very disappointed in Armstrong, but his record in cancer funding stands alone, away from this disappointment. I am able to separate these two Lance Armstrongs from each other.
After seven Tour de France wins, hundreds of drug tests and thousands of accusations, you knew this day was coming.
The day Lance Armstrong finally, sort-of admitted he was doping. Well, everyone but Rick Reilly was prepared for this day to eventually come.
It’s time to decide if the ends justify the means with Lance Armstrong.
What a dramatic statement. It's more simple than asking this question though. This isn't like a dictator who steals from his other countries to give food to his starving people. Yes, that is wrong, but there is a clear loser in that situation. This isn't a case where there is a tangible loser and winner. Lance Armstrong really only hurt himself with his doping. Cycling lost its integrity a long time ago. Yes, we are disappointed at what a fraud Lance Armstrong turned out to be, but he certainly did something positive with his fraudulent actions. For me, this isn't a case of the end necessarily justifying the means and I won't excuse his doping. I always thought Lance Armstrong was doping since I began to read about the smoke surrounding him on this issue. There is a history of cyclists doping, so a person had to be somewhat suspicious when Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles. I knew how Armstrong got his fame, how he won the Tour de France, and I didn't really like him for that. What he did with his ill-begotten fame caused me to separate the Lance Armstrong that won the races and the Lance Armstrong that raised money for cancer research.
The ends are the $470 million he’s raised for cancer research. The means are Armstrong did it by cheating.
I disagree in a way. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but he raised $470 million for cancer research through hard work and dedication to the cause. Armstrong helped raise the awareness through his high profile as a cyclist, but he could have raised money for cancer research even if he had never won a Tour de France. Granted, winning seven Tour de France races helped $47 million become $470 million.
Armstrong will forever claim he was getting railroaded. But this is a man who never met a fight he didn’t like. Now he’s given up.
I consider him to have doped, just like I considered him to have doped since I heard it was a possibility. I don't think Armstrong was being railroaded. I think the US Anti-Doping Agency knew they had sufficient proof he had doped to win the Tour de France. He cheated to win the Tour de France, but he also did something good with his fame. That's more than a lot of other guys who doped can say.
“I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours,” Armstrong said in a statement, “and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours.”
This is what I am talking about when I say he is smug. He is essentially saying he cheated by accepting the lifetime ban, but then he has to be a dick and remind everyone he won seven Tour de France races as if he was on an equal playing field with the other racers. It's like if Melky Cabrera released a statement saying, "I was the All-Star Game MVP and won the batting title and everyone I competed against knows this is true." I'm not sure Armstrong understands the irony of accepting the ban and then reminding everyone he really did win those seven Tours.
Armstrong sued to block the case, but his suit was rejected Monday. Instead of having the world listen to all the testimony, he’s decided to wrap himself in victim-hood and let his legacy fall where it may.
I don't believe Armstrong is wrapping himself in victim-hood. He's trying to keep his legacy intact by being the Lance Armstrong I find distasteful. I don't like how Armstrong just can't admit he was doping. If his acceptance of the lifetime ban isn't an indication enough Armstrong was doping, I don't know of a stronger indication other than outright admitting it. This is the Lance Armstrong I don't like, sanctimonious and smug until the very end, insisting on his innocence while his actions speak otherwise.
But on top of all the circumstantial evidence, I just can’t believe that all those ex-teammates and drug bureaucrats are simply conspiring to bring Lance down.
Very true. At a certain point it becomes such a vast conspiracy where the conspirators seem to lack the motivation required to continue the conspiracy.
So we’re back to the question. Ends vs. Means.
It's a fun argument and gets pageviews, but I still see them as two separate issues. Armstrong the racer is a cheater and doper. Armstrong the cancer activist used his fame to bring millions into the fold for cancer research. His gains on the track may be ill-begotten, but what he did with his fame and story is nothing short of making him a hero in the realm of cancer research. I don't think his crime of doping is so strong that it overshadows his accomplishments when not riding a bicycle.
You still can’t go a day without seeing at least one person wearing a yellow Livestrong wristband. We all have friends or relatives who’ve been affected by cancer and by Lance.
Right, and the fact he has raised so much money for cancer research doesn't mean his doping is justified, but it also doesn't mean his doping overshadows what he has done for cancer research.
Is he still a hero, regardless of how it was accomplished?
In terms of what he has done for cancer research and awareness, yes, he is still somewhat of a hero.
All that good was by-product of Armstrong’s original goal of being the best cyclist in the world.
Oh absolutely it was and that's why I understand when others have trouble distinguishing between Armstrong the racer and Armstrong the cancer money raiser person. I get it. His fame from being such a great cyclist helped him raise money for cancer. Armstrong could have raised money for cancer research and awareness even if he never returned to cycling. Granted, he probably wouldn't have raised so much money, but the public received a benefit of Armstrong's cheating. I'm not justifying his actions, but there was good that came from his doping.
