2 comments Murray Chass Relays Fay Vincent's "Great" Idea

Murray Chass has an idea. It isn't a terrible idea, but I just don't think it is a great idea. I don't want to be deceptive, so the idea that Murray Chass discusses today isn't exactly his idea, it is former MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent's idea. Murray has had enough of the players getting paid a ton of money through a huge contract. That's just ridiculous! Why not do something less ridiculous like give the player a piece of equity in the team? Or something similar to equity in the team, but make it similar to equity in the team? Why pay a guy a ton of money to do this job when you can give him a part of the team? Yes, I do realize CEO's and shareholders who are also employees with their company have a piece of that company, but the relationship between a MLB player and a team is different than that of a shareholder and a company. A MLB player has a specific skill set that is more difficult to duplicate than your typical stockholder. Therefore giving an MLB player any amount of stock or equity in a team is different than a stockholder having 1,000 shares in a company.

St. Louis position players have a Feb. 18 reporting date with the first workout the next day, but Pujols apparently plans to be early. Usually it’s the union that challenges a team’s effort to have players report earlier than the scheduled reporting date, but in this instance the team might want to tell Albert he can’t report until the scheduled date.

Yeah, just tell him when he can and can't report to training camp. That wouldn't make the contract situation any worse. I am sure Pujols will be open to the Cardinals not allowing him to report to training camp when he wants to. You know what else will help the negotiations move smoother? If the Cardinals kidnapped Pujols family and said they won't get to come home until the negotiations are done. That way, everyone can focus on the contract negotiations.

Not that the Cardinals would do anything to annoy their superstar, but telling Pujols to stay home an extra two days would give them an extra two days to try to negotiate a new contract to succeed the 8-year, $111 million deal that ends this year.

Again, not only failing to meet Pujols deadline, but refusing him to report to camp so the Cardinals can have two extra days to push Pujols' deadline back would probably have angered him a bit.

That 10-year, $300 million proposal has been mentioned as Pujols’ price, but so have 5 years and $250 million. I heard that figure from someone who heard it from a fellow who lives in St. Louis and is well-connected with the team’s owners.

I hope Murray is being sarcastic when he says he heard the 5 year $250 million figure from a guy who lives in St. Louis and is well-connected with the team's owners. I am afraid he is being very serious. This makes Selena Roberts' "anonymous sources" which she based an entire book about Alex Rodriguez upon look good in comparison.

We are talking here about ungodly amounts of money, more than entire offices or residential blocks of people earn in their lifetimes. When Player X rejects $18 million a year and says he wants $20 million, we ask why does he need the extra $2 million? Isn’t $18 million enough?

When a team is willing to pay a player $18 million per year, why do they have to balk at $20 million per year? Is the extra $2 million per year really going to push them over the edge into bankruptcy?

This reasoning can go both ways.

Taking all of this into account plus the fact that he just turned 31 last month, would you give Pujols $30 million a year for 10 years, would you give him $50 million a year for 5 years or would you give him some other outrageous amount of money?

It is not my money, but I would pretty much give Albert Pujols whatever amount of money he wanted. Ok, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but he is worth a ton to the Cardinals in marketing alone. Even when you don't factor in how well he plays baseball, he means a lot to the Cardinals simply by being on the roster and in the community. So while it is ridiculous that any athlete or person would be worth that much money...Pujols comparably could very well be worth that much money to a team in terms of revenue and marketing.

In relation to actual on the field production, maybe not so much, but that's a different story. I would think the Cardinals could improve their team by taking the $50 million per year they would give Pujols and splitting it among four or five players to make the team better all around. So yes, in terms of marketing and the intangible aspects of having Pujols on the Cardinals, he is worth it.

Fay Vincent wouldn’t, and he doesn’t think Pujols should take that kind of money. The former baseball commissioner has an idea about player salaries that makes a lot of economic sense for both clubs and players but is probably too revolutionary to be accepted.

Because nothing screams ideas that are "too revolutionary to be accepted" like an idea that is championed by Murray Chass. Murray isn't comfortable using different and new-fangled statistics to measure a player's performance, but he is all about thinking outside the box when it comes to paying a player. Using VORP to measure a player's performance is stupid, while giving a player in the age of free agency a piece of the team, or the equivalent, is brilliant.

Instead of paying a Pujols $30 million or $50 million a year, Vincent proposes paying the player a smaller salary and giving him equity in the club to make up the rest of his pay.

On its face, this really isn't a terrible idea. In fact, I have read Pujols camp asked for exactly this from the Cardinals. So in reality this could be a possibility, but practically I am not sure this would work. The problem is the logistics of this. I find four immediate major problems with this idea:

1. Baseball players buy nice shit and they want money to support the ability to buy nice shit. A smaller salary doesn't pay the mortgage as well. MLB players aren't looking to put money away for retirement in the future and pinching costs right now. They are retiring AND spending money right now.

2. When a player gets traded, he will have to divest himself from the team, which means he will be invested with the team still as he is about to be traded. Say a franchise is suffering major financial problems and the player's equity in the team isn't worth much...how happy will that player be when he gets traded to another team, a team he doesn't have equity in and is only receiving a small salary? Not only does that player have to cash out his equity in his original team because he was traded, if the team is having financial problems then he may not have made as much money as he wanted when he cashes out his equity. So the player is stuck on a new team with a small salary (and potentially no equity in that team) and paying capital gains on a smaller amount of money than he would like.

3. A player having equity in his team would create a whole new problem around trading a player from that player's perspective. The player has to have a contract, so when his contract runs out it gives the team major leverage. That player can't leave the team in free agency and not sell his equity in the team, so he has more incentive to re-sign with his original team. Players don't like to give away leverage.

4. It will create a whole new era of players telling the owners what to do with the organization. That's not the specialty of these players. Rather than be employees of the organization, these players are employees/owners, which is a good idea in companies with 10,000 employees, but not a good idea when an employee has a specialized skill set that can't be duplicated by more than 25 other people in the world...or duplicated by 2-3 other players when it comes to Albert Pujols.

In brief, Vincent believes players would be ahead of the game financially because by having a piece of the club or something similar to it, when a player sold his share he would pay capital gains tax at a much lower rate than he has to pay in income tax on his salary. The club wouldn’t be affected either way, and it wouldn’t have to pay out as much money during the life of the contract.

Players want money NOW though. They don't want to wait to get their money based on how well their team is run. It does make sense on paper to give a player a piece of the club, but logistically it creates a ton of problems in the era of free agency.

Vincent said the Miami Heat’s signing last year of LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade prompted him to think about the idea.

“I saw three basketball players get together and make a terrific deal for themselves away from the union,” Vincent said. “What didn’t they do? They didn’t end up with a piece of ownership of the team. In any other business that would be remarkable.”

James, Bosh, and Wade didn't need a piece of the Heat. They already have a piece of the Heat. Does Fay Vincent really think the Heat management won't listen to what James, Wade, and Bosh want? Please. The Cavs spent 7 years trying to keep LeBron happy. Bosh and Wade were brought to Miami to make Wade happy. They don't need the headache of having a piece of the team when they already have an unspoken piece simply by being doing their jobs well.

“Dustin Hoffman owns a piece of Tootsie, and it’s an enormously valuable asset. When he sells it, he sells it on a capital gains basis. He’s been paid the ordinary income for his time working on the movie and has an asset and when he sells it the tax rate is 15 percent, going to 20.”

Right, and again this seems to make sense, but Dustin Hoffman can't get traded to another movie where he would be forced to divest himself of this asset. An actor can get paid $2 million for a movie 2-3 times a year and get a percentage of the movie's take, but an MLB player, like Albert Pujols, won't stand for only making $2 million or $6 million per year.

