6 comments MMQB Review: Cutting Through the Hype to Get to More Hype Edition

In last week's MMQB, Peter King rejoiced that there was a couple of obvious storylines he could write about regarding the upcoming Super Bowl. He could write about it being Ray Lewis' last game, the HarBowl, and the youthful inexperience (dare we say precociousness?) of Colin Kaepernick. This week is the off-week before the Super Bowl, so it is a really good chance to drill these stories into our skull and talk about the human-interest stories prior to the Super Bowl that really make no difference in the outcome of the game. This week Peter talks about how Alex Smith is sort-of-but-not-really pretending not to be sad he isn't the 49ers starting quarterback (yep, that's a triple negative) and how if we as fans are tired of the Super Bowl hype then we should get over it because the media doesn't plan on quitting. I wouldn't expect the hype to stop simply because the fans don't want to read the hype. I guess it beats watching ESPN and hearing wall-to-wall Tebow coverage for a week. And before you ask, yes, Peter does get a Brett Favre mention into this column.

Ready to get beaten over the head with the Harbaughs, Ray Lewis past and present and a whole lot of players saying a whole lot of nothing? Well, it's Super Bowl week, and the bad news for you is that the one thing I noticed in my few hours in town Sunday before writing this is there's more media than ever.

"Who cares what the football-loving public wants to read and hear about, this is what they are getting. Enjoy your Ray Lewis coverage and like it. You aren't getting the Super Bowl until you listen to and understand every aspect of the Harbaugh brothers early lives. This Super Bowl week isn't about you as the public and what you want to read about. It's about the fact our company is paying for us to come down to New Orleans on vacation and they expect some half-assed stories that every other media outlet is doing as proof we are doing work."

I saw a Mardi Gras-style Dan Patrick/Artie Lange float in NBC-land. I mean, Super Bowl Week has become the United States of Programming.

Hey, it's what we want as a public isn't it? Peter knows no "official" polls have been taken on the amount of Super Bowl coverage the general public wants, but trust him, he knows we want wall-to-wall hype and saturated coverage of the Super Bowl. After all, CBS and other networks are pouring millions into this Super Bowl coverage so it doesn't really matter what the sports-loving public wants at this point.

We've all seen it in the last two months: Alex Smith is the NFL's MVM ... Most Valuable Mensch. Look at his career path: First pick of the 2005 draft. Clearly over-drafted because the 49ers needed a quarterback so desperately.

By the way, earlier this year Peter did an entire feature in MMQB on Alex Smith and how he had become a super-accurate and trustworthy quarterback for the 49ers. I'm not sure if this is a contradiction from now saying he was over-drafted, but I find Peter calling Smith "over-drafted" while defending him earlier this year and using statistical evidence to do so as fairly interesting.

Career rescued by Jim Harbaugh, though he constantly looked over his shoulder in the Harbaugh Era with the arrival of Colin Kaepernick and the specter of Peyton Manning. 

No, Peter. Harbaugh wasn't going to replace Smith with Manning. That was all just a rumor. How many times does Jim Harbaugh have to say this? He never wanted to replace Smith with Peyton Manning and he was simply on the Duke University campus in a disguise watching Peyton Manning workout because he was in the neighborhood, 3000 miles away from the San Francisco 49ers stadium. It's not like he replaced Smith with Kaepernick at the very first available opportunity or anything like that. So of course Harbaugh didn't want to replace Alex Smith with Peyton Manning. He wanted to replace Alex Smith with Colin Kaepernick, but had no interest in replacing Smith with Manning. So again, Kaepernick is a good replacement for Alex Smith, but who the hell would want Peyton Manning instead of Alex Smith?

"It sucks, to put it frankly,'' Smith told me the other day. "Tough pill to swallow."

I can't argue with the result, but I don't like how Smith was replaced. It seems tough to lose your starting quarterback job after you have suffered a concussion, especially when Smith had been performing as well as he had. Though, part of me thinks Smith should feel lucky that Harbaugh even gave him a chance last year and helped to rehabilitate his career. Without Harbaugh supporting him and turning his career around he could be looking for a backup quarterback job next year as opposed to possibly getting a starting quarterback job.

And now we've seen what Colin is capable of. He's a very unique talent, and he's made the most of his opportunity. At the same time, this is exactly how I got my start in college. And I think the biggest thing I can point to in how I've handled this is that I saw how some mature quarterbacks handled it. That started in college, with Brett Elliott.''

Oh yeah, Alex Smith took another quarterback's job in college when that quarterback got injured. So after having six years of trying to nail the starting quarterback job down he got replaced right as he was starting to achieve his potential in the NFL, which is obviously payback for taking another quarterback's job in college. I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook believes the Football Gods are punishing Alex Smith.

Smith explained that, at Utah in 2003, he battled incumbent Elliott for the starting job, lost, but won it when Elliott, in the second game of the season, broke his wrist. And there was no turning back when Smith beat Cal (and Aaron Rodgers), then Colorado State, and then, in a Thursday night TV game, Oregon. Now the job was his.

That's probably why Brett Elliott was so mad and wrote "American Psycho," as a way of getting back at Alex Smith for taking his starting quarterback job. Wait, wrong Brett Ell- sounding name.

"It's a unique situation,'' said Elliott, "and really tough for people to understand. It's the most unique place you can be. The most unique situation in life. You're so invested, being the leader and the guy everybody looks to, your life revolving around this.

Yeah, see here is "the thing"...Alex Smith really wasn't the leader and the guy everybody looked to for the 49ers. He didn't seem to be quite that guy. The 49ers seemed to take to Kaepernick pretty easily which leads me to believe either Jim Harbaugh has good leadership in the 49ers locker room or the 49ers as a team knew Kaepernick was probably going to be the guy at some point. I don't think Alex Smith was the guy everyone looked to in the 49ers locker room, no matter how many VISA commercials he appeared in.

Smith hasn't lost confidence in his ability, saying he is "absolutely sure'' he can be a good quarterback in the league for years. But he says he won't think about the future now. Not this week.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Alex Smith isn't thinking about the future during Super Bowl week when he is being asked by dozens of reporters about how it feels to be replaced by Colin Kaepernick and he has the time to think about the starting quarterback in the Super Bowl could conceivably be him if he had not gotten a concussion earlier in the year. If there is a week during the year Alex Smith is at his most bitter and thinking about the future, it is during Super Bowl week when he is being constantly asked about his future and how it feels to be replaced by Kaepernick.

I don't hate the HarBowl aspect of this week. It's great. Will we all be sick of the hype in a few days? Yes. But the historical significance of two brothers meeting in the biggest single game on our sports calendar is great.

See, the reason Peter doesn't hate the HarBowl aspect of the week is because he has to fill space in his columns and talking about the HarBowl is an easy way to do that for him. He doesn't hate the story because the story makes it easier to do his job and people are naturally lazy. That's why Peter would write about Tebow or Brett Favre's non-retirement/retirement a few years ago. Sure it was a story, but it was an easy story to write about and got a strong reaction from readers. Very little effort required, a big impact received. Same thing with the HarBowl. People who love the cutesy stories of these two brothers growing up like the story (and there's nothing wrong with that) and it is an easy story to write.

Then Peter links the stories of other sportswriters and their articles on the Harbaugh brothers in a desperate attempt to fill space so he can respond snidely on Twitter to someone who calls him lazy by citing how many words he writes in MMQB. I will sum up the Harbaugh brother anecdotes for you in a concise manner.

-They are competitive. They went on vacation together and played in the pool together in a competitive fashion.

-They are the same. John is shorter than Jim. John is smarter than Jim. Jim didn't have many friends growing up but was a dreamer, just like John Lennon.

-Jack Harbaugh didn't have a very good team at Western Kentucky, so John and Jim helped him recruit better talent and he magically become a better coach.

-Tom Crean and his occasionally awful butt-cut haircut is brother-in-law to John and Jim.

-Sometimes they hated each other and sometimes they loved each other. They were the first brothers in the history of the universe to have a love-hate relationship, paving the way for other brothers like Cain and Abel to have the same type of relationship.

I am categorically, adamantly opposed to the Jets trading Revis. I believe Woody Johnson will rue the day he trades the best cornerback -- a slightly risky tag, obviously, given that he's coming off October knee surgery -- regardless of how uncomfortable the Jets' salary cap fit is right now. You don't trade great players at vital positions in their prime. You never recoup the value.

