3 comments "Slate" Has a Terrible Idea on How to Determine Which Country Will Host the Olympics

"Slate" generally has some sort of bizarre (or bad) ideas on their site. Whether it's calling Americans "hypocrites" because nobody likes the Spurs, asking why LeBron has to be so serious, or taking on the evil of youth sports, those who contribute to the site tend to take semi-bizarre stances. I guess it's supposed to be considered "out of the box" thinking that is shown in some of the articles on the site. So a "Slate" writer thinks that cities should be forced to host the Olympics. Yeah, it's an interesting point of view. That's for sure. Logistically I can't see how this makes sense, but of course sometimes I wonder if some of these "Slate" ideas are truly serious. Many times the articles are written in a manner like, "I know this is a terrible idea, so don't take it seriously, unless you think it's a good idea because this is a serious idea we have come up with, in which case this is really a serious idea." The idea of forcing a city to host the Olympics seems to fall into this category as well. Even the cities that host the Olympics can barely afford it, so why is forcing a city to host even close to a good idea? The writer does acknowledge an Olympics held in a poor country would result in terrible facilities, but that sounds like a ton of fun for the athletes who work their entire life to represent their country, doesn't it?

On Monday, the U.S. Olympic Committee announced that Boston was dropping its bid to host the 2024 Olympics following a series of protests, significant public opposition, and a loss of support from the city’s mayor.

So Boston was saying they DO or DO NOT want to host the Olympics? I wish they would be clearer about their stance. 

On Tuesday, the International Olympic Committee told other U.S. cities that might be similarly skeptical of hosting the event that the organization would not take “we don’t want your horrifically costly and burdensome boondoggle of a sporting event in our town” for an answer.

Someone has to step up and take the place of FIFA as the villainous international sports committee. The IOC has been working hard for years to achieve this goal and it's their time. 

But even before Boston was selected and then got itself unselected, both New York City and Philadelphia abandoned bids to be the U.S. candidate for the 2024 Olympics. The 2022 games, meanwhile, were beset by similar abandonments from Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany.

It's not fair to characterize the Swiss as abandoning the Olympics. They simply said they were neutral on the idea of hosting them. 

For plenty of democratized countries, though, the prospect of hosting the Olympics can seem more like a curse—akin to smallpox, wildfires, and an extra-dimensional Chitauri invasion—than an honor.

I'm terrible with grammar and run-on sentences. So I am not criticizing, just noting this sentence should probably read "For plenty of democratized countries though, the prospect..."

That's how it should read, right? The commas around "though" feel weird when read aloud. But yes, no one wants to host the Olympics. The easy decision would be for the IOC to put a cap on how much can be spent on the Olympics or (gasp) cut costs by getting rid of the supremely boring Opening and Closing Ceremonies. It's like a parade, but somehow more boring. Watching people walk and wave just doesn't appeal to me, yet it takes four hours and costs God knows how much for these ceremonies. Cap how much can be spent and give the option of reducing the spectacle of the Opening and Closing ceremonies or getting rid of them entirely.

The IOC requires each host city to agree to cover excess costs or revenue shortfalls in case the games end up overspending. And practically every Olympic Games overspends. “The average cost overrun from the summer Olympics since 1976 is 252 percent, after controlling for inflation,” writes economist Andrew Zimbalist

Make it a hard cap. I know these countries like to show off (more on that later in this post, because the spectacle the host country likes to show off is why this lottery idea won't work), but don't allow countries to go over a certain cost. 

And yet somebody has to host the Olympics. Right?

Not really. If no country hosts the Olympics then there will be no Olympics. 

There are rational solutions to this problem. They involve reforming the IOC, reining in costs by using existing facilities rather than always building new ones, and changing the bidding process so that it no longer hinges on the discreet transfer of large bags of money.

FIFA, there's a new villain in town.

But the Olympics are not a rational event, and so maybe a farcical solution is in order: The IOC should host a Shirley Jackson–style “lottery” to determine which nation will host the Olympics. Every single nation that wants to have an Olympic team has to enter.

If you aren't familiar with "The Lottery" then basically it's a story where a small town draws names to see who will be stoned to death in order to ensure a good harvest. The author of this article, somewhat surprisingly given the fact his entire idea is a bad one, does not suggest any type of stoning to determine which country hosts the Olympics. Well, he does suggest stoning an IOC member, but that can be forgiven. 

If you participate in the Olympics, you have to participate in the lottery. If your name comes up, you’re stuck with hosting the games.

What could go wrong? Well, countries would opt-out of participating in the Olympics for fear they would have to host. This idea also doesn't give smaller countries any incentive to participate in the Olympics since they will only be sending a few Olympians in a few sports, so it doesn't make sense to take a chance on hosting the Olympics so 8-10 people can participate. So yeah, if the idea is to ensure small-to-medium sized countries don't participate in the Olympics then this idea is for you. 

Once that’s finished, we’ll proceed to the main event, which, like all good things, involves thousands of ping-pong balls and a gigantic air lottery machine. Every nation starts off with 25 ping-pong balls.

Why not 10 ping-pong balls? Why not 5 ping-pong balls? Why not 1 ping-pong ball? Why not 100 ping-pong balls? Who the fuck knows? This idea has all the makings of the author deciding "I just read 'The Lottery' again and have to get a column posted in the next hour so here's all I have." 

After calculating the average world GDP, we’ll add or subtract balls for each nation based on how far a nation falls above or below that average, 

(Bengoodfella falls asleep)

Not only is this idea dumb, but it's also needlessly complicated.

so that the United States would end up with far more balls than, like, Tonga. Then we pull the balls in and run the lottery.

As the NBA Draft shows, even teams with significantly more ping-pong balls in the lottery don't necessarily have the best chance of winning (in this case, losing) the lottery. 

Aside from the very simple egging-and-lottery structure, there will be a few other key points.

Nations can buy extra balls. There are some countries out there that still really, really want to host the Olympics, God bless ’em. 

But, but...if there were countries out there that still want to really, really host the Olympics then why even have this lottery? Just award the Olympics to the country that wants to host the Olympics. Isn't this lottery being suggested under the idea that no countries want to host the Olympics, to where the IOC would have to force a country to host? So if there are countries who will buy extra ping-pong balls because they want to host the Olympics so badly then what's even the purpose of this lottery? The fact nations will want extra balls contradicts the reason for the lottery, which is no countries want to host the Olympics. 

These countries can spend $5 million per ball to increase their chances, up to 40 extra balls; the money will go directly toward the cost of the Olympics, whoever gets awarded them, as a kind of tax on wealthy autocrats that really want the games.

Up to 40 balls. Because spending $200 million on additional chances to host the Olympics is reasonable, while spending $205 million on additional chances to host would be excessive. And again, if a country is willing to spend $200 million for the opportunity to host the Olympics then there is no need for a lottery. Even if the country that so badly wants to host isn't big enough to host, there is a chance the lottery would award the Olympics to this country (or an even smaller country) anyway. 

Nations can sell their balls to other nations. Same as before, $5 million a ball, with the money being split between the selling nation and the cost of the games themselves. Here’s the catch: A nation can’t do this for two lotteries in a row, and if a nation chooses this option, the next time around it will automatically be given as many balls as the nation with the highest GDP.

The author is apparently under the assumption the more complicated he makes the idea then the better that idea will appear to be. This is not true. Basically, nations that don't want to host the Olympics will be selling balls to nations that do want to host the Olympics. Again, why not just award the Olympics to the nation that wants to host? 

No nation can host twice in a row. If you’re unlucky enough to get picked for 2024, then you’re out of the running for 2028.

What happens if a warm-weather country is chosen to host the Winter Games? If it is truly incapable of hosting, then it’ll be levied a financial penalty and assigned to host the next Summer Games instead.

Right, because that warm-weather country will be able to financially afford to be able to host the next Summer Games if the financial penalty is severe. Also, this country would simply not be a part of the next Summer Games. What to do then? What if Jamaica gets the Winter Olympics, is awarded the Summer Olympics and then decides not to send a team? The IOC can't get an army together and invade Jamaica and force them to host the Summer Olympics.

This will probably lead most warm-weather countries to withdraw from the Winter Games entirely rather than risk winning the lottery—

Which apparently is the goal. It seems the goal of this lottery idea is to get fewer countries to participate in both the Summer and Winter Olympics. I think that's the brilliance behind it. The Olympics are a good chance for each country in the world to be represented and compete against each other in a show of national pride. This lottery idea decides that's stupid and would rather exclude countries from hosting the Olympics by setting up a situation where only the wealthiest countries can participate because only wealthy countries can afford to host the Olympics.

It also allows for the hilarious possibility that if a country like Mexico gets chosen to host the Winter Games, rather than pay the penalty it’ll just say, “Screw it, we’ve got mountains and snow machines, we’ll give it a go.”

Olympic games that would have terrible facilities and the athletes wouldn't enjoy participating in their chosen event? This would be hilarious! Why doesn't the NBA just play on ice for a year and the NHL can play on a basketball court? It would be HILARIOUS!

Nothing says, "Olympic spirit" like poor conditions and shitty facilities. Really, the best way to honor and celebrate the Olympians who have spent their lives perfecting their craft and finally get a chance to show their skills to the world would be to make a mockery of all they have worked for. 

Obviously, this system is set up so that the countries that can afford to host the Olympics are most likely to actually get them. But it also leaves open the hilarious possibility that a country that does not want the Olympics and cannot really afford to host them will nevertheless be forced to do so.

It would bankrupt countries. More hilarity would ensue! I'm sure the entire country of Greece is in stitches right now at the idea of their bankruptcy. It's so much fun! 

But the point isn’t to bankrupt poor countries.

Except, you know, that's what it will do. Forcing countries to either choose between participating and potentially having to host the Olympics, or sitting out the Olympics entirely ruins the entire point of the Olympic competition. When the author has noted expenses for the Olympics often extend beyond the given budget and not every country can afford to host the Olympics, then the intent ends up being bankrupting or excluding poor countries.