“Put yourself in the position of Albert Pujols,” he said. “His contract is up. The Cardinals are going to want him to stay. I am Mr. Pujols and I say I’d like to stay and the cash I would want is in the range of $35 million, something north of 30, which is what Mr. Rodriguez and what other players of my ilk are going to be getting.

Maybe in Albert Pujols' situation, taking a part of the Cardinals organization is a good idea. He seems like a good guy and seems pretty savvy. His situation is the exception to the rule. The rule being that a player having a piece of the team creates a situation where that player has a say over the personnel and financial moves in the team and generally have the employee be such a large part of the management of the team may not be a good idea. It creates a whole new set of issues with that player. Even if this idea caught on, I can imagine other issues with why this wouldn't work. Can you imagine the fun Scott Boras would have with this?

Say the Cardinals sign Albert Pujols to a 8 year $100 million contract with a 5% interest in the team. Adam Wainwright comes up for free agency in a couple of years. They want to keep him, so they make him an offer of 4 years $65 million. He rejects it because he wants 5 years $40 million and a 3% interest in the team. The Cardinals don't want to give out more of an interest in the team, so they reject that, but Wainwright sticks to his guns and says he isn't going to sign a contract unless he can have a stake in the team. That's quite a problem.

So even if this was a good idea, which it isn't, there are still some problems with it working effectively if the player accepts this new idea. So that is the problem if the owner actually gives the player a stake in the team, which could possibly not happen. So Vincent has another suggestion...

“Anyone who is sophisticated will say the trick to generating wealth is to convert ordinary income into capital gains,” the former commissioner said. He then suggested a scenario with Pujols and the Cardinals, with Pujols doing all of the talking:

“I’d like 10 percent of the Cardinals. You might not want to give me the ownership, but you give me a piece of paper in which my economic interest is measured as if I owned 10 percent of the Cardinals so down the road when I cash it in, the difference between the value you put on it today and the value you put on it 30 years from now, when I’m an older man, that value will be taxed at capital gains rate, at a preferred rate.”

Again, the issue is going to be this is money the player has essentially invested in the team. So this player is going to feel as if he has a right for as long as he owns this 10% to give his input on the Cardinals and the team...even after he retires.

I don't know if I understand the position of Vincent's that the club wouldn't be affected if they did this. At some point, they will have to pay the player his percentage of what he "owns" in the team. The player will essentially still be a partner in the business, and if this turns out to be a good idea, other players will want the same thing.

However, an interested participant in the Vincent panel discussion was Michael Weiner, head of the players union.

“Traditionally it’s not in the union’s portfolio to help players with their money after they get it,” Weiner said. “It doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

I'm just eyeballing this point, but another issue this would bring up is which side would this put a player on in a union/owner disagreement? The player is a member of the union, but also has a few reasons to side with the owners as well if he has any type of equity, even without some form of actual ownership, in a team. That could create quite a conflict for the player.

“Major league rules permit a player to own a piece of the club for which he plays, but if he’s traded he has to divest himself of that interest. It happens automatically.”

Which goes back to my original disagreement with this idea. Let's pretend the Cardinals give Pujols 5% interest in the team plus whatever "smaller" contract is agreed upon, so what happens if the Cardinals start struggling? Will they trade him? Pujols would want to have a full no-trade clause. Pujols isn't going to want to get traded, but the Cardinals are going to want to trade him because he has an affordable contract and they can get his interest in the team off the books as well.

Throw in the fact a guy like Pujols would bring in quite a haul of prospects and think of the interest he would drum up. Every team would be throwing great packages at the Cardinals to get Pujols, but Pujols will want a new contract if he gets traded because his current contract, without the interest in the Cardinals, no longer reflects his true value. So the Cardinals would have every incentive to trade Pujols, but they would be stuck with a guy who is on the team and unhappy with even being on the trade block, but even more unhappy his interest in the team will be divested because he is getting traded. It would make the situation of trying to trade Pujols become more of a nightmare than it already would be.

All right then, baseball has had player-managers; will Albert Pujols become a player-owner?

Maybe, perhaps, a small owner of the team. He also won't be giving up a lot of his salary for this to happen. Why not? Because it just doesn't seem like a great idea nor realistic for either Pujols or the Cardinals. Most players want money now and may not want equity in a team.

5 comments Why Isn't It The Top 30?

First, a note of business. For those of you that have subscribed to Bottom of the Barrel by email (the link to do so is on the right side of the page), you may have noticed that it stopped working. Well, have no fear. I have resolved the issue. However, you will not receive email updates on every post until you resubscribe. I apologize for the inconvenience.

For those of you who have not subscribed via email, let me be the first to tell you that you are missing out. I, like most people, am lazy. So lazy that sometimes I ignore my favorite blogs only because I do not feel like visiting 10 different web pages every time I go on the computer. ESPN.com, CNN.com and Gmail are more than I can handle. If you suffer from any of the above symptoms, email is the cure.

Bengoodfella's post on Sunday (on rushing the court) left me with unreconciled thoughts. On the one hand, excessive court-rushing defeats its purpose: to celebrate an unusual event. On the other, I understand the impetus as a student. It's not as if each school is rushes the court with each victory. As outside observers, it seems like a daily occurrence. In reality, most students won't have the honor more than 2 or 3 times during their college careers.

Although a team may not have suffered historically, the majority of fans are college students who only recently became fans. Part of me wants them to have their glory. College is a time for creating the "remember when we" stories. If you take away the court rushing, you take away the passion of the game. And let's be honest: the reason why we love college basketball is not for it's skill. It's something more. Every player cares. Every coach cares. Every fan cares. Hoards of business men do not fill the seats. Without the obscene chants, heavy drinking and absurd intensity, the college game loses its distinct flavor.

But then I wavered again. I am Wisconsin fan (my brother is an alumnus) and, based on this weekend's events, a proud one. But even I admit that defeating Ohio State for the umpteenth time at the Kohl Center did not constitute an overly impressive achievement. This was no Patriots/Rams Super Bowl upset. It was more like Steelers/Seahawks. But the biased judgments of the ranking system clouded our view of the game. #1 vs. #14. A big difference, it seems. But is it really? Realistically, the polls serve no purpose. They are a small and insignificant factor in determining the participants in the NCAA tournament.

The top 25 is a fabled group with extreme exclusivity. Teams 26-30, just on the edge, receive zero recognition. And with no public visibility comes no buzz. No buzz, no discussion. No discussion, decreased chances of making the tournament. Despite the selection committee's every attempt to neglect media influence, it will always play a role. Even the top 25 polls, as determined at the beginning of the season, are in itself flawed. From year to year, college teams change personnel at a rate only matched by the NFL. To arbitrarily create rankings that significantly sway opinion and discussion is to do a disservice to the game of college basketball.

If you're outside that top 25, it's like you do not exist. I'm not just talking about the top 25 bubble teams. Think about teams in the 50-60 range. Although RPI supposedly fills this void, it falls into the trap of the BCS. There must be some human element. When 25 teams have a number stamped onto the beginning of their abbreviation, they automatically achieve a subconsciously elevated level.

Imagine if we applied the NCAA rules to the NFL (I chose the NFL, and not the NBA, because of the similar player turnover and change in power teams). A team like Kansas City, with a presumably poor preseason ranking, would have missed the playoffs. The Tampa Bay Buccanneers, only eliminated by a mathematical difference, would not have even entered the conversation. In short, preseason rankings would seem arbitrary, cruel and not conducive to equality. The NFL possesses too much year-to-year parity for such a system to legitimately function.

