2 comments Jason Whitlock Gets All Jason Whitlock-y When Writing about Dez Bryant

Jason Whitlock, who probably has more in common at times with Jay Mariotti than he would like to admit, has decided to write about Dez Bryant and his sideline temper tantrums during the recent Dallas Cowboys game against the Detroit Lions. Whitlock is like Mariotti in that he has knocked ESPN (well, Mariotti knocks the entertainment sports machines but I know he's talking about ESPN) as if he is above working for them, but once ESPN (or any major entertainment entity in the case of Mariotti) comes calling he's glad to work for them. It's interesting that Whitlock, who used to criticize Rick Reilly for mailing in columns, has a tendency to do the same thing. Whitlock isn't at the point of consistent ridiculousness that Reilly is at currently, but he has the template to write an attention-grabbing column with a few references to "The Wire" and Jeff George reference down at this point. No need for too much thinking. Just write something that will gain attention and this will allow Whitlock to be deemed a columnist who talks about controversial issues. So Jason Whitlock writes about Dez Bryant and says he is no Jeff George. Whitlock also says Bryant's temper tantrum is different from a white quarterback's sideline tantrum because Bryant is inherently a malcontent. That's sort of differentiating between the two sideline tantrums based on past behavior, which I'm not entirely sure is fair when discussing the reaction to Bryant's argument with Witten/Derek Dooley and (for example) Tom Brady's sideline argument a few years ago with Bill O'Brien.

Not to say Jason Whitlock has sold out by going back to work for ESPN, but above this column is a video of Max Kellerman and Marcellus Wiley discussing this column on SportsNation. Sports news happens, ESPN personalities give an opinion on this sports news, then another ESPN personality comments on that other ESPN personality's opinion, and now not only has ESPN reported on a sports story but they have created and reported on themselves making news for the story. It's the ESPN news cycle, which is why Skip Bayless is still employed despite his overwhelming awfulness. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

False equivalency is the lifeblood of American public debate.

A receiver and a quarterback both yelling at coaches and teammates on the sidelines doesn't seem like a false equivalency to me. I think it seems like a pretty fair measurement for how the media treats a quarterback (white or not) and a receiver who throws sideline tantrums. The key difference is that a quarterback is expected to be a leader and a receiver is not. Whitlock even says Dez Bryant isn't a leader because he's a wide receiver. So he's working on an incorrect belief from the very start that receivers can't be leaders. The media has their own perception of leadership on a football team and which players can be leaders. Linebackers and quarterbacks are leaders. Safeties can be leaders, but only in certain cases. These players who are considered leaders show their leadership by yelling at teammates, preparing well for the upcoming game, not wearing a towel on their head on the sidelines, and blaming himself or blaming nobody for the mistakes made by a team. Quarterbacks are leaders, running backs and wide receivers are not. So when a wide receiver throws a sideline tantrum then it is not possible for him to be displaying leadership.

So it should come as no surprise that, in an effort to rationalize Dez Bryant's counterproductive sideline tantrums, Bryant's defenders compared the immature Dallas receiver to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

I wouldn't argue it is the exact same thing, but sideline arguments happen all the time and the cameras pick them up occasionally. Todd Haley has argued with Anquan Boldin and that didn't stop him from getting a head coaching job. Perhaps Haley was showing leadership since he was the offensive coordinator at the time and coaches show leadership by yelling (according to the media).

Celebrated white quarterbacks yell at their teammates. Why can't a black wide receiver?

The equivalency is false on multiple levels.

It's not even that. It's that many sportswriters shrug off Peyton Manning getting into it with Jeff Saturday or Tom Brady getting in an argument with Bill O'Brien, just like it should be shrugged off. But because Bryant is a wide receiver, and I don't think it is a black/white issue though we all know if Jason Whitlock can talk about race he takes the first opportunity to do so, he gets criticized and his actions get dissected. Bryant was demonstrative and seemed angry, which only further led to sportswriters getting excited over his sideline tantrum.

Dez Bryant erupted on the Dallas sideline for at least 10 solid minutes.

Apparently the amount of time of the eruption factors into whether it is leadership or just a player acting immaturely.

A friend of mine, a native Detroiter, was seated a dozen rows up behind the Dallas bench on Sunday. He and his friends heckled Bryant throughout Sunday's game.

Jason Whitlock is going to the Bill Simmons well of "I have a friend who saw it and this is how he reports it so it must be fact" journalism.

"The television highlights do not accurately portray how bad his tantrum was,"said Scott Nichols, the point guard on Ball State's 1990 NCAA Sweet 16 team. 

What he did 23 years ago is irrelevant and doesn't give his story more credibility. This may be Whitlock's attempt at name-dropping. The fact that this guy and his friends heckled Bryant the whole game (which for a person who is around 44 years of age seems really, really mature to do) tells me that he could very well be exaggerating the length and severity of Bryant's tantrum, as well as using his bias against Bryant as a way to make Bryant look worse than he was.

"He berated dozens of teammates for what seemed like 20 minutes."

But it wasn't 20 minutes. It was 10 "solid" minutes apparently. Also, why would I trust the account of someone who heckled Bryant all game?

Yes, I'm aware of the video showing Bryant interacting positively with Tony Romo and an assistant coach. The video is a little more than a minute long.

And of course to prove his point and churn out this column Jason Whitlock will assume Dez Bryant didn't interact positively with Romo or any assistant coaches for the entirety of the game, so one minute of being nice doesn't override the ten minutes of a tantrum. 10 is more than 1, Dez Bryant is an asshole and not comparable to any quarterback. 

Problem is, it's not footage of the scenes that made news all Sunday and Monday. It's a highlight of Bryant's "good" screaming. It's the same as if I released a one-minute clip on YouTube of me eating raw vegetables and leaving out the 19 minutes of me making love to a deep-dish, meat-lover's pizza.

So now it appears Jason Whitlock is arguing the point that Dez Bryant was unfairly portrayed by the media, which could lead me to assume that Whitlock doesn't see a false equivalency in comparing Bryant to a quarterback who gets in the face of a coach or teammate...except that's not the way Whitlock goes at all with this column.

I eat raw vegetables. But my 30 for 30 documentary better include sit-down interviews with Ronald McDonald, Colonel Sanders and Little Debbie.

Yeah, we get it. You like food and ESPN has a "30 for 30" documentary created by your good buddy and the only other ESPN sportswriter who is in love with his own opinions as much as you are, Bill Simmons.

Jason Witten wasn't yelling at Bryant and DeMarcus Ware wasn't restraining Bryant because he was shouting positive reinforcement at Romo and the coaching staff. Go sell that garbage somewhere else. Dez Bryant melted down Sunday, even if he littered his tantrum with a few positive words.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Bryant was yelling words of encouragement on the sidelines. It's quite obvious he was pissed off. So Whitlock is not really disproving anything here.

Brady and Manning have never done what Bryant did Sunday. Not even close. What Bryant did was akin to the tantrum thrown by my former high school teammate Jeff George when Falcons coach June Jones pulled him from a game in 1996. You remember that tantrum? And surely you remember the national media shredding George for doing it. You may also remember that Jeff George is and was white.

A lot of information here. Yes, Manning and Brady haven't thrown a tantrum quite like Bryant's in front of the cameras, but Brady has thrown a few tantrums on the sidelines during a game and gotten visibly angry on the field as well. This of course doesn't make Tom Brady a bad person, bad leader, and he's gotten a little criticism for it. Brady doesn't deserve criticism because disagreements happen on a team, despite the fact the media seems to believe this isn't true and likes to blow a disagreement out of proportion.

So what Brady or Manning lack in length of tantrum on the sidelines, due to their long NFL careers they have more quantity of tantrums than Dez Bryant has. This means nothing about their leadership and I don't believe it is a color issue. I believe it is the issue of Dez Bryant not being considered a leader by the media because he isn't a quarterback. Because Jason Whitlock immediately jumps to the race issue in this situation like other mouth-breathing morons, he thinks he's shown a false equivalency by pointing out Jeff George got ripped by the media for an argument with his head coach, June Jones, 17 years ago.

At no point does Whitlock think, "Maybe the difference is that the media didn't really like Jeff George and Peyton Manning/Tom Brady are Hall of Fame quarterbacks and get more of the benefit of the doubt?" No, instead Whitlock says "Jeff George is white quarterback who wasn't well-liked, so the media will criticize a white quarterback and this proves it."

Whitlock doesn't take the media's relationship with George into making this supposedly really good point, because it would go back to the coverage of George and Bryant's sideline tantrums having something to do with each player's relationship to the media, and this could lead back to there not being a false equivalency that Whitlock insists exists.

George's critics questioned his maturity and leadership ability. They wondered if his mental approach would undermine his chance of capitalizing on his immense physical gifts.

And maybe that's the issue here, not the treatment of a white quarterback compared to the treatment of a black wide receiver. Maybe the difference is the media sees a player labeled "immature" having an argument on the sidelines and assumes because that player is immature then this argument could in no way display leadership or just be a typical sideline argument. It's not like the media doesn't enjoy making a big deal out of something small.