If, say, Dominica somehow ends up with the Summer Olympics, well, then, it’ll just be a Dominica-sized Olympics.

Except, you know, these countries don't want to be seen as a laughingstock so they will spend tons of money on facilities they can't afford in order to not make their country seem like a shit hole. Even wealthy countries spend too much money trying to host the Olympics, so I don't believe Dominica would actually host a small Olympics because that's all they can afford. It's a matter of national pride (and future tourism revenue) to make it look like your country isn't a shit hole.

All you really need to host an Olympics is a gym, a track, a pool, and a field. 

Plus facilities to house the athletes, enough room for the thousands of fans that want to attend to be comfortable, and facilities for these thousands of fans to stay at while watching the Olympics. So other than needing a gym, track, pool, field and the infrastructure to house, transport and feed thousands of people in a small area, not much else would be needed.

I assume that every country, no matter how poor, has at least one gym, track, pool, and field.

And that's all you really need to host the Olympics, right? One pool, one gym, one field and one track. Sure, they need to all be Olympic-sized and the country also has to have enough seating for everyone, plus housing and food, but one gym, track, pool and field is basically all that's needed. 

Because this new system removes the various crooked bidding processes that lead to the overpromising and underbudgeting of facilities, winning cities will feel far less compelled to build extravagant and unnecessary white elephant stadiums, pay for infrastructure that they might not really need or be able to afford, and generally kowtow to the IOC in a way that damages its residents.

I disagree with this. The lottery won't stop countries that are forced to host the Olympics from making extravagant stadiums and paying for infrastructure improvements that country may not need. No country wants to be known as the country that hosted the shitty Olympics. The Olympics by definition require most countries to build infrastructure they may not need, since most countries won't ever have so many different athletic events happening at the same time, with so many spectators attending these events in such a small area ever again.

Right now, various national idiosyncrasies notwithstanding, every Olympics is pretty much the same as every other Olympics, with the same top-tier facilities and stadia and such. If we assign the Olympics via lottery, we will probably end up alternating between lavish games and homemade ones, and this would be a great way of keeping in touch with the games’ amateur origins.

The idea the Olympic athletes would participate in events that take place in sub-par facilities is a terrible idea. It's spitting in the face of Olympians who have worked their entire life only to be told, "Here run on this dirt track and try not to trip over the rocks!" 

I am absolutely sure that this system has lots of problems. But so does the existing system!

Well, then the new system of using a lottery to determine which country hosts the Olympics should be adopted, simply for the hilarity of it all. Replacing one system that has problems with a different system that also has problems is not a solution. 

If it’s a choice between two flawed systems, I think the world should always go with the one that is funnier, 

Because the Olympics are supposed to be funny, you dipshit? The Olympics aren't supposed to be funny and it's not funny to send athletes out to compete in shitty facilities. 

that results in a better deal for the local populace, 

Like bankruptcy or countries simply choosing not to participate. 

and that involves a ceremonial egging. Am I wrong?

Yes. This idea is terrible. The lottery idea is probably the worst idea ever conceived to fix the issues that have plagued determining which country will be hosting the Olympics. If there are countries that really, really want to host, then those countries will bid under the current (non-perfect) system and try to be awarded the games. Simply because no United States city wants to host the Olympics doesn't mean this is true for cities throughout the world. 

7 comments Guns Don't Kill People, the Olympic Shooting Events Do

I have created a BotB Yahoo Fantasy Football League if anyone cares to join. There should be some rule changes this year as compared to last year's league. Either way, the league ID is 250429 and the password is "eckstein." I have also created a College Football Yahoo Pick 'Em league if anyone cares to join that league. The league ID is 5656 and the password is "asu."

Filip Bondy is on fire right now in discussing the Olympics. He has accused NBC of whoring out the women's volleyball players, blamed Ryan Lochte for costing the United States a gold medal, and cried out for a male swimming star. Today, Bondy has an issue with the shooting events at the Olympics. He doesn't have an issue with the shooting events because of the shooting in Aurora, but mostly he has an issue with the Olympic shooting events because it constantly reminds us of the shooting in Aurora. In related news, Filip Bondy should also want to ban violent movies or any movie that where a character uses a gun if he is afraid any use of firearms will remind the United States of the Aurora shootings.

I’m not quite knee-jerk enough to think there is some direct correlation between the guns employed by James Holmes in Colorado and the ones used by sharpshooting Olympians here in London.

Bondy isn't knee-jerk enough to believe there is a direct correlation, but he believes there is enough of a direct correlation that shooting events send the wrong message to the world about gun violence. So he isn't knee-jerk enough to believe there is a direct correlation, except he sort of is.

But long before those terrible shootings in Aurora, and thousands of other terrible shootings around the world, I have felt there is no place for such competitions at the Olympics.

See Filip Bondy has always felt this way, he just forgot to mention it. By the way, I always knew the St. Louis Cardinals would win the World Series last year, but I just didn't tell anyone I knew this.

There are three very different reasons for this, all compelling.

These are all compelling reasons, if Filip doesn't say so himself. He's the one creating the reasons so I would hope he finds them compelling.

First, it sends the wrong message.

Absolutely true. Guns are illegal throughout the world, aren't they? What if the Olympics had a Cocaine Cutting event? Or a Drunk Driving Challenge? Having a shooting competition where the competitors shoot at humans using illegal firearms is absolutely reprehensible. Because, that's what the shooting competition involving illegal firearms consists of right? Otherwise, a competition featuring legal guns shooting at targets in a controlled environment doesn't seem like it sends a bad message.

While the Olympics may have been founded originally around competitions based on soldiering, it is not what they now represent. They are supposed to be a respite from war, not a symbol or depiction of battle.

I never realized that skeet shooting presented such a strong depiction of battle. I must have missed the part of World War II where soldiers would use rifles to shoot at opposing soldiers as they lift off from the ground into the air as if they were Superman.

Furthermore, shooting is simply not enough of a sport to be included as a sport.

This isn't a compelling reason. This is an opinion. Simply saying "shooting isn't a sport" doesn't compel me to get rid of shooting as a sport in the Summer Olympics. It's an opinion. An opinion isn't a compelling reason unless it is backed up with compelling evidence. Filip has no such compelling evidence.

It is a very difficult skill to hold a rifle steady under the weight and pressure of competition. But then it is also a very difficult skill to win a staring contest without blinking.

Because holding a gun and shooting it during a competition is apparently the same thing as having a staring contest. They are synonymous in the mind of Filip Bondy. Perhaps Filip has it all backwards and staring contests could be an Olympic event.

Any sport that does not really fit into a category of the Games’ Latin motto: Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger) has no place in the Olympics.

Wouldn't this mean that diving could not be an Olympic sport either? Even parts of the gymnastics competition could possibly not qualify if the Games' Latin motto of Faster, Higher, Stronger is the threshold a sport must meet.

Finally, the Summer Games are too crowded with events.

Not really. There are enough events to please fans who enjoy niche competitive sports or enjoy mainstream competitive sports.

The International Olympic Committee used that excuse, among others, to eliminate baseball and softball.

So Filip Bondy claims the IOC used this an excuse to get rid of baseball and softball and now he wants to use this same "compelling" reason to get rid of shooting events? The claim the Summer Olympics are too crowded is an excuse until it is a compelling reason, I guess.

If there must be cuts, then surely shooting events should be on the top of the list.

So one of the "compelling" reasons the shooting events must be eliminated is because it has to be cut? I'm not sure a compelling reason for why an Olympic event should be eliminated is because it should be eliminated. This seems like some sort of circular reasoning.

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance the shooting events will be eliminated soon. Too many countries are good at them, the only real argument on their behalf.

Well, that and the fact Filip Bondy may be the only person who wants to eliminate the shooting events. Most people, if they don't like the shooting events, simply don't watch them.

Meanwhile, the U.S.shooting team here continues to aggressively defend its sport — and the right to bear arms — in light of the Colorado shootings.

Yes, the U.S. shooting team continues to defend its sports in light of the Colorado shootings...even though Filip Bondy is:

not quite knee-jerk enough to think there is some direct correlation between the guns employed by James Holmes in Colorado and the ones used by sharpshooting Olympians here in London.

Filip Bondy would NEVER be knee-jerk enough to think there is a correlation between the guns James Holmes used and the sharpshooting Olympians. There is no correlation, except for the fact it appears Bondy really does believe there is a correlation. Otherwise, why would it matter if Bondy is upset the U.S. shooting team defended its sport in light of the Colorado shootings? The sport of shooting and the Aurora shootings aren't directly correlated to each other.

“I learned a long time ago that it’s not the gun that kills, it’s the person,” said Emil Milev, a new U.S. citizen by way of Bulgaria. “(Holmes) was wrong in the head. He would have found a way to do harm if he wasn’t able to get his hands on firearms. If a person wants to harm somebody, he will do it.

Why is Emil Miley even explaining this to Filip Bondy? He knows there isn't a correlation between James Holmes and the shooting events at the Olympics.

Nobody is connecting the Colorado slaughter with what Milev and his teammates are doing here.

Except for Filip Bondy, who is connecting the Colorado shootings ("slaughter" sounds like the people in the theater were cattle. I don't like using the word "slaughter.") with Miley and his teammates in this very column. Because keeping the shooting events in the Olympics "sends the wrong message." What wrong message is that? Would it be a wrong message that has something to do with James Holmes and the Colorado shootings?

They just should be doing it somewhere else.

Where else, besides a competitive setting where every person shooting the gun is a world-class expert at handling the gun, should shooting events take place? Is there a better environment to shoot guns competitively that I am not aware of? The Olympics are a controlled environment with some of the best shooters in the world participating in the competition. These are the people you want shooting guns in one of the very best places for them to be shooting guns.

I don't like nor do I watch the shooting events. I just don't see them as a threat to society and see no reason to eliminate them.