Every year college basketball experts weigh different factors to determine a tourney field, one of which is record against the top 25. Yet the top 25 is an ever-changing range. A win against a hot team that fizzles out towards the end of the season loses weight. The only honest judgment stems from assessing a certain team at a certain time, not how it finished the season. Overall record is only an average of past events. To ignore contemporary circumstances is to ignore the true impact of a win or loss.

I understand why we rank teams. It makes life easier. We have an inherent need to compare. LeBron or Kobe? Manning or Brady? These are everlasting questions that will never settle on an answer. For the sake of college basketball, I have one request. Rank every team, or rank no one. When an unranked team defeats a ranked one, we label it as an upset. But what if the #26 team #24? Or even #35 over #20? Are these monumental defeats?

Let's go back to the Wisconsin/Ohio State game. Ohio State was undefeated, and Wisconsin was a 5 loss team. Ohio State was ranked #1. Wisconsin was ranked #14. By the end of the season, this one win will not make or break Wisconsin's season. But what if the #151 team defeats the #40 team? As of now, it's no biggie. Neither has a number next to their name. But that second game will impact the 151st ranked team in a much more significant manner.

Realistically, it's nearly impossible to rank all 300-some-odd NCAA Men's Basketball teams. There are too many to track. Too many conferences, too many players. So I say just get rid of the damn thing #26 deserves as much recognition as #25.

14 comments Gregg Easterbrook Discusses the Super Bowl And It Isn't So Super

Gregg Easterbrook had a few problems last week with Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers not publicly disclosing what type of helmet he used to help prevent future concussions. Gregg glossed over the fact Rodgers isn't a doctor, the NFL has a helmet contract with Riddell, and there may be legal guidelines in regard to Rodgers essentially (directly or indirectly) endorsing the use of a particular helmet. This is all typical though. Gregg tends to gloss over the depth of an issue and merely criticizes the issue on a "black and white" level. Naturally, he does this same thing this week yet again.

There were three interceptions returned for touchdowns in the 2011 postseason, all by Green Bay, and the playoffs end with the Packers as champions. That is no coincidence -- because the pick-six is the most devastating play in football.

Gregg starts the column off with a comment I can partially agree with him upon. A pick-six can be such a devastating play for the opposing team. The most devastating? Maybe, it depends on the situation. This will be the last time we even somewhat agree with each other after this week. As devastating as this pick-six was the for the Steelers, they had other chances to score and the pick-six happened in the first quarter of the Super Bowl. The Steelers scored 25 points after this, so they weren't terribly devastated by it, other than the fact it made the difference in the outcome of the game they lost by six points.

But the interception-return touchdown has psychological impact: The offense has worked, worked, for field position and, suddenly, a defensive player is sprinting in the opposite direction to the end zone.

The play where this pick-six occurred was the very first play of the drive. So the Steelers didn't really work, work for field position at this point. I'm picking nits because TMQ is almost over for the season and I like to pick nits with Gregg Easterbrook.

And a fumble returned for a touchdown has great impact. But football players and coaches know that fumbles occur largely by chance -- even the best players fumble -- while an interception returned for a touchdown signals a break down of performance and tactics.

Not always. An interception can be a result of a tipped pass or a bad bounce off the receivers hands. A fumble can signal the breakdown of the ball carrier's ability to carry the football in the correct position to prevent a fumble.

So while I am not arguing the emotional impact of a pick-six, a fumble occurs by chance so this could be even more soul-destroying than interception because it is a game-changing play that happens sometimes purely by chance. So what's worse, knowing a Super Bowl was lost by chance or knowing a Super Bowl was lost by poor execution? I would argue losing a Super Bowl by chance is worse.

The quarterback should not put the ball where it can be intercepted.

Which doesn't happen when a ball is tipped or the receiver runs the wrong route. Let's not blame it all on the quarterback. There are more things that go into an interception other than whether the quarterback put the ball where it could be intercepted.

The coaches should not draw up plays that are vulnerable not just to interceptions but to the intercepting player having an open field.

What the hell? Does Gregg really expect a coach to draw up a play and then look at the play and nix it based on the fact if the ball is intercepted the intercepting player would have an open field? Nearly every passing play couldn't be run if the the stipulation was added that the defensive player will never get an open field if the ball is intercepted. A screen pass, a slant, a quick out, a go route, and any other passing play could potentially give the intercepting player an open field depending on when the ball is intercepted. This is a unjustified criticism from someone, Gregg Easterbrook, who clearly doesn't care to understand football and just wants to be as critical as possible without reason for doing so. There are very few ways to draw up a passing play and never have the opposing team get an open field and a chance to return it for a touchdown.

A fumble returned for a touchdown may only mean bad luck: an interception return touchdown always means a serious screw-up by the offense.

A tipped pass argues differently.

A fumble caused by the ball carrier holding the ball in the wrong arm along the sidelines. That is a situation where the fumble was a screw-up by the offense.

Potential contradiction alert: Also, it is interesting that Gregg calls the pick-six interception the most devastating turnover when just this past October he called the kickoff fumble, which is a turnover, the worst possible turnover. In fact, I will quote Gregg from four months ago exactly:

Then Arizona "krumbled" -- fumbled the ensuing kickoff. And the krumble, or kickoff fumble, is the worst turnover, since the team that just scored immediately gets the ball back.

So both the kickoff fumble and the pick-six are turnovers, while the pick-six is the most devastating turnover, the kickoff fumble is the worst turnover. I guess in Gregg's world "worst" doesn't mean "most devastating." I get the feeling Gregg doesn't ever proofread or recall what he has written before.

And Green Bay's result raises the question of whether coaches should be less concerned with sacks on defense, more concerned with creating interception opportunities as a matter of game-planning.

This sentence raises the question of whether ESPN should hire someone else to talk about the NFL. Any idiot, and I mean pretty much any idiot that watches football, knows the best way to create interceptions or bad passes is to pressure the quarterback. A quarterback who has all day to sit back in the pocket and isn't concerned about being sacked will find an open receiver. This is true from the best quarterback in the NFL to the worst quarterback in the NFL.

Quite simply, you create interception opportunities by pressuring the quarterback and trying to create sacks. Sacks go hand-in-hand with interceptions. Gregg should really, really, really know this...yet it doesn't seem like he does. How sad.

Last week, TMQ asked why the Packers would not reveal the helmet type that Aaron Rodgers says has protected him against another concussion. Now I've got the details.

Yet Gregg doesn't immediately give us details and makes us read the rest of his abhorrent column. Not only is this Aaron Rodgers Helmet Creep, but he is also ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of high school football players whose lives are at risk RIGHT NOW without this information. Gregg is withholding proprietary information so we have to read his entire column. How shameful.

Cheerleader of the Super Bowl: Crystal of the New York Jets, the only team of the final four that brought cheer-babes to the championship round. According to her team bio, Crystal would "rather watch a documentary than a reality TV show," and can dunk a basketball.

That's not really what she said. I wouldn't expect to get this 100% factually correct because that's not what he is about. I checked the link out and Crystal actually said the following:

I used to be on a dunking team & specialty dunk was the “tomahawk”

So she didn't say she could dunk a basketball. She said she was on a dunking team. It's nitpick day with TMQ and what Gregg says Crystal says isn't accurate. It is like a bio of me saying I can make a field goal from midfield, when in actuality I can do this on an Arena League Football field.

Now it's the Super Bowl. Trailing by six points, the Steelers take possession on their 13 at the two-minute warning. The situation is all but identical to when the teams last played. On Pittsburgh's first snap, the Packers showed a three-man rush, Roethlisberger had plenty of time in the pocket and threw for 15 yards. "Uh-oh," yours truly thought. Then I thought, "There's my lead for Tuesday, the Packers lose by repeating their 2009 mistake."

