2 comments The NCAA Is Going Old School to Screw Over Student-Athletes Now

There was a time when freshmen were not eligible to play athletics the first year they were in college. This rule has changed, but now to combat the one-and-done rule that the NBA has forced on college basketball, there is some consideration to making freshmen ineligible again. I think this is a bad idea and is an example of further screwing over student-athletes who have no interest in being in college by basically forcing them to stay two years under the guise of "academic reasons." I am somewhat happy that the NCAA is thinking of ways to combat the one-and-done rule, but I don't think making freshmen ineligible to compete in athletics is the way to go about combating the rule. It just further puts student-athletes in the middle of the pissing contest between the NBA and the NCAA.

The item was No. 7 on a 10-point list for NCAA reform ideas that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors sent their Power Five colleagues last May.

7. Address the “one and done” phenomenon in men's basketball. If the National Basketball Association and its Players Association are unable to agree on raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.

Several conference commissioners say it's time to consider making freshmen -- or at least some of them -- ineligible, again, for the first time since the NCAA rule changed in 1972.

Really this is only a huge issue when it comes to college basketball. There are true freshmen who play football that this rule wouldn't affect because they can't leave after one year of eligibility anyway. This rule would be to combat the dumb one-and-done rule, which is a rule the NBA has imposed on the NCAA and the NCAA has been too stupid to figure out how to combat previously. Naturally, the NCAA's reaction is to further screw over the student-athletes. I don't really think this idea will be implemented any time soon, but it just goes to show how the NCAA and their conferences tend to think.

One-and-done players in men's basketball are the main reason some commissioners want this discussion to occur, and it's not clear whether freshman eligibility interest would decrease should NBA commissioner Adam Silver get his way by pushing the NBA's age limit from 19 to 20 years old.

Probably not, but it would be just like the NCAA to still make freshmen ineligible while the NBA now pushes the age limit to 20, thereby basically ensuring NBA-bound athletes would still only play one year at the college level.

“I've had conversations with several commissioners about (freshman ineligibility),” Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said. “We are pushing, and I think you will see much more serious conversations about it in the coming months and year.”

Yep, get bent.

There are many unanswered questions, of course. Would scholarships have to be added and increase costs?

Probably. There would need to more scholarships because a school has to field a full team, while also giving scholarships to freshmen who won't play.

Would all freshmen have to sit, or only those who do not reach an academic benchmark?

If not, the academic benchmark would quickly become a fraud where every freshmen is reaching the benchmark so that every freshmen can play. The chances for there to be even more academic fraud would increase.

Is the idea only to better prepare athletes academically or is it to also integrate them socially? Does freshman ineligibility even accomplish one or both of those goals?

Nope and nope. Student-athletes who just want to play in the NBA will still want to just play in the NBA, only for a longer span of time while attending college, and while either learning or not learning.

Others believe now is the time to consider it again given court cases that could allow players to be paid, Congressional scrutiny into college sports, and a unionization attempt to make Northwestern football players designated as employees. A new lawsuit against the NCAA and North Carolina attacks the heart of the NCAA's stated mission: Are enough high-profile college athletes truly being educated?

The one-and-done guys aren't being educated, but that's the current state of affairs. The problem is the NCAA is running a highly lucrative business and being judged on whether they are educating high-profile college athletes. It's a business that also wants to educate. Schools are educating college athletes, but also running a business with other college athletes. You can't force someone to be educated.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said there is “almost a uniform acknowledgment that there's kids in college that don't have any interest in an education and don't have the proper education to take advantage of an education.” Bowlsby said freshman ineligibility would have a “profoundly positive effect” on football and men's basketball by easing the transition from high school without the distractions of competition.

Oh yes, in fantasy land. In the real world, these athletes will still practice with the team and be prepared to play in games while going on trips with the team, just without actually being able to play with the team. If a freshman doesn't want to be educated then he will find something else to distract him other than the competition of college athletics. Making freshmen ineligible is doing a disservice to those student-athletes who want to play in the NBA, by keeping up the sham for an additional year and lengthening the absurd illusion that Jahlil Okafor is at Duke to prepare academically for a job in the real world. If I were offered a job after my freshmen year where I could make millions of dollars, I would have dropped school in a second. I went to school to earn millions of dollars (mission not accomplished...ever), so if I have the chance to earn millions of dollars then I can also go back to school at my leisure at a later time.

Swofford said. “We're in a period now where everybody is trying to get a hold of the student-athlete experience and a recommitment, if you will, to balance academics and athletics.”

Right, it's for the kids, not to combat the NBA's one-and-done rule? Got it. So why does item #7 on the 10-point list for NCAA reform not mention academics at all and simply uses the freshmen ineligibility tool as a way to combat the one-and-done rule? It's about academics in every way except actually being about academics.

But that academic redshirt year is based on the NCAA's minimum standards. Universities regularly admit athletes into school below their school's own academic standards. This often causes challenges for some athletes that struggle to stay afloat academically; they are sometimes put into majors that may not help them once they're done playing, and they can even become cases of academic fraud given the pressure to do what is necessary to keep players eligible.

Athletes struggling academically is a real issue. I won't deny that. The pressure to keep players academically eligible won't decrease or disappear simply because freshmen aren't eligible. These standards don't just go away after the first year of college. It's even possible an athlete coasts through his first year not caring if he's eligible academically since he isn't eligible athletically and then it's even harder for that athlete to stay afloat during sophomore year because he is even further behind at that point.

But that academic redshirt year is based on the NCAA's minimum standards. Universities regularly admit athletes into school below their school's own academic standards. This often causes challenges for some athletes that struggle to stay afloat academically; they are sometimes put into majors that may not help them once they're done playing, and they can even become cases of academic fraud given the pressure to do what is necessary to keep players eligible.

See, it's not about academics. It's about the one-and-done rule. I favor the two-and-through rule or just letting these guys go to the NBA after high school. Two-and-through is different from making freshmen ineligible in that at least the athlete is participating in sports and honing the craft he will eventually make a career out of. 99% of college basketball players are there for an education AND sports, while two-and-through with the option of not attending college doesn't speaks to the reality 1% are there just to play basketball long enough to get to the NBA. I think it should be straight to high school or two-and-through. The student-athlete gets to choose which path he takes.

On average, 10 true freshmen have entered the NBA Draft each year from 2010-14. A freshman has been the NBA's No. 1 pick for five-straight years. Freshmen make up 36 percent of the NBA lottery picks in that same time period.

The one-and-done rule is bleeding NCAA basketball dry. It's creating teams with elite players, but also results in a lack of continuity from year-to-year and dilutes the product in the long-term. I love Jahlil Okafor, but if he doesn't want to be in college then I see no reason he should be there.

Freshman ineligibility “would do a lot to restore credibility and integrity to college basketball,” said Scott,

It would not. It would allow assholes like Larry Scott to point to freshmen ineligibility as proof he really cares when in reality it's just a response to the NBA's one-and-done rule. It's the result of a pissing contest, not genuine concern about academics.

“It would demonstrate they're students first on those teams and they're in class and getting grades that would keep them eligible. The reality of one-and-done is it's not even one. It's like half or three-quarters (of a school year) and done.”

And of course one and three-quarters of a school year with one year of athletics is SO MUCH BETTER. Problem solved, now the NCAA can wash the blood of shady academic fraud off their hands because THEY TRULY CARE. See how they don't let freshmen play during their freshmen year? This means these student-athletes have time to focus solely on academics for one year and then ignore academics completely for the second year.

“Keeping freshmen ineligible helped the marginal high school recruit adapt to college academic and social life before becoming preoccupied with big-time varsity sports,” former NCAA executive director Walter Byers wrote in “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes,” his 1997 memoir about his 37 years leading the NCAA.

Right, but freshmen being ineligible will only go to hurt the elite recruit who has no need to be adapted to college life before going to play in the NBA. Marginal recruits are not going to leave after one year to play in the NBA, so the freshmen ineligibility rule won't help them. Again, it could hurt them in that during their second year of college when classes get more difficult they are forced to juggle sports and athletics, which isn't something they had to do freshmen year. That's where the academic fraud starts. College can be a hard transition. It's best time management and other life skills are learned immediately, as opposed to delayed one more year.

“More important, it was a significant deterrent to quick-fix athletics recruiting, the unbridled desire of coaches to reach out indiscriminately for high school seniors to fill depleted varsity positions immediately.”

And how would making freshmen ineligible have a positive effect? Coaches would then would use quick-fix recruiting to fill depleted varsity spots two years from now. For example, John Calipari would know he's about to lose some players to the NBA, so he recruits Karl Towns to replace Willie Cauley-Stein and Tyler Ulis to replace one of the Harrison twins. There is no difference in the recruiting method, simply a difference in how quick the fix ends up happening. Instead of there being a quick-fix for depleted varsity positions, there is a pipeline of fixes for depleted varsity positions. It's not better because the outcome (that player leaving to go to the NBA without a degree) doesn't change. It's just the quick-fixes like Towns and Ulis are on the bench for one season.

In the decades since the change, repealing freshman ineligibility has periodically popped up. Legendary North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith, who died this week,

I'm sure the NCAA would claim he died because freshmen were eligible to play basketball.

often said freshmen should be ineligible and have to prove themselves as a student first before they have the privilege of playing basketball.

I'm not going to bash Dean Smith, but he coached in a different time when playing basketball was more of a privilege. It's not as much now. It's now much more about the student-athlete making money for the NCAA and school. In a perfect world, an athlete would prove himself as a student first before playing a sport, but NCAA basketball is not a perfect world.

Coach K also didn't like the one-and-done rule and he has had to adapt to it under the realization that living in a fairy tale world where he keeps talented basketball players for 3-4 years isn't realistic anymore. 

“Every time (freshman ineligibility) comes up, it's fairly quickly dismissed,” Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said. “There needs to be a really strong rationale for it. Right now, you have some students that are coming to college -- in men's basketball in particular -- that have pro aspirations and want to move as quickly through the collegiate experience as possible. It might be an advantage that you don't have student-athletes on campus who don't really want to be student-athletes for their entire career.