3 comments Here's a List of Things Buzz Bissinger Hates about the Olympics

Buzz Bissinger decided to kick off his columns about the Olympics by writing a column about all the things he dislikes about the Olympics. There are some things in this column I would agree with him about, but the things he doesn't like were so amusing to me, I had to post them. Buzz dislikes the Olympics in his crotchety "old man waving a fist at the sun" way that he seems to have perfected over the past few years.

Like the Burt Lancaster character in Louis Malle’s film Atlantic City, who gazes at the seedy resort shore and says wistfully, “You should have seen the Atlantic Ocean back then,” I too long for the Olympics back then.

"Back in my day, sprinters had to sprint 200 meters to complete the 100 meter dash."

"We couldn't use poles in the pole vault, we were given the branch of a tree, and we liked it better that way."

"Sometimes during an swimming event there would be fish in the pool...and it made our swimmers better than swimmers today."

"I miss the days when we could compete against Commies!"

Three of those are fake statements and one statement Buzz Bissinger really states in this column.

I miss terribly the 60s and 70s and part of the 80s when the Russians and the United States were athletically trying to kill each other, since by some miracle both countries realized that dropping the bomb was not a good option.

"Mr. Gorbachev, build that wall back up."

I'm not sure what kind of person would miss the days when two countries were at silent war with each other and one move by one country that drew the ire of the other country could cause a nuclear war...but that person who misses these days is named Buzz Bissinger.

It was fun to hate the Soviet Union.

Life for a sportswriter is better when there are black and white "good guys" and "villains." The narratives write themselves rather than having to create your own narrative or (if worse comes to absolute worse) having to use your brain to write a column without a narrative.

The medal count meant something then, not what it does today since the Chinese, being the Chinese, purposely excel in obscure sports that no one else cares about with the exception of gymnastics

We all miss the days when the world was on the brink of a nuclear war. The medal count did mean something then. Real quick without looking it up, which three countries won the most medals during the 1976 Olympics and how many medals they win? Because the Olympics meant so much back then.

Call me Ishmael, but I don’t care about the synchronized-diving competition the Chinese won yesterday, except trying to figure out how exactly one decides to go into synchronized diving.

Probably the same way one decides to go into sports journalism. Also, quoting commercials for AT&T where a dude runs while listening to an audio book makes about as much sense as why a person would run listening to an audio book.

Much like I wonder how one becomes a beach-volleyball official from Egypt—an economic outgrowth of the Arab Spring I suppose.

Because before the Arab Spring, no one from Egypt had ever thought of doing anything with their life other than herding camels and staring at huge pyramids all day. So I'm sure this Egyptian beach-volleyball official has a job opportunity because of the Arab Spring and for no other reason.

I even miss the East German team when it was fun to figure out who exactly was a woman and who exactly a man and who exactly was both or neither.

Other country's cultures are so funny. It's not like that in America where it is easy to figure who is a boy and who is a girl.

I'm not sure if this comment by Buzz is more sexist, ethnocentric, a combination of the two, or something I should just shake it off and chalk up to a guy who tries to write a column about the Olympics like he is an 80 year old living in an MTV world.

I am not in London. Like most of you I watch on television or my iPad, and I do so with great confusion.

Let me help clear up your confusion. The Olympic athletes you see on your television or iPad are not really that small and they can't hear you if you talk.

the NBC primetime version tries to give the deranged illusion that the events they are showing have not taken place yet, although they have, and you have to be an idiot not to know who has won. It strikes me as similar to the NCAA taking away 101 victories from Penn State even though they won 101 victories.

The NCAA took away 101 victories from Penn State as a punishment. Yes, Penn State won those games, but they will no longer get credit for those wins. We know Penn State won those games, but they don't count as wins anymore on the official record. NBC is not showing some events live and are pretending they are live. Again, smart people know they are not live. So I guess my remark to Buzz's remark is he doesn't have to mention Penn State in every column.

I have nothing against beach volleyball; America’s Misty May-Treanor is an incredible athlete. I find her instincts and dexterity and outstretched dives to keep the ball in play the single best Olympic performance, but I just don’t know if beach volleyball is a sport

If Misty May-Treanor is an incredible athlete and displays athletic skills while playing beach volleyball, then how is beach volleyball not a sport? It's clear it takes athletic ability, team work, and a competitive nature to play beach volleyball. So how is beach volleyball not a sport if it requires instincts, dexterity and athletic ability?

and there are virtually no rallies. Bing. Bang. Boring.

There are plenty of rallies and the rallies are more exciting in beach volleyball than team volleyball because there aren't two other guys jumping up in the air pretending to spike the ball every time the volleyball goes in the air. Ding. Dang. Dumb.

It receives inordinate attention on NBC because men like it, praying no doubt that the training bra the competitors wear will fall off and breasts suddenly assume that sexy sandy look. It receives high ratings, but so does that weird show in which celebrities like Howard Stern and Howie Mandel hit a big button.

Of course nearly all of the primetime Olympic events get high ratings...even the ones where a boob popping out of a uniform isn't possible. Beach volleyball doesn't even receive inordinate attention compared to other primetime events shown like diving, swimming and gymnatics. Beach volleyball only receives any attention because Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh had not lost a set or a match in three Olympic appearances. Every time they play, they have a chance of continuing their historic run.

So no, beach volleyball gets a primetime spot, but doesn't receive inordinate amount of attention.

Things become more aggravating when I tap the Olympic Games’ iPad app that is supposed to give me video highlights of the previous day’s events. But I surrendered after two days of getting messages that the video doesn’t work.

Ugh!! Technology. Things were so much better when viewing yesterday's highlights wasn't even technologically possible. Buzz misses those days when he didn't even have a chance to complain about video of the previous day's highlights since that wasn't something he ever imagined he could do. My diamond shoes are too tight and my wallet isn't big enough to fit all of my fifty dollar bills!

The big events during this first week are in swimming, and unfortunately I have to say that the big guns of the men’s teams not only seem unlikeable but also choke artists.

Good job trying to be Skip Bayless. Ryan Lochte and Michael Phelps are just huge choke artists. Maybe they can think about this as they weep their choke artist tears into the gold and silver medals they are bringing home.

He didn’t train very hard for London, and it showed in his first race Saturday, leading any reasonable person to conclude that he didn’t want to be there in the first place and just should have retired.

Of course Phelps' following races completely disproved Buzz's theory based completely on one race. A reasonable person would give Phelps more than one race to prove he was in good shape. We all know Buzz doesn't exactly seem like a reasonable person. I don't like Michael Phelps that much, but he's spoiled us all with his performances. Collecting just a few medals at the Olympics feels like a let down for him, but it really isn't.

France for some reason has a very good freestyle-relay team, which given France, makes no sense to me at all. Skiing yes, but the performance in World War II is still hard to forgive.

Remember, Buzz gets paid to right things like this. Apparently Buzz believes France doesn't have access to chlorinated water in order to field a swimming team and World War II is what all athletic judgments should be based upon.

I am still searching for a personality that actually seems like a personality.

Buzz Bissinger only believes an athlete has a personality if he hates technology and believes the French are a bunch of weaklings who have no business fielding a swimming team. What's ridiculous is Bissinger complains he is still searching for a personality that seems like a personality, yet he talks about American athletes who have personality...it just seems he doesn't like these personalities. Here's what Buzz had to say about Ryan Lochte:

He seemed a shadow to his competitive nemesis, Ryan Lochte. The Florida native does have a certain charm, except when he drapes about on his skateboard during those insipid NBC bits with John McEnroe, who is wearing an undershirt for chrissakes. And when Lochte puts that silver contraption in his mouth, he looks like he's auditioning for Hangover 3.

What Buzz had to say about Michael Phelps:

Michael Phelps’s official Olympic photo, with scraggly beard and hair sticking out like professor Irwin Corey, was insulting. He does irritate me when he talks, a little bit too cool for school and obviously (also rightfully) thinking he is superior to everyone else, given his incredible past performance in Olympics. During an interview with Ryan Seacrest on NBC during the opening ceremonies that was unconsciously played instead of a tribute to the 52 victims of terror attacks in London in 2005, Phelps was asked if he would consider himself the best Olympian of all time if he won his 19th medal. He could and should have been gracious and contrite.

There are/were plenty of good personalities that NBC rammed down our throats. They rammed Missy Franklin, Gabby Douglas, and Rebecca Soni down our throats over the first week of competition. Of course what Buzz wants is flamboyance...

So far, my favorite has been the Italian fencer Diego Occhiuzzi, who after beating his opponent in the semifinals to guarantee a medal, went into such paroxysms of joy that I thought he might be having an epic Italian death rattle in the style of poisoning by the Borgias. The man knows how to win with complete ungraciousness.

I like that.

Unless you are Michael Phelps, in which case his lack of graciousness is a complete turn-off for Buzz. If you are Italian and not gracious, that's showing some great personality. Buzz is never very gracious with his consistency about athletes who show a lack of graciousness.

The games are not a bust. Lochte and Phelps can still find redemption.

Redemption for exactly what I don't know. Maybe Buzz thinks they need to find redemption for not winning gold in every single event they enter.

And remember that the mainstay of the Games, track and field, hasn’t started yet.

Why do we need to remember this? Buzz is the guy saying the Olympics are boring, have no personality and things were better back in his day when Russia and the United States hated each other. Buzz is the one who things the games are a bust, yet by telling us the game just started he reminds us just how stupid the premise and complaining, by Buzz himself, in this article truly was. Good job. You just outed the stupidity of your own column.

So stay tuned.

If you can figure it out.

Figure what out? Figure out why you like writing like an old codger? Figure out why the days when potential nuclear war made the Olympic games better?

What kind of editor reads this column and thinks, "Man I can't wait to post this. Great insight and great writing. Boy, he's right technology sucks and I wish Russia was still the United States' main enemy."