I would bet $200 that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in his notebook, "Game Over," but he won't mention this because he doesn't want us to know he is often wrong when he writes that in his notebook. Gregg probably writes "Game Over" in his notebook a couple of times a week, but only tells us he wrote this when it actually comes true.

On each of the remaining four Pittsburgh snaps, the Packers rushed five. Fortune favors the bold!

If fortune favors the bold then why does Gregg have a sub-topic in TMQ called "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again." Isn't blitzing a lot being bold, so naturally fortune should favor that team? The lesson we learn is that blitzing is not good in the opinion of Gregg Easterbrook unless it works, in which case it is great. As always, he makes judgments based solely on the outcome of the event. For a writer that makes up hard-and-fast rules on a weekly basis, he sure plays loose with them when he needs to.

Four straight blitz downs is obviously risky. But Roethlisberger never seemed to realize what was happening, and adjust by throwing slants or goes. Pittsburgh had a timeout but never used it -- Steelers coaches could have stopped the action to ensure Roethlisberger realized what was happening.

Yes, because that is the perfect use of the clock and your only remaining timeout. Instead of using the timeout when they are closer to the end zone or while the clock is running, the Steelers should use the timeout when the clock isn't running or the Steeles haven't gained significant yardage. Also, with only having one timeout a quick slant would not get very much yardage required the a short amount of time the Steelers had. I'm not sure that would have been the best pass pattern to run. Plus, the Bears tried to run a quick slant and the ball was intercepted by B.J. Raji and he had a clear path to the end zone. So a slant should never even be a play that is run by an offense because it gives a defender a clear path to the end zone if intercepted.

As far "goes" go, I'm pretty sure the Packers had two safeties back so the only wide receiver of the Steelers that could have had a chance to get behind the Packers defense is Mike Wallace, which is why the last two passes of the game were thrown to him. So the Packers did blitz, but they still had 6 guys in coverage and it isn't like there was a huge space in the middle of the field wide open. Simply calling a timeout and only throwing "goes" or slants would not have been effective strategy.

Twice when Pittsburgh faced second-and-6 -- hardly an automatic passing down -- the Packers lined up in a 2-4-5 as though it was third-and-long. Considering Pittsburgh rushed for 126 yards on an average gain of 5.5 yards, and Green Bay kept offering a light front of only two defensive linemen, it's hard to understand why the Steelers did not run more. No wait, it's easy to understand -- this is 2011.

The Steelers were down 21-3 at one point during the game. they were playing catch-up a good amount of the game. They ran the ball 23 times and I am sure they wanted to run the ball more, but once they were down 11 points in the 4th quarter it didn't make sense to run the ball and burn clock.

Steelers coaches made many curious calls. Pittsburgh down 21-17 late in the third quarter, facing third-and-2, the Steelers threw incomplete -- though Green Bay was in a two-man front, which is good to run against. And the pass wasn't an attempt for a home run, just a dinky short thing.

"A dinky short thing" otherwise known as a "high percentage pass," which is not a terrible play on third-and-short. Green Bay routinely plays a two-man front and is able to stop the run effectively with this front. Possibly the Steelers thought they would be able to better move the ball through the air in this situation.

Down 28-17 and taking possession with 11 minutes remaining, the Steelers did not no-huddle. At the end, they were desperate for clock.

Which is why running the ball more than 23 times just may not have been possible.

The Steelers' deuce play sure was sweet; fake up the middle, then Roethlisberger sprints left and pitches an option pitch to Antwaan Randle El. He proceeded to celebrate wildly, though the Steelers still trailed -- one of many indications Pittsburgh's heads weren't in the game.

This is also an indication the Steelers had just made it a one-possession game and Randle El had scored a touchdown in the Super Bowl, both events are a cause for celebration.

Check any NFL game program, any NFL media guide, any NFL roster on anywhere including on ESPN.com -- every player's name is followed by the name of a college or university. True, it's biographical information, but the impression is given that the player is a graduate of the school.

The impression is given only if you want to get that impression. If a person assumes a player is a college graduate simply because his biography says that's where he went to school long enough to qualify to play in the NFL, then that's fine. It is not misleading information because most NFL players have to play in college for at least two years before they can play in the NFL, so the biography of that player simply lists what school that player attended. If a person wants to think the player graduated, that's up to that person.

Yet only "half of the NFL's players have college degrees." So why is a college or university listed after every player, if only 50 percent graduated?

Which is the highest percentage among the three major sports leagues, meaning the NBA, NFL and MLB. So, relatively speaking the NFL does well in regard to this issue.

When NFL game announcers, including on ESPN, talk on television about a player's college, viewers could infer the player is a graduate of the college. Roughly half the time this isn't so.

Viewers are free to infer this. Much like the concussion issue, simply because a person is too lazy to research a topic and assumes something is true doesn't mean anyone is being misleading them. Gregg gives out half-truthful or biased information on nearly a weekly basis and I do the research to show he is wrong. I call him out on it because he gives enough information to lead the reader to believe something is true. The NFL doesn't try to mislead the viewers, but simply states the college a player attended. Whether that player graduated is not even relevant and generally isn't even public information.

On "Sunday Night Football," Trent Williams of the Redskins introduced himself as from Longview High in Texas; Robert Mathis of the Colts introduced himself as from McNair High in Atlanta; Greg Jennings of the Packers introduced himself as from Kalamazoo Central High of Michigan; Aaron Curry of the Seahawks introduced himself as from Smith High in Fayetteville, N.C.; Miles Austin of the Cowboys introduced himself as from Garfield High in Garfield, N.J.; there are many similar examples.

Except this theory goes up in smoke because Greg Jennings graduated, as did Aaron Curry, and Robert Mathis. I couldn't find information on Trent Williams and Miles Austin, though both players stayed all four years in college. So a player doesn't say his high school simply because he isn't a college graduate, he may have another reason to do this.

Were they shouting out their hometowns -- or being honest, where other NFL players deceptively create the impression they are college graduates?

A little research would show they were giving out shout outs to their hometowns because at least 3 of the 5 players are college graduates. It's called research and those who do the research, rather than ask idiotic questions in the hopes the reader will assume these players didn't graduate college, will be able to find out the answer. Gregg complains the NFL doesn't give the appropriate information about NFL players who are college graduates and then he assumes five NFL players aren't college graduates when three of them definitely are. Gregg's entire complaint could be solved by the one thing he apparently isn't capable of, which is doing some research. His failure to do research on these players brings up my main point. If a person wants the information on whether a player is a graduate or not, they can easily look it up to find out.

Myron Rolle of the Tennessee Titans holds a master's in medical anthropology from Oxford University. On television, he can identify himself as from Oxford, rather than from Florida State, since Oxford is his highest degree. But if you attended college and never graduated, then high school is your highest degree -- and the honest thing to do is to introduce yourself by your high school.

On the biography information it routinely says "College:" and doesn't indicate whether the player graduated or not, so there is no misleading going on. Rolle CAN identify himself as being from Oxford, but he doesn't have to, so the players who didn't graduate college can identify themselves by their high school, but don't have to.

So here is the simple, practical idea TMQ advocates: On NFL rosters and in NFL media guides, players should be listed only by the highest school they graduated from.

Nobody cares but you, Gregg.

National Football League -- stop deceiving the public by making it appear that all your players are college graduates. If they've only graduated from high school, this list them in that way.

Nobody cares where a player last graduated from. We want to know where that player last played competitive football. Where the player graduated from doesn't matter to me, and I would guess it doesn't matter to others either.

If NFL players listed only the schools from which they actually graduated, game programs and media guides would be full of high school listings -- rather the college illusions presented today. Many teams, and many players, would feel embarrassed. That would lead to positive reforms.