No one, to my knowledge, ever intentionally or unintentionally insinuated there was a racist double standard causing the national media to criticize Jeff George. As the national president of the Jeff George Fan Club, I would've heard about this. It did not happen.

Right, because there was nothing to compare George's sideline argument to in 1996. This incident happened 17 years ago. For someone to claim there was a racist double standard causing the media to criticize George then there would need to be a black quarterback who threw a temper tantrum just like Jeff George did and wasn't criticized for it prior to 1996. There wasn't one. For there to be a double standard there has to be two different examples of a standard being applied. Jeff George was one example and there wasn't a comparable example of a black quarterback throwing a tantrum like George threw prior to 1996.

George berated his head coach before the addiction to false equivalencies swept across America like crack cocaine in the 1980s. Politically partisan cable TV ushered in this epidemic. Bill O'Reilly is the Avon Barksdale of false equivalencies. Sean Hannity is Prop Joe.

"The Wire" is like this, "The Wire" is like that. No one gives a shit. It's a television show, not life.

We love false equivalencies in the sports world, too. Remember in 2006 when the Tennessee Titans had a contentious separation from quarterback Steve McNair? My favorite NFL player, Ray Lewis, said the Green Bay Packers and the Indianapolis Colts would never treat Brett Favre and Peyton Manning the way the Titans treated McNair. 

And neither Indianapolis or Green Bay locked Manning or Favre out of the team's training facility. The Packers simply traded Favre when he wanted to un-retire and the Colts released Manning once they had drafted Andrew Luck. Neither quarterback was physically prevented from entering their team's training facility. Favre wanted to be traded and the Packers did this for him. Manning was released because the Colts found a younger starter in the draft. Manning was done a favor by being released fairly early in the offseason so he could have time to search for a new team as a free agent. The Colts very well could have played hardball with Manning and not released him until they drafted Luck, brought Luck into camp and knew Luck would learn the offense by the time the season began. They didn't do this and released Manning as early as possible so he could have more options in free agency.

Well, despite Favre's and Manning's combined seven MVP awards (McNair had one, shared with Manning in 2004), the Packers booted Favre in an ugly dispute and the Colts pushed Manning aside for Andrew Luck.

The dispute with the Packers was ugly at times, but the Packers ended up trading Favre and absolutely said he could play for Green Bay as a backup. I think a team saying, "Sure, come practice and be the backup" is different from a team saying, "We won't allow you to enter the training facility to participate with the team in any fashion." I'm not arguing there was racism involved, but the Packers nor the Colts locked either quarterback out of their team facility. In fact, the Packers were more than willing for Favre to play for the team as a backup quarterback.

For the most part, comparing Dez Bryant to quarterbacks is nonsensical.

He plays receiver. It's a different lane and a different role from playing quarterback. Quarterbacks call plays. They bark instruction. They lead huddles. The very nature of the position dictates that quarterbacks yell at the line of scrimmage and occasionally yell at teammates. It's the job.

See? Wide receivers aren't considered leaders by the media oftentimes. I think this is silly. Steve Smith is considered a leader by his Carolina Panthers teammates and he acts like an asshole, yells at his teammates and just generally doesn't act mature on the field. He's gotten the benefit of the doubt that Dez Bryant doesn't have yet. Bryant acts like a knucklehead and hasn't been in the NFL long, so he won't be considered a leader by the media and any argument he has with a teammate is not waved off as just a disagreement, but a sure sign that Bryant is really immature.

Dez Bryant isn't a quarterback. He's not a leader.

This is part of the problem. Jason Whitlock, and other media members, don't think wide receivers can be leaders, especially wide receivers who have a history of being unfocused and a diva. Wide receivers are divas and so an argument on the sidelines with a teammate is just diva behavior.

He's so high-maintenance that a year ago Jerry Jones employed a team of "advisors" to help Bryant function as an adult. Jones gave Bryant a curfew and a set of guidelines pertaining to strip clubs and whatnot.

This is true. My point is that I take Bryant's sideline argument as a part of who he is on the field. A lot of NFL players are different on and off the field. Bryant has an ego and he thinks he is better than he really is. I would not say that Tom Brady has thrown a tantrum like Dez Bryant threw, but I also think using this as a way of proving Bryant's immaturity isn't fair. My point is that quarterbacks and other football players will argue with each other on the sidelines. Looking at which player is arguing and judging what position he plays seems to be the only criteria for determining whether this argument is a product of immaturity or leadership. Dez Bryant had an argument with a teammate. It happens and may not mean anything more than that, no matter how much the media wants it to.

Dez Bryant is a typical, me-first NFL receiver diva, cut from the same cloth as Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson, Randy Moss and Keyshawn Johnson, sprinkled with a heavy dash of Pacman Jones.

Maybe, but it doesn't mean his sideline argument with Jason Witten or Derek Dooley isn't just a part of football.

Diva receivers believe emotional sideline tantrums and elaborate, hey-look-at-me gimmicks are an extension of their "passion" for the game. They can't recognize the fine line between Ray Lewis' inspiring pregame dance and ranting for no good reason.

Notice how Whitlock won't criticize Ray Lewis now that he is a member of the ESPN team. There's nothing about Ray Lewis's pregame dance that isn't hey-look-at-me. The dance can be inspiring, but it was also about getting attention on Ray Lewis. 

Jerry Rice is the gold standard because he beat defenders with his head. Bryant won't catch Calvin Johnson by screaming.

First off, Dez Bryant is four years younger than Calvin Johnson, and second, their numbers through their first four seasons are eerily similar:

Johnson: 270 receptions, 4191 yards, 33 touchdowns
Bryant: 245 receptions, 3512 yards, 35 touchdowns

So if Dez Bryant wants to catch Calvin Johnson, he seems to be doing a pretty good job when you compare their NFL careers through the first four seasons.

I root for people from tough backgrounds who have emotional issues. I want to see them overcome. Bryant won't overcome if we lie to him and rationalize his obvious errors. He was clearly out of bounds on Sunday. He was too caught up in the one-on-one duel he was having inside his head between himself and Megatron.

Bryant apologized because he knew he was out of line. It's a non-story. Players argue. Because Bryant is considered immature and doesn't play the quarterback position there is more related to the importance of this argument than would be when a quarterback and his coach argue. When a quarterback argues with a coach then it is over a play-call or the overall direction of the offense. That quarterback is just looking out for his team, while Dez Bryant didn't care about the team and was intent on waging a personal war that only existed in his mind. Fortunately Jason Whitlock can read minds (or at least pretend to read minds in order to make his point) and knows why Bryant really had a sideline tantrum.

Bryant wanted to go catch for catch with Johnson.

Or he wanted the football when he was wide open so that the Cowboys could score a touchdown. But again, Bryant only wanted to score a touchdown for himself, and didn't care if scoring a touchdown helped the Cowboys team or not.

Some people have blamed Dallas coach Jason Garrett for not commanding enough respect to silence Bryant on the sideline. Garrett is powerless in his relationship with Bryant.

Jones, who doubles as the team's GM, drafted Bryant. Jones has invested millions of dollars in Bryant. Jones paid for an elite baby-sitting team.

I've read the "Sports Illustrated" article about Dez Bryant. I know he isn't mature and I know he definitely seems to march to the beat of his own drum. I'm not defending Bryant as much as I am defending his right to have a sideline argument with a coach or teammate that doesn't turn into a representation of Bryant's concern only for himself. It's just interesting to me how a sideline argument that features a quarterback is couched in terms of a disagreement between that quarterback and his coach over the direction of the team, while Bryant's argument is being shown as his concern only for himself.

Having watched his baby act like a baby and create the non-composed environment that powers fourth-quarter collapses,

Yes, Jason Whitlock is now blaming Dez Bryant for the Cowboys fourth quarter collapse against the Lions. I always thought the Cowboys fourth quarter collapses were Tony Romo's fault, but now I've learned they are Dez Bryant's fault. I do know where the blame for the fourth quarter collapse does not lie, and that's with the Cowboys defense. Not their fault at all.

False equivalences are fun and easy. They're a good tool for defending someone you love and respect. There was a time in the 1990s when I would've excused Jeff George for hiding on the grassy knoll and assisting Lee Harvey Oswald by saying: "No one was mad at AC for driving O.J. all over the 405 and tying up traffic."

While Bryant throwing a sideline fit and Tom Brady throwing a sideline fit aren't the same thing, they are false equivalencies only in the way the media chooses to look at each player's behavior. It's ingrained that quarterbacks are leading and showing concern for the team's direction when arguing on the sideline, while wide receivers are divas and any argument had with a coach or teammate on the sideline is self-serving. This is what the media feeds us.

I'm as guilty as anyone. But let's stop the nonsense. We're only hurting Dez Bryant. We're baiting him to resist maturity and evolution. We're reinforcing bad habits.