3 comments Bill Simmons Hates Walking and Tries to Become America's Biggest Handball Advocate

Bill Simmons went to the Olympics this year. Once he wrote a pretty self-involved column about how he came to go to the Olympics and made it all about him, per his usual way of writing. I was going to cover it, but Larry B at Fire Jay Mariotti did a pretty good job of making the points I was going to make. So go read that. Bill has promised (threatened) updates from his time in London at the Olympics and he makes good on this promise (threat) by writing an entire column about handball. Not shockingly, upon viewing three games of handball, Bill Simmons feels at liberty to make some changes to the sport in order to get Bill Simmons to pretend he would actually watch handball at any point other than every four years at the Olympics. Also, Bill wants us to know London is a big city and you have to walk a lot. I'm personally shocked the city hosting the Olympics is large.

The London Olympics have taken good-natured heat because their logo looks a little like Lisa Simpson performing a sex act, and because their official mascot looks a lot like a fancy futuristic penis

I'd like to know what a futuristic penis looks like. I don't necessarily need a visual description, but I'd be interested to see if Bill believes in the near future male and female genitalia will adapt in some new, fancy fashion.

Both quirks fit in splendidly with London, the world's most perverted city.

This from the same guy who just wrote a two part NBA column where he basically stated, "Everyone watch 'Game of Thrones' because they show women's tits all the time!" I'm not sure he's the guy who should be calling anyone else perverted.

But it's the little things that win London the "biggest pervert" title — you know, like that timeout during yesterday's USA-France basketball game when cheerleaders ran onto the court and fans immediately started whistling and cheering.

In America, fans never cheer or leer at cheerleaders when they are running on the court. This is exclusive to the sexually repressed city of London.

This place is hornier than Antonio Cromartie.

This from the same guy who wrote:

That night on the phone, my buddy House agreed with Lisanti's disbelief and added, "Just so you know, that show has a ton of nudity." Well then! I started watching that weekend and the rest was history.

Again, Bill is probably not a position to criticize how horny other people are.

Still, it would have made more sense if the 2012 logo was a drawing of someone walking. That's all anyone does at the London Olympics. You walk. You walk, you walk, you walk, and then you walk some more.

Why can't all the Olympic events take place in a one square mile walk from each other? Who says "no" to this?

You walk so much that you can be standing in what seems to be the middle of everything, after having walked over a mile to arrive at what you thought was the middle of everything … and then you see a sign that says, "BASKETBALL ARENA: 25-MINUTE WALK."

OMG! Walking is so hard to do and very inconvenient. Bill is very happy he doesn't have an important dinner to get to while in London or else he would never make it. He wouldn't want to risk another potential disaster like when he went to Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals and had to be back in Los Angeles the very next day for a very important party.

If you think I'm kidding …

Actually, Bill is kidding. The sign says "20-30 minute walk" to the basketball arena. So it doesn't say it is a 25-minute walk. Accurately reading signs, along with walking long distances, are two things that Bill believes himself to be above doing.

You see that sign after you leave the Stratford tube stop (ground zero for Olympic Park — the only way in and out) and spend the next 25 minutes walking

If Olympic Park is ground zero, then this is in the middle of everything. "Ground zero" doesn't indicate an area is closest to every possible event.

This isn't a complaint, more of a belated revelation. I love walking.

No, it is a complaint. You spent two paragraphs complaining about how far it is to walk to Olympic events.

In my head, I just assumed you hopped on the tube, jumped off at the "Olympics" stop, zipped through security, flashed your press pass or ticket, then everything was right there.

Because London isn't in California, it must be really small and easily to navigate. The Olympics would only be held in small villages, not large cities...right?

Nope. Ever been to Disneyland and planned on hitting a ride, then realized it was a 20-minute walk across the park from where you were?

Or..."Have you ever been out in a crowded public place like a zoo, amusement park, or any other large area where the public tends to congregate and had to walk to your location?"

It seems Bill believes having to walk a lot is an experience exclusive to him. This type of thing happens at places other than Disneyland. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone has had to walk a long distance at some point in his/her life.

Imagine the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals and U.S. Open happening at four different venues within a mile of each other, only if 10 famous musical acts were playing indoor/outdoor concerts in the middle of everything. How much space would you need to pull off that scenario? A lot, right? That's the Summer Olympics.

And yet despite knowing how large of an event the Olympics are, Bill was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to find out he is going to have to walk a lot to each different Olympic event. Who saw this coming? Why don't they offer golf carts to wealthy people like Bill so he wouldn't have to walk? Who says "no" to this?

Armed with a mack-daddy pass and the determination to catch as many events as possible, you'd be surprised how many decisions hinge on these four words:

Nice humblebrag.

"Sometimes when you have access to every single Olympic event you have to make tough choices about which ones you are going to attend."

That's how I ended up ripping off a women's handball doubleheader on Saturday afternoon (the first official day of the Olympics). My friend "Fitzy"

A footnote follows about this "Fitzy" character...

He wanted to stay anonymous in the column, so we're calling him "Fitzy," if only because I always wanted a friend named "Fitzy."

A friend who wants to stay anonymous in a Bill Simmons column? Do these type of non-starfucking people exist?

"I want my first Olympic event to be a little goofy," I said. "Something like handball or badminton."

And that's how I ended up losing my Olympics virginity: by going to a preliminary-round match (no real stakes)

No real stakes other than being a game that took place during the fucking Olympics. Other than this match involved the best athletes in handball from two different countries competing against each other, there was nothing really to see here.

of women's handball (a sport I knew nothing about)

Bill knows nothing about the sport of handball. If you think that means he won't end this column with five suggestions on how to make the sport better after watching the sport over three entire games...well, you just don't know how Bill Simmons and his massive ego work. Bill can fix anything in a matter of one day or in one viewing. If he was President of the United States for just one day he'd have this whole debt-crisis issue figured out, he would turn around the United States public school systems and have Congress working together like a well-oiled machine using the philosophy of ubuntu.

So always know, even if Bill knows absolutely nothing about a topic, after briefly studying that topic he is an expert enough on the topic to suggest changes. He's always wants to be the most creative and smartest guy in the room.

We arrived 20 minutes before the match, grabbed choice press seats at midcourt (or whatever they call midcourt in handball),

"...grabbed choice press seats at midcourt." How does anyone like this guy? He can't just write,

"Upon entering the facility we sat down and stared at the empty gym,"

He has to tell us EXACTLY how he got such great seats and EXACTLY where those seats were located in the gym as a reminder of who the hell he is and who the hell we aren't.

You know what's way more fun than you'd ever expect? Watching a world-class Olympic event without knowing any of the rules.

You would never imagine watching world-class athletes play their sport could be entertaining in any way.

Oh — and until I actually saw the court, a small part of me wondered if handball players took turns batting a ball against a wall like they were elementary school kids in recess.

(shakes head sadly)

A few things jumped out right away. First, Croatia's team unleashed a series of pregame high-five/hug rituals that would have humbled even Renaldo Balkman and Nate Robinson. We couldn't decide whether this was a good sign (that their chemistry was terrific)

Hasn't Bill said plenty of times that a team plays better when the players on that team like each other? So this could never be a bad sign, based on the "they give each other a lot of high-fives" theory Bill espouses in every single column he has ever written about the Boston Celtics since 2007.

or a bad sign (that they were overdoing this stuff because they stunk).

Impossible. We all know a team that likes each other always plays better because they like each other.

Anyway, the game started and we quickly realized that women's handball was a loony cross between hockey, basketball, lacrosse and Vince Vaughn's Dodgeball movie, only if it was created for people with ADD.

Right, "Vince Vaughn's Dodgeball movie." I'm glad it was cleared up whose movie that was, because simply calling the movie "Dodgeball" would have confused no one.

If the LeBrons and Griffins ever played handball, they'd probably be corner scorers. Oh, and they'd be ridiculously awesome. That too.

Yeah, great observation. If these guys ever played volleyball they would probably be pretty good at that sport too. The LeBrons and Griffins of the world are elite athletes. Their skills are transferable to sports outside of basketball.

On any fast break off a missed shot, the playmaker is always prominently involved. It's the marquee position on the floor. We nicknamed this position "The Nash" after Steve Nash for obvious reasons.

Well, obviously. Wait, why wouldn't this position just be nicknamed "the point guard" again?

That reminds me — those occasional long outlet passes and fast breaks in handball are way more exciting than you'd ever expect.

What an amazing event as described by Bill! I have absolutely no expectations or perceptions of the sport of handball, yet the long outlet passes and fast breaks have exceeded the expectations for excitement I didn't know I even had!

How Bill never got a permanent job writing for a newspaper coming out of college still blows my mind. His newspaper columns could have single-handedly turned around the fate of newspapers.

I found myself yelping, "Ohhhhh!" and "Whoa!" more than I expected, to the chagrin of at least one serious handball media member sitting in our row. (Whatever.)

Bill expected to only yelp (what is he, a dog?) "Ohhhhh" and "Whoa!" four times during the match, but he yelped these exclamations at least ten times. He does an excellent job of describing this to his readers. Reading this almost feel like I am at the event getting annoyed with Bill Simmons' and his yelling.

Not to mention, I can't believe this asshole serious Handball journalist was irritated at Bill cheering from press row. It's press row! Who says "no" to cheering from press row? It's not like it is discouraged to cheer from press row or anything.

Handball is also more consistently physical than basketball, as hard as that might be to believe.

I never thought any sport could get more physical than the NBA where putting two hands on someone's back or reaching in and accidentally hitting the opposing player's arm are fouls. Yet, I was wrong. There are sports more physical than basketball.

Nobody overreacts to getting popped in the face, and when someone gets hurt, they're actually hurt. This would NOT be a good sport for Vince Carter.

These jokes are landing like punches thrown by Ron Artest.

From what I could gather, you need three things to succeed in handball: a killer "Nash," one consistently good corner scorer, and a competent goalie.

After one game, Bill already thinks he knows what exact three things a team needs to succeed at handball. That's the formula based on a sample size of three matches viewed.

We were so enthralled by the Croatia-Brazil game that we decided to stay for the next one between Denmark and Sweden.

After three games viewed, clearly Bill is now the expert and he is qualified to make the five rule changes to the sport that he suggests at the end of this column.

Not only did that seem like a natural rivalry, but … um … did I mention the game involved Danish women and Swedish women?