This effect of positive reform caused by embarrassment can be seen by college graduates listing their high school as where they graduated from during pregame introductions on television. If NFL players were embarrassed by not graduating from college, why would they voluntarily list their high school as where they went to school when they are a college graduate?

When Deion Sanders was chosen on Saturday for the Hall of Fame, he made a great show of being at a youth football game, declaring his youth team meant more to him than Canton. This was intended to cause Sanders to come across as aw-shucks sincere -- to me, he came across as incredibly phony, pretending he was so intent on coaching young boys that he'd forgotten what day it was. That aside -- youth football in February?

I know! What a selfish, "it's all about me" prick. Let's see what kind of youth football game he was at:

When he learned the news via phone call, Sanders was at a charity event at Lancaster Recreation Park, having spent most of the day coaching youth football games against squads coached by rapper Snoop Dogg.

A charity event? That's even more selfish. What a phony to coach a youth football game for charity. I bet "Charity" is actually a stripper.

I guess Gregg thinks it would have been less selfish and phony of Sanders to decline participation in the charity event because he wanted to sit by the phone and wait for the call from the Hall of Fame. If he had done this, Gregg would have criticized him.

Here, gleaned from the NFL's official Record and Fact Book, is TMQ's annual Super Bowl look at NFL overstaffing -- organizational charts that would make the HMS Pinafore seem a lean, well-run ship.

This is the annual space killing feature Gregg does which I would guess 75% of his readers completely skip over. If Gregg really wants to talk about bloated organizations, why does ESPN need two "draft experts" and require what seems to be countless NFL analysts? Why? Because they can, which is why NFL teams have people with similar titles in their organization. Does ESPN really need a football non-expert to write a weekly column using his limited football knowledge to second-guess what teams did during games in the past week and give the readers information about their government? I am guessing they do not. Yet, they have one.

For that matter the public needed to know what the other starting quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, would wear -- Roethlisberger switched helmet types last spring, hoping to avoid another concussion.In the Super Bowl, Rodgers wore the Schutt Air XP and Roethlisberger wore the Riddell Revo Speed. Both helmets have advanced features that reduce -- but surely do not eliminate -- concussion incidence.

Gregg made a big show last week out of not being able to find out this information. One week later he gets the information, but he never tells his readers exactly how the hell he found this out. So when Aaron Rodgers and the Packers don't reveal the kind of helmet Rodgers is wearing it is a disgrace to the NFL and thousands of people's lives are put at risk. Once Gregg Easterbrook found out what helmet Rodgers was wearing, he declines to tell us how he found this information out. He wanted this information to be public last week, this week he makes the information public, but fails to tell others how to ascertain this information for themselves. Thanks for nothing Gregg.

High schools now have the information, but under Gregg's theory of "every high school and college is too helpless to find out information for themselves" they would not know how exactly to find this information concerning a different NFL player.

As for Roethlisberger, after having concussion problems in 2009, he switched in 2010 from the VSR-4 to the Revo Speed. He's had no problems since.

Of course Gregg knows he hasn't had concussion problems then because he is in Ben Roethlisberger's head and knows Roethlisberger hasn't suffered a concussion and then covered up the fact he suffered one to continue playing. Gregg Easterbrook can read minds and thoughts.

If the NFL switched to mandating that players wear the safest headgear, this would set a positive example for the high school ranks. Far too many high schools buy whatever helmet's cheapest, in part because equipment salesmen can say, truthfully, that the NFL doesn't mandate helmet safety.

So Gregg believes high schools buy the cheapest helmet available because equipment salesmen tell the high school the NFL doesn't mandate helmet safety? He really thinks this? I would think budgetary concerns would be the biggest reason high schools buy the cheapest helmet available. One of the big budgetary concerns being public high schools tend to be fairly poor right now. Naturally, I wouldn't expect Gregg Easterbrook with his upper crust of society life to understand this, so I will help him. High schools are having major budget problems right now and more expensive helmets for the football team isn't a high priority budgetary item for many school systems. They are focused on the less important things for students, like teacher's salaries and education-related expenses.

Parents of football players -- the Riddell Revo and Revo Speed, the Schutt DNA, Ion and Air XP, the Xenith X1 and the forthcoming Rawlings Quantum are designed to reduce the chance of concussions. Other helmets are not. What more do you need to know?

How does Gregg propose this all gets paid for? I would like to know that.

This silly rule was put in place to stop the electric-worm celebrations of a decade ago. Like all celebration rules, it's silly. Taunting should draw a flag. But why not bounce around happily after a touchdown? At all levels of football, the celebration rule needs revision.

Gregg from earlier in this exact column:

The Steelers' deuce play sure was sweet; fake up the middle, then Roethlisberger sprints left and pitches an option pitch to Antwaan Randle El. He proceeded to celebrate wildly, though the Steelers still trailed -- one of many indications Pittsburgh's heads weren't in the game.

Whatever happened to "why not bounce around happily after a touchdown?" Randle El shouldn't do that because his two point conversion didn't put his team in the lead? If anything is silly, it is the reasoning by Gregg that this two point conversion should not have been celebrated.

Next Week: The stadium lights are turned off, the film rooms are dark and the cheerleaders have put their miniskirts away in very small drawers. But one act of the NFL season remains -- the annual Tuesday Morning Quarterback Bad Predictions Review. Here's a preview: Everyone was wrong about everything, except me!

I hate to see TMQ come to an end soon...yet I won't miss it at all.

7 comments In General, Rushing the Court Is Stupid

Usually Dylan does the insightful opinion-editorial type posts, but I have an issue that annoys me and I wanted to get it out there. I swear I have talked about this issue before, but I can't find it anywhere in the archives. So I will harp on this issue again and assume I haven't talked about it yet. I hate it when fans storm the court. I will detail some times when storming the court is fine, but in general I pretty much don't like it. I don't get why a group of fans would want to say, "We are such a terrible team, yet we won the game. Let's have a huge celebration on the court to celebrate the fact we are a lousy team yet won a big game."

Those of you who follow me on Twitter see me whine about this a lot. I am a huge fan of college basketball, but along with the stupid officiating (I'm not sure college officials really know how to call a charge correctly. They call it way too much...that and I pretty much have a problem with the proliferation of charges calls made), I see rushing the court as my next big college basketball annoyance.

Seth Davis address this issue in a recent mailbag and I sort of agree with his position.

How did you feel about the Washington State fans storming the floor after beating an 18th-ranked team in January? It was a big debate here in Seattle.

-- Jake, Seattle, Wash.

Washington State was 14-6 when they beat the 15-4 Washington Huskies AT HOME. It is embarrassing and stupid the fans stormed the court. Sure, Washington was ranked, but Washington State wasn't much worse of a team than Washington when they played this game. Why demean yourself and your program by storming the court? Especially in a rivalry game? Was it really that shocking your team won that the fans must celebrate excessively like this? If I were a Washington player I would take pride in the fact a team is supposed to be our rival didn't expect to beat us. Rushing the court should happen under a strict set of circumstances (as I will detail in a minute) and this game in no way comes close to meeting those circumstances.

My second reaction is usually, "How lame." When the fans storm a court, they are saying that the other team is so much better than theirs that the simple act of scoring more points is cause for a wild, unhinged celebration. "We're so inferior, yet we won anyway! Yippee!"

Exactly. It is a fan base saying, "Wow, we are a terrible team but we somehow managed to beat this team anyway, we will excessively celebrate this accomplishment." Winning a game is a great thing, but an over-the-top celebration (which is what rushing the court is) isn't required every time a Top 25 team is beaten on the road.