I don't know if it is an advantage to have student-athletes on campus who don't want to student-athletes for their entire career. It's not simple to integrate one-and-done guys into a team with other talented players who are not going to be one-and-done. Roles change and are scaled back, which can affect how well a team performs. Plenty of good coaches have struggled with one-and-done, while teams that aren't as talented as other teams with one-and-done players (2010 Duke/Butler, 2011 UConn/Butler, 2014 UConn) have done well in the NCAA Tournament of late. In fact, go back through the list of teams who have won the NCAA Tournament. It's dominated by teams who have quality juniors and seniors playing key roles. Having one-and-done guys isn't a huge advantage to winning an NCAA title.

Atlantic 10 commissioner Bernadette McGlade estimated freshman ineligibility would add 25 percent in academic costs, adding “at some point I think there's a tipping point where there's just not enough dollars to go around.” If an entire freshman class -- or even just a handful of first-year players -- sat, coaches would inevitably want more scholarships in order to have the same number of available players on their squads for competition.

Exactly. What happens when 5-6 guys leave the team unexpectedly after a season and there are only 3 rising sophomores joining the team? That leaves the team depleted. When this happens now, it's a problem, but at least any recruited high school player making a late decision can play immediately during the next Fall semester.

“Another thing I don't think people mention enough: It's amazing the athletes do so much better academically when they're in a season,” McGlade said. “When you don't have this rigid schedule deadline, the mentality of an athlete is, ‘I've got all the time in the world.' I know many athletes and coaches and academic advisors, they sweat it out when their athletes are not in season.”

Very true as well. These student-athletes know they aren't playing during their freshmen year so some sort of apathy towards academics and hitting the ground running while in college can set in. It's the same way that high school students get "senioritis" because they know they are graduating and may not have to give their all during the end of their senior year due to already being in college.

“It sounds really good,” Steinbrecher said. “I don't think it addresses the academic issues people think it does. I think the literature and studies done show sitting as a freshman is not a predictor whether a person is successful academically by GPA or by graduation. Why are we making a group of kids ineligible for a year when for the vast majority of kids they're academically prepared to be there and to play?”

Notice earlier in this column how an average of 10 college athletes have been drafted in the NBA after their freshmen season. This freshmen ineligibility rule would be put into effect for 10-15 college athletes. That seems like killing a fly with a shotgun.

Freshmen ineligibility isn't as much of an issue in college football. It's an NBA-NCAA thing.

“Is there some academic standard you can hit that would earn you the right to play earlier?” Scott asked.

No. Absolutely not. If the NCAA wants academic fraud, then they would get a lot of academic fraud by allowing freshmen to hit an academic standard that allows them to play earlier. Every freshman this rule was enacted to "help" would hit the academic standard, thereby making it a useless rule, because if a student-athlete isn't leaving college after one year for the NBA anyway then the rule wouldn't serve it's intended effect.

Some get admitted into school barely able to read and stand two standard deviations below their university profile average for test scores and GPA, he said.

Is there really a belief this would stop happening if freshmen became ineligible to play sports? Really? Is the NCAA being that naive? Again, telling freshmen to sit out a year for academic reasons doesn't mean those freshmen will actually use that time to study and adapt to college. You can't force people to get an education they don't want.

The Drake Group proposes freshmen not compete for a year if they are admitted one standard deviation below the university academic profile average. Under the proposal, freshmen who sit would be limited to 10 hours of practice per week so they can be remediated academically.

This sounds good, but it also sounds like a good way for academic fraud to start at the high school level. I'm in favor of college student-athletes getting a great education, but the small percentage of students who are affected by the one-and-done rule are not there for an education, but to play in the NBA. I would love for every student-athlete to want a great education. Schools are going to want to put a revenue-earning product on the court and will do as much as possible between and outside the lines to make this happen.

The Kenneth Wainstein independent report showed more than 1,000 North Carolina athletes were pushed by academic counselors into a system of fraudulent, no-show classes that were used to keep players eligible. Students never had interaction with a faculty member in these African-American Studies classes and had grades assigned without considering the quality of work.

And so, back to the idea of freshmen being ineligible to play college sports. How would freshmen ineligibility prevent schools from creating fake classes that never meet and have no real instructor? It could still very well happen. In the case of UNC-CH, student-athletes were sophomores and juniors when they were pushed into these classes. This type of thing would still happen even if freshmen weren't eligible to play sports.

“It's not just the North Carolina situation,” Bowlsby said. “I think we've got to take a hard look at online classes and directed readings and independent study because they're just fraught with opportunity for abuses. You hate to not be able to do something for a student-athlete that others are entitled to do, but that might be what needs to happen.”

Okay. I'm failing to be made to understand how making a freshmen ineligible to play college sports will prevent these types of abuses. These are two separate issues and should be treated as such. College athletes need to be eligible to play sports, but this need doesn't stop after freshman year and athletes can still be steered towards no-show classes after freshman year.

“Time demands” is the buzz phrase that's going to be heavily discussed moving forward in college sports. Some leaders in college sports believe the NCAA's rule allowing 20 hours per week on athletics is broken, partly because of so many exemptions that don't count against the 20 hours.

For example, the rule doesn't count athletes' time spent traveling to competition or time getting medical treatment. Football games only count for three hours, not all of the time spent preparing for the game on a Friday and Saturday. In reality, NCAA studies have shown athletes spend more than 40 hours per week on their sport. Some players have said they have no time for jobs or summer internships.

Again, there is a mixing of issues happening here. Maybe the 20 hour rule is broken and doesn't work. Fine. How is making freshmen ineligible to play sports going to fix this?

“I think you'd be amazed at how the honor system or instinct level balances everything out,” McGlade said. “Some athletes will train whether or not they have coaches around. I think everybody is becoming much more in tune about overuse injuries as it is.”

Sure, and overuse injuries won't stop because freshmen will be treated like transfers and have to sit out a year. This particular solution doesn't fix the problem at hand. It's just a way to piss off the NBA. The NCAA basically states that in point #7, because they don't once mention academics as the reason for the change to making freshmen ineligible to participate in sports.

“The problem is the average fan simply doesn't care,” Gurney said. “They just want to be entertained and feel good about their school and keep the pretense what they're seeing out there is real students. That's nonsense.

I am under no pretense. I know they aren't real students on the basketball court. Thanks for underestimating the public though. I care about athletes getting an education, but I don't think forcing college basketball players to stay in school for two years and not even allowing them to play freshmen year is the fix. It is a way to stick it to the NBA.

That's not to say many athletes can't get a good education. Most athletes can get that. The problem with college sports is not with the women's lacrosse team or women's tennis team. The problem is football and men's basketball, and we have to come to terms with that.”

And freshmen ineligibility isn't as much of an issue with college football, because true freshmen won't be going to the NFL after one season of college football. So the reason for the proposed freshmen ineligibility rule is to prevent 10-15 student-athletes from pursuing the NBA, while using the guise of trying to provide a better education. 

4 comments Bill Simmons Attempts to Get All Sentimental about the Oklahoma City Thunder

Bill Simmons thinks, maybe/perhaps/possibly, Oklahoma City Thunder's championship window is closing. He writes a column about this belief where he uses the word "we" 29 times. Yes, he has written a column about how HE thinks the Thunder's championship window is closing and uses "we" that often. So basically Bill believes that he speaks for everyone and his opinion is our opinion. If the Thunder's championship window does close, Bill will link this column for us, but if the Thunder's championship window doesn't close then "we" were so wrong! That's how it works for Bill. He's right, "we" are wrong. Anyway, here is a shot at analysis (not really) and sentiment in one column. It's not even really about the Thunder's championship window, but is a thinly veiled excuse to talk about the Westbrook/Durant dynamic.

There’s a poignant moment in Jonathan Abrams’s oral history about the 2002 Kings, 

It's the first sentence of the column and Bill is already pimping out a Grantland feature. Granted, a good Grantland feature, but it's the first sentence and he's already using his supposedly-weekly column to push other Grantland features. Bill is quickly becoming the NASCAR driver of writing. His columns feature links to other columns (hence the sponsors in NASCAR) on ESPN or Grantland.

That moment resonated for a simple reason: That WAS their shot. And that WAS it.

The boss wasn’t describing a “shot” as much as a window. If you’re blessed with Michael and Scottie in their mid-twenties, that window should last for a decade, as long as nothing funky happens.

You mean like Michael Jordan retiring for two seasons because his father was killed over his gambling debts or does Bill mean like how the Kings would have made the NBA Finals if it weren't for the lone wolf official (and there were no more, not at all...and I don't believe that at all) who was gambling on NBA games who screwed the Kings over in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals? Funny how both the Kings and Bulls windows closed during a period where there were rumors of a conspiracy involving David Stern and his attempts to keep the integrity of the NBA together. I don't miss David Stern.

If you’re teaming up Pierce and Garnett and Allen at the tail end of their primes, you’re publicly hoping for five healthy years and secretly praying for three.

Come on, it's the Boston Sports Guy. Like he wasn't going to mention the Celtics as early as possible in this column. Bill only mentions the Celtics two more times in this column, which is quite the achievement for him. The article is about the Thunder, but it's no secret Bill shoves some Celtics talk down the throats of his readers whenever possible.

Every A-list contender has a built-in window, and almost always, you know what it is. When that window slams shut well before you’re ready, you never really get over it.

Fine, but how do we know a team is an A-list contender? The Bulls were second-fiddle to the Pistons until 1991. The Kings never really were an A-list contender because the Lakers were in their way, right? They never made an NBA Finals and even the Lakers had to share a few titles with the Spurs during Kobe and Shaq's prime.

Will we remember Oklahoma City that way someday? We know that it’s Kevin Durant’s seventh season and his sixth with Russell Westbrook. We know they’re playing for a small-market franchise that actively avoids the luxury tax. We know Durant’s contract expires in 2016, and Westbrook’s deal expires one year later.

We, we, we, we. I don't give care if Bill is reciting facts here, the repeated use of "we" in four sentences would make an English teacher cry or give up out of frustration.

We know Westbrook endured three knee surgeries in the past 12 months. We know that bad luck comes in all shapes and sizes. We know the West is loaded, and we know LeBron is never going away. We know they easily could have blown the Memphis series, and we know the bumbling officials saved their season Tuesday night.

We overrate youth and potential with sports, movies, TV, music, art and even politics — it’s more enjoyable to imagine what something might become. We envision the Thunder overpowering LeBron’s Heat in Durant’s MVP season because that’s the age-old NBA formula, right? 