None of that would have happened if he hadn’t zipped through the Alps faster than anyone else. So when Armstrong plays the selfless martyr, remember the gig pays pretty well.
Absolutely it paid well. This issue about Lance Armstrong has become a completely black and white issue. The media and the general public are at fault for this. The reaction to criticism of Armstrong tends to be strongly favorable or unfavorable. He's a cheater who used his fame to raise cancer research and this makes him a bad person or he is a hero who never cheated and his being persecuted by the United States government. I see the shades of gray. He's a cheater who used his winnings to enrich his bank account as well as help others. I can't call him a hero and I can't call him a complete fraud.
I don’t know who finished second in all those Tours. But you can be sure they got up today, read the news and feel Armstrong did them wrong.
He did do these people wrong, but this has nothing to do with the ends justifying the means to me. If Armstrong had finished second or third in those races and never doped, he still would have had a chance to raise money for cancer research. His profile absolutely was increased by constantly winning the Tour de France, but he still could have accomplished increasing cancer awareness by not doping. Coming back from cancer and almost winning the Tour de France a few times is still an inspirational story that would have caused money for cancer research to be contributed. Armstrong wanted to win, so he cheated.
Part of the reason I can separate the racer from everything else about Armstrong is because he could have made a difference in the realm of cancer research by not winning the Tour de France. I see his bank account as increasing because of winning the Tour de France, but I see his increasing cancer awareness as a product of his fight against the disease.
If that bad is justified by the overall good, somebody needs to call Barry Bonds, Melky Cabrera, Mark McGwire, Ben Johnson and Marion Jones. Tell them that if they start doing tons of charitable good, all is forgiven.
All is not forgiven. This is where the shades of gray are being ignored. Nothing is forgiven in terms of Armstrong's doping, but his contributions to cancer awareness aren't overshadowed by his cheating in cycling. Armstrong did good with his fame. It doesn't mean he is forgiven, it means we can't simply erase all the good he has done.
“We have a lot of work to do, and I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction,” Armstrong said.
Again, he is smug and sort of annoys me. Just admit it.
They can take away his Tour de France wins, but the good Armstrong has done is undeniable.
Now we just have to accept it was all built on a lie.
The good Armstrong did is not built on a lie. It was built on his good intentions. We can all win on this issue. Armstrong loses his Tour de France titles for being a cheater, but everyone wins because he contributed so much to cancer research and awareness.
Showing posts with label david whitley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david whitley. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
15 comments Three Articles In One for Today
I didn't have one certain article I felt like covering today, but I do have a few articles I've bookmarked that don't deserve a full post. I will on occasion stumble upon an article and bookmark it with full intentions of writing about it, then realizing it is not worthy of a long post. I thought I would cover three of these today.
-I'll start off with Frank Deford and his dislike for sporting events that end in ties. The saddest thing for me in reading an article by Frank Deford is that he used to be a great sportswriter. In fact, I read an excerpt of his latest book in Sports Illustrated recently. The excerpt was about his covering the NBA when it was just in its infancy and about his relationships with the players. It was really nice to read. It was readable, interesting and it made me want to buy his book. Then I turn my attention to his writing for CNNSI.com and NPR.com and it is hard to think the same guy wrote the excerpt also writes on those sites. On CNNSI.com and NPR.com Deford takes on some of the most bizarre topics. He takes on how the salary cap ruins baseball, he wants to get rid of field goals, he believes trick plays are child abuse, he pines for the day of "character coaches," and attributes the decline of NASCAR to how people won't fix their own car anymore. Some of those are really painful to read.
I don't like ties in sporting events either, but I won't dedicate an entire column to my dislike for sporting events that end in ties. It just doesn't seem worthy of 200 words, yet that's what Frank Deford does. Don't worry, there is one reference to gunslinging and John Wayne.
Politicians love to boast about American exceptionalism: how special we are from all the merely ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill countries around the globe. However, I would say that what sets us apart, more all the time, is that we Americans don't like ties.
Americans love winning. A tie isn't really winning. It is nobody winning. No one likes ties. This would have made a great Tweet and not an article.
Lots of times, in other English-speaking countries, a tie is called a draw. Well, in these United States, when we say "draw," we don't mean a namby-pamby even-steven -- we mean John Wayne a-reachin' for his six-shooter. Now that's the American way to draw, a-standin' our ground.
Yes, we Americans love John Wayne (do we still love him?), guns, and using the letter "a" in front of a word ending in "-ing" with the "g" of "-ing" being replaced with an apostrophe. That's all we love a-doin'. For sho'.
Some Americans when they hear the word "draw" they also think of drawing a picture, but I am sure the picture being drawn is of a six-shooter and people a-shootin' guns at each other.
Ice hockey was tie city. I blame that on the Canadians, who are so nice. But now, in hockey, we got shootouts. That's the all-American way.