I'm 100% sure that Dez Bryant doesn't care what anyone writes about him. His behavior isn't going to stay the same or change based on people's reaction to a sideline argument. It's best not to condescend like this anyway.

He apparently thinks the best way to handle a frustrating situation is by erupting emotionally. That's no good. It leads to trouble.

But see, the same could be said for any sideline argument between teammates or a player and a coach. Yet, the same thing isn't said in every instance of a sideline argument between two teammates.

He won't equal or surpass Calvin Johnson until he channels his emotions properly.

Oh that's right, I forgot Jason Whitlock can read minds and knows this is the real reason Dez Bryant blew up on the Cowboys sidelines against the Lions. It seems ESPN prides itself on employing writers who use their friends' observations as definitive proof something is true and have the ability to read minds in order to reach a conclusion that supports their column's main thesis. 

5 comments Jason Whitlock Seems to Believe Tony Soprano is a Real Person

Jason Whitlock has written on the topic of Aaron Hernandez and says Hernandez is a by-product of our culture and really society is partly at fault for his actions. It also appears that Whitlock thinks Christopher Moltisanti and Tony Sopranos are real people.

It would be a mistake to dismiss the monstrous allegations facing Aaron Hernandez as an aberration that says nothing about American sports and American society.

It would also be a waste of a perfectly good column that could serve as a way to get attention.

He is, in my eyes, a symbol that popular culture has installed Tony Soprano as America’s most celebrated and revered icon above Joe Montana.

I'm not entirely sure where it states that Tony Soprano is the most celebrated symbol in pop culture replacing Joe Montana, but I guess to get to his point Jason Whitlock has to makes some shit up as he goes along.

Let me explain. For nearly two decades, I’ve been writing columns detailing the impact on the sports world of popular culture’s glamorization of prison/gangster/hip-hop culture.

But there are athletes who enjoy the hip-hop culture that don't around killing people. While Whitlock is smart to detail this impact, he needs to be careful to chalk up every incident involving an athlete to this culture.

Jay-Z, a rapper who glorifies his former life as a drug dealer, has far more cultural influence than LeBron James.

In way, this is true. In the realm of sports LeBron James and Jay-Z's impact collide. What LeBron does on the court has a large impact on culture as well.

Aaron Hernandez is a reflection of where we are as a society. Like Allen Iverson and an endless plethora of fatherless and directionless modern athletes since the end of Michael Jordan’s reign, Hernandez saw his athletic gifts as a platform to represent where he was from, not where he hoped to go.

Yeah, this is sort of true. I tend to not like agreeing with Jason Whitlock because I feel like he is talking in generalities here by painting "an endless plethora" of athletes with the same brush. I agree in principle, but I don't like how he paints with such a broad brush.

This is what a 40-year drug war, mass incarceration, a steady stream of Mafia movies, three decades of gangster rap and two decades of reality TV have wrought: athletes who covet the rebellious and marketable gangster persona.

I have to think Hernandez's actions can be explained by other things outside of his embracing the gangster persona. A lot of athletes don't have to covet and chase the gangster persona because they are born into it. It's not that Hernandez chased being a gangster, but he could have been born into and didn't have the strength to escape from his situation. We are only as good as we were raised to be, so I don't have to think Hernandez looked at "Scarface" and thought "That's what I want to be," but instead saw the movie and noticed small parallels in his life or the lives of others he knew growing up. You can grow up in a middle class household and still not have been brought up correctly. If Whitlock is going to paint athletes with such a broad brush then he needs to understand not all athletes chase the gangster persona, but just lack the want and ability to change their surrounding which encourage this persona.

The unhealthy side effects of drug prohibition and popular culture have made murderous drug dealers respected members of American society. Random, murderous violence and the people who commit those crimes have been normalized in America, thanks in large part to popular culture.

So it is television's fault?

We all loved and respected Tony Soprano. This is why James Gandolfini’s death was such a big story.

No. Not at all. You can tell Bill Simmons and Jason Whitlock are friends because they love to use the proverbial "we" when they want to lump a large group of people together in order to help prove one of their points. It's lazy writing. In the face of a lack of evidence, just say "we" all believe something.

The reason James Gandolfini's death was such a big story is because he was one of the most talented actors of this generation and he died a premature death. Plus, I personally held out hope of a "Sopranos" movie and I know I'm not the only one. So his death means that movie is definitely not happening. He is best known as Tony Soprano, but he was a talented actor and that's why his death was a big deal.

Modern athletes carry guns. They do drugs. They mimic rappers and gangster pop-culture icons.

Partially because some of them grew up around people who patterned themselves after these people. Yes, these athletes want to mimic some gangster pop culture icons, but what takes the athlete from being a mimic to putting this mimicry into action can be partly attributed to the familiarity of these icons.

It was only a matter of time before some athlete was accused of imitating Tony Soprano. The gangster influence in our society is that strong.

Okay, no one was imitating Tony Soprano when he (allegedly) committed this murder. I know Jason Whitlock is very tenuously trying to tie Aaron Hernandez in with Tony Soprano, but the comparison isn't doing a hell of a lot for me.

Aaron Hernandez is not Rae Carruth or O.J. Simpson. Carruth and Simpson were accused of committing crimes of passion, emotion and greed. They had motives. Hernandez is being described by police as simply violent, volatile and dangerous.

Supposedly Hernandez wanted to shut up Odin Lloyd because Lloyd knew too much about another crime Hernandez is alleged to have committed. There's the motive.

He’s Joe Pesci’s character in the movie “Casino.”

Stop trying for parallels to pop culture. Aaron Hernandez isn't Joe Pesci in "Casino."

It’s written to argue that athletes of the previous generations belonged to an athletic culture that sat atop American pop culture. There was no incentive for Hank Aaron to acquire street cred. He was the gold standard.

Well, gangster culture wasn't as prevalent when Hank Aaron broke in the majors. So besides the fact there was no incentive to acquire street cred, it was also just a different time with a different culture. Times change.

Jay-Z is the new gold standard.

Just like Frank Sinatra was the gold standard a few decades earlier. Just like other pop culture icons were the gold standard for athletes in one way or another during other decades.

The whole sports world played along with Jigga Man’s charade of NBA ownership. Now Kevin Durant and other athletes are flocking to Hova’s sports agency. An unrepentant, flamboyant former drug dealer has the White House, President Obama-stamped seal of approval.

Not to beat the Frank Sinatra comparison into the ground, but had the stamp of approval of John F. Kennedy and various other prominent athletes' stamp of approval too. You don't have to do too much research to see the ties to illegal crime (i.e. the Mafia) that Sinatra had during his lifetime. I'm not a huge Jay-Z fan, but he is a former ("former" being the key word) drug dealer and he isn't the first successful person to have a shady background and eventually be looked up to by athletes.

Proving we learn nothing from our history, drug prohibition has legitimized the drug dealer the same way alcohol prohibition legitimized bootleggers (Joseph Kennedy). You let corrupt people make enough money and eventually they’ll use their wealth, power and influence to bait others into participating in and rationalizing their corrupt actions.

This article is all over the place. How is the world at-large supposed to stop someone from making money, especially if most of a person's money is gained through legal actions (Jay-Z's money may have started in drug dealing, but making music and his business sense has caused most of his current wealth)? I understand where Whitlock wants to go with this column, but he isn't pulling it off. He's trying to pull a fictional character into the real world (Tony Soprano), compare this fictional character's actions to Jay-Z, and then say the NBA shouldn't let Jay-Z have a sports agency. So the basic point is that Aaron Hernandez committed murder because the NBA allowed Jay-Z to become a partial owner of an NBA team. After all, Hernandez wants to be like Tony Soprano, who apparently is a real person now.

Walter White and Marlo Stanfield are heroes.

Wow, what a misinterpretation. I realize Jason Whitlock loves "The Wire" and considers himself the expert on the show, but Marlo Stanfield isn't a hero. There are no heroes on that show. Vince Gilligan specifically is taking Walter White from a sympathetic character into a character the audience has difficulty rooting for. Walter White is not the hero, we are simply following his journey from teacher to drug kingpin and we see this journey mostly from his point of view. Jason Whitlock is misunderstanding things. Walter White and Marlo Stanfield aren't heroes, they are the main characters.

Incarcerating people for profit is a legitimate form of business. It’s this cesspool that allowed Aaron Hernandez to hide out in the open.

Aaron Hernandez is not responsible for his actions. It's society's fault I tell you.

He reportedly threatened Wes Welker. Matt Light, a former Patriot, made it clear in a newspaper interview he could easily see Hernandez’s character flaws. A dozen NFL franchises took him off their draft boards based on their investigation of his behavior at Florida.

NFL franchises took Randy Moss and Warren Sapp off draft boards because of concerns regarding their behavior. I'm not downplaying the pre-draft concerns about Hernandez and how he has now been accused of murder, but dozens of other players have been removed from teams' draft boards due to concerns that team had and these concerns never came to fruition.