Bill begins 10 straight sentences with the word "we." 10 straight sentences. I'm not the best writer in the world at all and my sentence structure isn't very good, but Bill has to do better than this. The use of "we" in 10 straight sentences is ridiculously bad writing.

A few thoughts about these "we" sentences:

1. LeBron is going away. Not anytime soon, but he will go away at some point. His window does coincide with the Thunder's window, though I feel like it will be running out in a season or two with Wade getting older.

2. The Lakers had their 2001-2002 season saved by the officials too. This wasn't a sign their dynasty was done, it was just a sign the officials wanted them to win Game 6 to force a Game 7.

3. "We" don't overrate sports, movies, TV, music, art and politics. Bill Simmons overrates sports, movies, TV and music. He has built an entire career on overrating these subjects and tying them into his sports columns. I don't want to hear about how "we" overrate these things. Bill has used them as a writing crutch for 15 years and tied together any sports event with movies, TV or music. Bill needs to find a mirror so he can see who is the one that really overrates these things. As usual, he's happy to take the success caused by tying these subjects to sports, but when it's a bad thing "we" are the ones who overrated these subjects.

Just like we overrate youth and potential, we underrate injury luck, unfortunate breaks, untimely trades, the Disease of More, greed and egos, poor coaching and plain old bad luck.

Stop saying "we"! YOU write these columns. "We" don't write weekly columns for ESPN/Grantland or any other national sports publication/site. Simply because you overrate youth and potential doesn't mean everyone else does also.

The Thunder could definitely topple San Antonio and Miami next month, but they’re just as likely to not win a single title with Durant and Westbrook.

The Thunder may or may not win the NBA Title this year. Step back people, this is expert analysis occurring. This is how Bill got a prime job on "NBA Countdown," by making bold statements like this.

On paper, OKC should evolve into this generation’s version of the 1990s Bulls: Durant as Jordan, Westbrook as Pippen, and Ibaka as Grant/Rodman. It’s a star-driven league with the least amount of playoff variance in any professional sport. When you have a top-two player, a top-eight player and a top-25 player on one team, you should definitely win a ring.

I really feel like arguing Ibaka as a top-25 player but I have bigger fish to fry right now. Or as Bill would say, "We thought Ibaka was a top-25 player but it turns out we were wrong."

Unfortunately, you never know when “The Rains of Castamere” will start playing.

Hey everyone, it's a relevant pop culture reference squeezed awkwardly into the column!

A similar window opened after Game 7 of the 1962 Finals, when the Lakers came within Frank Selvy’s errant 15-footer of upending Bill Russell’s budding dynasty. That Lakers team employed 27-year-old Elgin Baylor and 23-year-old Jerry West, two of the league’s best five players. (Sound familiar?)

No, it doesn't because Westbrook is not one of the NBA's five best players.

Fifteen years later, Bill Walton’s precocious Blazers

These professional athletes displayed traits that belied their years. Sure, they were grown-up adults but trying to win an NBA title is just so child-like. Thanks Peter King.

toppled Philly for the 1977 title, then took a 40-8 record into the ensuing All-Star break looking like Russell’s Celtics reincarnated.

Bill isn't really even comparing apples-to-apples here. Jerry West did win an NBA Title with the Lakers and the Trail Blazers won an NBA Title with the team Bill is referencing here. The idea of this column is the Thunder's championship window may be closed without them winning a title and Bill is giving examples, but so far he's given examples of players/teams who did win a title with the team whose championship window supposedly closed. Now if Bill's contention is the Thunder may not be a dynasty, that's entirely possible, but considering the discussion is about championship windows then any team/player who has won an NBA Title with the team Bill is referencing would not be a good example.

Every generation has its version of the ’62 Lakers and ’77 Blazers, contenders that fooled us into thinking their window would last longer than it did.

I can buy this but the Thunder may not even win one NBA Title according to Bill Simmons. Their window is being eaten up by the existence of the Miami Heat. The 1977 Blazers had won one NBA Title, so there is a difference when using them as an example. Also, I wasn't fooled into thinking these team's window would last longer than it did because I wasn't alive when these teams were alive. When I don't exist as a human in the world, I can't have an opinion on a team's championship window. Don't "us" me.

An alpha-dog battle submarined the Shaq-Penny dynasty in Orlando and, later, a possible seven-title run for Shaq and Kobe in Los Angeles. Derrick Rose, C-Webb and James Silas suffered untimely knee injuries that ruined legitimate title windows for the Bulls, Kings and Spurs. Steve Nash’s critically acclaimed Suns teams kept falling short in increasingly unfair ways.

Basically what Bill is getting at is that luck plays a part in whether a team wins multiple championships. He can dress it up all he wants to over-complicate the situation, but this obvious-type statement is what he's getting at. This isn't a new perspective Bill is offering, even though he's trying to make it new by looking at it from the perspective of the Thunder, which is weird since this column is 20% complete already and he hasn't really discussed them much.

Four unstoppable-at-the-time duos — Hakeem and Ralph, Penny and Shaq, GP and Kemp, and Malone and Stockton — somehow finished with a combined 8-20 Finals record. Can we really say, with any certainty whatsoever, that “Those guys are gonna be chasing championships and competing for years to come”?

I would argue that Payton and Kemp, as well as Malone and Stockton were not considered an unstoppable-at-the-time duo due to the existence of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. They were the unstoppable team. But Bill is going to twist facts/opinions the way he wants them to go to fit his needs.

And "we" aren't saying the Thunder will chase championships for years to come.

You’re more likely to bemoan the opportunities that slipped away. 

Oh I am more likely to bemoan the opportunities that slipped away? I didn't know that about myself. Thanks for telling me about myself because you don't know me and all. 

My father and I talk about the Celtics blowing the 2010 title waaaaaaaay more than we talk about the Celtics winning in 2008. 

That's probably because you both traffic in misery rather than celebrate the successes of your teams. Bill really, really, really wants to be a tortured fan. It's pretty much his dream to be tortured by his favorite teams.

How does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense based on who Bill is and how he made his living as a writer. Bill made his living whining about how tortured and cursed his favorite teams are. In fact, he still does this, except he has expanded it to include fans of other professional sports teams emailing him to whine about how tortured their favorite team is. I would say Bill has expanded his horizons, but he really just found a new group to share his misery with.

Then Bill whines about Game 7 of the NBA Finals because life is unfair and he prefers to act like a child and stomp his feet when his teams don't succeed. Not that Bill acts like a child when he doesn't get what he wants. Not that there is a "Rolling Stone" feature on Bill that somewhat proves this to be true.

We thought we were in the minority … until Doc Rivers told me about eating dinner with former assistant Tom Thibodeau last summer. For whatever reason, they spent an hour talking about Game 7...They just sat there eating and drinking and making each other miserable. Only later did Doc realize that the 2008 Finals never came up.

And because Doc Rivers (who was the coach of the Celtics, so it makes sense why he would rehash everything) and Bill Simmons talk more about failures rather than the successes this means "we" must do it also. Obviously.

By the way, remember this column is about the Oklahoma City Thunder? It's easy to forget with Bill's rambling form of writing.

When should you start feeling real anxiety over something as simple as “We might have Durant and Westbrook for their entire careers … how could we NOT win a couple of titles?”

LeBron didn't win a title until he was 27 years old. Durant and Westbrook are both 25 years old. Let's take it easy about them not winning a title during their careers.

When Durant’s beautiful MVP speech seemingly inspired their best basketball in Game 2 and Game 3, as well as the first three quarters of Game 4, that seemed like something of a “Voilà!” moment...And then the last quarter happened. If you want to watch OKC at its worst, just watch the last nine minutes of Game 4: one-on-one offense, overdribbling, wrong lineups, bad strategy, no composure, no crunch-time savviness and 27-foot heaves.

You know Bill was sitting at this game (because it was against the Clippers and Bill has season tickets to Clippers games and knows Jimmy Kimmel...you need Kimmel's phone number, because Bill has it right here) thinking, "I have to write a column about this."

That unsettled malaise carried over to the first 47 minutes of Game 5, with their defense floundering and Durant inexplicably turning into a right-handed Josh Smith. Everything flipped again in the last 50 seconds, thanks to Durant’s monster 3, two utterly ridiculous calls, three egregious Chris Paul mistakes, and Westbrook draining three of the ballsiest free throws I can remember.

Bill looks at it as the Thunder not playing well, while I look at it as an example of a good team winning a game they shouldn't have won...which is something good teams do, right?

I left that game thinking two things …

1. Why am I out of column ideas?

2. Can I squeeze a column idea out of the Thunder's championship window closing? 

How can anyone believe in this Thunder team?
 
And how can anyone NOT believe in this Thunder team?

It’s a great question. And it’s a great question.

Bill thinks he asks himself some great questions. No, he asks fantastic questions of himself that only he has the intelligence to appropriately answer. Bill thinks that Bill Simmons has a beautiful, inquisitive mind.

We always hear about the “journey” with NBA champions. Wilt couldn’t get past Russell until 1967, when he regrouped and unleashed the best Russell imitation that’s ever been done. West couldn’t shed that “Greatest Player Who Never Won” label until the magical ’72 season.

Jerry West didn't win a title until he was 34 years old. This is important to remember when Bill is writing a column about how two 25 year olds have their championship windows closing.

Julius never climbed the mountain in Philly until a man named Moses showed up.

We see what you did there, Bill!

Jordan didn’t become an NBA champ until Scottie matured into a top-five player. Shaq and Kobe kept belly flopping until their unforgettable Game 7 comeback against the 2000 Blazers. The Heat kept caving in 2011 and 2012 until Game 6 against Boston, when LeBron finally said, “Out of my way, this is MY team.”

So basically there is still time for the Thunder to win an NBA Title. Great, fantastic. "We" knew this.

With their best four players younger than 25, they seemed like the safest bet for a multi-title dynasty since the 1995 Magic.

Incorrect. Either the Shaq-Kobe Lakers were the best best for a multi-title dynasty or the Spurs "Big 3" of Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were the other best bet. I like how Bill uses the example of the 1995 Magic, as a direct comparison to the current Thunder which would lead to the assumed conclusion that the Thunder won't win a title either.