Of course Peter has a history of over-hyping cornerbacks. Remember when he thought Nnadmi Asomugha was going to be the greatest free agent grab since Reggie White? It hasn't quite turned out that way for the Eagles. So my response to Peter would be that Revis is also in a good situation with the Jets and if the Jets can get a good enough price for him then they should trade him. The starting cornerbacks in the Super Bowl are Cary Williams, Carlos Rogers, Corey Graham, and Tarrell Brown. Last year I don't recall there being an elite cornerback in the Super Bowl matchup of New England v. New York Giants. A pass rush is more important in my mind than having elite cornerbacks, so if the Jets can get a first round pick or even more for Revis I see why they would trade him. Don't overvalue cornerbacks.

In today's game, quarterback is the most important position, followed in some order by pass rusher, cornerback and left tackle. Given that we've just seen the most passes thrown in any NFL season, I'd say corner or pass rusher is now the second-most important position to fill.

I disagree with this. I think a pass rusher is much more important than a corner. A good pass rusher can get to the cornerback and make even average cornerbacks look good, while a team without a pass rush can make even the best corners look bad. I'm not saying a cornerback isn't valuable, but I would place a pass rusher and a stable offensive line as more important than the cornerback position. A great pass rush is the best defensive weapon a defensive coordinator can have. It's more important than the cornerback position.

Revis will be 28 on opening day next year. Two of the league's best five corners in 2012 were Champ Bailey, 34, and Charles Tillman, 31. There is no reason to suggest age will be an issue with Revis.

I'm not saying Revis won't be valuable, I'm saying he may not be so valuable the Jets should ignore trade offers for him and sign him to (another) contract extension. A team needs competent NFL corners, but turning down very good offers on the table for Revis is short-sighted in my opinion. If the Jets can fix their pass rush it will make the their corners look a lot better and they won't need to tie up money in one cornerback, no matter how good he is.

One: In 2007, when the Jets drafted Revis, they traded their first-, second- and fifth-round picks, 25th, 59th and 164th overall, to Carolina for the 14th pick. Revis was picked 14th. Carolina picked linebacker Jon Beason 25th and center Ryan Kalil 59th. Beason made three Pro Bowls in his first four seasons but has struggled with injuries since; Kalil has started 68 games since, and also has made three Pro Bowl teams. So if you're going to trade Revis, understand you're trading a player who cost you first- and second-round picks to acquire -- and if the Jets had hung onto the second-rounder, they could have turned it into a player at a need position like guard-tackle Marshal Yanda or defensive tackle Brandon Mebane. So it would be folly for the Jets, if they did the deal, to crow about getting first- and second-round picks in return; that's what they traded to get him in the first place.

What? This is idiotic logic. If the Jets believe Revis isn't going to come back strong and the value they would receive in a 1st and 2nd round pick is worth it then they aren't losing anything at all. They were able to secure Revis' services for the prime of his career and then got a good value for him in trade. The Jets didn't really even trade a first and a second round pick for Revis because they got the 14th pick in return for making the trade. So they essentially traded a 2nd round pick and a 5th round pick for the right to move up 11 spots in the draft for Darrelle Revis.

It doesn't work this way though. If the Panthers traded Jon Beason for a 1st round pick would that be folly because they used a first round pick on him? Not at all. They were able to have him on the team for six years and then got their investment in him returned back to them in the form of a first round pick. I think trading Revis for a 1st and 2nd round pick would be something to crow about. If the Redskins traded Robert Griffin in eight years for three first round draft picks would that not be something to crow about since they gave up those first round picks to draft him? Not necessarily. A player's trade value is independent from what they gave up to draft him. Any picks traded to draft the player are a sunk cost, so his trade value would be independent from this cost to originally acquire him. This is especially true if a team (like the Jets) were able to use that player's services for six years, then you would have to factor in how much value they received with that player on the roster for those six years in addition to the draft picks they eventually received in return for trading him.

Two: If the Jets trade Revis, they'll be putting a dagger through coach Rex Ryan's heart. In effect, barring an upset, they'd be firing him nine or 10 months early. They'd be saying to him, We know the most important thing to your defense is the cornerback position, and everything you do on defense is predicated on your corners holding up, but we're trading Revis anyway.

History has shown the Jets overvalued Wilson, who is just a guy. Cromartie is good. Without Revis, it's a pedestrian secondary.

The Jets can go out and try to find better corners if they wanted to. They may not find a guy on the level of Revis, but with a 1st and 2nd round pick they could find a corner in the draft to replace Revis and Wilson. That would improve the secondary.

Now, about the money. Revis has a year left on his contract, provided he doesn't hold out, and he will want to be the highest-paid defensive player in the game. Currently, Chicago defensive end Julius Peppers makes an average of $15.3 million a year; Buffalo pass rusher Mario Williams averages $16 million a year. There is no doubt Revis is better at his position than Peppers or Williams is at theirs -- of course, assuming Revis comes back whole from his surgery.

But is Revis worth the same amount of money as an elite pass rusher? I say no. He's an incredibly good cornerback, but I don't value a cornerback as high as I value a pass rusher. Granted, neither Peppers or Williams may be worth the amount of money they received, but for $16 million per year the Jets could acquire Chris Gamble when/if he is released by Carolina and use a draft pick received in return for Revis to acquire another corner. I'm not advocating the Jets trade Revis, but I also don't think it would be the worst decision in the history of the franchise. Rex Ryan obviously needs more than two quality cornerbacks and trading Revis could help the Jets achieve this goal.

If I were the Jets, I'd tell Revis he needs to show he's back to Revis form in the first, say, half of the season. Then I'd lock him up for five years, at $17 million per, in a deal where the guaranteed money will counter-balance the fact that the Jets are in cap trouble right now.

There is a reason Peter King is not an NFL GM right now. He would have $30-$33 million invested in the cornerback position because you know he would have Revis and Asomugha matched up together on the same team. He was trying to convince us all the Jets would be interested in Asomugha when he was a free agent, so you know if he were a GM he would put Revis and Asomugha together in the secondary. Just look at the cornerbacks for Super Bowl winning teams over the last five years. There are some good ones, but mostly they aren't great corners. Great corners aren't necessarily required to win a Super Bowl.

Andy Reid could be tempted with $17 million of cap room in Kansas City, and GM Trent Baalke in San Francisco could be a player too; the Niners will have significant money available when -- I presume -- they dump Alex Smith before April 1. And there are other teams that might be willing to give a first-round pick plus other value (maybe a third-rounder and a journeyman cornerback as well) for Revis. But remember, the compensation isn't just two picks and a player, or whatever ... it's also wrecking your cap in a flat-cap era for Revis, instead of the significantly more manageable money the fixed-cost high-draft choices now provide.

And yet, Peter says the Jets must back a Brinks truck up to pay Revis after he has proven himself this season...which we all know from Revis' previous holdout may end up turning into Revis not playing next year until he gets a new deal.

But I don't care what they'd get in return, unless someone (other than New England, a team the Jets obviously should do no business with) does something stupid like offer three first-rounders and a decent player. It won't be worth it. In this league, at cornerback, if you've got the best, you grit your teeth and pay the man.

Yeah, just look at the Eagles in regard to how important and crucial quality cornerbacks are. I'm all about Darrelle Revis being the top player at his position, but I don't see paying a cornerback as a "you have to pay this man" position, especially when that corner is coming off knee surgery. I know Peter is just waving off knee surgery as no big deal, but I think there is a risk that Revis could injure his knee again. Peter uses Thomas Davis as an example of a player who came back after three knee surgeries, but on the flip side, he is also an example of a player who suffered multiple knee injuries. A good pass rush can help fix problems in the secondary. He's the best at his position, but I can see why the Jets would trade him and depending on the compensation they would get in return, I can see how it is a good move for them.

Since probably midway through Williams' tenure as defensive coordinator in New Orleans, Payton faulted Williams as a renegade coach run amuck. The league didn't buy that Payton didn't know about the reward program Williams was running with his defensive players and thus suspended him for the season.

Good ol' Sean Payton. Remember prior to the year the Saints won the Super Bowl, when Payton took some of his own money and gave it back to the Saints in order to hire Gregg Williams? Payton was lauded by Peter King and others for making this move to help the team succeed, but once Williams started becoming a renegade, all of a sudden Sean Payton couldn't control this man anymore. He had no idea Williams was running the reward program, but he will still accept congratulations for taking less money to hire Williams as the head coach. Sean Payton has control of his staff and is glad to take responsibility for the team's success until something goes wrong and then Payton pleads he has no control over his staff (yes, I realize I sound a bit like Gregg Easterbrook). It's ridiculous to me and I am not happy to see Sean Payton back.