When he stood in chains before a judge at his arraignment, in a white T-shirt and his arms decorated in ink, Hernandez did not look out of place.

Partially because he been suspected and arrested for murder. It's easy to say a guy doesn't look out of place in chains when he is standing in court fresh out of jail wearing chains. Otherwise, Aaron Hernandez just looks like a regular athlete who chooses to have tattoos.

Guilty or innocent, he looked like someone who had prepared for this moment. He didn’t look like an athlete. He looked like an ex-con.

I don't think Jason Whitlock is racist, but he has made a career out of making statements like this that he knows he can get away with saying and other writers could not get away with saying. It's a sort of competitive advantage that Whitlock has claimed as his own. He doesn't race-bait, but he uses his background and race as a way to get attention (negative or positive) that would only give other writers negative attention.

Like nearly everything else in this society, athlete culture has been hijacked by mass incarceration and the pervasive gangster culture it has produced.

A lot of athletes also grew up in this culture. So the culture has less hijacked sports and more sports has become a part of this culture due to the background of some of these athletes who play the sports. It's a symbiotic relationship in a way.

Sports culture is steeped in patriotism and the ideals and values we claim make this the greatest country in the world. It’s not by accident the national anthem is played before every sporting event.

America, fuck yeah! Sports are steeped in patriotism, but everything steeped in patriotism can't stay pure and free from issues. Look at the military for an example of this. Nearly everything about the military is patriotic, but on nearly ever level there is some sense of impurity and even impropriety. It can't be prevented.

Rappers and musicians are rebels. They look normal in prison tattoos and white Ts.

Again, Jason Whitlock takes advantage of statements he can make that other writers can't make.

We can no longer distinguish bad from good. We no longer even aspire to be good; it has considerably less value.

Again with the "we" that Bill Simmons also seems to enjoy using so much. It's such a lazy way to try and make a point. Just lump everyone together and say "we" can't distinguish bad from good. It makes the problem more of a societal problem as Whitlock is suggesting rather than an isolated incident or one bad guy football player in a sea of good guy football players. The whole societal "we" thing just feels lazy to me.

Popular culture has so eroded the symbolic core principles at the root of America’s love affair with sports that many modern athletes believe their allegiance to gangster culture takes precedence over their allegiance to the sports culture that made them rich and famous.

Remember when this article was about how Tony Soprano is a real person and a person athletes aspire to be?

Aaron Hernandez wanted to be Christopher Moltisanti more than he wanted to be Kellen Winslow. 

The difference being that Christopher Moltisanti isn't a real person and Kellen Winslow is a real person. Let's be honest about Hernandez wanting to be like Kellen Winslow. Kellen Winslow retired before Aaron Hernandez was even born, so should it really come as a shock that Hernandez wouldn't want to be like Kellen Winslow? There are much more modern tight ends that Hernandez would modern himself after.

Sounds crazy until you look around and see there are 1,000 times more aspiring Kim Kardashians than Hillary Clintons.

Wow, 1000 times more? I didn't know there was such a specific number available. This is another misleading comparison though. In the 1950's do you think more women wanted to be like Marilyn Monroe than Eleanor Roosevelt and don't you think more men wanted to be like Frank Sinatra than Dwight Eisenhower? Yes, men probably wanted to be like John F. Kennedy in the 1960's, but don't you think Elvis Presley or one of the Beatles had a draw to these men (or kids) as well? My comparisons really aren't excellent, but I think it goes to prove the point that pop culture didn't just start impacting how kids and athletes behaved over the last decade. Athletics always tie into pop culture at some point through history, and unlike Jason Whitlock, Aaron Hernandez realizes Tony Sopranos isn't a real person.

0 comments In Which I Return To Podcast

It's been a while, but Ben invited me back for some podcasting. Take a listen below.

4 comments Peter King Defends His Hall of Fame Selections

I have started a Yahoo Bottom of the Barrel fantasy baseball league for anyone who wants to join up. The league id is "36835" and the password is "eckstein." It is open to anyone who wants to join, as long as you are an active manager and keep up with your team. I don't want anyone to quit halfway through they year and not keep up with their team.

This past week you may have heard Jason Whitlock went nuclear on the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process. In this own unique way he called out many of the Hall of Fame selectors (all 44 of them, which isn't many in my opinion). I like Whitlock and respect his writing. He tends to spray a lot of gun fire in the direction of his targets and sometimes he misses and sometimes he hits. He came after Peter King specifically, and by name. I think he sort of hit on this issue. Needless to say in the link I just put up, Peter King disagrees and gets all defensive about it. Peter doesn't mind calling out people in his MMQB every week, but once you call him out, he will usually respond.

I got a tweet the other day from a reader who asked me to defend taking part in a "corrupt'' process. Jason Whitlock, writing for FOXSports.com, called me the "speaker of the house" in a "textbook, good-ol'-boys network'' and said the selection committee violates "nearly everything that we as journalists stand for.''

While I don't know the inner-workings of the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process, I think that very fact is why Whitlock says it violates what journalists stand for. We know nothing about the process except for when guys like Peter King have the balls to tell who they voted for. There are 44 voters. That's just not a lot. I don't think it should be a clusterfuck of voters like the Baseball Hall of Fame has, but more than 44 voters would be appropriate. The Pro Basketball Hall of Fame has a ton of secrecy as well, so it is not exclusive to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The NFL is the most popular sport in the United States, so the players who get voted into the Hall of Fame and how this happens, is of increasing interest to people.

We're considered to be idiots for putting in Chris Hanburger, totally out of touch for enshrining an old geezer, Ed Sabol, who never played the game, and shouldn't be voting for football immortality because so many of us have never played the game. And so on.

What we are reading here is a little sensitivity from Peter King. He's sensitive to being criticized about this. As Jason Whitlock correctly pointed out, if you can't handle the criticism, perhaps you shouldn't have a vote. Considering the amount of power those who vote for the Hall of Fame have I am surprised there hasn't been more harsh criticism before this.

I have no opinion on Chris Hanburger really. Pro Football Reference says his 14 year career was like Ricky Jackson and Junior Seau's, so that can't be terrible. As anyone who has read MMQB every week knows, Ed Sabol has been championed by Peter King on a nearly weekly basis, due to his contributions to the NFL through NFL Films. It is a great story but I have to admit when there are quality candidates among the players still waiting induction, is it a good idea to vote Sabol in now? I feel like it was done now so he could be inducted before he died. Ed Sabol is a great example of a contributor to the game of football, but also a guy who probably shouldn't be voted in before deserving NFL players.

As far as Russ Grimm goes, I just don't think he deserved induction and Whitlock's accusation that his future NFL head coaching prospects played a part in his induction is worthy of being examined. Are there ulterior motives for voting him in the Hall of Fame or does the selection group feel the need to induct a member of the Redskins 80's and 90's offensive line into the Hall? Or did they genuinely feel he deserved induction based on his own merits? If this is the case, then it brings up questions about why other eligible offensive linemen didn't get in this year as well.

The best way to address the criticism is to go through the issues, one by one, that have come up in the nine days since we sat in a Dallas meeting room for seven hours and 28 minutes, picking the seven-man class of 2011.

I think that is part of the problem. There is a veil of secrecy that goes over the proceedings. It is like they are electing a pope. They go into a room and don't leave until they have elected members of the Hall of Fame. Then all of a sudden a guy like Floyd Little is in, but other (more) deserving players are not. I don't think the writers necessarily enjoy the secrecy of the proceedings, but I don't see why votes can't be made public.

We're asked to keep the subject and intensity of the discussions out of the press when we leave the room. I'm often asked why. I'll give you a totally fictitious example.

Jason Whitlock called Peter King "the speaker of the house" when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Naturally, Peter does nothing to disprove this thinking by spending most of his MMQB explaining the Hall of Fame process and essentially becoming the Hall of Fame voter who takes it upon himself to explain the process...which would essentially make him the "speaker" for the voting process.

Let's say the Dallas representative, Rick Gosselin, is asked to give his case, pro or con, for Larry Allen when the longtime Cowboys guard comes up for a vote in 2013. And let's say Gosselin presents the case for Allen well, but lets it be known he doesn't think he's as strong an offensive-line candidate as, say, Dermontti Dawson or Willie Roaf.

It's not fair for Gosselin to walk into Cowboys offices, having to cover the team (which he does occasionally, but not as a beat man) and team officials not cooperating with him fully because he's not pro-Allen.

So it is not fair the Gosselin gets the honor of voting for the Hall of Fame and then has to stand by his vote publicly? How is this not fair? If you get the honor of choosing Hall of Fame inductees then you should also be able to be mature or thick-skinned enough to handle criticism. I would hope a team wouldn't freeze out a writer because he didn't vote for one of their ex-players. This is partly what Whitlock meant by a "good ol' boys network." The secrecy of the voting process allows the voters to not be required to stand behind their vote for some fear of retribution.