If Durant and Westbrook never win Oklahoma City a title, the Harden trade will forever be the first reason mentioned.

The Thunder EASILY could have afforded Durant, Ibaka, Westbrook and Harden these next two seasons. Right now, they have Steven Adams and the 21st pick of next month’s draft to show for a first-team All-NBA guard. Can you ever recover from that?

Me? Can I recover from that? Yes, I can recover from it because I'm not a Thunder fan. But no, it's hard for a team to recover from trading away a young player like Harden, though the Thunder have won 59 and 60 games in the two seasons since Harden left. The Thunder lost to the Grizzlies last year in the Western Conference Semifinals, but that was after losing Russell Westbrook for the series. This is a big reason why the Thunder didn't advance further in the playoffs last year. This year the Thunder have made the Western Conference Finals. So they seem to be recovering fairly well.

After Westbrook’s untimely knee injury ruined their 2013 playoff chances, you could hear the Thunder’s window creaking for the first time.

I could? And here I thought that was just the wind.

KD threw up a 34-7-6 every night with 51-38-87% shooting splits. Even better, he started carrying himself like a Liam Neeson character — unfriendly, cold-blooded, blessed with a specific set of skills unique to him and only him.

Boy, this reference feels really forced.

As for Westbrook, it took 11 months and three surgeries before he finally looked like Force Of Nature Westbrook again. He’ll always be polarizing — the point guard who shoots 20-plus times a game, the creator who creates mostly for himself, the leader who rarely makes teammates better, the ultimate 90/10 guy,

"90/10" will not become a "thing" Bill. I will not allow it to happen.

I was fortunate enough to watch Jordan and Pippen in person during their collective apex, when they were ripping through overmatched teams like varsity studs whupping on the JV. 

Bill watched Pippen and Jordan. "We" didn't watch Pippen and Jordan, but Bill watched them. Not like "we" watched them, but he WATCHED them in the mid-90's when they were unstoppable. On the other hand "we" were wrong that the Shaq-Penny combination wouldn't lead to multiple titles. See how that works? "We" were wrong about the Magic in the mid-90's, but Bill watched the Bulls tear up the NBA in the mid-90's.

That doesn’t stop the general public from picking them apart. Following the NBA has become a 24/7 thing thanks to social media, YouTube, Instagram and everything else; we never leave these guys alone. They’re constantly accessible.

Oh yeah, it's the general public's fault for sure. The general public is always on pregame shows, debate shows and talk radio bashing Westbrook or giving hot sports takes in small soundbites about Westbrook and Durant that gets published nationally. That's always what the general public is doing, because the general public and not behemoth sports organizations like ESPN set out the talking points for athletes like Durant and Westbrook. Blame the people because it sure as hell ain't the fault of Bill's employer.

I hate how the general public are such monsters don't you? The same general public that has elevated Bill to what he is and gives him the traffic at Grantland that makes him so much money. The same general public that Bill looks down on with such disdain high upon his pedestal as he talks on an NBA pregame show handing out soundbites and hot takes all while blaming the general public for what's coming out of his mouth. If there was ever any doubt Bill has cognitive dissonance on how he became what he is today and how he was at one point similar to the blogs and the public he has such a distaste for that "Rolling Stone" feature removed all of that doubt.

Shaq and Kobe never would have survived life together in 2014 — they would have imploded well before that third title. Scottie Pippen never would have survived the Migraine Game in 1990 or the Self-Benching in 1994; he would have been skewered and reskewered and rereskewered, 

So who would have skewered and reskewered Pippen again? Is it the general public or is it the 24/7 coverage and hot takes handed out by the brainless trolls at ESPN, when Pippen's migraine situation would end up being discussed on all of ESPN's daily news/opinion shows and every "SportsCenter" at length? I think I know the answer to this long question, but does Bill? He needs to be more self-aware.

That’s why there wasn’t a snippier, angrier, more hostile contender than OKC during the regular season. They hated hearing about Harden, hated falling short, hated the Westbrook microscope, hated the constant scrutiny. Everything about them oozed the words “Leave us alone, let us play basketball.”

Who should leave them alone? The general public or Skip Bayless? Does Bill think that Westbrook and Durant hear the criticism from the public or the criticism from the talking heads at ESPN more? Again, I know the answer and I'm not surprised that Bill doesn't.

When Jackson saved Game 4 in Memphis, Durant and Westbrook bear-hugged him for unusually long times. You could feel the relief pouring out of them. This wasn’t just about escaping a threatening playoff moment. It was bigger than that.

And I didn’t totally understand until Durant’s incredible MVP speech, which was simply one of the greatest off-the-floor moments in NBA history.

It was a really good speech. The inability for Bill to understand the criticism of Durant and Westbrook is partly (mostly?) coming from his fellow co-workers at ESPN is baffling to me. I get that he can't just call out Skip Bayless or other ESPN employees, but the mention of "the general public picking them apart" is infuriating to me.

To me, it shows his dislike for the public and those people who have made him the person he is. He's Bill Simmons, fuck you, he's not like the general public and apparently thinks the general public don't take their cues from ESPN at all...despite ESPN being the most popular sports/entertainment organization around. ESPN creates stories out of soundbites by their employees and then runs the story through the ESPN vacuum to get as much mileage out of the story as possible. "Colin Kaepernick could be the best QB ever," "LeBron/Durant aren't clutch," or "I see bust written all over Johnny Manziel," there's no story created by ESPN that ESPN won't beat into the ground. I just take offense to the idea the general public are the ones who are picking Durant/Westbrook apart. That talks from the public is just noise to those guys, but they pay attention when their name is on "SportsCenter" because Skip Bayless is crying for attention again. Durant/Westbrook aren't bothered by guys they don't know giving an opinion on their performance, but when they see themselves being discussed on the national stage in a negative way, these are the types of comments that gets their attention.

He remembered every obstacle he overcame, every moment that mattered, everyone who helped him along the way. He didn’t read from anything. It was unclear how much he even prepared.

"We" were shocked that Durant didn't seem prepared.

Bill won't mention this moment because he's too busy talking about Westbrook/Durant, but the best moment was that one shared between Durant and Butler. Butler hasn't been on the Thunder team long but it's clear he has made an impact on Durant by leaving a note in his locker (yeah, it does sound juvenile) calling him the MVP. It was obvious it all meant something to Durant.

But enough about that, Bill wants to pick apart the Westbrook/Durant dynamic that the general public likes to pick apart so much. Bill is only writing about this dynamic because the general public, not the media, likes to pick this relationship apart.

I mean, can you even compare it to anything? Could even the great Bill Russell have pulled this off?

Bill is essentially a parody of himself at this point. "Could even the great Bill Russell have pulled this off?" I don't remember when Bill Russell became the go-to reference for good speeches, but he was a Celtic and that's all that matters to Bill.

“I know you guys think I forgot Russ,” he joked as everyone laughed nervously. “I could speak all night about Russell. An emotional guy who would run through a wall for me. I don’t take it for granted. There’s days where I just want to tackle you and tell you to snap out of it sometimes. I know there’s days you want to do the same thing with me. I love you, man. I love you.”

Stop there.

You are the one writing the column. You can stop at any point you want.

No way Jordan would ever describe Pippen that way. No way LeBron describes Wade that way. No way Kobe describes ANYONE that way. Durant’s best quality was always Duncan’s best quality — he doesn’t care how his team wins, just that they do. He’s one of the best teammates ever. And just with those eight sentences, he squashed even the most remote possibility of an Avon-Stringer ending.

Well, that's it then. The Thunder's championship window isn't closed and they still have time to win championships. I mean, isn't that what this column is about? Or was about? More importantly, remember how Bill talks about those who pick apart the Westbrook/Durant relationship? What's Bill doing now? The exact same thing. As we learned in the "Rolling Stone" article Bill has rules for others that don't apply to him. He's tired of the general public picking them apart, but it's fine for him to do so.

So much for trading Russell Westbrook.

Bill has now decreed it...RUSSELL WESTBROOK WILL NEVER BE TRADED! WHO SAYS "NO" TO THIS?

I have been following sports for something like 40 years — I can’t remember a teammate sticking up for another teammate better than that. Not ever.

NEVER! EVER! Not even the great Bill Russell could have stuck up for a teammate like this.

Terrell Owens crying about Romo being his quarterback was him sort of sticking up for a teammate. I'm sure there are other examples of a player sticking up for his teammate, but it's pointless for me to try to remember them because Durant just did it better than any other player ever.

Kevin Durant flipped the script on the “journey,” just like that, in less than 50 seconds. Either KD sticks around like Duncan stuck around in San Antonio, or he’s a greater actor than Daniel Day-Lewis. I’m betting on the former. You can’t fake that stuff. You just can’t.

Right, because athletes haven't said things they later take back or have sworn dedication to a team/teammate publicly and then reneged on this dedication later. If Westbrook decides he's not sticking around when he hits free agency, then maybe Durant decides he'll test free agency. There's still a lot of time. And wasn't this column supposed to be about the Thunder's championship window and whether it was closing or not?

And you know what else? Even if they drive us bonkers sometimes, 

Yes, "us" are driven crazy by Durant and Westbrook. "Us" are.

Would LeBron have ever dumped Cleveland if he had Westbrook there?

Bill is tapping into his inner Skip Bayless. This is what being a talking head on television does to a person.

And why would Durant leave OKC when he has Westbrook there?

But he may not always have Westbrook there. Therein lies the rub. Westbrook didn't seem all that touched by Durant's comments and he doesn't have a lifetime contract with the Thunder. Westbrook can become a free agent after Durant can. If he thinks Westbrook isn't staying, why would Durant stay?

It’s the rarest of basketball partnerships — two alpha dogs coexisting and complementing each other (for the most part, anyway), with their friendship transcending every conceivable landmine. Why would you break THAT up? Keep that window pried open, baby. For as long as you can.

So what if this is the Thunder's last shot? That was the question in the title and it remains unanswered, though Bill did a great job of rambling around for a few hundred words until he could lazily talk about the Westbrook/Durant relationship, which has been done a thousand times before (mostly by the general public of course).

So was last night’s remarkable comeback something of a watershed moment for the Durant-Westbrook “journey”? Can they extend their window for 10 years, or 12, or maybe even 15?

15 years seems a bit much. Simmer down a little.