But you've got to credit Payton for urging local fans to be respectful to Goodell if they see him in New Orleans. That's a class thing to do by a guy who I'm sure is still smarting from his year-long suspension.

Nope, I won't give him credit for this. Considering Payton admitted culpability, to urge Saints fans to not tear Goodell apart limb-by-limb, isn't really a classy thing to do but more of a "let's please remember you are trying to punish the commissioner for rightfully punishing me" thing to do.

I asked former Chiefs GM Scott Pioli, who was in the midst of finalizing the club's preliminary draft board when fired early this month, to examine the record 73 underclass players who declared for the draft and pick the top 10, in his mind. His view of the junior board:

Remember a few weeks ago when Peter claimed his defense of Scott Pioli wasn't entirely based on the fact he liked the guy? Well know that Pioli has been fired, Peter is asking Pioli's opinion on the junior class in MMQB. Learn to separate friendship from your job, Peter. Because we all know the opinion of Pioli on the junior class means a lot. Was Matt Millen not available to comment on the junior class? Okay, maybe Pioli wasn't that bad, but Peter defends his friend in print and then gives him an outlet as a personnel expert in MMQB.

First of all, Jan. 28 is a dangerous time to commit to "top players" in any category, particularly underclassmen. There is still a lot of work to do before we know who and what these players are. Sometimes players look better with less information. NFL rules don't allow teams to officially scout underclassmen during fall campus visits, and scouts can't comment publicly on them either. When scouts go into school visits in the fall, they are not allowed to ask questions about underclassmen when speaking with coaches, trainers and any other support staff.

Thanks for your opinion, Scott. Since this exercise is futile I guess we can all move on without your opinion? Actually, even though the exercise is futile Scott Pioli would like to keep his name out there and his friend Peter King is just trying to help him do this.

Then Pioli lists ten players and his opinion of each player, which is seemingly pointless as Pioli just pointed out. If you are interested in Pioli's list then just look at any mock draft and find the Top 10 juniors mocked in that draft and you will have Pioli's list.

Also, there was no travel note this week. Either Peter learned from berating the cabbie last week or he just didn't travel enough to complain bitterly about the experiences he had interacting with his fellow human beings. Either way, we will try to move on without the weekly travel note.

1. I think I should clarify one thing I learned this week about minority coaches, and it's important: One team in the NFL twice called Stanford coach David Shaw asking him to interview for its head-coaching job. Shaw, who is black, said he wasn't interested in leaving Stanford right now. So there's that.

I don't think there was a need to clarify this. Multiple reports said David Shaw wasn't interested in an NFL job at this point. It was silly for Peter to include him last week as a minority who deserved more consideration for an NFL head coaching job. He isn't interested in the NFL at this point.

2. I think Tony Dungy brought up an interesting point on NBC's Football Night in America show Sunday night about minority coaches. He said he spoke with Steelers chairman Dan Rooney -- author of the Rooney Rule, which mandates that every team with a head coaching opening interview at least one minority candidate -- and Rooney told him teams needed to slow down. Agreed. What's the hurry? Why the race? Pittsburgh had a deliberate process that resulted in the hiring of Mike Tomlin on Jan. 22, 2007, the day after the two conference title games.

There is a race because some NFL teams are going after the same candidate. If the Chiefs wanted to interview Andy Reid as their head coach they couldn't wait until the AFC/NFC championship week to do this because he was going to be hired by the Cardinals or another NFL team at that point. There isn't a race among NFL teams to hire these coaches, it is just if Team A goes hard after a coach that Team B wants badly, then Team B is going to have to move up their deadline to hire a coach. It's hard to interview a head coaching candidate who has already taken another head coaching job. It's fine to sit back and wait if you are fine with potentially missing out on interviewing some of the top candidates for your head coaching position.

Also, what the hell is Dan Rooney chiming in on this issue for? He's hired three coaches in the last four decades. It's not like he has vast experience trying to find a suitable head coaching candidate. This is a credit to how the Steelers run their organization, but if Mike Tomlin was close to interviewing and being hired by another NFL team the day after the divisional round of the playoffs then the Steelers would have to hurry to get their man...or at the very least interview their man.

The last of eight coaches hired this year, Bruce Arians, got the job three days before the championship games. That's an anecdotal story, obviously, but Rooney's point is that teams seem to be sprinting to get a coach named instead of making sure they've interviewed a wide spectrum of candidates.

Remember when there were members of the media who were criticizing the Bears for interviewing a wide spectrum of candidates? It is an anecdotal story, but teams have to sprint to get a head coach because if they don't sprint then the number of quality head coaching candidates that can be interviewed quickly dwindles.

5. I think a lot of parents feel like Barack Obama. "I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you, if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football," the president told The New Republic.

I thought it was hilarious this comment gained some sense of national momentum. What is Barack Obama really saying? Absolutely nothing. He is simply saying if he had a son (which he doesn't, so this is all hypothetical), he would have to think hard about letting his son play football (but he didn't say he wouldn't let his son play football). Maybe it is an important message that the President of the United States would have to think before letting his son play football, but Obama doesn't have a son and never said he wouldn't allow this non-existent son to play football. He would have to think about it. "I have to think about it" is parent language for "I don't feel like talking about his right now and will make a decision later depending on how I feel."

A lot of parents feel the same way as Obama, but I just thought it wasn't very newsworthy since his opining on an issue that he won't ever have to confront as a parent. It's all hypothetical and the acknowledgment he would have to think about letting his kid play football reflects what every other parent thinks. It's just Obama's opinion means less since he doesn't have a son and won't ever have to make this decision.

9. I think if Ed Reed becomes a free agent, he ought to last about 48 hours on the street ... 

Dan Rooney wants to know why NFL teams are in such a rush to sign free agents. The Steelers take their time signing free agents, why can't other teams?

I think it is interesting how Peter states Ed Reed will be on the street for 48 hours if he becomes a free agent, but Peter also can't understand why NFL teams are so quick to interview and hire potential head coaches. It's like Peter can't understand there is a limited pool of talent for head coaching jobs, but he understands there is a limited pool of talent for NFL players. There isn't a huge difference in a coach being a free agent and a player becoming a free agent. If a team wants a player/coach, they have to move fast sometimes.

and as I said on NBC Sunday night, my money's on the Patriots and the president of the Ed Reed Fan Club, Massachusetts Chapter, Bill Belichick.

Peter thinks the Patriots are going to sign every pending free agent or draft every draft pick. He repeatedly said he thought the Patriots might draft Tim Tebow, correctly hit on Fred Taylor going to New England, said it wouldn't surprise him if the Patriots tried to sign Julius Peppers when he was a free agent or even sign him when he was under contract with Carolina, and now he has the Patriots signing Ed Reed. This may happen, but add it to the list of guys Peter thinks New England will have interest in.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. I missed The Debt in theaters a couple of years ago. Glad I caught it on DVR over the weekend. Heart-pounding.

I can't wait to read Peter's thoughts on "Zero Dark Thirty" as soon as he gets around to watching it in the year 2016. 

b. What an idiotic softie I am. Got all teary the other night watching the last 30 minutes of Parenthood.

There are some things that are better left alone and not shared with others.

e. So Terry Francona came to the Barnes and Noble in my Manhattan neighborhood the other day to sign copies of the book he and Dan Shaughnessy wrote. I stopped by. Naïve me. I'd never met Francona, and, being a Sox partisan, I wanted to stop by and just say thanks for the two World Series titles. Silly me. Seventy-five minute wait. In Manhattan, no less. Well, thanks in spirit, Terry. And I'm sure I'll enjoy the book.

Whoever could have foreseen that there would be a long wait for Terry Francona to sign a book? It's Manhattan, which is a city where only native New Yorkers live, and there is a long wait for a famous person to sign a book? Peter King, a Boston Red Sox fan who lives in Manhattan is shocked that there are Red Sox fans who live in Manhattan. That should tell you anything you need to know about Peter. He is a Red Sox fan who lives in Manhattan, but he is shocked there are other humans alive who live near him that are also Red Sox fans. Peter seems to have no concept of life outside of his own existence.

f. My knowledge of the NBA could fit in a thimble. But I love watching Rajon Rondo. So a little of me died with the Rondo ACL tear Friday.