The fact an NFL team wouldn't be mature enough to handle a voter not voting for one of those players isn't a reason to not make the votes public? Why should the close-mindedness and ignorance of others serve as a reason to not make your opinion public? This sounds like an excuse to me.

That's just an example, but the Hall feels, and I agree, that if our discussions are quoted or characterized outside the room other than in saying that so-and-so gave a great presentation for a particular candidate, the honesty of the discussion in the room could be compromised.

No one wants a verbatim transcript of what was said. A simple press release saying "X voter voted for the following players." If that person cares to explain publicly then that is fine. It would be nice to have some more transparency.

Many of my peers disagree with me on this, but I think if we're not willing to put our name to our vote, then we shouldn't be on the committee.

To be fair to Peter King, which I will do just this once, he has always be open with his vote. I agree with him 100%. If you want the honor of voting, you should put your name behind your vote.

It happened when Len Shapiro, formerly of the Washington Post, asked me to reconsider Art Monk, which I did because he made a good point -- all the good points about leadership and on-field example-setting I made about Harry Carson with the Giants, Art Monk did with the Redskins.

"Hey Peter, you know that bullshit reasoning you use to get Harry Carson in the Hall of Fame? You can use the same bullshit reasoning to get my guy in!"

Who said this isn't "a good ol' boys system" and Peter isn't the speaker of the house for this system? Peter was just asked to reconsider his feelings on a player, and presumably Peter isn't the only person who needed to reconsider his opinion on Monk. So Shapiro knew if he caused Peter King to reconsider then others would possibly reconsider as well and Monk would get in? That's a possibility right? This would make Peter a pretty influential guy if my speculation that Shapiro wanted to convince Peter so he would help convince the others is correct.

And, yes, I have biases, if that's what you call strong feelings about people being candidates or not. We all do. I covered the Giants for four years when they had the best run defense in football, and I pushed Harry Carson hard, and he finally got in five years ago.

This is another part of the process I hate. I hate a unit (like the Redskins offensive line in the 80's and early 90's) was a great unit, so obviously one of the members of that unit has to be in the Hall of Fame. The Giants had the best run defense in football for four years when Peter covered them, so Peter assumes one of the members of this defense is one of the greatest players at his position of all-time. It is possible for a unit to be great for a period of time and not have a Hall of Fame player on that unit.

I am not opposed to the committee being expanded. Not at all. But at some point, if you want the process to be somewhat the same as it is now -- discussion and/or arguments about the candidates -- I don't know how much bigger the pool can be. I'd love to see, say, a few more nationally respected people in the room, like widely read Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Because giving a person specifically selected by Peter King would go a long way to dispel the idea it is a good ol' boys network. I know this is just a recommendation from Peter, but the truth is that he does seem to have some power in "the room" where inductees are selected.

If we start eliminating selectors because some haven't been around the game for 20 years, I think we're setting a bad precedent, because then the franchise won't get the same attention for its candidates than the veteran selectors can give. You just have to let some green selectors grow into the job

So it is better to have a selector who is more in touch with the game 20 years ago because newer selectors won't give the franchise as much attention? Can't newer selectors who are around the game use their knowledge to look back at candidates who played 20 years ago and decide if they deserve selection or not?

It should be hard to get into the Hall. I think seven enshrinees in one year is plenty. I've asked people over the years to take the 15-man ballot and tell me which 10 don't belong in the Hall. Very, very rarely can people honestly pick 10

I am not sure how many people are concerned about the volume of the enshrinees or are concerned it is too hard to get in the Hall of Fame. The problem lies in WHO is getting voted into the Hall of Fame. Willie Roaf and Dermontti Dawson get left out for Russ Grimm because Grimm played on a more heralded offensive line. That's the only reason I could see.

Whitlock said in his column that he would cry if Roaf, a tackle he covered for several years as a columnist in Kansas City, didn't get elected this year. I've found that to be a common trait over the years: Local columnists get passionate about local guys.

Much like Peter's passion for Harry Carson being in the Hall of Fame because Carson played for the Giants when Peter covered them. Much like the passion Peter showed in getting Ed Sabol into the Hall of Fame? So it is fine to have passion about getting a player/contributor into the Hall of Fame as long as you are among those who vote for Hall of Fame inductees.

Is it more of a travesty that Roaf wasn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer, or that a man with 1,101 catches (Carter) has now missed four times? Or that Dawson -- who was first-team All-Pro more than any other center (six times) in the last 50 years, and double the times Roaf was first-team All-Pro -- can't get in? Pick your travesty. I suspect if Whitlock had worked for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette instead of the Kansas City Star, he'd be decrying the Dawson snub, not Roaf's.

I don't think Peter is helping his position much by naming three qualified Hall of Fame candidates who were "snubbed" in favor of more controversial guys like Hanburger, Sabol or Grimm. So Peter is basically saying the voting process is hard and the line should be drawn somewhere. I agree, but "contributors" should come after players in my mind, and that didn't happen this year.

The only thing that angered me about Whitlock's column is when he followed his skewering of the Hall selection committee because it has three black voters (a fourth, Michael Wilbon, left the panel when he began covering the NBA a few years ago) in the next sentence by saying two white men -- me and Gosselin -- lead an "old-school, good-ol'-boys network'' in the selection room. If he finds me racist, I wish he'd just call me racist.

It is good to see Peter King doesn't take things personally. This is a guy who is famous for calling out people in the NFL, random people on the street, corporations, and certain hotels/coffee chains/trains/buses/cars in his column. He gets criticized for being a leader who protects the current Hall of Fame process (which is exactly what he is doing in this week's MMQB) and then he begins to take this personally. I guess it is human nature to do this, but I think he is making a couple leaps in logic in saying Whitlock called him a racist.

Now, as for my power in the room, I hope I'm looked at respectfully, and I try to make good arguments. But if I was so powerful, wouldn't I have gotten Paul Tagliabue in once in three tries? Couldn't I have swayed the room on Cris Carter? In fact, both men have gone in reverse since I began to vehemently support them. Tagliabue didn't even make the final 15 this year, and Carter didn't make the cut from 15 to 10 this year.

I am not sure if giving two examples from this year where a person he wanted in is evidence Peter doesn't have too much power is persuading me. Peter is the biggest name on the selector list and regardless of whether he likes it or not, the fact he works for NBC and Sports Illustrated probably does give him some more sway.

I know other Hall of Fame voters have chimed in with their opinion of the voting process and how nothing should change, but the one that really matters is Peter King. Whether he likes it or not, he is the unofficial spokesman for the Hall of Fame because he is a national figure and has a larger forum than most other Hall of Fame voters. I wouldn't go as far as Jason Whitlock to say the whole process is broken, but there are improvements that can be made.

Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News published his annual special-teams rankings Sunday. Among anything the print media does, Gosselin's kicking-game rankings are the most respected by coaches and front office people in the league. Gosselin takes 22 special-teams categories and ranks all 32 teams in the league from 1 to 32 -- 1 for the best team, 32 for the lowest-ranked.

This is the same Rick Gosselin who may be "frozen out" by the Cowboys for not supporting Larry Allen's candidacy for the Hall of Fame in Peter's hypothetical example. Am I supposed to believe a person like Gosselin, who has respected special teams rankings published annually, is going to get a cold shoulder from a franchise based on who he voted into the Hall of Fame? I am not sure I believe this.

If Gosselin can support his special teams rankings, which are used often in determining which teams have good or bad special teams coaches, accurately and effectively why couldn't he support his Hall of Fame votes with the same accuracy and effectiveness? I don't think the talks in the discussion room are going to be compromised by voters publicly letting everyone know they voted for and I really don't think teams will be petty enough to give a writer the cold shoulder. If a writer is really afraid of this happening, don't vote for the Hall of Fame or have thicker skin, it is not like anyone forces the selectors to be a part of the elite 44 people.

7. I think now that ESPN has backed my Twitter poll of 1,200 fans last week -- who said by a resounding 82-percent vote that they favor a 16-game season, not 18 games -- I hope we stop hearing the league and commissioner say fans want an 18-game regular-season.

I haven't met a single person who wants this to happen. Roger Goodell is full of shit and frankly it pisses me off that he blames the fans for wanting an 18 game schedule. The fans don't want four preseason games, but this doesn't mean we want two more regular season games. I would be happy with two preseason games and sixteen regular season games. It is the owners, who Goodell represents, that have a huge problem with this happening. They don't want to lose revenue for a missed home game. I love how the owners pick and choose when they pay attention to what the fans "want."

9. I think the most interesting thing I heard about the labor situation in the last week or so has nothing to do with the actual negotiations themselves, but rather with something Peyton Manning supposedly said to NFLPA union boss DeMaurice Smith during the weekend of the Super Bowl: "Wish I'd been a union rep.''

Imagine alternate rep Tom Brady and NFLPA board member Drew Brees being joined at a big union meeting someday by Colts player rep Peyton Manning. Now that'd be something to see, the three most famous passers in the game facing off against the football establishment.