Earlier this year, Indiana University students rushed the court after defeating Illinois. I initially have a problem with this because they are Indiana University. They were in the NCAA Championship game just a few years ago, but have had sanctions and made the error of having anything to do with Kelvin Sampson, so they are clearly rebuilding. On its face, I can't believe the fans for Indiana University would rush the court and I realize it is just kids having fun, but it just seems weird for me that Indiana would rush the court. Of course many of the students haven't seen a win over a ranked team, which says a lot about how far the program has fallen. Still, I cringed a bit in hearing this happened...but in the end I guess I don't have a huge problem with it, but barely.

Here is my opinion when it is never fine to rush the court, followed by the exceptions to this rule. I hope these rules make sense and I don't think they contradict each other (also, I am not egotistical enough to think I have covered every situation possible, but I did try):

1. When it is a rivalry game.

It is not acceptable to rush the court in a rivalry game. Washington State should not rush the court when they beat Washington. Have some respect for yourself and your program. Rivals should have close games where no one knows which team will win and the game is contested bitterly with something (tangible or intangible) at stake. Washington State made the Sweet Sixteen just two years ago. A rivalry should involve two teams that compete bitterly against each other to where one team hasn't traditionally overwhelmed the other team. To rush the court after a win is to essentially admit your team is inferior and it is a shock you won the game. That's not really too much of a rivalry if it is that shocking one of the teams won.

Exception:

A. When one team has gone through something difficult, like Indiana and their sanctions which was not the fault of their current players or current coaching staff, for 2-3 years which has put the rivalry into a one-sided affair. Simply being a terrible basketball team doesn't cut it. There have to be external forces other than the talent on one team isn't very good. Whether that is sanctions, a tragedy in the program or something like this.

Here's an easy example: Indiana had to deal with the loss of scholarship players due to Kelvin Sampson being a disgrace and so the entire program essentially had to be rebuilt from the ground floor back up. Rushing the court, while admitting the program has fallen, can be seen as acceptable to me. They have overcome a lot and got a big win. Still, it is Indiana University. It's not like they don't have a winning tradition, so on that end I wish they hadn't rushed the court.

Here's another example where rushing the court wasn't appropriate: If Indiana had fired Kelvin Sampson for being terrible and was terrible while trying to rebuild the team, it is not fine to rush the court. If there wasn't a loss of scholarships or the loss of a couple good recruiting classes, which is what happened to Indiana, then it is just a matter of your team being terrible. No need to rush the court in celebration the lack of competence in the past.

2. If both teams are ranked with in 10 spots of each other.

There is no reason to rush the court if both teams are ranked. I can't even think of huge exceptions to this rule. There are not too many. If you are ranked #11 and beat #1 at home, well you are obviously a good team so show some fucking pride in your school.

Exception:

If one team has made the move to D-I over the past five years. If a team is ranked #24 in the country and made the move to Division-I in the last five years then beating #20 at home may be a cause for celebration as a coronation of your program becoming a successful Division-I program.

3. If you are a part of the following rivalries. Obviously new rivalries can be added to this and subtracted over time, but here's the current list of rivalries where a win is not fine to rush the court:

Duke v. UNC
Kentucky v. Louisville
Kansas v. Missouri
Indiana v. Purdue
Michigan v. Michigan State
Florida v. Kentucky

Even lesser rivalries that have cropped up over the past couple of years, like the ones listed, it is not going to be fine anymore to rush the court:

UCLA-Arizona
West Virginia-Pittsburgh
UConn-Syracuse
Duke-Maryland
Kansas-Kansas State
Cincinnati-Xavier
Texas-Texas A&M

I am sure I missed a few, but there shouldn't be rushing the court in these instances.

Exception:

As in #1, the only exception if some external force, not related to the players on the team and their talent, forced one of the teams to not have a good team for 2-3 years.

4. If one of the teams has won a National Championship in the last 5 years.

There is no exception for this. Only players and officials should be on the court if you won a National Championship in the last five years and you beat a "better" team at home.

5. The team that rushed the court has a better overall record or was ranked higher than the team that was beaten. In this case, you are the better team so why rush the court and act like you are inferior? Wouldn't it be easier just to hold up signs that say, "We may be ranked highly but don't think of ourselves as a very good team." Maybe that's a lot to fit one sign, but still...

If one team has a better record than the other team then it is highly likely that team is better than the other team. So act like it.

Exception:

Obviously there is a limit to how many games could be played when comparing records. Small sample sizes don't count. If Team A is 3-0 and Team B is 2-1 then under certain circumstances it may be fine to rush the court.

Another exception (and this is obvious) is if the team that won is a Division-II team and the team that lost is a Division-I team. Otherwise, if you are ranked higher or have a better record, act like it.

6. Both teams play in the same conference. Don't join the conference if you don't think you can compete. Not to mention, in conference it is hard to win on the road sometimes.

Exceptions:

The team that wins the game in an upset is new to the conference over the last 5 years (there's that number again. 5 years is a good time to build a program and get a pipeline of a good team on campus). So if you are new to the conference, feel free to rush the court, but know it will be short-lived.

Exception to the exception:

It has to be an actual upset. If Kentucky joins the Big East the fans can't start rushing the court every game when they beat Syracuse or UConn.

7. It is also not fine to rush the court if your team has had a quality basketball team in the past 2-3 year but currently stinks. For example, Wake Forest has made the NCAA's the past two years and currently is a terrible, terrible team. If they beat UNC at home there is no excuse to rush the court. It should not happen.

Here is when it is fine, in my opinion, to rush the court:

1. When a Division-II team beats a Division-I team.

Exceptions: If it is a terrible Division-I team that gets beat (meaning a Division-I team that has less than 10 wins) or the Division-I team went D-I over the past five years. Don't rush the court in this instance.

2. The game is out-of-conference and the team that gets beat is a traditional national power. For example, if Oregon had beaten Duke earlier this year then it is fine to rush the court. If Florida loses to Oregon State, then it may be okay for Oregon State to rush the court. If Kansas State beats Duke in Manhattan, they should not rush the court though. Kansas State was a good team when they played Duke this year and should have expected to win the game.

I am a big fan of conference teams not rushing the court on each other. Out of conference if it is a true upset, then I am not as strict. I am weird that way. I would prefer teams NEVER rush the court. Even a mid-major should not rush the court if they beat an average team from a major conference. If it is an average mid-major that beats a very good major conference team at home then this is a different story.

3. It has to be an actual upset. I think the idea of an upset has been diminished over the past few years. If Kentucky loses to Tennessee in Tennessee, yes theoretically because Kentucky is ranked over Tennessee then it is an upset, but Tennessee is a good enough team to where they should have a chance at an upset. Northern Iowa beating a decent Big 10 team at home may not be an upset because Northern Iowa has shown itself to be a good team.

Rushing the court should be reserved for games where the fans and students really are not sure their team can win the game. UNC losing to Wake Forest at Wake Forest qualifies as an upset, but both teams are in the ACC and it isn't an upset worthy of rushing the court. The same thing goes for Kansas playing at a place like Florida. There is a disparity between the two teams, but not enough of a disparity to where Florida fans should rush the court.

The disparity between the two teams has to be clear and rushing the court shouldn't just be something that happens because your team beat an opponent that was better than them, but should be reserved for when the team that wins at home over a much better team, preferably an out-of-conference team that is considered an elite team. If you are a shitty mid-major team that beats a ranked major team at home, then possibly you could rush the court.

I get the idea of rushing the court and I am not completely against it, but it depresses me to see fans rush the court after a game where their team only had a minor upset or as a way of having a really grand celebration for a big win. A big win over a team doesn't mean the court should be rushed. Go tip over some cars outside or something after a big win, but don't rush the court every time the team wins a big game, because it only serves as a way of admitting your team was inferior and makes it look like you have little respect for the program.

I generally hate making steadfast rules, but I felt the need to do so here. Undoubtedly I will revise these rules over time.