Or will some Thunder employee be wondering What if that was it? What if that was our shot? next month and end up looking like Nostradamus? I don’t know, I don’t know, and I don’t know.

Glad you wrote this column then. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, EXCEPT NO ONE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AS MUCH AS THE GREAT BILL RUSSELL KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING. 

Just remember to keep enjoying the ride. Even when it’s a roller coaster.

If Bill doesn't want to write columns anymore, I just wish he would stop. It's clear his heart isn't in it anymore. I'm assuming Bill still has a heart and didn't leave it in Boston as he headed out to California to become a talking head and hopefully a pop culture celebrity. 

14 comments Bill Simmons Gives Up, Is Just Going to Publish Mailbags From Now On

Well, it had to happen. After a steady stream of NFL mailbags and a few weeks off during the Winter where Bill didn't write anything, Bill is now going to publish weekly mailbags about the NBA. So on one hand, it's depressing he can't churn out any columns more creative than a mailbag, but on the other hand, Bill is writing a weekly NBA mailbag. Now all I have to do is figure out for a way to get ESPN to hire Joe Morgan back and allow him to do weekly chats and all will be well in the world again. So this is the first (or Volume 1) of the NBA Mailbags, or as I will better know them, "Fuck It, I Give Up on Writing Original Material So Here's a Mailbag: Volume 1." This feels exciting (a guaranteed weekly Bill Simmons mailbag!) and a little sad (Bill is writing mailbags and his writing of columns is sure to drop off a cliff, sort of like a band going on tour but featuring only their hit songs without a new album) at the same time.

Q: Diehard T-Wolves fan here.

Again, if you have to say it, then there is a good chance you are insecure about it. Why be insecure about it if there isn't a reason to be? Of course, who would claim to be a diehard T-Wolves fan that is not a diehard T-Wolves fan?

Since everyone claims Love is leaving after next year, I am trying to come up with a trade that makes sense. Love for Thibs, Noah, Butler and a pick, who says no?
—Paul, San Francisco

I say "no" because you are being pathetic and using Bill's "Who says 'no'?" phrase in an effort to get into Bill's mailbag. Naturally it worked.

SG: Anyway, here’s the best case for keeping Love: We just watched what happened in Portland, when Unhappy LaMarcus Aldridge turned into Happy LaMarcus Aldridge as soon as the Blazers started winning.

(How appropriate is it that Bill's initials are "B.S."?)

So all the Timberwolves have to do is start winning game and Kevin Love will be happy! Why didn't they think about this before? It's so easy to do.

I think they have to trade him. Only four trades make sense.

ONLY four trades make sense and they just happen to all be trades that Bill Simmons has thought of. Imagine that. These are the only trades that make sense. Every other trade idea is shit.

Any Love trade should happen before June’s draft — one year before Love can opt out of his contract — and it can’t happen without his wink-wink consent.

I don't think there is any winking about it. Love isn't going to want to go to a team that isn't going to re-sign him and it doesn't seem like there is a team that would trade for him without some sort of promise he would seriously consider re-signing with that team. Also, this may come as a shock to you so just hold on tight, but Boston is one of the teams Bill suggests makes sense as a destination for Love. I know. I hope you didn't fall out of your chair out of shock at this turn of events.

Location No. 1: Phoenix
I gotta admit, the thought of Love playing run-and-gun in Jeff Hornacek’s entertaining offense with Dragic and Bledsoe is downright titillating. But this would be the ultimate quarters-and-dimes-for-a-two-dollar-bill trade:

THIS TRADE MAKES NO SENSE BUT IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE WHICH IS WHY BILL INCLUDED IT!

(By the way, these four trades that make sense are all a cover for the fourth trade that Bill thinks makes the most sense, which just happens to be the trade where the Celtics trade for Love. He would be called a homer if he just included that trade as his only suggestion, so Bill mixes in three other trades that he admits don't make sense to throw his readers off, but I'm on to him)

something like Alex Len (last year’s no. 5 pick), three 2014 first-rounders (from Indy, Washington and Phoenix, all top-12 protected at least) and a protected Minnesota first-rounder that Phoenix already owns (thanks, David Kahn!) for Love and J.J. Barea’s Expiring-in-2015 Contract. That’s about 60 cents on the dollar since there’s no lottery pick in the deal other than Len … and he might be the Ukrainian Meyers Leonard for all we know.

Oh no, Alex Len is probably going to find a way to be worse than Meyers Leonard. He's terrible and that's saying a lot considering Meyers Leonard is terrible too. For the record, I didn't like either of these draft picks. I have this thing against drafting tall guys on potential when those tall guys haven't shown much of this potential yet. I was very wrong about Andre Drummond, but in my defense, my issues with Drummond were more motivation-related than anything. He didn't seem to care at UConn.

I am lukecold. Odds of this happening: 12-to-1.

In summary, Bill is lukecold on his own trade idea that he claims makes sense. Bill's sense of logic is a roller coaster ride.

Location No. 2: Los Angeles
Love went to UCLA, dates an actress, lives here during the summers, the whole thing.

If you recall, Bill used similar reasoning as to why Dwight Howard should and would re-sign with the Lakers. Once he gets a taste of the Los Angeles life he wouldn't go back...then Howard signed with Houston once he became a free agent.

Only one scenario works: a three-teamer in which Memphis gets Pau Gasol (sign-and-trade to reunite the Gasol hermanos), Minnesota gets Zach Randolph (expires in 2015) and L.A.’s unprotected lottery picks in 2014 and 2017, and the Lakers get Love. That’s 80 cents on the dollar, especially if that Lakers pick falls in the 3-to-5 range.

I know Bill hates the Lakers, but that 2017 pick isn't going to be in the lottery if they trade for Kevin Love. The Lakers are good at acquiring superstars, so the Timberwolves would receive Zach Randolph (who, by the way, is the type of player who could shut down if he is in an unfavorable situation), a lottery pick, and a pick that I would presume would be in the 20's. That's not 80 cents on the dollar in my opinion. But what do I know, Bill is proposing another trade that "make sense" which he doesn't think will happen.

Problem No. 1: It’s too hard to pull off three-teamers.

Yet Bill thought the Clippers should have pulled off a three-teamer to acquire Spencer Hawes at the trade deadline this year. It's too hard to pull of a three-teamer in Bill's opinion, but that was his suggestion for the Clippers to acquire Spencer Hawes just a few weeks ago.

Problem No. 3: Because of the Stepien Rule, the Lakers can’t trade that 2014 pick right away because they already traded away their 2015 pick (to Phoenix). They’d have to make the 2014 pick, sign that player, THEN trade him. (Highly unrealistic.) And Problem No. 4: If you’re Love, why trade one mess for another? Why not wait a year? Don’t worry, Lakers fans, the NBA is rigging the 2014 lottery for you. You’ll be fine. Odds of this happening: 15-to-1.

But remember, this trade is one of the few that makes sense, even though it's clear from Bill's perspective it doesn't make sense.

Location No. 3: Chicago
Hmmmm … what about Taj Gibson, Charlotte’s 2014 first-rounder, their own 2014 first-rounder and the rights to Nikola Mirotic for Love? Even without a lottery pick, that’s 75 cents on the dollar for Minnesota.

Not 80 cents or 77 cents, but this is 75 cents on the dollar for Minnesota.

The problem: There’s no sexy piece in that trade for Minnesota. How do you sell that baby to your fans? “We replaced our franchise player with two non-lottery picks we’ll definitely screw up, an unknown foreigner and Taj Gibson! GET YOUR SEASON TICKETS NOW!”

But remember this is one of the trades for Kevin Love that makes sense to Bill, even though Bill doesn't think it makes sense. So it turns out the only trade that Bill really thinks makes sense is a trade where Love goes to...you guessed it...

Location No. 4: Boston

Yep, Bill really thinks the only trade for Love that makes sense is a trade of Love to Boston. But what about Kelly Olynyk and Colton Iverson? They are the future!

Like Love in Minnesota, Rondo can leave Boston in July 2015. And like Love, you can’t trade him unless it’s a team that (a) has assets to give back, and (b) could entice him into staying. Harder than you think. 

And Bill of course knows how hard I think this is to pull off. He can read minds.

So, what do you do? Well, aren’t you better off keeping Rondo — one of the league’s 15 to 20 best players when healthy — and finding him an All-Star teammate? Enter Kevin Love. They did it in 2007 with Paul Pierce and they could easily do it again: by paying a premium price for a second All-Star, suddenly it becomes MUCH easier to get that third All-Star.

We've gone from Bill evaluating the best trades for Rondo to Bill rosterbating like a fan boy to get the Celtics back on top without that pesky "rebuilding" that Danny Ainge is always talking about. Bill is at heart a fan boy.

OK, so what happens if Boston throws its shamrock-shaped Asset Penis on the table and trumps everybody? Let’s say the Celtics lose the 2014 lottery and end up with a pick between no. 3 and no. 5. They could send that pick to Minny along with Atlanta’s first-rounder (probably ending up in the 13-to-18 range) and their 2015 Clippers pick for Love.

Or they could keep that pick and get Jabari Parker so they can be happy forever. Then the Celtics could lure another free agent to Boston with the money they still have and build a team of Rondo, Parker, Free Agent X, and another quality starter. I'm rosterbating too, but there are other options back to the playoffs if the Celtics land the #3 pick.

You team up Love and Rondo and suddenly it’s 10 times easier to land that third All-Star. (You reading, Carmelo?) And yes, that deal could potentially net the Timberwolves three top-15 picks in a monster draft. Odds of it happening: 3-to-1.

I can't imagine what could go wrong when a point guard who loves to dribble around and control the ball is combined with a small forward who plays defense when he feels up to it and seems at his best when isolated with the ball to make plays. But hey, at least Kelly Olynyk could protect the rim, right?

But if this were a poker table, the Celtics would have the biggest stack of chips right now. If any current NBA player appreciates stuff like “Celtic Pride,” 

Two things:

1. Nobody who isn't a Celtics fan or hasn't played for the Celtics gives a shit about "Celtic Pride."

2. Bill just got done saying that Love would love enjoy playing in Los Angeles for a variety of reasons, but then submits the best choice is for Love to move 3,000 miles away from Los Angeles to Boston. So...the whole "Los Angeles is a draw" thing really isn't a thing?