Don't. Care. This doesn't make anything involving labor negotiations more exciting to me.

All I want to see if football starting in September 2011. I don't care if Carrot Top is a part of the negotiations. If the owners really care about what the fans want, work out a deal so the NFL can start on time this year.

c. Name five better cities in the world than San Francisco. You can't.

I just did.

e. Michael Kay, you're married! Congratulations!

Sam Jones, you got divorced! That's terrible!

Britney Appleweed, you had a baby! Hope your vagina doesn't hurt too much!

Charles Eaglesmith, you finally cured your Irritable Bowel Syndrome! Great news! Looks like your not shit-out-of-luck anymore.

Charlene Collins, you're out of the closet! Have you told your parents yet?

h. Beernerdness: Tried Cristal, a pilsner from Peru, at a Peruvian restaurant in the Pacific Heights section of San Francisco the other night. Very nice. Smooth, with a nice bite. A little like Peroni. "Beer from the Andes,'' the label said. Don't believe I've ever consumed anything from the Andes before. A nice experience.

Bengoodfella Beernerdness: The greatest beer in the history of the world (overstatement), Red Oak, is finally for sale in certain grocery stores rather than just on-tap in restaurants. If anyone has a chance to try it (I am not even sure how far north/east/west/south it is sold), do so. It is delicious.

k. I got the top pick in my Rotisserie League draft the other day. The dreaded top pick. I hate it. It's a 12-team league, with a serpentine draft, so if you pick first, you don't pick again until 24 and 25. I'd much rather have the eighth pick, though I hope there is some value choosing first. But with the best 36 players off the board (we all protect three players from last year's team), I'm going to be in dire need of baseball knowledge.

Pick Derek Jeter first. He is, after all, the greatest player of Peter King's generation.

l. Hey! My new best buddy, John Legend, won three Grammys last night! Way to go, John.

John Legend, you won three Grammys! Congratulations!

Then in his Tuesday mailbag, Peter talked more about his Hall of Fame selections and he talked about other NFL stuff as well. More importantly, we get 10 MORE things that Peter thinks he thinks. What great news!

3. I think it's not over for Carson Palmer in Cincinnati. Jay Gruden's going to convince him he can be great in Gruden's West Coast offense,

I think it would be better if everyone else was convinced Palmer could be great in any offense. He's 32 years old and regressing. So I wonder how the Bengals can make Palmer better? Peter has an idea involving this!

I believe Marvin Lewis will do Palmer a favor and make sure neither Chad Ochocinco or Terrell Owens will be on the roster opening day -- whenever that is.

Because the best way to make Carson Palmer successful is to take away his two best wide receivers. He would have flourished this year if he did not have those pesky two wide receivers that combined for 139 receptions and 1,814 yards this past season. That is 38.3% of Palmer's completions and 45.7% of his yards. I am not saying the Bengals shouldn't get rid of these two players, but I don't know if their absence from the team makes Palmer a better quarterback in a new offense.

6. I think if I were doing an over-under for when a deal gets done, I'd set it at Sept. 13. And I personally would bet the over.

I have a terrible feeling the upcoming 2011 season is only going to consist of 12 games at a maximum. Free agents can't even choose teams until after agreement has been reached between the owners and the union, so even after an agreement is reached the season can't start immediately.

AN IDEA ABOUT THE NUMBER OF REGULAR-SEASON GAMES: "My wisdom of Solomon: split the baby solution to the 18-game impasse: Go to a 17-game season with one more bye week. The league gets two more weeks of televised football. The players get another bye to help alleviate the health concerns of the extra game. The extra game on each team's schedule is a neutral site -- London, Mexico City, Los Angeles, etc. -- where the league can grow the fan base. All 32 teams split the revenue of all the neutral site games. Two or three preseason games. Can you pass that along to Roger and DeMaurice?''

-- Michael Turner, Sunnyvale, Calif.

I had an idea as well and this is probably a terrible idea, but I am thinking outside the box, mostly because thinking inside the box doesn't seem to be working right now. How about the NFL goes to an 18 game schedule thereby giving the owners the schedule they want, but players can only appear in a maximum of 16 games per year? That way, the owners get their revenue and the players don't have to appear in any more games than normal. It seems like a dumb idea because at some point a marquee player won't appear in two games a year, but if the union is really intent on keeping the schedule at 16 games and the owners want 18 games then the fans haven't really lost anything, while the owners get extra revenue and the players don't run the risk of injury in two more games.

The problem is how many fans will show up to watch Peyton Manning or another marquee star not play? I think this is an interesting idea because rosters could be expanded, if necessary, and in regard to the scheduling problem nearly everyone wins. Another problem is what to do with punters and kickers because there usually isn't a backup on the roster for those players. I haven't worked that problem out yet, but I am just eyeballing it right now. I think it is a potentially stupid idea on my part, but is also an idea that would give each side what they want in terms of having an 18 game schedule.

I don't like this guy's idea of neutral site games. It doesn't give revenue to the owners, so they probably won't go for it either.

THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. "Peter, the downside -- in my opinion -- to the never-ending methods of easier communication is that all of the sourpusses who don't get what they want on every issue can now be heard from in a myriad of ways. The shameful, pathetic postings, messages and rants about your role in the HOF voting process is a painful reminder of the close-mindedness that is rampant in the world today. There are likely millions of us who believe that you and your fellow voters are doing a fantastic job and wouldn't trade places for anything.''

-- Lee Simmons, Erie, Pa.

Let me get this straight. So the problem with progress is that more people get their point of view heard and are able to hold those who vote for awards accountable for their vote? It is pathetic and shameful to question how a process works when you don't disagree with that process? It is close-minded to ask questions and get more points of view out there on an issue? Kim Jong-il is that you pretending to be "Lee Simmons" from Erie, Pennsylvania?

How the fuck is expressing your point of view shameful? How is questioning and suggesting changes to an extremely secretive process close-minded? Seeing how Lee wrote this question shows me he just doesn't get it the new world of communication and doesn't care to. No one is whining because they don't get their way. There are people, like Jason Whitlock, questioning the Hall of Fame election process because we don't know who votes for which players and why. These 44 guys go into a room and come out with certain players being inducted into the Hall of Fame. I don't think someone artfully getting a point across is pathetic. I think not questioning whether the process can be improved is closed-minded in fact.

No one says you have to agree with anyone wants the Hall of Fame induction process tweaked, but to argue against a forum to even bring up the idea is ridiculous.

PK: Thanks. I don't know what to do about that except answer the charges as honestly as I can. The genie's out of the bottle. We're not going back to a lower form of communication, Lee.

God forbid the 44 electors have to be publicly held accountable for the vote they give as to who the best players in the most popular sport in the United States are. I just think if the Pro Football Hall of Fame wants to charge admission to get in the building they should at least let us see who voted for which players to appear on the shrines the public pays to look at.

No one should be rude or belligerent to Peter King about this, but I think the Hall of Fame election process could be changed slightly for the better. I don't think intelligent people who argue this should not have their voice be able to be heard.

Even in his comments from Monday, Peter King indicated he would be open to some changes so I don't see why a few changes aren't pursued.

8 comments Two Things On Wednesday

We only have 5 people in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball League, which is pathetic, everyone must be signing up closer to the draft date. I have set the draft for closer to the beginning of the season. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." If anyone who wants to join has recommendations or preferences on how the league is set up, just use the message board for the league to say what you think. Everyone feel free to join.

It's kind of tough sledding these days because most journalists are too focused on the NCAA Tournament and making predictions about what will happen to write bad journalism. Making fun of predictions is just too easy to do, plus there is really no point to it. For someone who tries to post everyday like I do, it gets to be tough to find something every single day. Of course it doesn't stop me from finding something I want to comment on.

Today, I have two articles by two arch-rivals, Jason Whitlock and Mike Lupica. Unfortunately they aren't articles each has written about each other, which would be much more interesting because of the dislike between them. Regardless, they are pretty interesting.

Let's start first with Jason Whitlock's newly posted opinionated column. I like Jason Whitlock but sometimes I really feel like he just says something to sound controversial. He has a way to make the NCAA Tournament even more interesting, and no the idea isn't adding more games, it's much more outside the box and into the world of craziness than that.

Rather than expand the NCAA Tournament field to 96 teams, the NCAA should satisfy its corporate sponsors and television partners by making its elite teams play more often in the tournament.

Sounds great. Kansas has to play two games in one day or they have to play every team in their bracket to prove they deserve the #1 seed? The NCAA Tournament can just last all year, no problem there.

Before I go further, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I’m against changing the NCAA Tournament. It’s not broken. It doesn’t need to be fixed.

He doesn't want to change the tournament, he is just going to write an entire article talking about changing the tournament. See the difference? Jason Whitlock is under the assumption the field is going to be expanded to 96 teams and wants to jump the gun and think of a better, more crazy idea to "fix" the unbroken NCAA Tournament. "Fixing" the NCAA Tournament seems to be a popular thing to write about these days.