"I know very little about the NBA, but here is an opinion on an NBA player I care to share with you."

i. Beernerdness: Grew quite fond of the LA 31 Biere Pale Ale in New Orleans Sunday night. Dry and hoppy -- and brewed in Kiln, Miss., home of you-know-who.

Who, Peter? Who is this home to? Can't go an entire MMQB without mentioning his name or referring to him can you?

The Adieu Haiku

The Niners arrive.
Saw Alex Smith at Drago's.
Hope Staley paid tab.

Hope haiku gets gone.
Irritating more and more.
Just make it go away.

6 comments Are You Being Serious? What Did You Expect From a Bill Simmons-Barack Obama Podcast?

Many of you have may have heard Bill Simmons got Barack Obama as a podcast guest. The questions and answers that followed were what you would expect from a non-journalist asking the President questions. It was about The Wire, Jeremy Lin, and various other easy to discuss topics. If you expected any differently from Bill Simmons then you aren't very bright for three reasons:

1. It is Bill Simmons. He isn't a natural interviewer. He has strengths. Interviewing the President of the United States wouldn't speak to his strengths.

2. He is interviewing the President of the United States. One would expect the questions to be vetted to where nothing controversial is asked or answered. The coup for Bill Simmons is getting the President to do a podcast. You shouldn't expect controversy to follow.

3. Seriously, it is Bill Simmons doing an interview. This is a guy who talked shit about Isiah Thomas for years and then immediately made up to him when he met him face-to-face. He makes Piers Morgan look light a hard-hitting interviewer. Again, Bill has strengths, but I wouldn't count interviewing as among them.

Well, this wasn't enough for Dan Levy. He wanted hard-hitting questions and answers. I can't believe he is being serious. I can't believe I am defending Bill Simmons.

Here are some choice quotes detailing what Levy wanted from this podcast/interview between Barack Obama and Bill Simmons:

Yes, I assume the questions had to be vetted, both by ESPN and by the White House, but that doesn't mean there weren't a host of questions Simmons could have asked the President of the United States of America other than "[s]ettle an office debate. Best Wire character of all time?"

I'm sure Simmons had other questions he wanted to ask, but couldn't because he wouldn't be allowed to do the interview if he was going to grill Obama on his foreign policy or his stance on immigration. This was going to be a vanilla "Obama picks his bracket" type interview. To expect otherwise is silly.

It wouldn't be as disheartening to read this interview if it wasn't so obvious that Simmons comes off inexplicably unprepared. He asked President Obama about taking the time to watch his daughter play basketball and when the President explained that he did some coaching last season, Simmons replied, "Really?"

Really? That's your response? How did you not know Obama coached last year? Heck, we talked about it a few weeks ago, and you know how we found out about it? ABC News emailed me the story. ABC News, part of the same media company Simmons works for, emailed sports writers their story about President Obama and Reggie Love coaching Sasha's basketball team less than a month ago and Simmons didn't even know about it?

I can see how Bill may have known this and is why he asked the question. But this is an interview and he is supposed to pretend to be shocked or pleasantly surprised at the answers. It isn't like Obama will say something and Bill will dismiss him by saying, "I knew that already." This is a staged podcast. There is nothing off-the-cuff about it considering the President of the United States is the person being interviewed.

But Simmons completely sidestepped any juicy questions in the entire conversation.

I am sure he sidestepped tough questions and in no way did the President's "people" tell Bill what he could and could not talk about.

How does a writer from Boston interview the President, ask six questions about different championship teams coming to the White House and not address the issue of Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins goaltender, skipping his team's trip due to his very-public disdain for the current political climate?

Because this is a somewhat political question Obama would not want to answer. He isn't going to answer anything 1% political...especially about a hockey player who didn't visit the White House because he didn't agree with Obama's policies.

I could give Simmons the benefit of the doubt and assume the White House nixed questions about Thomas, but President Obama will answer 50 tougher questions than one about Thomas before lunch.

From actual journalists! Not from Bill Simmons, a guy who references pornstars and 70's and 80's television shows/movies in his writing. It's not Bill's place to ask tough questions.

There was also nothing from Simmons about the potential candidates the President might face, albeit in a sports context.

I am betting $100 anything related to other candidates was off limits. Dan Levy has to realize this, right?

He totally should have asked who would win a game of one-on-one between Romney and Rick Santorum.

This isn't exactly a hard-hitting question.

Those softballs would be a hit.

So basically Bill Simmons should have asked the softball questions that Dan Levy wanted him to ask.

Were questions about race in sports vetted out of the interview too?

I'm guessing they absolutely were vetted out. I don't know if Dan Levy has hard, but race is sort of touchy issue sometimes.

That said, Simmons had nearly four years since ESPN nixed his last chance to come up with questions. If that's the best he could do, it's a huge disappointment for those of us who fight every day to have podcasts treated with the same respect as more traditional forms of audio-visual media. The opportunity speaks volumes for online media. The execution fell on deaf ears.

Anything more hard-hitting from a guy who edits a sports website and the interview would never have happened. That's the bottom line. I hate defending Simmons, but if he wanted the interview he couldn't ask hard-hitting questions. The questions were stupid and softball. What did you expect?

At least he didn't get the President to ask if Reggie Love can hook Grantland up with Duke press credentials. Though perhaps that came after they stopped taping.

Ok, that was kind of funny.

Overall though, criticizing Bill Simmons for not asking tough questions. Dan Levy you are being serious? What else did you seriously expect from a guy who isn't an actual journalist and has no experience in asking hard-hitting questions that don't deal with making lists of the 76 (or whatever it is) greatest NBA players of all-time?

4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Thinks If It Weren't For Bracketology, There Would Be No War

Gregg Easterbrook is back. He has written a brief essay on one of the most important issues facing college athletics and the world today. Should the President of the United States also be a sports fan? Only Gregg Easterbrook would write a column for a sports website asking if sports are a good thing for people. Don't worry though, the premise is somewhat wrong and Gregg still has his whole "my shit don't stink" attitude going for him as well. It's like old times. Gregg doesn't have to tell you that he is better than you, he just knows it. He will not write using big words, be over-analytical and reference government agencies in an effort to show how smart he is.

Monday night, President Barack Obama addressed the nation to explain his sudden decision to order U.S. forces to attack Libya. Some critics have asked why, if as the White House claims the president had no time to consult Congress before ordering the attack, he nevertheless had time to deliver his March Madness picks to ESPN, as he has done the previous two years.

These critics then demanded to see Obama's birth certificate and boarded a tax-payer funded plane back to their home state just in time to catch the tail-end of the early NCAA tournament games.

The United Nations Security Council resolution being used to justify the attack on Libya was under consideration -- and at least 10,000 were dead in Japan from one of history's worst earthquakes -- just as the president was predicting who would make the Final Four.

Millions around the globe were starving later that evening when President Obama was eating. IF OBAMA HAS TIME TO EAT THEN WHY DOESN'T HE HAVE TIME TO HELP THE NEEDY CHILDREN WHO ARE HUNGRY IN AFRICA?

Of course, if Obama paid no attention to the annual college basketball tournament, the situation in Japan would be just as horrible.

"Of course Obama's full attention to the situations I am complaining he didn't pay full attention to would not have made a damn bit of difference in those situations, but isn't it fun to complain?"

But with a war about to begin and a natural disaster of historic proportions in progress, was it appropriate for the president to be fiddling around with brackets?

Absolutely not, President Obama was wasting time with his brackets when he could have been flying to Japan and using his superhuman strength to hold the tsunami back, while also using his power of super-cool breath to keep the nuclear reactors in Japan from over-heating in case he can't stop the tsunami's momentum. While he was at it, was it too hard to fly over Libya and singlehandedly overthrow the government? Doubtful it would have been difficult, but NOOOOO, Obama just had to take the time to predict the winner of his Pittsburgh-Butler matchup in the second round.

This raises the larger question:

Why does ESPN pay Gregg Easterbrook to write for them?

Should presidents succumb to America's national obsession with sports?

This is not the larger question, this is the smaller question. I doubt filling out and explaining his bracket took much more than hour to do. He probably filled out his bracket on a plane going somewhere where he needed to speak and then explained it to ESPN in 15 minutes.

Most do: Either because they like sports, or because they think involvement with sports will raise their popularity, or both. Is presidential affection for athletics good for the country?