Actually shootouts are the "all-stupid" way. The word Frank Deford was a-lookin' for was "all-stupid" because shootouts suck and hockey games should end with another sudden death overtime and not a shootout. Maybe the point of this article would have been better made with two Tweets.
Do you know they have ties in Japanese baseball? That just flat-out takes the "national" out of "pastime."
Taking the "national" out of pastime when discussing Japanese baseball makes sense because baseball is the American pastime, not the Japanese pastime. So when discussing Japanese baseball played in Japan it would theoretically not be referred to as the "national pastime" anyway.
But of course, the rest of the world loves soccer. And it is reliably calculated that 30 percent of all soccer games end tied, drawed, deadlocked, nil-nil. How does the rest of the unexceptional world tolerate this? It's exactly this kind of thinking, I believe, which is why they can't fix the bloody euro.
I'm not sure Frank Deford is going for total accuracy (of course I'm not entirely sure what he is going for with this column...maybe irony?), but soccer is hugely popular in England and they do not use the Euro.
A tie has no place in sports.
Said Roger Goodell to Mike Nolan.
(Hopes someone gets this obscure NFL-related clothing reference)
It's like not finding out who is the "who" in whodunit.
Agreed. No one likes ties. Was this really worth writing about for 200 words though? This isn't worthy of the Frank Deford material I have read in print.
-David Whitley of The Sporting News seems to enjoy the NBA playoffs, but he knows what everyone really wants and he hopes we get it. You may think you want a Thunder-Heat NBA Final matchup or a Spurs-Heat NBA Final matchup, but you really want a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final. He can read our mind,. so that is how he knows this. In fact, he says we should PRAY that we get a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final matchup. Why you ask? Well, David is glad you asked.
If you want the best NBA Finals, your instincts should mimic Pierce’s. Drop to one knee and pray for Boston-LA.
Because nothing excites me more than seeing a Boston Celtics team that struggles putting up 85 points against a good defense go against a Lakers team that is clearly not playing at its peak either.
Romantic fools, maybe. You can even call us old farts for wanting to see Lakers-Celtics instead of Miami-Oklahoma City.
Who is "we?" Do you have a squirrel in your pocket or something? David Whitley uses "we" throughout this column as if he is using the plural form in the desperate hopes of fooling us into believing many, many people agree with him.
We have seen Lakers-Celtics play some really good series in the past, but I'm not sure these Lakers and Celtics team could provide us with any exciting games that would be enjoyed outside of Boston and Los Angeles. Sure, ESPN/ABC would hype the shit out of the series, but that doesn't make it a good series to watch. Quite the opposite in fact. If the series has to get hyped to increase interest, it may lack the substance to be a good series.
The Heat-Thunder is the trendy Finals pick, and it certainly has appeal.
Being that the Thunder are rolling right now and the Heat have two of the five best players in the NBA, I can see how this series would have a lot of appeal. In fact, this Heat-Thunder series would have three of the five best players in the NBA right now. It's not hard to get excited for this series. Even as a Celtics fan, I would have to work a bit to get excited to see the Lakers and Celtics play in the Finals.
For one thing, if LeBron James wins a title, we’d have nothing left to make fun of him with.
And apparently we (there goes that word again) want to make fun of him some more?
But the main reason we can wait for a Heat-Thunder Finals is we’re likely to get five of them in the next six years.
Wow. I didn't even know that. I wasn't aware we were going to get five Heat-Thunder Finals in the next six years. Why is this likely again? Because David Whitley claims it to be so?
Another thought...the Lakers and the Celtics became a great NBA Finals matchup in David Whitley's mind based on the matchups between these two teams in the NBA Finals from the past, right? Celtics-Lakers got their Finals history from having played each other in the Finals many times. So couldn't Thunder-Heat become the kind of dream matchup for the 2010's that Celtics-Lakers was in the 1980's? Especially if David Whitley believes these two teams could meet five times over the next six years. This series could be the next Celtics-Lakers Finals rivalry. Doesn't this sound exciting? I personally think so. So why cheer against it? A great NBA Finals rivalry has to start somewhere.
After this year, we’re not likely to see Boston-LA in Jack Nicholson’s lifetime. It’s an upset we’re even seeing them now considering the past few months.
Don't be a drama queen. The Celtics have a ton of cap room after this season and the Lakers are still the Lakers. Both teams can find a way to put quality teams on the floor after this season.
A couple of hours later at the Staples Center, Bryant’s scoring instincts produced 38 points and a 104-100 win over Denver. Since Kobe arrived in 1997, the Lakers have never lost a series they led 2-0.
They did come close to losing the Denver series after David Whitley wrote this column.
It would be like the Grateful Dead getting back together for a final concert.
Considering Jerry Garcia is dead, no thank you.
If you didn’t like the Grateful Dead, substitute Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Elvis and TCB Band.
Two of the Beatles are dead and Elvis got fat even in the 1970's. Not sure I'm interested.