But I’m also a realist. America is a country that bows to corporate interest and ignores the best interest of its people at nearly every turn.

Next to this sentence was a "Hooters Fox Bracket Challenge" advertisement, where you can win $1,000,000 dollars by winning FoxSports bracket challenge! Irony anyone?

With a product weakened by one-and-done defections and TV over-saturation, the NCAA is exploring ways to hoodwink a network into overpaying for March Madness the way CBS did in 1999 when it coughed up $6 billion for an 11-year deal to broadcast the NCAA Tournament.

Is there really college basketball over-saturation or is the product of college basketball really being weakened? I don't really see it that way. I enjoy the tournament just as much as I have my entire life. Maybe I am biased because I will watch the NCAA Tournament no matter what, but I really believe the competition is still good.

The quick-fix is to add more teams/games to the tournament.

As I have stated before, I hate the idea of adding more teams to the tournament. There isn't much that can be done about this because if the networks and NCAA want to do this, they are going to do it. They don't care what I think, only what the money they make says to them about the decision.

I also think it is interesting Whitlock calls adding games a quick fix, but that's exactly what his suggestions ends up being.

Word has already gone out to college coaches to start supporting the idea of tournament expansion.

Do I believe the coaches who are in favor of expansion are in favor of it because they are getting pressure from the NCAA? I absolutely do not believe this. I believe Jim Boeheim and Coach K are in favor of expansion, what the hell can the NCAA do to them if they don't publicly support the idea? Get them fired? Refuse to show their games on television? Whatever they do, they will be hurting themselves as well. I don't see any recourse the NCAA has against these coaches who don't publicly support the idea, so I think the idea these coaches have talking points forced upon them is fairly ridiculous.

This week I talked with one of the game’s most respected head coaches and he repeated a talking point: “Sixty percent of Division I football teams qualify for a bowl game and only 65 of some 300 college basketball teams qualify for the NCAA Tournament.”

Obviously the same coaches who support the idea are going to be spouting off the same statistics. It's not a talking point they have to say, it's a talking point that helps prove their point...which I disagree with.

We don’t need any more teams in the NCAA Tournament. We probably need less.

Ok, I don't know about that. I think 64 is a good number for right now. Enough good teams make it and really quality teams aren't being left out, especially this year. I don't mind change, but let's keep the NCAA Tournament where it is currently at...since it is working well and all.

I was appalled this week watching South Florida, an alleged “bubble” team, knock off DePaul in the Big East tournament without making one basket outside of the paint.

Why does a team have to score outside the paint to win a game? It is not a sign of a team's weakness they are able to score most of their points in the paint. Not shooting jump shots well isn't a sign a team is weak if that team can win without scoring outside the paint.

I wasn't aware there are rules for the proper way to win a college basketball game. Is Georgia Tech weak in football because they don't throw enough touchdown passes? The answer is no. So why would South Florida be a bad team because they won a game without scoring outside the paint? They may be a bad team for another reason, but not because of this reason specifically.

South Florida is a bad basketball team. The Bulls are no fun to watch. Adding them to the NCAA Tournament would not enhance a thing.

Guess what? We know now this bad basketball team didn't make the NCAA Tournament. So no harm has been done. The good name of the NCAA Tournament stands for one more day. I think we can all agree adding more teams to the NCAA Tournament is a bad idea, but it still doesn't explain why Jason Whitlock's argument (we will hear it in a minute) will work. One idea doesn't work well simply because another idea doesn't.

Hell, some of the tournament “locks” don’t belong, either. Texas has tremendous talent and the Longhorns were great in December, but do they deserve a reward for losing eight of their last 15 games?

It depends on who they lost to. Texas lost to Kansas State (#2 seed), Baylor three times (#3 seed), Texas A&M (#5 seed), Missouri (#10 seed), Kansas (#1 overall seed), Oklahoma (did not make tourney) and UConn (did not make tourney). Texas is a #8 seed and those are all these games they lost this year.

They went 24-9, had some major injuries, and beat 5 NCAA Tournament teams. I would say they deserve to make the NCAA Tournament. They really don't have a bad loss all year. They deserve a reward for not having a bad loss and going 24-9 in a strong conference.

You can leave the Missouri Tigers at home, too. Any team that can be blown out by Nebraska on a neutral court doesn't deserve a dance invitation.

Well obviously because they lost one game they don't deserve to make the NCAA Tournament. Neither does Kentucky because they lost to a #6 seed, University of Tennessee, and the University of South Carolina, WHO DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE TOURNAMENT! You don't deserve it Kentucky, go home!

But I say don’t add more teams to the NCAA Tournament. Exploit the good teams even more.

Ready for a bad idea?

After the first weekend and the whittling of the field to a Sweet 16 make the tournament a best-of-three series.

I get it! So take the one thing that is unique about the NCAA Tournament this time of year in that it is single elimination, reduce the amount of tension for a potential upset by giving the higher seeded teams two more shots to win, AND make the NCAA Tournament even longer than just adding 32 more teams would? Where can I sign up for this?

Why not just make the players shoot on 11 foot goals and have random holes in the floor where tigers pop up on chains and try to eat the basketball players. It will add ratings and it is just like the movie "Gladiator!" No one hates that movie, so no one will hate this idea either!

Rather than add teams to the field, let's just change EVERYTHING about the NCAA Tournament that works.

Think about it for a minute. Take your time. I’ll wait.

I've thought about it. This idea sucks.

In the second weekend, there are four predetermined neutral sites that host two best-of-three series. Two sites play on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. And two sites play on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

This is an improvement apparently from the predetermined neutral sites we have now where each site hosts games on Thursday and Saturday and the other sites host games on Friday and Sunday?

This would be great for fans because when they traveled to a site they would be guaranteed two games.

Fans are already guaranteed this many games, just not of the exact same team playing in each of these games. Have I mentioned I hate this idea?

The next weekend there would be a Final Four at one location. The games could be played on Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.

I’d make the championship series a home-and-home (Tuesday and Thursday) with the if-necessary third game in Indianapolis (Sunday), the home of the NCAA headquarters.

I could maybe, just maybe, handle a best-of-three championship game, but that's where I draw the line. Otherwise, this is too much basketball and will suck all of the fun out of the tournament. The single elimination concept is what makes the tournament work so well.

I know. Some of you think the single-elimination tournament is what makes March Madness great.

I believe nearly everyone thinks this. Somehow Jason Whitlock has made the expansion of the field to 96 teams sound like a great idea.

You think there would be far fewer upsets and Cinderella stories if it was a best-of-three tournament. And you probably think there’s no way sixth-seeded North Carolina State and Jim Valvano win a best-of-three series against Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma.

I don't THINK there would be fewer upsets, I KNOW there would be fewer upsets. N.C. State would never have beaten Houston in a best-of-three matchup. Villanova also wouldn't have won in 1985 over Georgetown in a best-of-three matchup. This idea basically takes upsets being possible out of the equation and I don't like this idea. I like upsets.

Generally speaking, the upsets occur in the first weekend, which I wouldn’t change.

Sure, let's just assume this is true. It doesn't mean this idea is any better.

As for Valvano and N.C. State or the eighth-seeded 1985 Villanova squad, the more the tournament expands the less likely those stories become. Valvano won the last 52-team tournament. Villanova won the first 64-team tourney.

Which is exactly why I am against expansion to 96 teams. Is it too hard to just not do anything positive or negative to the NCAA tournament? Leave it alone and just let it be a lot of fun. Why is this too hard?

Expanding the field to 96 favors the top seeds. They would get byes.

Playing the Sweet 16 on as a best-of-three also incredibly favors the top seeds. Ask Syracuse, Villanova, and Pittsburgh how much getting a bye helps a team. In the ACC, you can ask Florida State and Maryland. A bye isn't always a good thing. So the supposed benefit of a bye for the top seeds doesn't always work out that way.

What makes the tournament great are great games. The more the top-16 teams faced each other the more great games we’d see.

In the process it would rip away exactly what make the tournament so much fun. Seeing more basketball doesn't mean I want to see more basketball that becomes more predictable because more games are played. I don't want to see more top-16 teams play more games. I have seen that all year. I want to see if in one game, given one shot, New Mexico State can beat Kansas. I don't care to see this matchup 1-2 more times. It sucks the fun out of it for me.

Change the format. Leave the mediocre teams in the N.I.T.

So Jason Whitlock's argument is the format of the NCAA tournament is going to be changed, so why not add more games, which by the way will absolutely never happen, and in those more games you get to see more good teams play? Instead of letting mediocre teams into the tournament for one week he would rather change the entire format of the tournament. If it came down to the expansion to 96 teams or Whitlock's idea, I would choose expansion.

I guarantee changing the format of the tournament will have a much adverse effect on competition in the tournament than adding 32 more teams would. At least if the NCAA adds 32 more teams the format and what makes the tournament special, single elimination games, stays in place.