“That’s a great organization that looks out for its dudes”

You know, as long as you aren't Ray Allen or Rajon Rondo (who appears in trade rumors ten times per year).

My best guess: I think Love rides it out in Minnesota, then jumps to the Lakers in 2015. But I wouldn’t rule out the Celtics. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I had thought about this too, but I won't say you didn't warn me with your completely original idea that only you have thought of. I just enjoy how the Celtics are less than one year into a rebuilding situation and Bill Simmons so much can't stand the losing already that he is rosterbating to figure out a way to make the Celtics an NBA Finals contender immediately. You know, if the Celtics have two losing seasons in a row then Bill may become an NBA widow. He just couldn't handle being the fan of a rebuilding team. It would kill him. Well, it would most likely cause him to write at least five columns whining about the Celtics rebuilding at the very least. That's one way to get Bill to write columns again, if he has something regarding his favorite teams to complain about.

Q: I know it doesn’t fit your “Worst 30 Contracts” criteria necessarily (other than the title of the article) but doesn’t Kevin Love’s contract deserve a mention? Not signing him to that 5th year so you could save that hammer for Rubio was a monumentally bad decision that is likely to cost us a chance to resign him. Especially because the contract gave him an early out. Its unbelievably bad. It will keep the stench of Kahn on us for years to come …
—Steve, Coeur d’Alene

SG: You know what’s amazing about that one? That was an atrocious decision at the time … and that’s when we thought Ricky Rubio was good! Now that Rubio has established himself as the worst shooter in modern NBA history, it has to go down as David Kahn’s single worst decision. Yeah, even worse than taking two straight point guards in 2009 without making sure either of them was named “Stephen Curry.” What an abominable talent evaluation. Did anyone other than Kahn, at any point in the past three years, believe that Ricky Rubio had a higher ceiling as an NBA player than Kevin Love?

Interesting comments from Bill. I do enjoy some revisionist history. Bill didn't ever compare Rubio to Love in terms of their ceiling, but he had a very high opinion of Rubio for a few years, which he hopes his readers have forgotten about. I have not forgotten. Here are some of Bill's prior comments about Ricky Rubio, including of course the time he said the Thunder should have taken Rubio over James Harden.

October 2008: 

(Important note: If the Knicks land Ricky Rubio two years from now, the previous paragraph becomes moot and the Bill Walsh/Mike D. scenario immediately goes back into play. Hey, did the fact that I nearly set up a Google alert for Rubio last week make me a fan or a stalker? Since I held off, I say I'm still a fan. Although that might change when I move to whichever city drafts him. OK, I'm a semi-stalker.

Bill Simmons: International Scouting Expert

May 2009:

Bill Simmons: I have never been more torn about anything non-Celts related. On the one hand, Rubio, Durant, Green and Westbrook... wow. Those are four of my favorite incoming picks of the past 5 years, I sung all of their praises before the draft as much as anyone. All on the same team? 

Bill Simmons: I think this draft stinks. I like Griffin and Rubio, and after that, I like the 8-12 range where you might get Curry, Lawson or Flynn. I know those 5 guys are NBA starters. I don't know about anyone else. If I were the T-Wolves, I'd just draft Curry sixth. I don't have many certainties about the 2009 Draft, but here's one: Curry is going to make threes in the NBA and create shots for other guys.

To be fair, Bill was always a big Steph Curry fan. Mostly because Curry played well in the NCAA Tournament and that's the sum total of college basketball Bill watches on a yearly basis. But wow, Bill certainly has a high opinion of Rubio didn't he?

February 2010 in his trade value column: 

40. Ricky Rubio
If you have the No. 5 and No. 6 picks in what turned out to be a quality draft,

Rubio had the 40th ranking in Bill's trade value column.

29. O.J. Mayo
28. Kevin Love

I included this part to show you Bill had O.J. Mayo as having the 29th best trade value in 2010, right below Kevin Love.

June 2009:

If I had to bet my life on any 2009 prospect becoming a top-three player on a championship team, I'd bet on Blake Griffin, Ricky Rubio and Stephen Curry.

4. It took 21 minutes before someone (Fran Fraschilla) gushed about Rubio's once-in-a-generation passing, two-steps-ahead-of-everyone timing and incredible career (playing professionally since age 14). Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is going to regret not being more excited about Ricky Rubio on June 25, 2009.

4:52: The Zombie Sonics take … James Harden. And thank God, I didn't want to turn on Seattle. I really didn't. "He's battled asthma since he was a child," Scott tells us. How does Rubio drop to No. 4? How?!? I feel like I'm gonna pass out. I like Harden as a glue-character guy and he definitely has a good porn name. But considering the Zombies have to worry about Durant fleeing in a couple of years, wasn't it in their best interests to find him an unselfish guard who's immensely fun to play with and was put on the earth to get Durant easy baskets? Big mistake.

(Sorry. I can't. Rubio is going to haunt you like Stevie Nicks haunts Lindsey Buckingham every time she sings "Silver Springs." He's gonna bulge his eyes at you and look crazy and vindictive just like Stevie as he's wearing a visiting uniform and throwing no-looks in a half-empty Verizon Center. You wait.)

So yeah, Bill was pretty excited about Ricky Rubio based on his vast knowledge of Rubio's game as seen through YouTube videos from overseas. These are the same YouTube videos that Bill knocks Chad Ford for watching when he is evaluating international prospects by the way. So my point is that Bill knocks the Timberwolves for talent evaluation while also ignoring he was over the moon for Ricky Rubio, a guy Bill knows "we" thought was good. Not him, but "we." I liked Rubio too, but Bill couldn't get enough of him. Now he's acting like he didn't think Rubio was the next coming of Steve Nash.

Speaking of Jermaine, there were four NBA certainties heading toward the 2014 trade deadline: (1) The Cavs would forget to deal Anderson Varejao before he got hurt (happened);

Other teams know Varejao gets injured a lot also. I've brought this up before, but for some reason Bill acts like the entire NBA isn't acting with complete information on Varejao's injury history.

(2) the Knicks would somehow make their fans deeply, profoundly unhappy (happened);

Knicks fans are conditioned to be unhappy.

Q: I’m sure you heard that the Washington Professional Basketball Team put Miami Heat fans on a “Bandwagon Cam” at the game in DC tonight. I cannot tell you how happy this made me. My question is simple: Why doesn’t every other arena in the NBA do this???
—Clark Gerber, Provo, UT

Because alienating and mocking ticket holders doesn't seem like the best way to guarantee fans will come to your games. Miami fans don't care if you call them bandwagon because their team is winning, and frankly, Washington Wizards fans at a game in no way have to worry about being called "bandwagon fans" so it's safe for the Wizards to do it. Otherwise, anybody who is buying tickets to a game (even to cheer on the other team) probably wouldn't like being publicly mocked. Of course, given how much people like attention I can see someone wearing a road team's jersey just to appear on the "Bandwagon Cam."

SG: I’m demanding it. People running the video screens for the other 28 teams — let’s get this done. You see Heat fans or Thunder fans at your arena in good seats, you throw them on the Bandwagon Cam during a timeout.

(coughs) The Celtics too.

Q: In your Worst Contracts column, how could you forgot one crucial point about the Knicks and their Billups amnesty?

Yeah, how could you forgot this one crucial point?

Q: Watching your B.S. Report with KD the other day, it occurred to me that he’s basically become mid ’90s Eddie Vedder. He got too popular and now he’s pushing back against the notoriety by being distant and trying to give himself the horribly faux humble nickname “The Servant.”

Yep, this comparison immediately doesn't hold up at all. Eddie Vedder was never comfortable with how popular Pearl Jam got and that's part of the reason Pearl Jam stopped making music videos after "Ten." So Eddie Vedder was always pushing back against notoriety and this comparison fails. I'm sorry.

Therefore, while he goes through this “uncomfortable in his own skin” phase, the only appropriate nickname for him is “Vitalogy”. Ah if only he was still in Seattle.
—Matt, Westminster, Colorado

Actually, "No Code" is where Vedder's songwriting started to veer off away from the sound of the first three albums and into more experimental and (what I would call) a self conscious direction. So maybe "No Code" is a better nickname for Durant, but that wouldn't be as (not) funny would it?

SG: With that said, if we wanted to extend Matt’s analogy just for shits and giggles, then Durant’s Sonics year was definitely Mother Love Bone, the first OKC year was Mookie Blaylock, the second OKC year was the name change to Pearl Jam (when the band finally knew what it was), Year 4 was the Ten album (when everything took off), Year 5 was the NBA Finals/Time magazine cover, Year 6 was Vs. (great follow-up album, some tension/discord/injuries), and now we’re slowly morphing into Vitalogy (greatness crossed with weariness and a general longing just to do great work without all the other bullshit that comes with it).

This is a forced comparison. "Vitalogy" had tension and weariness but was not an effort to be distant and move away from the fan base. That was more of what "No Code" was about. Also, Durant was a known quantity in his first NBA season, while Mother Love Bone wasn't a known quantity until after Pearl Jam became famous and the same goes for Mookie Blaylock. Move the comparison back to Durant in college and maybe I will buy in, but Durant was a known quantity and Pearl Jam was not when Vedder was in Mother Love Bone. Actually, Durant's only year in college is "Ten" because that's when he started to take off by winning "National Player of the Year" and going #2 in the draft.

This question is so inconsequential, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing it.

Then Bill criticizes Oklahoma City Thunder fans for not being angry enough with their team for trading James Harden. Because there's something wrong with enjoying your team and not bitching about every bad move that team makes.

What about just Durant straight up for Channing Frye? They’d definitely get mad at that, right? I’d love to know where the line is. Because it’s clearly not “We broke up a possible dynasty and replaced the best 2-guard in basketball with a backup shooting guard, an energy guy off the bench, a non-lottery pick and one year of Kevin Martin.”

Bill can't stand the idea of a fan base not being miserable and hating their team. If more fan bases weren't miserable and hated their team then how could Bill be popular? His schtick is whining about terrible moves his team makes and allowing readers to write in and whine about their favorite teams too. If more fan bases just enjoy seeing their favorite team play and don't whine, that's bad for business.