These examples of bands David Whitley wants to see reunite only goes to help prove my ponit. What he fails to see is that things change. The 2012 Beatles aren't the 1968 Beatles. The 2012 Lakers are not the 2008 Lakers. The 2012 Celtics are not the 1987 Celtics. Simply because the Beatles are up on stage doesn't mean it would be a vintage 1966 performance. Things are different now. A Lakers-Celtics series (besides annoying 50% of NBA fans) wouldn't be a replay of even the 1987 NBA Finals. Circumstances have changed and nostalgia can't necessarily guarantee an exciting series.
The NBA Finals came of age when Magic threw down his baby sky hook and Kevin McHale threw down Kurt Rambis. To players like Durant, Russell and Chamberlain might as well be Lewis and Clark.
None of these players would be playing in the 2012 NBA Finals. How about Avery Bradley guarding Ramon Sessions? How about Steve Blake bouncing off the bench and taking on Keyon Dooling? Who can wait to see Devin Ebanks and Mickael Pietrus going head-to-head?
I realize none of the aforementioned gentlemen would be playing in this year’s Finals.
Do you realize this? I'm not sure David Whitley does realize this. He seems to pine for a series and epic matchup that may not exist anymore.
But it’d be nice to see the two greatest franchises in NBA history clash one more time.
And they will play again. Just hopefully not this year.
“Too old for this,” Pierce tweeted after Tuesday’s game. “I need a bed right now!!”
I can hardly contain the excitement running through my veins at the idea of an NBA Finals matchup where the winner is whichever team gets to 80 points first and both teams' best players are slightly banged up.
Just one more time, wouldn’t you like to see Nicholson’s sideline smirk and hear “Beat LA!”
-I'll start off with Frank Deford and his dislike for sporting events that end in ties. The saddest thing for me in reading an article by Frank Deford is that he used to be a great sportswriter. In fact, I read an excerpt of his latest book in Sports Illustrated recently. The excerpt was about his covering the NBA when it was just in its infancy and about his relationships with the players. It was really nice to read. It was readable, interesting and it made me want to buy his book. Then I turn my attention to his writing for CNNSI.com and NPR.com and it is hard to think the same guy wrote the excerpt also writes on those sites. On CNNSI.com and NPR.com Deford takes on some of the most bizarre topics. He takes on how the salary cap ruins baseball, he wants to get rid of field goals, he believes trick plays are child abuse, he pines for the day of "character coaches," and attributes the decline of NASCAR to how people won't fix their own car anymore. Some of those are really painful to read.
I don't like ties in sporting events either, but I won't dedicate an entire column to my dislike for sporting events that end in ties. It just doesn't seem worthy of 200 words, yet that's what Frank Deford does. Don't worry, there is one reference to gunslinging and John Wayne.
Politicians love to boast about American exceptionalism: how special we are from all the merely ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill countries around the globe. However, I would say that what sets us apart, more all the time, is that we Americans don't like ties.
Americans love winning. A tie isn't really winning. It is nobody winning. No one likes ties. This would have made a great Tweet and not an article.
Lots of times, in other English-speaking countries, a tie is called a draw. Well, in these United States, when we say "draw," we don't mean a namby-pamby even-steven -- we mean John Wayne a-reachin' for his six-shooter. Now that's the American way to draw, a-standin' our ground.
Yes, we Americans love John Wayne (do we still love him?), guns, and using the letter "a" in front of a word ending in "-ing" with the "g" of "-ing" being replaced with an apostrophe. That's all we love a-doin'. For sho'.
Some Americans when they hear the word "draw" they also think of drawing a picture, but I am sure the picture being drawn is of a six-shooter and people a-shootin' guns at each other.
Ice hockey was tie city. I blame that on the Canadians, who are so nice. But now, in hockey, we got shootouts. That's the all-American way.
Actually shootouts are the "all-stupid" way. The word Frank Deford was a-lookin' for was "all-stupid" because shootouts suck and hockey games should end with another sudden death overtime and not a shootout. Maybe the point of this article would have been better made with two Tweets.
Do you know they have ties in Japanese baseball? That just flat-out takes the "national" out of "pastime."
Taking the "national" out of pastime when discussing Japanese baseball makes sense because baseball is the American pastime, not the Japanese pastime. So when discussing Japanese baseball played in Japan it would theoretically not be referred to as the "national pastime" anyway.
But of course, the rest of the world loves soccer. And it is reliably calculated that 30 percent of all soccer games end tied, drawed, deadlocked, nil-nil. How does the rest of the unexceptional world tolerate this? It's exactly this kind of thinking, I believe, which is why they can't fix the bloody euro.
I'm not sure Frank Deford is going for total accuracy (of course I'm not entirely sure what he is going for with this column...maybe irony?), but soccer is hugely popular in England and they do not use the Euro.
A tie has no place in sports.