11 comments BotB Podcast #7

Everything from TCU/Wisconsin to Jerry Sloan. Enjoy, kind folk.

10 comments 3 Weeks To Go

Do you ever get the feeling that you can't quite express what you're trying to say? I'm not just talking about writing. Sometimes you're asked a question, and you realize that you're answer doesn't quite represent your internal monologue. It's frustrating, to say the least. Well that happened to me just this morning. I made a valiant attempt to argue that Chris Paul and Dwight Howard would leave their original teams, just as Garnett, LeBron and Melo (will) have done in consecutive seasons. But then I re-read the post and recognized my folly. It's not that I do not believe in what I'm saying; I do. But to spare you the agony of reading what I had written before, I decided to scrap it completely.

I'm not sure why I felt so obligated to get that off my chest, but I feel a million times better now that I have. Almost as good as John Starks when his dunk over Michael Jordan immortalized him in the eyes of Knicks fans everywhere. So much so that we somewhat forget his horrendous game 7 shooting performance. But to top off this moment of honesty, I must admit my pure dejection. No more football. Basketball is in its annual mid-season "nothing really changes too much in the standings because teams are not playing with complete urgency" stage. Same with the NHL. The college basketball season, despite its grandeur and intensity across college campuses, has no lasting impact in the general sports world. To most, college basketball is defined by two things: March Madness and Gus Johnson. Baseball, at least, is close to the beginning of its season, but still too far away. Pitchers and catchers reporting, while a momentous occasion, is only a marker on our baseball calenders to indicate that "we're almost there!"

Everything is either dead or at a standstill. That's what makes the end of the football season even more painful. We have to the college basketball conference tournaments before the juices start pumping and the chatter becomes audible. So for the next 3 weeks, I will remain dejected as I mourn the loss of football. The loss of Gregg Easterbrook. The loss of meaningful NFL Live shows at 4:30 in the afternoon.

In the meantime, I'll be honing my pickup basketball skills with everyone else whose holding onto the glory days of high school. Maybe I'll take up the English Premiere League, although that's a large project in itself. I'll struggle to come up with things to write about. Maybe the NBA All-Star game, but that's about it. So NFL, I bid you farewell.

4 comments Wallace Matthews Doesn't Appreciate Brian Cashman's Inability To Predict the Future

We all know by now that Andy Pettitte has retired and will no longer pitch for the New York Yankees. Unless he is planning on being like his (ex) good buddy Roger Clemens and coming back mid-season, it appears his career is over. Now it is official, it is time for the useless second-guessing of Brian Cashman to begin. Wallace Matthews feels free to lead the way. Wallace feels the Yankees need more pitching, which is true, but he mostly feels like the Yankees should have prepared for Pettitte's retirement by signing Cliff Lee or trading for another pitcher. Why did the Yankees think of trying this? I am sure it never crossed their mind to go after all the quality pitching that is just hanging out on the trade and free agent market waiting to be grabbed up.

Four months ago, Andy Pettitte walked out of the visitors clubhouse in Arlington, Texas, after letting everyone know he probably wouldn't be back.

In fairness, while the Yankees still need pitching, there have been indications Pettitte was thinking of retiring a few times in his career. Every year, there have been whispers Pettitte will retire, and Cashman did say Nova and Mitre would be the 4th and 5th starters this year previously. So I am sure replacing Pettitte was a priority, there just wasn't a hell of a lot of pitching out there that correctly fit how much the Yankees were willing to trade or pay for that pitcher's services.

Now, we are 10 days away from pitchers and catchers and he still hasn't been replaced.

That is the real story today, not that Pettitte will hold a news conference on Friday morning to make official what everyone around the Yankees should have accepted back on Oct. 22.

So Wallace's position is the Yankees should have known Pettitte would retire back in October. It's weird though, because on January 31 of this year Wallace wrote this blog entry. In this blog posting, Wallace displays his (now what appears to be) absolute certainty Pettitte was retiring with comments like these:

Of course, that also means there's no less reason to believe he's coming back, which puts us right back at square one. Maybe Pettitte is planning to make a diva-like surprise entrance at The George on Valentine's Day, which would be most un-Pettitte-like. Or maybe things will heat up this week or next.

Or maybe Pettitte really meant it when he said he was seriously leaning toward retirement this time.

It's so funny how AFTER Pettitte retires, it was just a foregone conclusion he was gone, but as of January 31st his retirement was still very much in the air. This is second-guessing reactionary journalism at its factual worst.

My point is, no one really knows, not even the Yankees and perhaps not even Pettitte. We're all going on wishful thinking, gut feelings, amateur psychology and guesswork.

So on January 31st, NOBODY KNEW A DAMN THING about Pettitte's status, yet on February 4, it was CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR retirement was Pettitte's choice at the time. What a difference four days makes! It's almost like Wallace heard Pettitte was retiring and felt like second-guessing Brian Cashman, ignored his past feelings on the topic, and made it sound like everyone knew Pettitte would retire...despite evidence in Wallace's own columns to the contrary.

So naturally in his February 4th article, Wallace criticizes Brian Cashman for not preparing for Pettitte's retirement, even though his January 31st blog entry said in no uncertain terms that nobody knows anything. This contradiction and crappy second-guessing is why I write here on this blog.

How about I prove Wallace is full of even more shit? Kindly:

My gut feeling, which is no more informed or accurate than yours -- or Marchand's, for that matter -- is that Pettitte wants to play but something is holding him back from committing.

So while on February 4th everyone knew Pettitte was retiring, January 31st no one knew Pettitte's status and Wallace Matthews himself (unless he has multiple personalities, which based on some of his writing I wouldn't completely rule out) said he doesn't know whether Pettitte will play in 2011 or not. In fact, Wallace thought Pettitte DID want to play in 2011. Based on this, I am not sure how he should have expected Cashman to prepare for Pettitte's retirement since Wallace didn't fully anticipate Pettitte's retirement either.

But I'm not making any predictions one way or the other for the simple reason that like everyone else specualting on this, I don't know. And maybe neither does Pettitte.

Except, on February 4th Wallace thinks that Brian Cashman should have known. Nothing like second-guessing the man for no real good reason and without consistency. Of course at ESPN this is called "journalism."

So obvious was it that Pettitte was retiring, Wallace's colleague Andrew Marchand on January 31st predicted Pettitte would be back. It sure sounds to me like Wallace Matthews needs to be called out for writing about a subject that is clearly a contradiction on something he had written prior. I will be the one doing that.

When Pettitte told them in October that he was probably going to retire, the Yankees needed a starting pitcher.

Nearly every Major League team needs a starting pitcher. This is a broad need that is relevant to nearly every MLB team.

They still need one today.

How is this possible?

Let's establish first off that quality starting pitching is expensive, over-priced in fact in many cases, and very hard to come by. So most pitchers that are free agents are too expensive or there is a reason they are free agents and haven't been signed. Acquiring a pitcher through trade requires trading prospects, which seems to be the opposite of what Cashman wants to do with the Yankees in the future.

How is it possible for the New York Yankees, the richest, most successful franchise in the history of professional sports, with a ton of cash to spend, a huge and insatiable fan base to please, and a behemoth of a ballpark to fill on a nightly basis, to have let this problem go unattended for so long?

There's nothing like a little New York Yankee panic from a sportswriter. It starts with the idea that the Yankees are naturally superior to other teams so they should get pretty much whatever they want. Reality doesn't always match this idea.

Did they not believe Pettitte, who has always been a man of his word?

Says the exact same sportswriter who didn't think Pettitte would retire just four days earlier.

Or did they just think that a starting pitcher would fall from the sky into their laps precisely when they needed one?