What would Jesus think of sports? Would he like them? Would he hate them? Would he always help the Yankees win the World Series, because the Yankees are clearly God's chosen team?

Certainly it has long standing. George Washington, the first president, took office when organized sports did not exist. But children loved to play various games involving balls and sticks. So did Washington, one of whose favorite pastimes was playing catch.

(Gregg Easterbrook speaking to a crowd in 1775) "Why is George Washington playing catch with his friends? Is this the best use of his time? Shouldn't he be preparing ways to fight the British? Is our country obsessed with this ball-and-stick game? Why aren't they wearing helmets, doesn't this pose a negative risk to our children? What does this mean for our future count---"

(He is shot to death by a member of the crowd)

A backlash didn't take long to set in. Village competitions vaguely similar to rugby began to develop, and Thomas Jefferson, the third president, was not amused. "Games played with the ball," he declared, "are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind."

Then Jefferson went back to whipping his slaves for insubordination until he spied one good-looking slave he fancied...he didn't whip her, at least not out of anger.

Andrew Jackson, president from 1829 to 1837, owned gamecocks -- today he'd be arrested for staging a cockfight -- and liked horse racing.

So is the point that Andrew Jackson was a barbarian...or what is the point exactly?

He built part of his early public reputation by triumph in wrestling contests, though may later have exaggerated his won-loss record.

At least he didn't celebrate his wrestling victories too much after the match. If he had Abraham Lincoln (the President Gregg is speaking of here) would definitely be on Gregg's bad side.

In 1892, Benjamin Harrison became the first president to attend a baseball game. In 1910, William Taft became the first president to throw a ceremonial pitch on Opening Day,

This day is otherwise known as, "the day the President stopped running the country and started paying attention to sports," which happens to coincide with the first century where America had a huge depression and got involved with a bunch of major wars. Coincidence? I think not.

By 1905, 22 college football players died during or immediately after games. That statistic is doubly shocking considering there were then far fewer college players than today.

Without a doubt, if Gregg were alive back then he would suggest all of these football players where a helmet. Gregg would then find out what kind of helmet works best and refuse to tell anyone.

In the 2002 book "What a Game They Played," Richard Whittingham reported that Red Grange went to the White House to meet Calvin Coolidge, who was president for most of the 1920s. When Grange was introduced to the president as a man who "plays with the Bears," the famously cryptic Coolidge replied, "I've always liked animal acts."

President, comedian, Calvin Coolidge.

At age 16, Coolidge's son Calvin Jr. developed a bad blister while playing tennis. At a time before antibiotics, the blister caused blood poisoning, and Calvin Jr. died. The depression that plagued Coolidge for the remainder of his life is believed to have been triggered by this sports-related death.

This is further proof that sports are terrible and should be outlawed!

See what happens President Obama when your children start playing sports? They die.

The site also notes that George H.W. Bush installed a basketball court at the White House in 1991, following the horseshoe pits he had installed two years earlier.

We never would have gotten into the Gulf War if George H. W. Bush had been paying more attention to what was going on in the Middle East and less time throwing horseshoes!

Dwight Eisenhower was renowned for spending significant amounts of time on the golf course.

I bet Eisenhower even spent time on the putting green before his round of golf. How the hell can he have time to play golf and putt around the greens and not work hard to prevent the rise of Communism, which led to John F. Kennedy being assassinated? If Dwight Eisenhower had not spent so much time on the golf course, President Kennedy would be alive today.

In the White House, Ford's sports choice was golf. When he swung so poorly that he hit a member of his own foursome, Ford helped launch the career of comedian Chevy Chase --- and make "Saturday Night Live" a national institution -- by providing a rich vein of Ford-klutz jokes.

If it weren't for Gerald Ford's love for golf, we wouldn't have had to deal with Chevy Chase's movie career from the early 1990's to modern day because he would still be a nobody comedian working in comedy clubs. Sports have clearly ruined America.

Gregg, if you haven't noticed, is listing every President and his interest in sports. I am not sure why he is doing this, other than to kill space and ruin his (assumed) general point that the President can run the United States effectively if he is a sports fan by showing nearly every President since 1900 was a sports fan and we haven't been overrun by the Communists quite yet.

Of the two most recent presidents, the George W. Bush loved baseball, and once was an executive for the Texas Rangers.

"Executive" being defined as "he co-owned the damn team."

The current president loves basketball and football both. Obama advocates a Division I football playoff system and has discussed the issue in detail with reporters. Trim and fit, he plays lots of tennis and has a surprisingly Eisenhower-like fondness for golf,

IT'S SURPRISING OMAMA LIKES GOLF BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! GREGG CAN'T BELIEVE BLACK PEOPLE LIKE GOLF!

Thus presidents like sports. Does this harm the country? No, so long as sports interest is kept in perspective.

I see that Gregg Easterbrook has been reading JemeHill columns lately. Gregg has taken a fake argument that no one is attempting to prove and then disproves it. Of course, Gregg doesn't disprove it completely, he wants to leave the question hanging out there just in case in the future he needs to make himself look right by referring to this column. The key to being right is to near have a consistent message and never take a stand. So Gregg says it is not a bad thing for Presidents to enjoy sports, until a point. He never states what this point is.

Thus presidents like sports. Does this harm the country? No, so long as sports interest is kept in perspective.

No one is disagreeing with this. A President shouldn't use his status as President to overhaul college athletics or anything while America is struggling economically and are in three wars.

Some Americans become sports addicts, which is not good. Devoting a little of each day to sports is relaxing. As wit
h all of life's pleasures, sports should be enjoyed in moderation.

Wouldn't it be stupid for a President to take his love of sports and then try to pass legislation to fix college athletics simply because he enjoys college athletics? That would be crazy to do.

Wait for it, here comes an Easterbrookian contradiction...

But if a president is going to inject himself into an athletic issue, he should attempt to accomplish meaningful reform.

So the President should not get involved with college athletics past the point of moderation, but he should get involved to where he is trying to start change and reform within sports. Got that? So from Gregg's point of view, spending time watching sports and neglecting Presidential duties is a waste of time and should be avoided, but spending time trying to reform sports while neglecting Presidential duties should absolutely occur.

Considering the time Obama has spent on college basketball brackets and predictions, why has he been silent on the cynicism about education that afflicts this sport?

Gregg doesn't want Obama spending too much time watching sports, but he wants Obama to spend part of his Presidential agenda on reforming sports. This doesn't make sense.

I thought it was fine for the President to enjoy sports in moderation, so he still has time to focus on the three wars America is involved in, the economic issues facing the United States, the recovery in Japan and of course making sure he gets re-elected? If you are going to criticize a President for paying too much attention to sports, how can you advocate for that same President to spend PART OF HIS AGENDA as President focused on reforming college athletics? Rather than spending just his time with sports, the President would then be spending Congress, his aides, and countless others' time on sports. How does Gregg not get this?

Final Four entrants Kentucky and Connecticut have shockingly poor educational records. Kentucky graduates 31 percent of its male basketball players, UConn just 27 percent; both graduate a dismal 18 percent of African-American players.

Because Gregg doesn't believe in citing his sources, I have no idea where the hell he gets this information from. I do know I have seen this study that says Kentucky graduates 44% of its male basketball players and UConn graduates 31%. The totals for African-American players are 31% for Kentucky and 25% for UConn. Neither number is impressive of course.

If the president of the United States is going to stand on a bully pulpit to talk basketball, why doesn't he assail colleges like Kentucky and UConn with low standards: and also the NCAA, which averts its eyes from poor educational performance by big basketball programs?

Apparently in Gregg Easterbrook's world merely talking about sports that you enjoy leaves you to have an obligation to reform that sport. The second Obama says he enjoys NBA basketball, then he better start taking steps to ensure there isn't a lockout this summer.

Why would Obama simply fill out a bracket and not take the next logical step of overhauling the NCAA? Perhaps because he is a sports fan and doesn't want to spend administration assets that are better used on other things and in other places to take on this issue right now? How can a person like Gregg Easterbrook think Obama should be a sports fan in moderation and then expect him to spend administration resources on reforming college athletics? Is this really a relevant and desirable course of action right now?

Suppose Barack Obama pressured the NCAA -- which earns nearly all its revenue from March Madness -- to take true action regarding men's basketball and academics. Then reform might happen.

So Gregg's answer to his own question whether Presidential affection for sports is a good thing is, "It is a good thing if done in moderation on a personal level. It is a great thing if done using administration resources that are better spent somewhere else."