Said Roger Goodell to Mike Nolan.
(Hopes someone gets this obscure NFL-related clothing reference)
It's like not finding out who is the "who" in whodunit.
Agreed. No one likes ties. Was this really worth writing about for 200 words though? This isn't worthy of the Frank Deford material I have read in print.
-David Whitley of The Sporting News seems to enjoy the NBA playoffs, but he knows what everyone really wants and he hopes we get it. You may think you want a Thunder-Heat NBA Final matchup or a Spurs-Heat NBA Final matchup, but you really want a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final. He can read our mind,. so that is how he knows this. In fact, he says we should PRAY that we get a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final matchup. Why you ask? Well, David is glad you asked.
If you want the best NBA Finals, your instincts should mimic Pierce’s. Drop to one knee and pray for Boston-LA.
Because nothing excites me more than seeing a Boston Celtics team that struggles putting up 85 points against a good defense go against a Lakers team that is clearly not playing at its peak either.
Romantic fools, maybe. You can even call us old farts for wanting to see Lakers-Celtics instead of Miami-Oklahoma City.
Who is "we?" Do you have a squirrel in your pocket or something? David Whitley uses "we" throughout this column as if he is using the plural form in the desperate hopes of fooling us into believing many, many people agree with him.
We have seen Lakers-Celtics play some really good series in the past, but I'm not sure these Lakers and Celtics team could provide us with any exciting games that would be enjoyed outside of Boston and Los Angeles. Sure, ESPN/ABC would hype the shit out of the series, but that doesn't make it a good series to watch. Quite the opposite in fact. If the series has to get hyped to increase interest, it may lack the substance to be a good series.
The Heat-Thunder is the trendy Finals pick, and it certainly has appeal.
Being that the Thunder are rolling right now and the Heat have two of the five best players in the NBA, I can see how this series would have a lot of appeal. In fact, this Heat-Thunder series would have three of the five best players in the NBA right now. It's not hard to get excited for this series. Even as a Celtics fan, I would have to work a bit to get excited to see the Lakers and Celtics play in the Finals.
For one thing, if LeBron James wins a title, we’d have nothing left to make fun of him with.
And apparently we (there goes that word again) want to make fun of him some more?
But the main reason we can wait for a Heat-Thunder Finals is we’re likely to get five of them in the next six years.
Wow. I didn't even know that. I wasn't aware we were going to get five Heat-Thunder Finals in the next six years. Why is this likely again? Because David Whitley claims it to be so?
Another thought...the Lakers and the Celtics became a great NBA Finals matchup in David Whitley's mind based on the matchups between these two teams in the NBA Finals from the past, right? Celtics-Lakers got their Finals history from having played each other in the Finals many times. So couldn't Thunder-Heat become the kind of dream matchup for the 2010's that Celtics-Lakers was in the 1980's? Especially if David Whitley believes these two teams could meet five times over the next six years. This series could be the next Celtics-Lakers Finals rivalry. Doesn't this sound exciting? I personally think so. So why cheer against it? A great NBA Finals rivalry has to start somewhere.
After this year, we’re not likely to see Boston-LA in Jack Nicholson’s lifetime. It’s an upset we’re even seeing them now considering the past few months.
Don't be a drama queen. The Celtics have a ton of cap room after this season and the Lakers are still the Lakers. Both teams can find a way to put quality teams on the floor after this season.
A couple of hours later at the Staples Center, Bryant’s scoring instincts produced 38 points and a 104-100 win over Denver. Since Kobe arrived in 1997, the Lakers have never lost a series they led 2-0.
They did come close to losing the Denver series after David Whitley wrote this column.
It would be like the Grateful Dead getting back together for a final concert.
Considering Jerry Garcia is dead, no thank you.
If you didn’t like the Grateful Dead, substitute Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Elvis and TCB Band.
Two of the Beatles are dead and Elvis got fat even in the 1970's. Not sure I'm interested.
These examples of bands David Whitley wants to see reunite only goes to help prove my ponit. What he fails to see is that things change. The 2012 Beatles aren't the 1968 Beatles. The 2012 Lakers are not the 2008 Lakers. The 2012 Celtics are not the 1987 Celtics. Simply because the Beatles are up on stage doesn't mean it would be a vintage 1966 performance. Things are different now. A Lakers-Celtics series (besides annoying 50% of NBA fans) wouldn't be a replay of even the 1987 NBA Finals. Circumstances have changed and nostalgia can't necessarily guarantee an exciting series.
The NBA Finals came of age when Magic threw down his baby sky hook and Kevin McHale threw down Kurt Rambis. To players like Durant, Russell and Chamberlain might as well be Lewis and Clark.
None of these players would be playing in the 2012 NBA Finals. How about Avery Bradley guarding Ramon Sessions? How about Steve Blake bouncing off the bench and taking on Keyon Dooling? Who can wait to see Devin Ebanks and Mickael Pietrus going head-to-head?