From earlier in the column:

Both quirks fit in splendidly with London, the world's most perverted city. You knew about London's Page 3 girls, the city's raunchy television shows and its general bawdiness, as well as the Brits' ironic reputation for also being sexually repressed. But it's the little things that win London the "biggest pervert" title...London slays me. This place is hornier than Antonio Cromartie.

I realize Bill is away from his wife, but come on. After watching "Game of Thrones" because it had nudity and mentioning he stayed for the Denmark-Sweden game because they involved Swedish and Danish women, does Bill really have any room to call anyone horny?

an attractive blonde who doubled as Sweden's version of Nash, someone who was as talented as she was pretty. (Here, I'll save you the 25 seconds you were just going to spend frantically YouTubing her.)

Londoners are so perverse.

The next night, I returned to the Copper Box to watch Denmark play Hungary in men's handball,

Bill should be the commissioner of the International Handball Federation. Which is a real thing by the way.

Since we're here, I can't resist throwing on my sports tsar costume and making five no-brainer suggestions to subtly improve women's handball.

Since handball has been around for two centuries now, you would think the sport had worked out most of the rule changes necessary in that time. This would be a wrong assumption. Bill can't view a sport new to him or hear a new idea without marking his territory by trying to think of a better idea or rule changes for that sport. Nothing is perfect until Bill Simmons has placed his Midas Touch upon it. Handball is the latest lucky sport/idea to have been touched by the hand of Bill.

Suggestion No. 2: Each team drops a player for the last five minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half.

Just to open it up … a little. Like when they have four-on-four overtimes in the NHL. Those 30-minute halves in handball are a tough haul for spectators — you need to keep the fans on their toes just a tiny bit more.

This from the guy who watched three handball matches and appears to be (short-term) hooked on the sport. Why wouldn't handball dramatically change the set up of the game to appeal to fans who watch the sport every four years?

Suggestion No. 3: Add a penalty cage.

Right now, a player gets punished for two minutes and simply goes back to his/her bench until the punishment ends. How is that punishing? Stick them in a humiliating cage across from their bench for two minutes! Yes, they should lock the cage and everything.

So rather than make it a sport, make it a spectacle like professional wrestling. That sounds like something the Olympics would enjoy being a part of. Putting women in a locked cage? That's the Olympic spirit!

Suggestion No. 5: Find an attention-seeking billionaire to help save handball in America by throwing gobs of money at a women's professional handball league that will eventually get the ball rolling so we don't stink at handball anymore.

Fine, this will never happen — I just wanted to bring up America's dire handball situation again.

Bill Simmons has ignored the sport of handball for forty years of his life. He watches three matches and now wants us all to be aware of why handball deserves our support. He just fucking discovered the sport and now he acts like he's been a fan for 10 years. He is AGAIN telling us about the dire handball situation in America. He has warned us multiple times about this topic over the past few...um...paragraphs, but this is his last warning to us all. Enjoy the sport or watch it die the same slow death it has been dying for two centuries, including the last forty years when Bill himself didn't give a shit about the sport.

If you didn't know, we could have qualified for the 2012 Olympics in men's or women's handball just by winning the Pan Am Games last year. Our American women finished eighth out of eight teams, with the low point being a 50-10 loss to Brazil. Fifty to 10!!! The men's team finished seventh out of eight teams, so it's not like they were much better.

These were facts that Bill, of course, knew prior to watching the three handball games he watched in London. He didn't look these facts up at all when writing this column. He's a huge handball fan.

Think of all the basketball talent America cranks out — we couldn't steer a few studs toward handball? Would you rather come off the bench for a forgettable .500 team in the Big Sky Conference, or would you rather become one of the best handball players in the world, save handball in America, compete for a gold medal, then live overseas playing handball professionally?

Wow, what a douche. The man ignores the sport for forty years and now he wants to be the sport's ambassador.

Should America ever suck at a sport that revolves around running, jumping and passing? I'm going out on a limb and saying no.

Read this sentence and remember how popular Bill Simmons is. Then wonder how he became so popular because I am wondering the same thing right now.

That the best thing about the Olympics, as far as I can tell, anyway — you never know what might suck you in. Time to walk two miles to the next event.

Next up Bill is going to watch women's lacrosse and wonder why America ignores this incredibly exciting sport that Bill just started watching two hours ago.

6 comments Filip Bondy Hates How NBC Whores Out Women Volleyball Players

Filip Bondy has an issue with NBC. He knows NBC knows people enjoy watching women's volleyball so they have scheduled that Olympic event to occur in primetime. One would think this is a big win for women's athletics, that there is enough interest in women's volleyball that the sport would be shown in primetime during Olympics. One would be incorrect. See, Filip points out that these women volleyball players are going to be playing late at night and they have (actually they don't have to) wear bikinis when they play the sport. These women are used to playing in bikinis and so that is the attire they choose. This is just completely inhumane to force (or not force at) them to wear skimpy clothing and then take advantage of these poor women by showing their sport to the largest possible audience. I see this as a somewhat big win for women's sports because it gets exposure for women's volleyball (no double meaning implied) and it puts two of the most decorated and exciting Olympians (Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor) in the primetime spotlight. Rather than agreeing with me and seeing this as a big win for women's sports, Filip sees this as a way for NBC to whore out women athletes for ratings...not ironically something these women volleyball players don't seem to give a shit about. Of course, if no women's sports were shown at night I'm sure Filip would find a way to have an issue with this as well. These women are wearing their bikinis while playing volleyball, it's just a matter of when NBC wants the event scheduled in order to determine how large of an audience these volleyball matches receive.

Imagine the potential frustration, the awful irony.

The "awful" irony. Filip isn't being overdramatic about this clothing issue at all in calling it "awful." Filip would compare giving women volleyball players the choice of their clothing during a match, and some of them choosing to wear bikini, as being on par with other such "awful" incidents as the Colorado theater shooting, the hunger epidemic in Africa and probably slightly above the oppression of women in some Middle Eastern countries.

NBC, which basically runs the Olympics,

Let's call them Dictator NBC. That's much more accurate, especially the way they oppress women's volleyball players by forcing them to play at night in front of a larger audience fully knowing they have the option of which attire to wear. It doesn't get more sexist than that.

demands that beach volleyball champs Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh compete as late in the evening as possible so that the network can attract better ratings back home.

My God. What would Gloria Allred think about this? NBC is purposely, and without remorse, featuring a women's sport in primetime because America is interested in this sport. WHEN WILL WOMEN GET A CHANCE TO BE EQUAL TO MEN IN THE WORLD OF SPORTS?

Organizers comply, starting the pair at an outrageous local time, 11 p.m. on Saturday night.

When Dictator NBC wants something, Olympic organizers jump as high as they can to do what Dictator NBC wants them to do. But to feature women's volleyball where those who are interested can watch, it is mind-boggling why NBC would do this. The audacity of NBC to feature a program Americans are interested in at the primetime hour...I'm so beyond infuriated, I've gone full circle back to being incredibly calm. That's how infuriated I am.

But then the London weather scares the athletes and they pack cold-weather outfits, which they might wear instead of bikinis.

Women's volleyball players now have a choice as to whether they wear a bikini during a match or not. Again, how dare the women be given a choice as to how they should dress during the outrageously cold summer nights in London. Sarcasm aside, this would be a much bigger issue if the women's volleyball players even seemed to give a shit about when they are playing or what they are wearing. These women are just happy to be in the Olympics and to be able to play in front of a crowd.

So far, Filip has complained NBC has moved women's volleyball to a more popular time slot and this is a bad thing because these women might get cold in their bikinis...except they aren't forced to wear a bikini. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. The sport of women's volleyball gets more exposure while the women have the option to limit their own exposure to the harsh summer London night conditions.

This could have been a sartorial disaster, a programming blunder, except that the city of London has heated up considerably, climate-wise, in the last couple of days.

Well thank God. I bet these women's volleyball players wouldn't want the exposure a primetime viewing slot gives their sport. God knows it is bad for the sport of women's volleyball for viewers to be excited to watch. I'm not a big Olympics viewer, but I am excited to see Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Traenor defend their gold medal. I don't care what they wear while defending the medal. It does look a bit odd to be wearing a parka while playing beach volleyball though.

The two-time gold medalists already practiced Tuesday night in bare midriff at the venue,

NBC made them do this, obviously...at gunpoint.

and May-Treanor says they are leaning toward their skimpiest apparel.

“We pack cold weather gear, but if it stays like this we’ll stay in our bikinis,” she said Wednesday. “We wouldn’t be playing in shorts. It’s not comfortable. You get sand everywhere.”

NBC triumphs again,

You win NBC! You not only insist on giving women's volleyball wider exposure, but when giving them the choice of wearing more or less clothing the women are choosing less clothing...probably because of the pressure they feel to wear be as naked as possible and not because it is more comfortable for them to play in bikinis.

has it both ways, prime time and practically naked.

Playing in primetime is a good thing for the sport and the women choose to play in their bikinis. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Federation of International Volleyball (FIVB) this year installed new rules giving its players a broader range of sportswear options.

"A broader range of sportswear options?" So naturally because this is all a big conspiracy to show more skin at the Olympics, NBC schedules women's volleyball for primetime when the women are less likely to wear their bikinis because the weather is colder. Because if NBC is really trying to have the women play with as little clothing as possible, having them play at 11pm is the optimal time of the day to succeed in achieving this goal. You done reverse-psychology'd us all up NBC!

In order to (slightly) respect the religious beliefs and customs of more modest nations, players can now legally don short-shorts, tank tops, full-length sleeves or tightly-fitting full body suits.

Pigs.

I bet these women who play the sport of volleyball are up in arms over this too.

“To not be able to play because of the attire is not OK,” said U.S. volleyballer Jennifer Kessy, who likes the new rules. “We’re OK with bikinis. We grew up in Southern California, and this is what you wear. It’s a good way to get attention, but we don’t think about it.”

Which is exactly what NBC wants Jennifer Kessy to say. There are no lengths this network will go in order to sell sex to a primetime audience is there?