-For some reason, I am routinely defending A-Rod on this blog. I don't mean to, but columnists call him a choker in the postseason and then say other things which seems to cause me to semi-take A-Rod's side. Mike Lupica wants A-Rod to give answers about his relationship with Dr. Galea.

I don't like Mike Lupica. I dislike how he sits forward in his chair on "The Sports Reporters" and ALWAYS interrupts someone while they are talking on that show. He seems like a little, pompous ass who has a Napoleon complex. He may be a nice guy, even though I really haven't heard anyone say a positive story about him. I don't care too much for A-Rod simply because I am not a huge fan of his team and he is sort of a fake guy...or so it seems. I have no doubt he may still be lying about his use of steroids, but I don't base my suspicions on the same things Mike Lupica does, namely the fact A-Rod has an attorney to deal with this whole matter.

Maybe A-Rod was taking HGH, maybe he wasn't, but the fact he hired an attorney to represent him shouldn't indicate one way or another.

Here is the question that Alex Rodriguez will eventually have to answer, for the feds, for the Yankees, for Major League Baseball.

Why are his lips blue at times?

Why exactly did you need to go to a Canadian doctor one who can't practice medicine in New York to get anti-inflammatory drugs for a hip that may or may not have been "inflamed" at the time?

That is actually a great question by Mike Lupica. My only answer would be that possibly A-Rod didn't want to get pills from a normal hospital and wanted to go to someone he had heard other baseball players or athletes recommend. I am not a doctor, but I am pretty sure sometimes people take anti-inflammatory drugs for something that is not necessarily inflamed.

This column is even more difficult to read if you can hear Mike Lupica actually saying the sentences he typed here. I can just see him leaning forward in his chair saying sentences like:

I don't mean to be a cynic or skeptic with the Yankee third baseman,

Yes, you do. That's pretty much all you want to do. You want to ask the obvious questions in a urgent manner that makes it sound like you just discovered something crucial that is more important than what anyone else knows and THAT is why you have to interrupt what they are saying.

He couldn't get anti-inflammatory pills from the Yankee team doctors or at New York Hospital?

Very possibly not. I am not sure. I am not a doctor nor a pharmacist...but neither is Mike Lupica.

But apparently we are supposed to believe that Dr. Galea, who is on record about how much he likes human growth hormone as a way of keeping himself young, is as much of an expert on anti-inflammatory pills

I would think logically if Mike Lupica and others can paint him as a genius when it comes to HGH and how to help athletes take it and not get caught, then Dr. Galea could also be a genius when it comes to anti-inflammatory pills. If we are supposed to believe he is an HGH mastermind, then obviously he could also be an anti-inflammatory pills mastermind. It's not like he can only be smart in one facet of being a doctor. Logically, I think this is right.

If the whole thing is so easily explained, if Rodriguez is "at ease" with the whole situation as he told the media in Florida the other day, how come he hasn't cleared some of this up already, no matter how lawyered up he is.

Because he is a highly paid athlete who doesn't have to clear anything up publicly. To infer that A-Rod is guilty because he has an attorney representing him is just plain false. There are federal investigations going on and I personally wouldn't speak to anyone about this case or say anything to anyone without my attorney's approval and presence...even if I was innocent.

Sometimes people bring lawyers with them when they talk to the feds because they want to make sure they don't incriminate themselves.

Sometimes people bring lawyers because they have $250 million dollars and can afford to do so and it would be stupid to meet with federal investigators without an attorney present when you are as high profile as Alex Rodriguez. I like how Mike Lupica has obviously been watching a ton of episodes of "Law & Order" and just assumes when someone hires an attorney it means they are guilty and plan on lying to the cops or stonewalling the investigation. It doesn't mean this is true or actually going to happen in this situation.

Actually, Mike Lupica probably sits on the edge of his bed yelling at the television during these "Law & Order" episodes because he wants to interrupt the dialogue to say something. It wouldn't shock me.

But if that's the case with A-Rod, you're probably thinking:

Incriminate himself about what?

Let's just make a huge leap in logic. Let's assume the only reason a person would hire an attorney is to not incriminate themselves, so given this astoundingly stupid assumption, A-Rod's hiring of an attorney means to Mike Lupica he is afraid of saying something that will incriminate him. That's really the only conclusion that can get us from the act of hiring an attorney to immediately thinking this means a person is hiding something.

Rodriguez keeps saying that this isn't about him, it's about somebody else. That means Galea. Boy, it sure is.

It probably actually is. The feds haven't been able to get Galea so they are working their way down the food chain in the effort to drum something up about Galea to convict him. They figure if they put some public pressure on Alex Rodriguez he may give them something to make this all go away. So they want to meet with A-Rod in order to get this information and A-Rod hires an attorney to attend this meeting with him.

Is it possible that A-Rod did use HGH after his hip surgery? Sure, but it is also possible A-Rod knows nothing of substance to give the investigators. His act of hiring an attorney really means nothing, other than the fact he can afford to hire an attorney.

They probably want to know if Dr. Galea, whom his assistant said isn't allowed to practice medicine in the United States, treated any of these ballplayers in this country the way he treated Tiger Woods in Florida.

They may very well want to know this. Like I said, they are working their way down the chain for information. As far as I know, A-Rod hasn't refused to give them information. I guess I am a little clueless as to what the exact problem is in that case.

But if you practice medicine in this country without a license, in either Florida or New York, you can get sent away for that for up to four years. This is known as real time.

I think we can all agree that Dr. Galea is probably guilty of some things in regard to HGH, but I still don't get what Galea's guilt has to do with A-Rod. Would he really be stupid enough to use HGH a couple months after his steroid-use revelation came out? If so, why wasn't it detected? I am assuming he was drug tested last year.

I am not excusing A-Rod, but if my wife and I go see a doctor because my wife is pregnant and this doctor does abortions as well as take care of pregnant women...does this mean we are going to this doctor to get an abortion? Obviously not.

Again, I am not making excuses for A-Rod, but it is entirely possible he wanted to get back on the field and found out Dr. Galea knows about good anti-inflammatory drugs that are legal to use by the rules of MLB in helping his recovery from hip surgery. We already know he is a cheater, but is he a stupid cheater too?

Eventually Rodriguez will have to sit down and talk about this. Of course, when he talked about the scheduling of this interview, he made it sound more difficult than scheduling a family vacation to Europe this summer. It doesn't seem to have been too much of a challenge for Carlos Beltran or Jose Reyes to find the time to answer questions about Galea.

First off, Beltran and Reyes aren't quite the stars that A-Rod is and they have been injured, so I am going to assume their time isn't as in high demand like A-Rod's is. Perhaps A-Rod knows something and is hiding it, perhaps A-Rod doesn't know anything and doesn't want to take time out of his schedule to tell this to the feds. I am pretty sure if the feds were really concerned they would subpoena A-Rod to where he HAD to meet with them.

I don't know, I feel like I am making excuses here, and I may be. I just don't see why Mike Lupica can jump on actions by A-Rod in this situation and just automatically be able to assume what he wants to assume.

But the longer this takes, the more A-Rod makes you wonder about what questions he might answer when this interview finally takes place. And might not.

This is true. If this were true, it would explain exactly why he is getting an attorney, but doesn't mean he is actually guilty of anything.

You know who really wants answers, as much of a low profile as they've kept so far? The Yankees want answers. They have a right.

In a normal column, by a normal sportswriter, he may produce a quote that shows the Yankees care, but that would be a normal column by a normal sportswriter. This is a column by Mike Lupica who wants to reach the conclusions he wants to reach. It is possible the Yankees know everything because A-Rod has told them and don't really care about answers because they believe they have them already.

But Tiger Woods and his representatives, bless their hearts must have thought that Dr. Tony Galea, up there in Toronto, was practically the Tiger Woods, world champion of all sports doctors everywhere.

Yes, they must have thought that. I feel like Mike Lupica needed to get a column together and just came up with, "Alex Rodriguez hasn't talked to investigators about Dr. Galea yet and he has an attorney, what is he covering up?"

I think we can file this column under the heading, "We need more information before we can form a judgment."

And to wonder what happens if Galea ever does take any kind of fall with the authorities, in Canada or the U.S., and what he really knows about these guys.

This wonderment (not sure that is a word) would be pure speculation at this point. That's MY entire point. The real question is what "these guys" know about Dr. Galea. Isn't that the entire purpose of federal investigators trying to talk to A-Rod? To find out what these athletes know about A-Rod and not the other way around? I am not saying Galea wouldn't spill information about the athletes, but Lupica wants to make it like the athletes, like Alex Rodriguez, are the ones under the microscope right.

I think it is entirely possible A-Rod did use HGH or had some banned anti-inflammatory substance used by Dr. Galea, but I also think it is possible Dr. Galea is an expert in other parts of medicine outside of HGH, so that is why A-Rod went to see him. Either way, if anyone has more information on this give it to me, but I don't see a reason to write a column about this situation quite yet. Of course Mike Lupica doesn't need a reason.