I realize none of the aforementioned gentlemen would be playing in this year’s Finals.
Do you realize this? I'm not sure David Whitley does realize this. He seems to pine for a series and epic matchup that may not exist anymore.
But it’d be nice to see the two greatest franchises in NBA history clash one more time.
And they will play again. Just hopefully not this year.
“Too old for this,” Pierce tweeted after Tuesday’s game. “I need a bed right now!!”
I can hardly contain the excitement running through my veins at the idea of an NBA Finals matchup where the winner is whichever team gets to 80 points first and both teams' best players are slightly banged up.
Just one more time, wouldn’t you like to see Nicholson’s sideline smirk and hear “Beat LA!”
“Beat Oklahoma City!” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
How about "Beat the Heat?" That sounds pretty good, no?
-A guy who writes for Bleacher Report says he knows the real reason the Kentucky-Indiana rivalry ended. Spoiler alert: The author says the rivalry ended because Kentucky is afraid of playing the same Indiana Hoosiers program that has two Final Four appearances since 1987. In a completely-and-utterly-related development, the author is a Indiana Hoosiers fan. Apparently making one Sweet 16 has given Hoosiers fans such confidence they now believe other teams, even those who have made two straight Final Fours and just won the national title, will be running scared from them. This is why Hoosiers fans can't have nice things.
The series is over due to Kentucky wanting a neutral court matchup every year in Indianapolis and Louisville.
The horror! A neutral court matchup! Has any other college basketball program ever been so bold as to ask for this? Why would the Kentucky-Indiana games be played on a neutral court? There's no historical precedence for this...other than the fact the Kentucky-Indiana series was played on a neutral court from 1991-2005. Nevermind there is a history of the series being played on a neutral court, playing on a neutral court in 2012 would ruin the series forever.
Last year’s game on December 10 in Bloomington wasn’t just one of the best games in this historic series, but it was one of the best college basketball games of all-time.
It was probably the greatest game in the history of basketball games. The greatest game in the history of sports. The author's opinion is in no way affected by the fact the Hoosiers won this game on a last second field goal and he is a Hoosiers fan.
That atmosphere was special.
And here I heard global warming, chlorofluorocarbons and ultraviolet rays were killing the atmosphere. Turns out this isn't true. John Calipari is the one killing the special atmosphere.
Think how pumped the students and fans that cheer on the Big Blue would have been to have Indiana coming to town with arguably the No. 1 team at that point.
(The English language and the God of Sentence Structure begins weeping violently)
You ever get the feeling Indiana Hoosiers fans are going to ride this projected preseason #1 thing hard? I am pretty sure this is all college basketball fans will hear about. Indiana is the preseason #1 team! That means they win the National Championship automatically, right?
You wouldn’t have that atmosphere if it were played in Louisville.
It would still be a ruckus environment, just a more evenly dispersed environment with fans of both teams being loud.
Coach Calipari has other motives, and I think he’s scared of what Indiana has become with everyone coming back to the team and the recruiting classes the Hoosiers have coming in.
Kentucky is coming off a national title and I'm pretty sure they aren't scared of Indiana's recruiting class since Kentucky's class is considered better than Indiana's class in every single class ranking by every single ranking system I looked up.
Maxpreps
Rivals
ESPN
Scout.com
But no, I'm sure Kentucky and John Calipari are scared of the recruiting class Indiana has which is universally considered to be inferior to Kentucky's recruiting class.
It’s hard for one-and-done’s to gel and beat a better all around “team” that early in the season.
Even though the one-and-done's Kentucky had for 2011-2012 only lost one time before March of this year...to Indiana. They'll never gel in time. Of course the author was just trumping how Kentucky is scared of Indiana's recruiting class. I'm guessing he believes these freshmen don't need time to gel because they aren't going to be one-and-done, but Kentucky's freshmen do need time to gel because they are one-and-done players? This makes not of sense. Not to mention, Kentucky isn't going to be a team made completely of one-and-done players next year. Jarrod Polson, Jon Hood, and Ryan Harrow should play a big role on the team too. Yes, they will be mostly freshmen led, but that doesn't mean Kentucky won't be much of a "team."
The one-and-dones don’t have the time to get used to playing with each other in that type of atmosphere and will lose 90 percent of the time.
Yes, they will lose 90% of the time. It's science. It's science based on the author talking out of his ass. Apparently the author doesn't realize college basketball teams practice and the Kentucky players will probably be used to playing with each other in December. In fact, last year's one-and-done Kentucky team beat an experienced (they started the exact same starting lineup as the year before) UNC team in December 2011. Of course, don't let actual proof this 90% number is bullshit change your mind, let's just stick with the number since it is so scientific. Not to mention, the UK-Indiana game would be in Kentucky, so the crowd would be on Kentucky's side.