Attention is what they will get, for sure. Beach volleyball, with all its loud rock music and bare skin, is being staged at the most incongruous of sites, at stuffy Horse Guards Parade on the doorstep of the Prime Minister. May-Treanor said this was perfect, because she loves the smell of horses.

Which is exactly what NBC wants Misty May-Treanor to say. They want her to talk about her love of horses in order to fulfill NBC's evil agenda. It's no coincidence NBC also televises the Triple Crown every Spring and Summer and now Misty May-Treanor claims she likes horses. NBC obviously has these women's volleyball players fully under their thumb. Next thing you know the women will be talking about how much they enjoy hockey and the latest season of "Parks and Recreation."

This is her last Olympics, she vows. May-Treanor, married to Dodgers catcher Matt Treanor, wants to start a family, coach, unclutter her house. Meanwhile, on Saturday night, there is a bikini with her name on it

Which May-Treanor doesn't have to wear, but Filip Bondy knows NBC has forced her to do so. Bondy isn't making an issue out of nothing. Not. At. All.

and several more for the other women beach volleyballers, who always get top billing over their male counterparts.

One would think this is a good thing for women's volleyball and is a sign of progress that a women's sport is more popular than the men's form of that sport. One would not be Filip Bondy if one thought this.

That probably would be true even if the men were wearing teeny tight Speedos, instead of relatively baggy shorts.

And NBC would have it no other way. Showing women's volleyball in primetime, the women's volleyball players having a choice of what outfits to wear, and having the women choose to wear a bikini...NBC is setting the feminist movement back more than when they aired "Are You There, Chelsea?"

“The women’s form is something more people are attracted to,” Kessy said. “We’d still get more attention.”

And this is a bad thing for women's sports to get a primetime spot at the Olympics and the women choose to wear the skimpiest outfit possible. Does NBC have no shame?

It must have been a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally slow news day in London when Bondy wrote this column.

6 comments 10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: The Gritty Comeback Edition

I haven't done a 10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of in a long while for a variety of reasons. First, during NFL season it is a lot easier to find bad journalism to write about for some reason, and second, I haven't really accumulated that many links in my bookmarks that I didn't think would require a full post. I like doing these "Ten Things..." because it lets me focus on the high points of articles that I may agree or disagree with and skip around from topic-to-topic, which given my short attention span is easy for me to do.

1. Let's start off with a mailbag from the man I am doing a parody of sorts with my title for these "Ten Things..." Peter King.

And now for something completely different: The San Diego Chargers not only did the right thing with LaDainian Tomlinson, they did the right thing at the right time. The next time a team has to deal with releasing a legendary player in decline, club officials should go to school and learn how Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith cut the cord with the eighth-leading rusher of all time.

I would actually disagree in part with this statement. The Chargers did the right thing for Tomlinson but they didn't do the right thing for their team. I always prefer to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late and I think the Chargers got rid of Tomlinson a year too late. They used their 1st round pick on Larry English, which I think will pay off at some point, but they could have used that pick or traded up to get Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, or LeSean McCoy. They didn't do that because they had Tomlinson and Sproles on the roster. They even restructured Tomlinson's contract last year, instead of releasing him.

This is an arguable point, but if they had Greene, Wells, or McCoy would they have been near to last in the NFL in rushing and would they have had a better chance to make the Super Bowl? I argue "no" and "yes." The Chargers did what was right for Tomlinson but hurt their team in the process by getting rid of him a year too late.

In the high-powered offense coach Norv Turner runs, they knew they couldn't tolerate a back who still wanted to be a major presence but couldn't deliver like one.

They had this problem last year as well and didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. I think they should regret it.

Now Tomlinson's agent, Tom Condon, can begin trying to find a new home for LT, working the lobbies at the downtown Indianapolis hotels and the concourses at Lucas Oil Stadium, where the combine drills will take place.

I agree the Chargers were kind to do this, but they should have done it in 2009 and not 2010. Sure, Tomlinson only had one bad year in 2009, but there is a history of running backs slowing down as they hit the work load and the age Tomlinson was coming up on.

From Aaron Monroe, of Tampa: "In honor of your foray to the World Cup this summer (I plan on being there as well to see my first cup games live), I have a question that combines both soccer and the NFL. In MMQB you mentioned about the Bucs shedding payroll rapidly. It's apparent that the product we have here in Tampa isn't as good, but no one seems to honestly talk about why. The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL and lots of 2010 draft picks, yet Mark Dominik has said they are not players in free agency. Passing on Vince Wilfork, Julius Peppers, Richard Seymour. No effort to sign Donte Stallworth or even Mike Vick last year, both coming with minimum cost exposure. Isn't the real reason they're staying on the sidelines because they have all their available cash tied up in a financial disaster with Man U and, a reality that's destroying their NFL product?

Of course, Peter King is probably one of the worst "insiders" at sniffing out "real" stories in the NFL, so I am not sure he is the best person to ask this question to. I get the feeling some NFL people just tell Peter something and know he will accept it without further questions. Sometimes I think people may just make something up and see if Peter King will print it.

PK: That's a commonly held belief by a lot of people around the league, but I checked this morning, and I can tell you there's no evidence to suggest the Glazers are taking, for example, any chunk of their $95 million annual network TV money and funneling it to pay down their debt with Manchester United.

Of course there is no evidence of this. They aren't stupid enough to just leave the evidence of this lying around, but doesn't it make sense they may do this? From a logical point of view? One business is making money, so they use to pay off a debt from owning another team. It doesn't mean they are, it just means it makes sense this could happen.

Rick Gagliardo of Pinehurst, N.C.: "Re: the logjam at the HOF ... I've been thinking about the five- to seven-person limit allowed each year, and I've wondered if that was in the original by-laws when the Hall was founded in 1963...In 1962 there were only 14 teams in the NFL. When the first group of men was voted in, these men, by and large, played in a league with eight teams. If you consider a team as having a 40 man roster -- which I'm sure it didn't most of the time -- it's a stretch to say that as many as 320 men comprised the entire league. After Cleveland and Baltimore were incorporated and Dallas and Minnesota were added in 1960, the NFL stood at 14 teams and 560 players in 1962. With 32 teams now...I would suggest increasing the induction number to seven to 10 a year.

It's an interesting point Rick makes. I am generally against making it easier to get in the Hall of Fame, but his reasoning does seem pretty sound in all honesty. There are more teams, more players, etc...so there should be an occasional increase in the number of players who can make the Hall of Fame.

PK: I think the overriding theme of your letter is that you'd like to see more players inducted, because so many deserve it. As my Sirius Radio friend Bob Papa has suggested, maybe we should have a year or two of much larger classes, to get those the majority of the committee feel are Hall-of-Famers (Dermontti Dawson, Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Shannon Sharpe) off the bubble they've occupied because of the great quality of the modern classes. You may not like my answer, but I don't want to do that.

If a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, what sense does it make to let a self-imposed limit stop them from making the Hall of Fame?

It should be hard, very hard, to get into any Hall of Fame,

Again, if a player deserves it and the electors don't anticipate doing this every year, and don't get carried away and let players who don't deserve Hall of Fame induction in, what's the problem? It hasn't been made any easier to get in the Hall of Fame, the number limit of players who can be inducted has been temporarily waived. I think we should be able to trust the Hall of Fame voters to make a wise decision in this case...or at least I hope we can.

and who is to say if we admit 12 people in 2011 and 2012 that it won't spawn a whole new class (a slightly lower class) of candidates that we'll be pushed to admit.

It could very well happen. Fortunately, there is thing called "free will" that allows Hall of Fame voters to make up their mind and they aren't forced to vote for any candidate they don't like. If the voters are the susceptible to outside pressure like this, it doesn't make me feel good about their ability to vote for any Hall of Fame class.

The best thing we can do is keep making it difficult to get in and do the best we can each year, and eventually the deserving players will get in.

I can see this point of view, but if a player is only pushed out of the Hall of Fame because of a number limit, what's the difference in letting the player in for 2011 or making him wait until 2013 when there aren't as many qualified candidates? It doesn't matter to me either way, but if we trust the Hall of Fame voters to vote for anyone at all into the Hall of Fame, we should be able to trust them to vote the right players in for induction if the limit was temporarily raised.

2. After the Super Bowl, Jay Mariotti just went ahead and predicted a dynasty for the Saints. You know, why the hell not? They won one Super Bowl, they probably will win 2-3 more, right?

It isn't a bandwagon we're jumping on. It's a Mardi Gras float, a wave of confidence that dares to suggest that the New Orleans Saints, a team that wasn't supposed to win the Super Bowl unless the apocalypse arrived, might win another one next year.

No one ever said the Saints shouldn't/couldn't win the Super Bowl. Ever. No one said this. Ever.

Let's create a false assumption and then disprove it! Now Jay Mariotti is stealing from Jemele Hill.

"I think I could kiss him right now,'' gushed Saints owner Tom Benson, whose standing in New Orleans was saved by Payton and Brees after he was vilified four years ago for threatening to move the team after Hurricane Katrina.

It's funny how Super Bowl success makes us forget the few asshole things Tom Benson has done while owning the Saints. Amazing isn't it?

We've watches several accomplished coaches -- Mike Ditka, Jim Mora, Bum Phillips, Wade Phillips and Hank Stram among them -- take over the Saints and not come close to what Payton has achieved in four astonishingly quick seasons.

Payton's astonishing record in his 4 seasons with the Saints:

2006: 10-6
2007: 7-9
2008: 8-8
2009: 13-3

Two playoff appearances in four years. Good, but not astonishing.

It's stunning enough that he has transformed a hopeless losing culture into a rousing success.

The Saints record for the 4 seasons before Payton arrived:

2002: 9-7
2003: 8-8
2004: 8-8
2005: 3-13

For Payton, 8-8 is astonishing in the eyes of Mariotti, but 8-8 prior to Payton's arrival is a "hopeless losing culture." I think it is funny how other than the Super Bowl year with Payton and the 3-13 in 2005, the records for the 3 years before Payton and 3 years while Payton is coaching the Saints is exactly 25-23 in both cases. I know it is tough to exclude those two years, but is also a bit misleading to call Payton's 4 year record "astonishing" while calling the 4 years before Payton as having a "hopeless losing culture."

but Payton put the Saints in position to win with the greatest play call in the game's 44-year history.