So spending too much of the President's time on sports is bad, spending too much of Congress' time on sports is good?

Virginia Commonwealth University graduates 54 percent of its African-American men's basketball players; Butler graduates 75 percent. By reaching the Final Four, VCU and Butler prove it is indeed possible to have a top men's college basketball program without making a sham of academics.

According to the chart I linked earlier, Butler graduated 50% of their African-American basketball players and VCU graduated 64% of their African-American basketball players. I am not sure where Gregg got his stats, because he just uses the statistics and doesn't link them in anyway. These numbers are better than other schools, but still not great.

Part of what Gregg is also going after here, and I know this because I read his columns whenever possible, is that "basketball factory" schools don't care about athletes graduating, while mid-major teams like VCU and Butler do care. I won't argue African-American basketball graduation rates are fantastic or all schools care about this issue, but let's look at the graduation rates of African-American players (the first number) and overall graduation rates (the second number) for some "basketball factory" schools. Some schools do as well or better than VCU and Butler do.

VCU: 64%, 56%
Butler: 50%, 83%
Arizona: 14%, 20%
Clemson: 80%, 71%
Duke: 80%, 83%
Florida: 33%, 44%
Georgetown: 75%, 78%
Gonzaga: 50%, 73%
Illinois: 100%, 100%
Kansas: 67%, 80%
Louisville: 50%, 50%
Michigan: 33%, 36%
Michigan State: 36%, 50%
North Carolina: 83%, 88%
Notre Dame: 100%, 100%
Ohio State: 55%, 64%
Pittsburgh: 60%, 64%
Purdue: 50%, 67%
Syracuse: 44%, 54%
Texas: 17%, 42%
UCLA: 63%, 70%
Villanova: 100%, 100%
West Virginia: 57%, 71%

The study I used was calculated as follows:

The Institute reviewed the six-year graduation rates of each school’s freshman class that enrolled in 2003-04, and it then calculated a four-class average (freshmen classes of 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04). The APR data in this study does not include data from the 2009-10 academic performances of the teams, but instead uses the four-year data from the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 academic years.

So it appears to be pretty good data. My point is that "basketball factory" schools are capable of graduating players, though the disparity in African-American and white players is a bit disconcerting. Still, is more of the President's time on this issue really a good use of his time? More importantly than that, is this the biggest issue facing the NCAA right now?

Why doesn't President Obama weigh in on that?

Perhaps because, as Gregg stated, his love for sports should be taken in moderation. This means even though he loves sports, he shouldn't take up taxpayer money or any of his administration's time on reforming college athletics at this point.

In this article, Gregg has gone from questioning why Presidents spend so much time worrying about and playing athletics with so many pressing issues out there, to wanting the President to spend his resources on reforming college athletics. Typical Gregg.

6 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Mariotti Edition

I have a great problem right now and that problem is that I have a lot of articles bookmarked that I want to delve into. The bad news is I am going to get them all out of my system today and have nothing to deliver tomorrow, so Bill Simmons better not take this Friday off again. I realized that not only did Bill deliver a self proclaimed bad column about Kobe this week for ESPN the Magazine, he hadn't even written anything for ESPN since last Monday and he only writes a maximum of four columns every three weeks, so there was doubly no excuse for it being bad. He has his trade column value column up, so I am hoping maybe we will get three columns this week. Let me dive in to it because I have three Mariotti columns to comment upon...and no I have no vendetta against him, I just disagree with him a lot.

1. Jay Mariotti thinks A-Rod is scum. No word on whether Mariotti has used steroids at any point in his life and is being a hypocrite.

Still, A-Rod's colossal admission, to whatever extent of the truth he is telling, does nothing to make America feel better about his legacy or the enormity of baseball's disease the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? The steroid era actually began maybe 15 years ago...and that is a big maybe. 20 years appears to be an exaggeration. Not a shocking development that Mariotti would exaggerate something.

"When I arrived in Texas, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day," Rodriguez said.

I wonder why A-Rod felt an incredible need to perform? Could it be the enormous contract offer he signed, which was reportedly almost double what any other team was offering him? Could it be that he brought the pressure completely upon himself and cheated in order to meet the demands of the self inflicted pressure?

It can be debated whether we believe his timeline. If he used steroids for three years in Texas, how do we know he hasn't used steroids throughout his career in New York, where the pressure to excel has been astronomical amid his postseason failures and Page Six lifestyle?

Excellent question actually but a little research shows circumstantial evidence that he is probably not on the juice anymore...and the fact MLB now tests for steroids should appease some minds. Three of A-Rod's highest HR hitting years were between 2001-2003, 3 of his 4 best RBI years were during that time, and basically many of his numbers were at their peak during those three years. This may mean nothing but it is at least circumstantial that he is not on steroids anymore.

I could be wrong though.

But what got me was how easily he was sucked into the steroids culture, providing a rare lens into the mentalty of baseball players and PEDs.

That is really what shocks me, that A-Rod was clearly one of baseball's best players and felt the need to take PEDs. I wonder who else on that list of 104 is a big time slugger and I also wonder how much pressure there was for those who did not use steroids to start using?

Did the commissioner actually say A-Rod would be an admirable successor to Bonds and his tainted home run record -- and did he say it while knowing Rodriguez had tested positive? And what do we make of Orza, the chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Players Association? As it is, there are suspicions that he tipped off Rodriguez to a drug test. If Rodriguez is to be believed, Orza was less than forthright when he originally informed A-Rod about a possible positive test. "Gene was very specific. He said, 'There's a list with 104 players on it. You might or might not have tested positive,'" Rodriguez said of a supposed 2004 conversation.

The entire culture of baseball and baseball's management was in on this con. They were essentially colluding with the players to put a false product on the field. There are always rumors that baseball knew something about the positive tests but I don't think they did. I think they intentionally turned a blind eye so they could act like they had no previous knowledge and keep their hands clean.

Rodriguez does have an opportunity to salvage the latter stages of his career and -- who knows? -- maybe even garner Hall of Fame consideration.

Mariotti should not act like this is a maybe. A-Rod confessed as soon as he was discovered and played at a HoF level before and after he used steroids. America is a forgiving society and country and A-Rod will make the Hall of Fame, rightly or wrongly.

But mostly, he needs to put together a conclusive nine seasons that prove that he is a wonderful ballplayer without the juice.

I can't accept this argument. A-Rod has proven to me that he is a wonderful ballplayer without the juice. His record before and after he admits to using steroids proves that to me sufficiently. I just need him to prove he is still clean and that he will bounce back from a sub-par (for him) year last year.

We're still waiting for the lords of baseball to do the same. They are the ones who let the steroids culture fester while counting the money, making them the biggest villains of all in the scandal that never will go away.

I never do this, but I agree with Mariotti. While everyone is so busy kicking all the great players from this era out of the Hall of Fame, those truly responsible for the Steroid Era, those who could have had knowledge are not being held responsible.

2. Now Mariotti seems to think that Obama doesn't have enough to do and should get involved with this steroid problem.

extolling the virtues of a Sox guy -- not a Cubs fan -- occupying the world's most powerful political seat. Reinsdorf, a close confidante of commissioner Bud Selig, also has played a significant role in running baseball during 16 years of unmitigated chaos.

Or, the Steroids Era.

Mariotti wrote this column the day after his A-Rod column from above. It went from 20 years of the Steroid Era to 16 years of the Steroid Era...in one day. It's hard to keep these things straight from day to day I guess.

So might this hometown connection be one reason why Obama, facing questions about Alex Rodriguez's confession and Major League Baseball's never-ending steroids crisis, is expressing no interest in confronting lingering mysteries about the sport's sleazy past?

No. The reason Obama is not involved is because this issue is way below his concern level right now. Mariotti wants Obama to focus less on the recession (potential depression?) problem, the war in Iraq, the Stimulus Package, passing a healthcare plan, and many of the other issues that have cropped up lately, and focus more on making sure Major League Baseball, which is a recreational sport, does not have cheaters.

Priorities. It's a good thing Mariotti was not voted President.

But sometimes, the presidency also involves voicing harsh, aggressive statements about secondary problems.

Absolutely. After he has either begun work or has fixed the primary problems. This is like a doctor going in and giving a woman breast implants when she still needs a liver transplant.

Does Obama really care more about the BCS than a steroids mess that has eroded our trust in baseball? That's how he came off when asked about A-Rod and the game at his first prime-time news conference.