Calipari isn’t dumb and knows that. He doesn’t want to lose and knows in this series he will be a loser way more than a winner with the type of players he recruits.
The type of player Calipari recruits being talented, NBA-ready, and able to win the National Title?
Kentucky had way better players as six of them are off to the NBA.
I need a comma and a complete sentence transplant now! STAT!
(The God of Sentence Structure strikes down Bleacher Report in a fit of rage)
They were too young and inexperienced to win in Bloomington in that atmosphere last season.
So naturally this means a team full of completely different Kentucky players will also fail to win in a tough atmosphere. Every single basketball team is the exact same every single year. Let's call a spade a spade. Indiana won on a last second buzzer beater. Let's take down the bragging and rhetoric about how young Kentucky was down a notch or two. It isn't like Indiana handed Kentucky their ass on a silver platter. Indiana played a great game at home and won at the last second. Kentucky later beat Indiana in the 2012 NCAA Tournament on a neutral court.
Once both teams met again in Atlanta in the Sweet 16, Kentucky’s team had more time to gel and look at the result.
I'm guessing our author, who is clearly a crack college basketball analyst, believes the Indiana team did not need time to gel to incorporate Cody Zeller into the offense last year, while the Kentucky team did need time to gel to incorporate each freshmen into the offense. Kentucky just didn't have time to gel. This clearly explains why Kentucky never lost before or after the December loss to Indiana until the SEC Championship Game and beat the #1 team in the nation (UNC) and an eventual Final Four team (Louisville) during that time.
Calipari is afraid of losing to Indiana over and over again and with the game coming so early in the season, he won’t play them and that’s why this series is over.
Nail, meet the hammer that will hit you on the head. John Calipari is scared of playing Indiana. This is why he scheduled a game to be played in Indiana this year and scheduled a home-and-home series with UNC over the past two seasons. John Calipari is very, very scared. That's why he didn't want to play Indiana in Kentucky, but wanted to play on a neutral floor. He didn't want to lose to Indiana again and fear his team receiving motivation from a loss, much like the 2011-2012 team received, which eventually led to a national title. John Calipari hates national titles.
Coach Calipari has put an black eye on every program he’s coached at with asterisks next their respective seasons,
Well, I knew a comment like that would be coming at some point. A fan of the Indiana Hoosiers program run by such a completely and utterly clean coach and with no recent history of NCAA violations definitely has room to talk on this issue.
and now he’s put a black eye on this rivalry and provided a big loss to college basketball.
Thanks a lot Coach Calipari. Now there are only 122 other NCAA college basketball games I am looking forward to next year.
This rivalry has been around for years and one guy just single-handedly ended it.
I know. It's not like this rivalry has a history of playing on a neutral floor. How dare Calipari want the UK-Indiana rivalry to be played on a neutral court...except from 1991-2005 when the UK-Indiana games were played on a neutral floor. I'm guessing the author thought the rivalry was ruined then as well.
-A guy who writes for Bleacher Report says he knows the real reason the Kentucky-Indiana rivalry ended. Spoiler alert: The author says the rivalry ended because Kentucky is afraid of playing the same Indiana Hoosiers program that has two Final Four appearances since 1987. In a completely-and-utterly-related development, the author is a Indiana Hoosiers fan. Apparently making one Sweet 16 has given Hoosiers fans such confidence they now believe other teams, even those who have made two straight Final Fours and just won the national title, will be running scared from them. This is why Hoosiers fans can't have nice things.
The series is over due to Kentucky wanting a neutral court matchup every year in Indianapolis and Louisville.
The horror! A neutral court matchup! Has any other college basketball program ever been so bold as to ask for this? Why would the Kentucky-Indiana games be played on a neutral court? There's no historical precedence for this...other than the fact the Kentucky-Indiana series was played on a neutral court from 1991-2005. Nevermind there is a history of the series being played on a neutral court, playing on a neutral court in 2012 would ruin the series forever.
Last year’s game on December 10 in Bloomington wasn’t just one of the best games in this historic series, but it was one of the best college basketball games of all-time.
It was probably the greatest game in the history of basketball games. The greatest game in the history of sports. The author's opinion is in no way affected by the fact the Hoosiers won this game on a last second field goal and he is a Hoosiers fan.
That atmosphere was special.
And here I heard global warming, chlorofluorocarbons and ultraviolet rays were killing the atmosphere. Turns out this isn't true. John Calipari is the one killing the special atmosphere.
Think how pumped the students and fans that cheer on the Big Blue would have been to have Indiana coming to town with arguably the No. 1 team at that point.
(The English language and the God of Sentence Structure begins weeping violently)
You ever get the feeling Indiana Hoosiers fans are going to ride this projected preseason #1 thing hard? I am pretty sure this is all college basketball fans will hear about. Indiana is the preseason #1 team! That means they win the National Championship automatically, right?
You wouldn’t have that atmosphere if it were played in Louisville.