Says the exact same sportswriter who, in this very article, just made clear his lack of understanding on how the Yankees didn't just magically fix their starting pitcher problem with no ideas on how other than saying the Yankees are "the richest, most successful franchise in the history of professional sports."

Wallace has no suggestions on how to get another pitcher for the Yankees, but he does know they needed one and should have gotten one. Why does Wallace know this? He knows it because EVERYONE knew Pettitte was retiring, you know, except for Wallace Matthews himself.

No matter how you spin it, the Yankees' GM hasn't had much of an offseason. So far, his biggest free-agent acquisition in terms of expenditure is Derek Jeter. That will not be nearly enough.

Based on Wallace's ability to predict the future over the last couple of weeks it seems like we can book the Yankees for the 2011 World Series now. I don't mean to piss in Wallace's oatmeal, but the Yankees made the ALCS last year and they are still going to be a really good team in the upcoming 2011 season. Pettitte only made 21 starts last year, so he didn't make 30+ starts and the Yankees still made the ALCS. Giving Ivan Nova a chance to pitch with a great offense behind him isn't a terrible thing.

But what do they do on Day 2 of the season, and Days 3, 4 and 5?

The same thing they did last year. Use A.J. Burnett and Phil Hughes. There are much worse options out there. A rotation that includes two 24 year old pitchers isn't a terrible thing. I know Wallace isn't comfortable using a 24 year old pitcher unless he is merely trade bait, but with the Yankees offense they can start the season with Nova and Mitre in the rotation and see how the season goes. This isn't the sexiest option available, but it very well could be one of the smartest.

Truly, the Yankees' rotation is no more of a mess today than it was on the night they were eliminated from the ALCS. And it is no less of a mess.

Yet, there is reason to panic? Much like many other idiots, Wallace would rather the Yankees give the illusion of progress by signing pitchers who aren't that great rather than stand pat. The fact nothing changed from a team that was in the ALCS the year before isn't necessarily a cause for concern.

Behind Sabathia is Phil Hughes, who is either a stud who won 18 games last year or a 25-year-old kid who faded badly in the second half of the season.

Which happened to also be his first full year starting.

Then comes A.J. Burnett, who is either a great candidate for comeback player of the year or an incorrigible head case destined to drive every manager, GM and pitching coach he comes in contact with absolutely nuts.

This didn't seem to bother Wallace as Burnett pitched well enough in 2009 to help the Yankees win a World Series. Burnett has always been this way.

Then there is Ivan Nova, either a 23-year-old with uncommon poise and limitless potential, or a green kid with all of 42 major league innings on his résumé and a disturbing tendency to fade late in games.

Nova could be a 24 year old kid with uncommon poise and limitless potential while still having only 42 major league innings on his resume. He can be both. Guess how he will get less "green" and get more innings? By the Yankees giving him a chance to start games at the major league level. It's hard to get experience pitching in the majors by not pitching in the majors.

Wallace can't bitch about how green Nova is and then complain he is getting a spot in the rotation. Wallace's complaint is the cure for his problem with Nova.

Then we come to the scrap heap, which so far consists of Sergio Mitre, Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon, and may soon include Kevin Millwood,

I don't think Millwood is the worst option, depending on how much money he wants. We saw how terrible he could be last year, but when he is just average he would make a great 5th starter. How many MLB teams (even quality ones) have the 5th starter spot locked down with a quality starter? Not many, so it is not like the Yankees are alone. I know being the average isn't what the Yankees are supposed to be, but it doesn't mean it is a sign of huge trouble.

The fact that the Yankees whiffed on Lee is not Cashman's fault. Once the Phillies entered the picture, no amount of Boss Bucks was going to lure him to the Bronx.

And after Lee, there really wasn't anyone on the free-agent market worth splurging on, unless you saw the comedic value in American Idle II, the return of Carl Pavano.

So continuing his reign of idiocy, Wallace says the Yankees should have traded for a better pitcher "knowing" Pettitte would retire...even though there wasn't a great pitcher to go and get. This is also forgetting the fact that Wallace himself stated on January 31st he didn't know Pettitte would retire. That's the problem with idle bitching like this. If you don't have a solution, it makes your bitching worthless, and your bitching is even more worthless when your current statements don't match up with statements you have made in the past.

It's sad writing a column complaining a general manager should have added a quality pitcher, while also acknowledging there wasn't a quality pitcher to add, is acceptable sports journalism.

But surely something might have been done on the trade market, knowing as we all did (or should have), that Pettitte probably meant what he said.

"Knowing as we all did..." Really Wallace????????????? Here's what you said on January 31st:

My point is, no one really knows, not even the Yankees and perhaps not even Pettitte. We're all going on wishful thinking, gut feelings, amateur psychology and guesswork.

Boy, you really nailed that one!

Pay a ransom of young talent -- say Joba Chamberlain and someone previously considered untouchable, like Jesus Montero or Austin Romine or Eduardo Nuñez -- for a second-tier pitcher to plug the hole.

The was an option BEFORE Pettitte retired as well. In fact, if the Yankees were going to make a trade like Wallace suggested this is exactly what they would have done. Nothing has changed and things haven't gotten worse. If Wallace wanted the Yankees to make a trade in December, this is exactly how they would have done it, by trading talent. The trade can still be made to bring in another pitcher.

Also, did he really call Joba "young talent?" Isn't this the guy the New York media loves to berate and have essentially given up on? How are Hughes and Nova not young talent? Wallace just got done thrashing them for not being good enough starters, yet Joba Chamberlain is a "young talent."

Or, take the chance of waiting until the trade deadline to try to pluck a quality starter from a team that has dropped out of contention, by which time the Red Sox may have run so far off with the division that Cashman will be back tending bar, only this time for the benefit of no charity other than his own.

I hope everyone is paying attention to what a contradictory idiot Wallace Matthews can be. On January 15, this is the exact sentence he wrote after the Yankees signed Rafael Soriano and Wallace (claiming) full knowledge that Andy Pettitte was retired:

If it were possible to win a division in January, then the Yankees would be American League East champions today.

The way this all plays out is yet to be determined. The bottom line today is that for the 2011 season, the two best closers in baseball will pitch for the Yankees.

That in itself makes them the champions of this offseason.

And odds-on favorites to win it all once they actually start playing the games.

So less than a month later with absolutely nothing changed, the Yankees are screwed. On January 15, when Wallace knew what he didn't know on January 31st about Pettitte really being retired, the Yankees were the favorite. Now that Wallace knows now what he claims he knew then but didn't seem to know, the Yankees are screwed.

What is abhorrent is this man gets paid to cover sports and give his opinion. Stay consistent and don't lie about your positions, that's all I ask from a sportswriter. But Wallace will lie and deceive his audience so he always seems like the smartest guy in the room.

And maybe what happened last year will happen again in 2011, that the Red Sox will fail to live up to the preseason hype and guys in the Yankees' clubhouse will overachieve, and everything will turn out OK.

As of January 15, 2011 the Yankees were paper champs of the AL East. On February 4, 2011 the Yankees need to overachieve and the Red Sox need to fail for the Yankees to win the AL East. Stay consistent, that goes a long way. Anyone who wonders why there are blogs like this, well blame Wallace Matthews for not being consistent with his message. Any idiot can change his opinion depending on the day, but a real quality sportswriter can write intelligently about a team or player, be wrong, and still have a consistent message worth reading.

But that doesn't change the fact that it never should have come down to this, especially when four months ago, Pettitte told the Yankees exactly what he was going to do, and the Yankees knew exactly where that would leave them.

It makes you wonder if anyone was actually listening.

What makes me wonder is why Wallace can write articles saying one thing in January and then write something completely different in February in a failed attempt to act like he knew what was going on all along...even when written evidence says to the contrary.