Obama talked about the BCS before he was actually the President of the United States. After January 20, his priorities changed dramatically. He is no longer talking about the BCS problem in college football either, so this argument doesn't necessarily apply.

And as the devastating hits keep coming for baseball -- such as Miguel Tejada's expected guilty plea for lying to Congress about an ex-teammate's steroids use -- doesn't Obama realize that Selig and Fehr are STILL in place?

I believe those guys should be held responsible for the Steroid Era, but I don't believe the President should get involved with this. I want to make sure that Obama realizes the current health care system stinks and many of the same terrorist organizations that hate us are STILL in place.

And why isn't Obama outraged?

Because he literally has more important things to do. Like make sure his Cabinet choices are approved by Congress and other Presidential things.

It worked well for his maligned and mocked predecessor, George W. Bush, whose attack on performance-enhancing drugs led to Congressional hearings and an anti-steroids environment that exposed supposed legends -- Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and the rest -- as frauds.

I appreciate that Bush did that, but considering this is what he is best remembered for in regard to his policy successes here in the United States, this is not good. I don't think Obama wants to be known as the guy who hunted down steroid users, he wants to be the guy that prevented America from going into a Depression.

It's no surprise, then, that Rodriguez won't be asked to visit Capitol Hill, which means Selig and Fehr also are off the hook.

Priorities change, doing this is a complete waste of time right now.

The sport has been too dirty for too long, with the same people at the top, for any reasonable person to believe everything is cool now. I'm disappointed that the President of the United States didn't voice the same conclusion.

I am running out of ways to say this...but if Jay Mariotti doesn't understand that President Obama has 1,000 better things to do right now then I don't want Jay Mariotti to ever vote for anyone at any time for any political office.

Next time there's a steroids crisis -- and it's coming, as sure as beer at the ballpark -- Barack the talk-show host needs to be President Obama.

If Mariotti had his way there would be no steroids crisis in baseball, but unemployment would be 14% and America would be in the middle of a Depression where no one could afford to attend baseball games. Baseball was still great in the last Depression though, so at least it would not affect the sport and we know the players are clean...that's Mariotti's thinking.

3. Jay Mariotti wrote an article today taunting me and daring me to write about it.

On the first day of the rest of his life -- and I dare say, the rest of his life -- Brett Favre got on his bulldozer and did some Mississippi-style man things.

He learned to read.

(I am just kidding Mississippi citizens)

The most fun, entertaining football player of our generation was turning into an insufferable diva.

He turned into a diva about 10 years ago. Way to keep up with current events.

But the tone of his voice on a conference call, relaxed and polite, tells me this retirement isn't phony like the others.

This retirement will be different because Favre will announce he wants to come play football the day before the season begins, then demand the Jets give him the starting quarterback job or he wants to be traded.

"Honestly, I think my career in general will overshadow anything negative,'' he said. "It's probably human nature to think about what could have been or what I could have done better, but honestly, I believe I did everything I thought I could mentally and physically. With that, I'm satisfied. I'm proud of everything I have done in my career, and I'll leave it at that. You name it in professional football, I've done it. Very few people can say that.

Favre has accomplished things other players have not. No other player has ever actually thrown the ball to the other team more than he has and he also has as many Super Bowl victories as Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Honestly, since Favre spent the last 3 out of his 4 seasons with only average numbers as a quarterback, especially when he is supposedly an "elite" quarterback, I will always remember him as that quarterback and not what he was before that time.

He arguably has produced the greatest career of any football player ever, departing as the all-time ironman -- 269 consecutive starts -- and the owner of virtually every meaningful NFL passing record.

(Did anyone know that Kerry Collins is 14th all time in passing yardage?...I would never have guessed this)

Yes, Favre is definitely a Hall of Famer one who never cared about his personal statistics and only about how his team did. Why is it whenever someone sums up Brett Favre's career they only talk about his personal statistics and not how many times he led his team to actual team achievements? This always amazes me and this is something I actually have against Favre. He is supposed to be a selfless player but all he seems to focus on, and all those those who compliment him, focus on is his personal achievements. Favre was a great player and I think he was also incredibly selfish as well. His teammates did not always like playing for him and he called out Javon Walker for holding out of camp and then he pulled his retirement bullshit last year. I just see a lot of flaws.

He won a Super Bowl in Green Bay back when you weren't supposed to win in the league's smallest market.

Yes, Green Bay with its 9 NFL Championships and 3 Super Bowl Championships has always been a really hard place to win football games.

We watched him enter the sport as reckless and immature,

Did anyone see his last four games as a quarterback in the NFL and see what his Jets teammates thought about him? Did he really leave the sport any differently than the way he entered it?

"I have no reason to wonder why you would be so skeptical,'' he shot back, laughing lightly. "Because I have family and friends who are like, 'All right, Brett. Is this the real deal?' To me, it is. It is. Believe me, it has been a wonderful career. I couldn't ask for anything more. It was worth a shot for me to go to New York. I wish I could've played better down the stretch. I didn't. It's time to leave.

"I am leaving to play for the Minnesota Vikings. They will definitely want me around June."

In the end, neither the Packers nor Jets made the playoffs, and considering how Favre eroded physically, Thompson was better off allowing Rodgers to gain a year of starting experience.

I feel vindicated because I thought this was the best option all along. No one said I was wrong but I still feel vindicated.

Until then, we'll savor the man who never stopped playing like a little boy.

(Vomiting from an overdose of cliche)

To the very end, even when he drove us crazy, No. 4 kept it entertaining.

Yep, I knew he was always good for one or two absolutely horrid throws per game.

Replacing him as a man-crush won't be easy.

Peter King will wrestle you in a vat of Vasoline for Matt Ryan.

4. Peter King gives us his MMQB follow up.

Peter defends the Steeler's injury report for the Super Bowl.

I don't believe Big Ben needed to be on the injury report. It's simple. Putting him on the injury report as "probable'' would have told the world there was a "virtual certainty'' he'd play in the game. That's the definition of "probable'' in NFL injury-reportage. That sounds like a 94 percent chance he'd play. It was 100 percent. Same with center Justin Hartwig, who was gimpy with a knee injury but was definitely going to play in the game.

Right, but if a guy is injured, he needs to be on the injury report. It seems pretty simple to me. I don't know how he came up with "probable" was a 94% certainty, especially when the definition says that player is definitely playing. It doesn't really matter but if a player is injured, he needs to be on the injury report.

"My problem,'' said Florio, who has been beating the drum for more honest injury reports, "is the injury report focuses only on availability to play without giving full information as to whether a player will be effective. It's called an injury report. Roethlisberger was injured, and he wasn't on the report. I think that's wrong.''

True, with an asterisk. I think if a guy's definitely playing, he doesn't need to be listed.

No, he needs to be listed as "probable" because he is injured and is a virtual certainty to play. That is the definition as Peter kindly pointed out.

"I have a question that no one seems to comment on about the James Harrison touchdown run during the Super Bowl. If you notice during the run back, Larry Fitzgerald goes out of bounds around the 40-45 yard line. Instead of going back in bounds, he runs along the sidelines (clearly out of bounds the entire time) for what appears to be 40 yards and makes the tackle. Shouldn't this be illegal since he is chasing him for a considerable distance from out of bounds. If he chased him from in bounds, chances are he would have never caught up to him. There would have been a major controversy if Harrison would have been tackled short of the goal line. What is the rule for this type of play?"

On kickoffs and punts, players cannot run out of bounds unless they are blocked out of bounds. On all other plays, there is not a rule about where they may run.

I guess that answers our question we had after the Super Bowl.

5. Bill Plaschke thinks Manny Ramirez is up shit creek without a paddle...or a team.

Ramirez doesn't want a one-year contract that would make him baseball's second-highest paid player next season?

What's that? Is that the sound of Bill Simmons being wrong and Manny Ramirez is not only NOT underrated, but teams actually want him?

Ramirez wouldn't take an increased Dodgers offer of two years at $45 million, giving him an identical annual salary of this winter's hottest free-agent slugger, Mark Teixeira?

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Manny is being blackballed for his poor attitude in Boston and that he is underrated because teams don't want him. He is being offered contracts that are enormous, but not lengthy, simply because he is an older player and does have some problems playing LF...and his attitude would be a concern on a 5 year contract.

Yes, his dog behavior in Boston mattered. No, folks don't trust him with a long-term deal anymore.