It would still be a ruckus environment, just a more evenly dispersed environment with fans of both teams being loud.
Coach Calipari has other motives, and I think he’s scared of what Indiana has become with everyone coming back to the team and the recruiting classes the Hoosiers have coming in.
Kentucky is coming off a national title and I'm pretty sure they aren't scared of Indiana's recruiting class since Kentucky's class is considered better than Indiana's class in every single class ranking by every single ranking system I looked up.
Maxpreps
Rivals
ESPN
Scout.com
But no, I'm sure Kentucky and John Calipari are scared of the recruiting class Indiana has which is universally considered to be inferior to Kentucky's recruiting class.
It’s hard for one-and-done’s to gel and beat a better all around “team” that early in the season.
Even though the one-and-done's Kentucky had for 2011-2012 only lost one time before March of this year...to Indiana. They'll never gel in time. Of course the author was just trumping how Kentucky is scared of Indiana's recruiting class. I'm guessing he believes these freshmen don't need time to gel because they aren't going to be one-and-done, but Kentucky's freshmen do need time to gel because they are one-and-done players? This makes not of sense. Not to mention, Kentucky isn't going to be a team made completely of one-and-done players next year. Jarrod Polson, Jon Hood, and Ryan Harrow should play a big role on the team too. Yes, they will be mostly freshmen led, but that doesn't mean Kentucky won't be much of a "team."
The one-and-dones don’t have the time to get used to playing with each other in that type of atmosphere and will lose 90 percent of the time.
Yes, they will lose 90% of the time. It's science. It's science based on the author talking out of his ass. Apparently the author doesn't realize college basketball teams practice and the Kentucky players will probably be used to playing with each other in December. In fact, last year's one-and-done Kentucky team beat an experienced (they started the exact same starting lineup as the year before) UNC team in December 2011. Of course, don't let actual proof this 90% number is bullshit change your mind, let's just stick with the number since it is so scientific. Not to mention, the UK-Indiana game would be in Kentucky, so the crowd would be on Kentucky's side.
Calipari isn’t dumb and knows that. He doesn’t want to lose and knows in this series he will be a loser way more than a winner with the type of players he recruits.
The type of player Calipari recruits being talented, NBA-ready, and able to win the National Title?
Kentucky had way better players as six of them are off to the NBA.
I need a comma and a complete sentence transplant now! STAT!
(The God of Sentence Structure strikes down Bleacher Report in a fit of rage)
They were too young and inexperienced to win in Bloomington in that atmosphere last season.
So naturally this means a team full of completely different Kentucky players will also fail to win in a tough atmosphere. Every single basketball team is the exact same every single year. Let's call a spade a spade. Indiana won on a last second buzzer beater. Let's take down the bragging and rhetoric about how young Kentucky was down a notch or two. It isn't like Indiana handed Kentucky their ass on a silver platter. Indiana played a great game at home and won at the last second. Kentucky later beat Indiana in the 2012 NCAA Tournament on a neutral court.
Once both teams met again in Atlanta in the Sweet 16, Kentucky’s team had more time to gel and look at the result.
I'm guessing our author, who is clearly a crack college basketball analyst, believes the Indiana team did not need time to gel to incorporate Cody Zeller into the offense last year, while the Kentucky team did need time to gel to incorporate each freshmen into the offense. Kentucky just didn't have time to gel. This clearly explains why Kentucky never lost before or after the December loss to Indiana until the SEC Championship Game and beat the #1 team in the nation (UNC) and an eventual Final Four team (Louisville) during that time.
Calipari is afraid of losing to Indiana over and over again and with the game coming so early in the season, he won’t play them and that’s why this series is over.
Nail, meet the hammer that will hit you on the head. John Calipari is scared of playing Indiana. This is why he scheduled a game to be played in Indiana this year and scheduled a home-and-home series with UNC over the past two seasons. John Calipari is very, very scared. That's why he didn't want to play Indiana in Kentucky, but wanted to play on a neutral floor. He didn't want to lose to Indiana again and fear his team receiving motivation from a loss, much like the 2011-2012 team received, which eventually led to a national title. John Calipari hates national titles.
Coach Calipari has put an black eye on every program he’s coached at with asterisks next their respective seasons,
Well, I knew a comment like that would be coming at some point. A fan of the Indiana Hoosiers program run by such a completely and utterly clean coach and with no recent history of NCAA violations definitely has room to talk on this issue.
and now he’s put a black eye on this rivalry and provided a big loss to college basketball.
Thanks a lot Coach Calipari. Now there are only 122 other NCAA college basketball games I am looking forward to next year.
This rivalry has been around for years and one guy just single-handedly ended it.
I know. It's not like this rivalry has a history of playing on a neutral floor. How dare Calipari want the UK-Indiana rivalry to be played on a neutral court...except from 1991-2005 when the UK-Indiana games were played on a neutral floor. I'm guessing the author thought the rivalry was ruined then as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)