Possibly overstating this a little bit? It was a great call, but was it the best in the history of the Super Bowl?

A hot name at the time as offensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys, he easily could have passed on the job when general manager Mickey Loomis offered it. He chose to embrace the challenge.

The challenge of a team that was 28-36 the 4 years prior to his arrival. It's not like he turned the Lions around or anything. This was a team that hadn't had Super Bowl success, but wasn't a terrible team, except for the 2005 season...which not-coincidentally was the year the team was uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.

Also interested were the Green Bay Packers. He grabbed the Saints job.

Revisionist history by Mariotti. He didn't grab the Saints job, he didn't get the Packers job and the Saints were the only other team offering him a head coaching job at the time. It made the choice fairly easy for him.

Once the laughingstock of the NFL, the Saints have become a destination because of Payton. They'll lose some free agents, but as long as Brees is healthy and his receivers and running backs are in place, they'll be a contender in an NFC that isn't as robust as the AFC.

As long as those receivers and running backs are in place the Saints should be fine, right Jay Mariotti? It's not the Saints defense that won them this title was it? The same defense that wasn't good when the Saints were 8-8 the previous year...the same year the Saints had much of the same offense in place? Of course, it's just the offense this team needs. Don't worry about that defense at all.

It is Sean Payton's miracle. And at age 46, he might be just starting.

I hate it when the "dynasty" talk comes up after a team wins 1 Super Bowl. Also, Jay Mariotti is an idiot.

3. Let's get some Jay Mariotti Olympic idiocy as well. The same week he came out in supporting Tiger Woods, he says Bode Miller hasn't redeemed himself yet.

He continues to be a shallow-minded hypocrite and anti-Olympic buffoon, even more so with three additional medals around his neck, one of gold.

Better than being a buffoon with a computer and an opinion, right Jay?

Bode Miller says he now wants to embrace the "passion" and "inspiration'' of the Games, yet he's bothered by the "corruption" and "money'' -- which, of course, any athlete could say about any sport if he chooses to be a rebel without a clue.

Or he could actually be concerned about the corruption and money.

This was the ideal opportunity to make amends for his despicable behavior four years ago at the Turin Games. The assumption was that Miller would fade away as a punchline and wasted talent, but somehow, after pondering retirement, he ignored a beat-up body, including an ankle sprain suffered in December during a volleyball game, and showed up again in the competition he despises.

I am not a Bode Miller fan or anything, but doesn't the fact he matured and won 3 medals mean this should be a good story and not a "this guy doesn't deserve redemption" story?

No one, that is, except Bode himself. Pathetically, he keeps on baffling us with his b.s., trying to embrace the good in the Games while still painting himself as a more subdued counterculturist who doesn't like the accompanying greed. Look, a lot of us don't like corporate America and the way it operates, but that doesn't mean we lash out at it while reaping the benefits.

Exactly. What successful person has ever criticized society and the way that society runs while still living in the society? Other than pretty much any person who ever made a significant change to society of course. The way a person gets credibility to suggest changes and the way a person's words actually mean something is if that person lives in the society he criticizes. It shows he/she actually wants change to be made.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't marching the streets of Tijuana or some other foreign country in support of better civil rights in the United States was he? No, he was in the heart of cities with racism protesting in an attempt to make life better for others. It's how change is made.

If Mariotti took his own advice, he would not participate in the coverage of the Winter Olympics in Canada because he was so critical of their handling of the death of the luger a few weeks ago. If he wasn't a hypocrite of course.

Instead, he continues to devalue the worth of a gold medal, which demeans the purest objective of the Olympics -- to train for years and beat the world's best competition -- and insults the pride of other athletes who've worked so hard to be here. Who is Bode Miller to look down his nose at a gold medal, then smile and wave during a flower ceremony after winning a gold medal?

I think it is possible for Miller to enjoy winning a gold medal and still hate the commercialism of the Olympics.

"That was the feeling I've been searching for, and I let it build up. I was real nervous before I went, but excited-nervous, not anxiety-nervous," he said. "Normally as an athlete, a veteran of 400 World Cup races, you kind of repress that stuff. I used to crash all the time because of it. But I think that's part of why I wanted to come back."

He came back to get excited-nervous?

No, idiot. He came back for the adrenaline rush of racing down the hill and redeeming himself for past mistakes. This "excited-nervous" is something athletes feel right before they start competing. It's obvious he was trying to redeem himself or at least forget some of the mistakes he made in the past. Apparently Jay Mariotti doesn't like this.

4. Mike Freeman wants us to think about Donte' Stallworth's victim, which he doesn't believe people are doing.

Reyes is the forgotten figure in the Stallworth tragedy, continuing to unfold coldly and uncomfortably right before our catatonic eyes. Reyes was walking to a bus stop on his way home from a construction job at 7:15 a.m. in March 2009 when Stallworth, legally drunk at the time, struck Reyes with his vehicle and killed him.

I think what has caused less uproar about Stallworth is that Reyes apparently broke the law by crossing the street NOT at a crosswalk and there were other circumstances that have caused less uproar about Stallworth's return to the NFL.

Stallworth, meanwhile, fared much better. He was indeed suspended by the NFL for an entire season yet, incredibly, sentenced to just 30 days in prison for manslaughter.

I can't get how Plaxico Burress gets 2 years in prison for shooting himself in the leg but Stallworth got 30 days for manslaughter. I thought the sentence was too light...but no one does seem to care that much.

The most interesting aspect of this ugly case is the lack of attention and outrage it has generated. It seemed the media and sports fans were more concerned about who Tiger Woods was boinking than Baltimore signing Stallworth.

Absolutely, it is amazing to me how few media members and others aren't interested in this case. Mike Vick killed dogs, and I like animals more than humans so just know that, but there was a constant debate over whether he should be allowed back in the NFL. Stallworth kills a human and no one seems to care. Hell, Peter King views it as a redemption of sorts for Stallworth to even be signed by an NFL team. If you remember, he basically was fawning over Stallworth in his MMQB this past week. I don't get how it is a redemption really.

This time, post-Stallworth, the reaction was quiet and there was more examination over whether Stallworth could help the Ravens rather than if he should be allowed back in the NFL in the first place.

Peter has referred to Stallworth previously as "learning his lesson" and indicating he feels Stallworth has redeemed himself through charity activities. Then this week, instead of questioning why Stallworth could even sign with a team, he only talked about how fast Stallworth's 40 yard dash time was on a slow surface.

Again, Stallworth deserves another opportunity to rebuild his life but when you kill a man, professional football should be out of the question. It's disingenuous (at best) when Newsome says Stallworth paid a significant price. Stallworth paid a very minor one.

I absolutely agree. I know Mario Reyes wasn't in the crosswalk, which apparently is an offense punishable by death now, but he was still a pedestrian and Stallworth hit him with his car, while legally drunk. I don't get how being legally drunk and hitting a pedestrian is only worth 30 days in prison. I guess it was the old "I flashed my headlights at him" defense that paid off for him.

Granted, Stallworth has paid the price for his crime, I just don't think it was a very high price for the crime. In a world where Tiger Woods cheating on his wife and Mike Vick killing animals are seen as higher crimes by the media, what does that say though?

5. There are two different trains of thought in the world regarding 2010 free agency in the NBA. The first train of thought wonders what would happen if a bunch of free agents teamed up on one team. The second train of thought thinks this is not realistic. Gene Wojciechowski is the spokesperson for this first team.

How rich is LeBron James? Put it this way: When God needs some walking-around money, he borrows it from LBJ.

Boo!!! You're a hack.

And although Chris Bosh isn't in the same endorsement orbit as King James and D-Wade, he's still pushing $60 million in career salary earnings. So it's not as if Bosh is ordering the 89-cent, five-layer burrito from Denise.

(Throwing fruit at Gene from the crowd and then Bengoodfella steps up his game and starts throwing knives at him.)

All that could change if James, Wade and Bosh decide to put dynasties over dollars, basketball legacies over bank accounts. They just need a dotted line and some stones as big as the ones in Olympic curling.

"What these players should do is prove they are among the greatest players in the history of the NBA by teaming up with other great players to win championships so that way people can dismiss any titles won by a Wade/James/Bosh team as caused by their alliance on the same team and not their individual skill."

If there is anything less attractive to a basketball player like LeBron James and Dwayne Wade than sharing the spotlight and possibly not getting credit for a championship won, I can't think of it right now. Remember how bad Kobe Bryant wanted to win an NBA Title without Shaq? Exactly, so why would two (three? Is Bosh in there?) of the game's best players voluntarily try to have his legacy tied up to another great player? Remember, Wade already has a championship with Shaq, and you are naive if you don't believe he wants to win one on his own.

So not only does it not make sense for James/Wade/Bosh to team up from the point of view in regard to enhancing each of the player's legacy on championship teams and their standing in the hierarchy of the greatest NBA players of all-time...it doesn't really make financial sense either. One or two of the three players would have to take less money than he could get on the open market.

That's not even including the fact three alpha players on one team, with all three players in their prime, would probably not work. Remember Shaq and Kobe? What about Shaq, Kobe, and Iverson? How would that go?

As ridiculous as it sounds, there exists a scenario in which these three guys could play on the same team and win championships happily ever after starting next season.

Maybe they would win a championship or two, but I question how "happily" they would do this and how long this situation could last.

Without going all capology on you, it looks as though next season's projected salary cap will be between $50.4 million and $53.6 million.

Right now, the Knicks are on the hook for only $18.6 million in contracts next season. The Nets are committed to just $26.6 million worth of deals, while the Heat are at $30.7 million, the Bulls at $31.9 million, the Clippers at $33.5 million, the Kings at $33.9 million and the T-Wolves at $35.2 million.