Q: I was at a bar last night with my girl friends from high school. On Tuesdays they play trivia and if you win, they cover your tab (obviously one of my friends is sleeping with the bartender, so we drink for free, anyway). 

Why would it be obvious one of your friends is sleeping with the bartender? And is the bartender a girl or a guy? Since this email is from a girl, I'll assume the friend is a girl. I'm not still not sure why it's obvious this reader's friend is sleeping with the bartender, unless it's supposed to be obvious from this pathetic attempt to get Bill's attention that this reader's friends are equally pathetic and need to use sex as a way to get attention from guys.

One of the rounds is “doctors” – we are the ONLY TEAM to correctly answer a question about Dr. Julius Erving. Should I pretend to know less? I think that I’ve officially become undateable.
—Rachel Z, New York

The fact that you took the time to tell this completely boring and pointless story to Bill Simmons is what makes you undateable.

SG: Yup, these are my readers.

(By the way, I’m about 200 words over. I need to work on this whole word-count thing.)

The word count was a self-imposed limit and you could have removed any one of these emails and this NBA mailbag wouldn't have been any better or worse. 

6 comments Chuck Klosterman Decides Everything Involving Sports is Pointless, So He Doesn't Even Understand Why He is Writing This Column

Maybe Chuck Klosterman is too smart for me. I have a small ego and can accept that maybe his writing is above my head. I don't think that's the case (this is the part where Chuck Klosterman, were he in my position, would write 1000 words on whether the fact I don't think this is the case that he is smarter than I am shows I have a large ego), so I will work under that assumption. Chuck reflects on the incident of David Stern fining the Spurs $250,000 and wonders, naturally, if sports really matter. Chuck tends to do this circular, navel-gazing type wondering about sports quite often. Whether it is suggesting rule changes he thinks aren't good or wondering what our dislike for Chris Johnson says about us. Now Chuck uses the $250,000 fine enforced on the Spurs as a way of determining exactly why sports matter. It seems Chuck likes to over-think issues whenever possible.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich elected to not dress four of his best players (Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Danny Green) so that they could rest their legs at the end of a four-game, five-night road trip. This outraged NBA commissioner David Stern, who fined the club $250,000 for committing a "disservice to the league and our fans."

This statement isn't of itself stupid, but if you are me and want to create a straw man argument saying if David Stern really cared about the league and the fans he wouldn't have simply swept the Tim Donaghy mess under the rug by finding him to be the lone gunman and insisting there was nothing else to be seen here, then you find the idea of Stern giving a shit about "the league and our fans" as fairly ironic. This is the commissioner who has presided over an era of officiating where, at best, important NBA playoff games were decided by poor officiating, and at worst, he presided over an era with a conspiracy by officials to fix certain playoff games.

The NBA is a league where one official (Joey Crawford) can clearly have a bias against one team/player, while also having pleaded guilty to falsely stating his income on his taxes from 1991-1993. Crawford resigned immediately after pleading guilty in 1998 and David Stern then reinstated him in 1999, with Crawford never missing a single game. People make mistakes, but mistakes over a three year span? An NBA official Crawford gets reinstated as soon as he possibly can for lying to the IRS, but the Spurs are committing a disservice to the fans by benching their older star players as they see fit. Would it have been a disservice to the league to not immediately re-hire Crawford?

The NBA is also a league where another official's name has somewhat become synonymous with him getting assigned to a game when the NBA has a certain outcome they want reached (Dick Bavetta). The fact Tim Donaghy stated another official on the crew for Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals had a reason for wanting the Lakers to beat the Kings, and Bavetta was a part of that crew, along with being on the crew for quite a few other NBA games with questionable officiating, doesn't bother Stern at all. Nothing to see here. Donaghy was the lone gunman and sweeping this under the rug wasn't a disservice to the league and the fans, but Gregg Popovich has ruined the NBA's fake good name by daring to rest his players and ruining the competitive nature of a certain game.

You get my point and I could go on. David Stern pretending to give a shit about the fans is hilarious to me. If he gave a shit about the fans he would explain his decisions with more than a statement and a brisk walk back to his ivory tower.

The initial debate was straightforward: Is it acceptable for the commissioner to penalize a coach for not playing the players fans want to see?

I wouldn't like it if I was attending an NBA game to see the Spurs' stars play, but I fully understand Gregg Popovich's reasoning for benching Duncan, Ginobili, Green, and Parker.

These smaller, less important debates focused on the following: 

1. Should it matter that Popovich is the most respected coach in the league (and therefore warrants special treatment)?

No.

2. Would it have made a difference if the Spurs had still won the game (which they almost did)?

No, but it goes to show the competitive nature of the game wasn't negatively affected by the absence of the Spurs' star players.

3. Is the NBA schedule too taxing?

Sometimes.

4. Is Stern unnecessarily draconian?

Yes. He is a good example of a commissioner who believes he is above the game and also believes only he knows what is good for the NBA. So any decision he makes is a blessed decision and the right one.

5. Was Popovich consciously trying to poke the bear?

Who cares? It's his team and his right. If David Stern really cared about the fans and the league he wouldn't block trades. If Stern also wants to get involved with personnel moves, then he needs to get involved with personnel moves and begin to tell NBA owners which players they can or can not sign, as well as tell NBA owners how to run their team. He can't pick and choose when to do this. If the Warriors are making moves that hurt their team and therefore the NBA and Warriors fans, Stern has to stop those moves. I'm not advocating Stern do this, merely stating he can't pick and choose when to break out with the "disservice to the league and fans" argument simply when it is convenient for him to do so.

6. Would this have been less problematic if Popovich had warned the league of his decision in advance?

He shouldn't have to warn the league.

7. Did ticket buyers in Miami deserve a refund?

No. They have Wade, James, and Bosh. They shouldn't come to the game to see the Spurs stars anyway.

8. What responsibility does Popovich have to TNT (the network that broadcast the game and potentially lost viewers because of who wasn't playing)?

Some, but he has a bigger responsibility to his team.

9. How is this different from teams who tank games at the end of the year in order to qualify for the draft lottery?

Completely different. The Spurs are still trying to stay competitive and win games.

In fact, I suspect those minor issues were mostly being analyzed as a way to avoid the deeper question this conflict demands, simply because the answer is too big to reasonably confront.

As always with Chuck Klosterman, it can't be a simple discussion. There ALWAYS is a deeper issue that only he is smart enough to manufacture---I mean discover and then he will write a column about this issue.

The question is this: What are we really doing here?

Oh God, really? It's like Chuck can't help but navel-gaze. Chuck probably takes a piss and wonders what this piss means in the grand scheme of things. Did he just flush the toilet selfishly taking water away from someone else? Could he have pissed three times today instead of four times? What does the fact he pissed three times instead of four times say about him as a person? If Chuck is really selfish in how he goes to the bathroom then how come going to the bathroom made him feel better? Is Chuck not supposed to feel better because it may be selfish to people he has never met?

What I'm asking is, "When a dilapidated version of the Spurs plays the Heat in late November, what is actually at stake?"

A victory? A game to put on a SportsCenter graphic in June when the Spurs and Heat meet in the NBA Finals that shows the team's record against each other this year?

I'm wondering about the central purpose of pro sports, and how much of that purpose is directly tied to entertainment.

Some people watch sports because they like the competition and entertainment factor. It's entertaining to me when my team wins.

In order for a Spurs-Heat game to be entertaining, it has to be competitive; in order for the game to be competitive, the outcome has to matter; in order for a regular-season game in November to mean anything, the outcome of the NBA title has to mean a lot. And if we're going to accept the premise that the outcome of the NBA Finals is authentically important (and that who wins the title truly matters), then this whole experience needs to be more than casual entertainment.

See, when I do my Chuck Klosterman "piss parody" I'm not too far off. 

This is fairly typical Klosterman schtick. He takes something sports-related and then creates a bunch of questions out of it. At some point, a reader may actually think there is a discussion or a point being made when Chuck is really just churning ideas through his brain. This game is entertaining because sports are entertaining. This game could be entertaining without being competitive, depending on your point of view. Chuck is looking at this from a neutral point of view. As a Heat/Spurs fan, this game would be entertaining even if it weren't competitive.

Popovich is a beloved, admired coach who appears actively unconcerned with the entertainment requirements of basketball (which is how most serious fans would insist they want him to behave). He's exclusively concerned with real competition over the long term, particularly in the month of June; everything else is a distraction. Stern's essential rebuttal is that pro basketball only exists because pro basketball is fun to watch (and if you ignore its entertainment import, the rest of this will all disappear).

Chuck is clouding the issue. Popovich is concerned with running his team, while Stern wants a good product on the court. I get that. The issue is being clouded because Chuck is making these two positions be at cross-purposes when they possibly may not be. Perhaps a person finds basketball to be inherently entertaining, so regardless of the competitive aspect a person finds the game fun to watch. There aren't necessarily two competing visions present. Popovich could be unconcerned with entertainment, but the game still be entertaining, therefore meeting Stern's purpose.

What is present is David Stern overreaching because he is insecure about the product on the court. Stern believes the NBA has to be a superstar-driven league and fans won't show up if there aren't superstars on the court. I can see this view in this specific situation if this game didn't take place in Miami where the best player in the NBA was on the court.

That dissonance between Popovich and Stern is what forces my question.

Haha...this question isn't even being posed by Chuck. This question is forced to be asked.

If what makes sports entertaining is the degree to which the games matter, should we value competition above all other factors, even if doing so occasionally makes things less entertaining? 

There you go assuming. What makes sports entertaining isn't necessarily the degree to which the games matter. Sports can be entertaining simply because you like watching two teams play. I haven't (this is embarrassing and sad) missed a Duke basketball game in about 10 years and I have missed two Carolina Panthers games throughout the franchise's (short) history. There have been some bad games in there that weren't competitive, but I was still entertained. The sport itself can inherently be entertaining. So a competitive game in a sport I like is entertaining, even if the game doesn't matter, and very rarely will valuing the competition of a game make the game less entertaining.

This AT&T commercial never ceases to disturb me (which, I will grant, is mostly my own fault). We see a high school football player involved with a marginally crazy play during practice, captured on the phone of an anonymous peer who likes to invent unoriginal catchphrases. The footage goes viral and the player becomes famous — so famous that he gets recruited by Oklahoma football coach Bob Stoops,

It's a commercial and not in any way reflective of real life nor should this commercial cause an internal debate any more than the DirectTV commercials should make us wonder if that passive-aggressive married couple are really commenting on modern married life.

I hate this commercial. It's glib and insidious. However, I only hate it because it's fiction.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd we are off topic now.

If a real kid got a scholarship to Oklahoma because of this kind of scenario, I would be charmed. Anytime a real athlete's individual performance outshines the unsophisticated concept of winning or losing, I inevitably love it. His or her motives are almost an afterthought. I only find it troubling when the scenario is fake. 

Are the odds that Chuck Klosterman sees a therapist an even 100% or do you think it is as low as 99%?

Fiction is always more real to me.

Which probably explains why Chuck takes real life events and then creates fictional problems or quandaries (or at the least problems that are fictional in that no one else worries about them other than Chuck) to discuss in relation to these events. Fiction is more real to him, so creating issues that may arise around real life events seems like a natural part of his writing.

Just before Thanksgiving, a Division III basketball player for Grinnell College scored 138 points in one game. The player, Jack Taylor, went 52-of-108 from the field; the rest of his team spent the entire game relentlessly feeding him the ball so that he could launch trey after trey after trey (their next-highest scorer had 13 points)...When I read about this game the next day, I was ecstatic. I've often wondered how many points a basketball player could score if that was the only goal,

So would David Stern fine an NBA team for doing this same thing Grinnell College did? It takes the competitive nature out of the game, but at the same time makes the game exciting, so I would guess Stern would not fine an NBA team for doing this. More importantly (to me), I find the idea of how many points a basketball player could score if that was his only goal as a boring question. Who cares? This seems like the pinnacle of taking a basketball game and turning it into a sideshow. It's just not my thing.

It was totally fascinating, but nothing more. Personally, I'd be happy if this became a trend in the low end of Division III basketball. I'd like to see a space race to 200 points.

I don't get how Chuck Klosterman (of course this is the same guy who thinks we treat Chris Johnson poorly by expecting him to live up to the expectations that Chris Johnson himself set) can think one player attempting to score 200 points in a game should be a trend. This is the pinnacle of team basketball turning into a one-person sport and attempting to remove the competitive aspect from a team game.

I don't see why it would have been better for Grinnell and Faith Baptist to play a 54-51 game that would be totally lost to history.

I don't think this performance was an abomination or anything of the like, and while a 54-51 game would be less historic, if this type of game planning for one player to score over 100 points occurred on a regular basis it would take some of the fun out of watching those games for me.

What if I saw a commercial in which a basketball team sacrificed every traditional, competitive impulse so that one kid could score every single point, and this was celebrated as a brilliant way to demonstrate the power of a 4G network? I'm sure I would hate it. And I would hate it because it would force me to consider what I'm supposed to like about sports, as opposed to just watching the games and feeling good.

The conclusion Chuck comes to is always about him. It's like he takes his own personal demons out on sports. Our feelings about sports have to be complicated because Chuck's feelings about sports are complicated.

Perhaps you think this is an imaginary problem. Perhaps you say, "Just don't worry about it and the problem will disappear."

This is the part where Chuck may just be smarter than I am. I don't understand what the problem truly is. Sports are entertaining, some games are competitive, other games are not competitive, and David Stern shouldn't tell an NBA team how to use their personnel. We all move on.

Right now, in pro football, there is strong statistical evidence that insists teams should punt less on fourth down (even if it's fourth-and-4 and they're at midfield).

As a footnote, Chuck writes: 

However, isn't part of the reason the numbers suggest going for it on fourth down at least partially because almost no one regularly does so? Statistics aren't predictive; they can only show us what happened in the past. So if going for it on fourth-and-4 at midfield is still a relative rarity, isn't the available data for its rate of success questionable? And isn't it buoyed by the specific situations in which it occurs? I mean, what kind of team tends to go for it on fourth-and-4 from midfield? It generally seems like it's teams who are desperate (and sometimes facing a prevent defense) or teams who feel confident that they have the personnel and the play-calling acumen to succeed (most notably the Patriots). But let's say every team started doing this, all the time (which appears to be what the stat-heads want). Won't the base rate drastically change in potentially unexpected ways? 

I wouldn't say I agree with these points, but I do wonder what would happen if every team started going for it on fourth down in this situation. I can see how the results would change in unexpected ways. Regardless, I am being strong and avoiding Chuck's rabbit hole. Back to his navel-gazing...

But if you're one who believes that this axiom must be embraced for its mathematical veracity, it probably means the reason you're watching football is because you really care about the outcome. 

But if you're the one who wants your team to go for it on fourth down then you are watching football because you care about the outcome of your team's game anyway. Maybe I'm different. I don't watch a game and want the Steelers to go for it on fourth down in a situation like this. I don't give a shit what the Steelers do. I only care about axiom's like "go for it on fourth down" as it relates to my team. I could be in the minority, but I suspect I'm not. This is where Chuck is missing the boat. He is taking the analytical view of going for it on fourth down and confusing it with the fan's view of going for it on fourth down. The fan's view is most fans don't solidly believe in one axiom and watch NFL games to make sure all NFL teams follow these axioms. Some do, but in watching a game between two teams a football fan doesn't cheer for then the actual competition is why that football fan is watching the game. These football fans don't care about the outcome, they just want to see a good game. If a football fan is watching a game involving a team they do cheer for, then naturally the outcome is what the fan cares about and going for it/not going for it on fourth down affects this outcome. So that would be why a football fan would care about the axiom of going for it on fourth-and-4 at midfield, because it affects the outcome of a game that fan cares about. Otherwise if the football fan doesn't have a preferred team in the game, then I would think that fan would care more about a competitive game.

It means you believe that the most important thing about a football game is who wins and who loses, which is fine. Except that it makes the whole endeavor vaguely pointless and a little sad.

Again, it depends on the game being watched. If I am watching Maryland-Georgetown play college basketball I want to see a good game. If am watching Duke-Georgetown I care about seeing a competitive game where Duke wins. Watching sports isn't always outcome-based, even though Chuck Klosterman finds it more convenient to assume all sports fans watch sports in this way.

For sports to matter at all, they have to matter more than that; they have to offer more cultural weight than merely deciding if Team A is better than Team B. If they don't, we're collectively making a terrible investment of our time, money, and emotion.

I sincerely have no fucking clue what Chuck is talking about. I don't get why sports have to offer more cultural weight than merely deciding if Team A is better than Team B. Sports are entertainment and a diversion. They don't have to have more cultural impact than a movie or any other form of entertainment has to have a cultural impact. If a person likes this entertainment based on who wins the game than this isn't a terrible investment of time, money, and emotion because that person was entertained. The goal was achieved.

What matters is not the outcome of Miami–San Antonio, but how important that outcome was to begin with.

It was a regular season game. Heat and Spurs fans cared because they want their team to win as many games as possible in order to make the playoffs. The outcome matters in terms of how many wins the Spurs/Heat have at the end of the year and how important the outcome was is irrelevant. People watch sports, they don't care to figure out why they like sports. Why must Chuck always know "why?"

So within this debacle, who was justified? Who was on the right side?

Why does it matter who was justified? Why is there a "right side" on this issue? Doesn't the idea Chuck is looking for who is "right" when there isn't a certain right or wrong contribute to his own hopeless nature of trying to quantify those things which can't be quantified?

My natural, non-thinking inclination is to side with Gregg Popovich...I am emotionally motivated to side with him, because his position makes it seem like sports are more important than the people watching them on TV (which is what I want to feel).

I am really glad this is all cleared up, because I gave two flying fucks to read 1000 words on which side Chuck Klosterman was on and why he was on that side. Chuck thinks it is somewhat sad and pointless for people to watch sporting events merely to find out who wins and loses, but to watch sporting events to find out who is "right" regarding a specific situation isn't sad or pointless...even though it is impossible to know exactly whether Stern or Popovich are truly right.

Yet — in my head — I know that David Stern is right.

His edicts are sometimes infuriating, but they're always enforced for the same motive.

Ego? His love of power?

He always sees the biggest possible picture. Stern holds an inflexible vision of how the NBA should operate, and he's never wavered.

This unwavering vision hasn't always helped the NBA or done anything to dispel the impression Stern is a dictator who will use his authority to turn the NBA into what he wants it to be, even if it means meddling in the affairs of teams and creating the competitive balance he wants to see in the NBA. The NBA is Stern's puppet and he doesn't mind if you see the strings attached. He probably prefers that actually. It gives his ego a boost. He denies trades, he sweeps officiating scandals under the rug, all while allowing terrible owners free reign as long as they kiss the ring.

The NBA will always provide the illusion of competitiveness, which fans will unconsciously accept as viable entertainment. If you turn on an NBA game, you will see the game you expect (and will be able to pretend that it's exactly the game you desire).

We are all sheep according to Chuck Klosterman. 

You will get what you think you want, and any question over what that should (or should not) be will not factor into the equation. And if it does, somebody will get fined $250,000.

So that's what's really going on here.

I'm so confused. This seems to have been a clusterfuck of words to me.

Chuck starts out deciding the conflict between Popovich and Stern isn't about sitting out the Spurs starters being benched, instead he says it's about what is entertainment versus what is competition. This leads to a discussion about how Chuck hates commercials, but if those commercials happened in real life then he would like them. Which leads back into a discussion of competition versus entertainment where Chuck decides a game isn't entertaining if the game is not competitive, but if you watch a game for the competition then that is sad and vaguely pointless. Sports fans only want to watch a game if it is a competitive entertaining game, but to want to watch a competitive game and care about the outcome is pointless. This would make sports pointless, which they clearly aren't since they entertain millions of fans. This leads to Chuck wondering if teams really should go for it on fourth down more often, but also wondering why fans care if teams go for it on fourth down more often. Then Chuck asks why the Spurs-Heat game was important at all and why we even care who won the game. Finally, we get to the final conclusion David Stern was in the right because he needs to keep up the illusion of competitive basketball, which Chuck thinks is pointless to care about anyway unless he doesn't like competition in basketball and enjoys it when basketball consists primarily one player trying to score as many points as possible. This would be something worth watching in Chuck's opinion, even though it removes part of the competitive nature of the sport out of the equation, which he claims is why basketball fans watch the sport.

I need a Valium.