Most likely none of these teams could afford these three players if they got maxed out contracts. They would have to take a pay cut of some type to be on the team and the team will have trouble adding any other players for a few years down the road.

The numbers could change by July, but at least this gives you an idea of who has the most money to make a run at one of the great unrestricted free-agent classes in NBA history.

Without taking less money for 1 or 2 of these players? No one.

I'd ditch them. If you're really serious about creating a brand and a basketball legacy, do something that's never been done before. Don't max out; min out.

The basketball legacy wouldn't be LeBron James winning an NBA Title, but LeBron James winning an NBA Title with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Then the legacy will be that Dwayne Wade needs one of the top 20 players of all-time on his team to win an NBA Title and so does LeBron James. This isn't the legacy either player wants.

But if James, Wade and Bosh truly want to make history, they could do the unthinkable and split the Knicks' $33 million three ways. It would cost them salary money, but can you imagine how much they'd make on the back end if they started reeling in NBA titles? In New York?

I hope Gene understands players also care about their own personal legacy and players like Bosh, Wade, and James have basketball skills that could very likely conflict with each other. Who gets the last shot on a team with Wade and James? Figure in Bosh on that team as well. You think Wade wants to be a sidekick? Because LeBron James sure as hell won't be one. I am also pretty confident Chris Bosh doesn't want to be a third option. NBA players want to win a championship but there is a limit to how far they will go to do so, especially at such a early part of their career.

Three singular players who know careers are defined by championships, not just checkbooks.

Three players who also understand how Kobe and Shaq's time together with the Lakers winning 3 NBA Titles was perceived. Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, he didn't need a Top 20 player to win an NBA Title. You don't think LeBron James thinks about this? I guarantee you he does.

I think this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.

6. Now Jemele Hill (of all people) speaks with the point of view I agree on, that this group of three guys won't work well together.

But what I can't take is the idea that the NBA would be better off if LeBron and D-Wade or LeBron and Bosh, or some combination of the three, wind up playing together. Sometimes, it feels as if fans want the NBA to become "Super Friends." Even though Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were far more compelling individually than together.

Even though I am not sure I like the comic book reference, I agree with JemeHill. It is exciting to think how good a team with these three players on it would be, but I don't know long-term how this would work.

The assumption seems to be that two or three megastars on one team is a good thing. But I can't think of a more boring setup.

Agreed. She is taking a different look than the one I have taken, she focuses more on how this move isn't good for the NBA, but I agree with it in principle. I also don't think these three players could play well together for long.

The idea that the NBA needs several superstars on one team is misguided. Every superstar needs help, of course. But it's working for the NBA to have LeBron, D-Wade and Bosh (admittedly, a lower-wattage star than Wade and LeBron) in their respective cities, each competing separately for a championship.

I don't even really care about the parity of the NBA, though it is more exciting when James and Wade are on separate teams. I care more about the fact it doesn't really make sense in many fashions to team these players up.

And although Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett came together to win a championship in Boston in 2008, they were complementary pieces rather than individual superstars who could singularly carry a team the way LeBron, Wade and Bosh have.

I would argue those players were individual superstars before coming to the Celtics and Pierce was still a borderline superstar in 2008. I don't think I would call these three players necessarily "complementary pieces" in 2008 though.

Jordan is considered the greatest because he won six titles with teams consisting primarily of him, plus role players. Had he ever paired with another superstar, he might not have been looked upon as invincible.

That's my point. This is a perception that NBA players care about too. This is not just the protesting of a guy who just absolutely loves parity or anything.

If LeBron and Wade or some of the others wind up on the same team, how will we measure their greatness? How can we ever know what they were truly capable of as individuals?

This is the question these players have in their mind, which is why I don't think they would ever team up.

Kobe was/is criticized sharply for playing a role in the Lakers' split with Shaq. But there's no question that had he not won a title without the big man, he never would have been in the conversation with Jordan as one of the greatest players ever.

Kobe earned a lot of credit for winning an NBA Title without Shaq. He may have still been considered one of the greatest players ever, but not with as much enthusiasm as he is considered in that way now. I don't think James, Bosh, and Wade on one team could or would ever work.

7. Mike Freeman does some athlete bashing and this time it is Dwight Howard he goes after. I have been critical of Howard in the past because he doesn't have an offensive arsenal of shots and he doesn't WANT to be the best player on his own team...at least in my mind.

No matter his alleged offensive improvement, Howard continues to be the most frustrating player in the NBA and maybe all of sports.

I think Shaq has set a new standard for centers in the NBA and how we think they should perform. He had an obvious physical advantage over other players and still developed as a player...except at the free throw line (I still say he should have tried to shoot free throws granny-style. It is embarrassing, yes, but if it helps it would be worth it). It's just my hypothesis, but I think if Shaq had never come along, then we would be happy with Dwight Howard's progress. Shaq was essentially Howard when he came in the league. He could dunk and had a very limited offensive game, then Shaq worked on his footwork and created some (awkward at times) shots in his arsenal. Howard really doesn't have this. I have watched quite a few Orlando Magic games this year and he looks the same to me as he did last year.

Howard deserves credit for attempting to diversify his offensive game with more front looks and handsomer jumpers, yet he still doesn't look drastically different.

But around the basket, I don't like Howard's moves. They are just very basic in my opinion.

He might be demanding the ball more but it looks tepid, almost fake, like he's trying to be something he's not.

Howard doesn't even really "demand" the ball. He wants the ball but he is also perfectly happy with another player taking the last shot of the game. This hasn't changed this year at all. Against Boston earlier this year, Rashard Lewis took the last shot, it wasn't Howard who seemed to want the ball in his hands.

"Kevin Garnett has been in this league forever and he's won six playoff series in his career," Van Gundy said. "Dwight's won four and he's [24] years old. That's a pretty good comparison. Why is Kevin Garnett a great winner and Dwight Howard's not?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether Howard wants to get better and whether he has that hunger to win that great players seem to have. Garnett had that hunger and he seemed to maximize his potential, even if he did seem to shrink from the ball at the end of the game a little bit.

Many times, Howard will be the biggest and strongest on the floor, so he's going to get his points and rebounds.

If only Howard were hungrier, he might already have much more.

Exactly. Howard isn't a bad basketball player, he is going to get his points and rebounds. It's just when the game is on the line or when an old, out of shape center (Shaq) calls him out and steps up to him, Howard doesn't step up his game on the floor.

8. Bill Simmons wrote an article about the NBA that I very much agree with. I care about the NBA and I really believe he has a few good points that he makes.

It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.

It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.

It's about Jamaal Tinsley getting paid $10.6 million this season and the next by Indiana not to play there.

Really, these are mistakes made by poor General Managers but they are an example of a greater problem Bill describes well in this column. The finances of the NBA have been screwed up over the past couple years and I don't know if it is getting any better.

Just in the past three years, we've seen general managers Sam Presti (Zombie Sonics), Daryl Morey (Rockets) and John Hammond (Bucks) build competitive teams by prudently watching their cap, searching for bargains, building around young talent and picks, and/or carving out enough cap space to take advantage of desperate suitors who will pay with draft picks or young players just to dump an unsavory contract.

I can't help but recall there was a time when Bill Simmons was wanting to be the General Manager for the Milwaukee Bucks and after Hammond got hired Simmons indicated Hammond may not be the best guy for the job. He won't talk about that of course. Naturally. Who wants to focus on his bid to be an NBA GM for the Bucks and then it turns out the man who was hired actually seems to be competent?

Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?

Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.

Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.

Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.

Great points. I won't quote anymore of the column, because I think if you like(d) the NBA, it is worth reading in its entirety. The problem with the NBA is there are people who love basketball who don't watch the NBA for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with the product on the floor. I am not saying it makes perfect sense.

Quick personal story to help better explain...I desperately try to hang on to my love for the NBA. I watch as many games as I can. Often times with teams dumping salaries and trading players for no competitive reason, it doesn't feel like the NBA is a basketball league, but a league where amateur General Managers learn how not to run an organization. I find it to be a hard league to understand and an even more difficult league to embrace for many people. My fiance loves watching college basketball. She watches games without me and tells me about them in vivid detail. "That fucking Brian Zoubek" may be a phrase used in our wedding vows. She can't get into the NBA, except to watch my favorite team play. What's worse is that she doesn't hate it, but she is indifferent towards it. I find indifference worse than hatred, at least for a sport, because that sport isn't even relevant in a person's mind when there is indifference felt towards it.

I have two good friends who were obsessed with the NBA and they live 15 miles from where the Bobcats play, but their interest has decreased. These are people very interested in basketball as a sport. Now, I don't think my friends encompass the attitude of everyone, I am just using them as an example. College basketball is different from NBA basketball, but it is still basketball, so naturally I would think a person who likes one could at least understand the other. I know there are people who don't like college basketball, but many times it is because the quality of play is lower. I can see that reasoning, but it doesn't make sense how someone who likes the lower quality of play in college basketball doesn't like the NBA. The excitement about the NBA just doesn't happen for many casual fans and I think that is where the NBA is struggling, they can't get the casual fan interested and the way certain teams are being run I can see even diehard NBA fans being turned off at some point. It sounds like I (or Bill) is trying to be dramatic but trades where a guy like Antawn Jamison goes to the Cavs for essentially nothing are commonplace and it can't be good for the game.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bill's article.

9. John Feinstein takes ESPN to task for the Tony Kornheiser situation. I don't necessarily like Kornheiser but Feinstein has an interesting take on the situation since he used to be on "Sports Reporters" and had a sort of falling out with ESPN. Feinstein is a Kornheiser apologist but overall I thought this was an interesting read.

10. Anyone interested in a fantasy baseball league? I am kind of torn but I promise this would be a league where there is more trash talking done. If anyone is interested, do you prefer the head-to-head leagues or the leagues where it is a points based system (I am forgetting the name right now)? I don't care either way. If anyone is interested, I can get a league going, and I promise there will be more talking in this one than there was in the other fantasy leagues. I am limiting the amount of leagues I am involved with, which will help tremendously.