I am not arguing that Manny is not being slightly affected by his behavior in Boston, he is still being offered a ton of money to play baseball, but he is also not being rewarded for that behavior with a long term contract.

The Dodgers' first offer to Ramirez -- two years, $45 million -- was immediately rejected by Boras, who said he wanted to consider "serious" offers.

This is a side note but why do players sign with Boras again? After the Varitek disaster this offseason, after A-Rod overestimating his ability to get a new contract last year with a team other than the Yankees, after A-Rod admitting to using steroids partially to live down his enormous contract, and now Boras is letting Ramirez sit on the market for a desperate team to grab him up and give him $25 million. Oliver Perez tested the market, there was no market for him, Derek Lowe got less money than he initially wanted, and there was no market for Varitek.

I will say it again, by signing with Boras you limit your options.

In a market where Adam Dunn can't get offers over $11 million, Manny is not getting $25 million per year.

6. Woody Paige finally has a mailbag back up.

Woody - How is it possible that one of the best tight ends to ever play the game was not elected to the Hall of Fame? Is it only prejudice against all things Broncos or are there more sinister things working? -- Bronncohowie, Columbus, Ohio

I always find it silly when people accuse the writers of having biases against certain teams, though there may be, I just don't know about it.

Sharpe will get in next year or the following year. I fought every year to put in the maximum (seven). Some years, some buffoons on the committee vote for fewer men, which just backs up the system and makes it harder for worthy players to make it.

This may be true but this attitude also annoys the hell out of me. When he says voting for fewer players "just backs up the system" it makes me feel like they want to put everyone who is above average in the Hall of Fame. This is probably just me though that worries about this. Is Cris Carter a HoF player? I don't know because I haven't researched it that much but I would have some initial questions about whether he is or not.

The Broncos, though, have to get through free agency: a great lineman (I still say Julius Peppers, although I get e-mails telling me I'm crazy), another quality linebacker and, at the minimum, one safety (should get three).

If you sign Julius Peppers, you will have used almost half of your available cap space on one player. Trust me, he wants a lot of money. I like how the brilliant Woody Paige thinks the Broncos should get three safeties in free agency. I don't know, that just seems like a whole hell of a lot of safeties when I see the biggest need as defensive linemen.

Woody - I think you're wonderful. That being said, you were way out of line saying Pittsburgh could possibly be America's team. There is no America's team. And if so, it wouldn't be Pittsburgh. Everyone loves a winner and that is the sole reason Pittsburgh has such a following right now. Don't forget, it was only about six years ago, Pittsburgh couldn't give tickets away. -- Kate, Ebensburg, Pa.

Kate smacks Woody in the page with some fair weather fan logic. This should be directed right at Snoop Dogg.

But here's why I am so strong on the Steelers. When the steel mills closed in the 1970s in Pittsburgh, and so many jobs disappeared, tens of thousands of Steelers fans moved elsewhere. They remained Steelers fans, and they made their kids Steelers fans, and the pyramid continues, especially with a winning team over the years. There are as many Pittsburgh fans in some cities as there are fans for the local team.

Oh yeah, there is a socio-economic reason the Steelers are a fan favorite and their fans travel from game to game, it has nothing to do with any bandwagon fans. This may be true but I love it anytime Woody Paige tries to explain a socio-economic reason for anything.

7. Rick Reilly gets paid millions to write articles like this.

Our sentence count for this week: 54 sentences and that includes probably 15 four word sentences.

I've been fired more than pottery.

I wish it would happen again.

And how did I react whenever I got canned?

Rick wrote a 13 sentence 2 paragraph letter protesting his firing and then took a nap from being exhausted after this slavish task.

Most of these guys didn't even deserve to lose their jobs, and they're acting like they just got handed a freaking fruit basket.

Dummy, that is because they want to get hired again. No owner is going to hire a guy who flips out at the news he has been fired because they don't want to hire a crazy person.

Me? I'd go triple Sean Penn!

Rick would write an emotional four paragraph letter about how his being fired has affected his family, find a new job quickly, start that new job 6 months after he is hired, and spend the vacation time he has taking pictures with co-eds in exotic locations.

When the certifiably mad Al Davis fired young Lane Kiffin as the Raiders coach this season during a disgraceful and insulting press conference, Kiffin had every right to march over to Davis and rip off his lips. Instead, afterward, Kiffin said, "I'm very appreciative of the opportunity." Then he added, "I felt bad for Al."

And he got a new job a few months later. See the correlation?

Or how about this, Mike? Your new house is only a three-minute drive from Bowlen's, right? Get yourself a massive catapult.

And a whole lot of eggs.

That's how he ends the column. It was all about what Rick would do if he got fired. Next week there will be a column on what Rick would do if he finds termites in his house, the week after that Rick writes an interesting piece on what he does when someone cuts him off in traffic and his big story of the year will be a 100 sentence (it's a two part-er) 12 paragraph expose on what Rick Reilly does when someone uses the handicap stall at a sporting event.

8. Alex Marvez doesn't believe Favre is retired and I am tired of talking about this.

"A lot of guys enjoyed having him in the locker room," Baker said. "I don't think it was as bad as it seemed when some of the comments came out at the end of the season. Obviously, guys were frustrated by the turnovers and interceptions, but that's part of the game.

"Brett has the most touchdowns and most interceptions (in NFL history). That's what you get when you get Brett Favre. Everyone understood that."

Now that is a ringing endorsement of Brett Favre if I have ever heard one. Turnovers and interceptions are not always a part of the game. Jake Delhomme has gotten crucified for making that part of his game, as he rightly should, just like Rex Grossman has gotten crucified. If you have a good quarterback on your team, then this is not so much of an issue.

Favre, though, suffered a torn biceps tendon that was kept quiet by the team until after the season (offering more proof that the NFL needs to revamp its injury report criteria, but I digress).

Not according to Peter King, even when it involves his ex-boyfriend, Brett Favre.

Whether he does the same before applying for NFL reinstatement — Minnesota, anyone? — will be proof whether this old dog is set on pulling the same trick or is ready to roll over permanently.

I don't believe he is done. I will believe that when he actually files his retirement papers and it is June and Brett Favre is not quoted as saying his shoulder feels better and hinting he would come back if someone wanted him.

9. Joe Posanski asks the question I have asked and that is what separates these steroid users from the other guys in baseball's Hall of Fame that have cheated.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."

This is the character clause in the Hall of Fame voting. Joe wants this to be gotten rid of and I am not sure how I feel about this. You want the Hall of Fame to include the best of the best players and it is about baseball, but you also want to honor the players that deserve to be honored. It seems the committee has ignored the clause until Pete Rose came along and now it is affecting the players from the steroid era.

Mark McGwire's alleged drug use has been a clause celebre: The guy hit 583 home runs, broke the single-season home run record, is the all-time leader in home runs per at bat, but almost 80 percent of the voters did not vote for him because they believe he cheated the game.

I think I am am more annoyed with the fact he continues to lie about it.

Meanwhile, the Hall of Fame is filled with people who admitted to using drugs (Paul Molitor, Ferguson Jenkins, etc.), who willingly cheated (Gaylord Perry threw spitballs, Don Sutton and Whitey Ford cut baseballs, players undoubtedly corked bats)

Exactly, you can't have an elastic morality clause, where betting on baseball and steroids were wrong, but these offenses are not.

I think the clause should have been changed a long time ago; it makes me queasy to think about sportswriters (or anyone else) trying to judge a man's character.

I think I agree. I write about some of the sportswriters on this site that have a Hall of Fame vote and they are barely qualified to give an acceptable opinion on who should be allowed in the Hall of Fame in regard to baseball skill, much less do I want these people judging ball players based on morality. They would kick Michael Phelps out of any Olympic Hall of Fame at this point.

In the years before Jackie Robinson, there were no black players. Players caroused and gambled and boozed. Many cheated to get ahead. Many took drugs. There have been beanballs and stolen signals and thrown bats. There have been thugs and racists and liars and everything else. And, yes, there have been steroid users, too.

Thugs and racists are fine because that has nothing to do with baseball performance...and gambling goes along with that in my mind. I guess my only problem is that using performance enhancers, like throwing spitballs, and other methods of cheating affect the basic numbers a player can accumulate to be considered for the Hall of Fame. If they have been elevated because of any type of cheating, I am not sure I feel comfortable with that player being in the Hall of Fame. I have no problem with the morality clause being gotten rid of, but it doesn't answer my question about whether a player should make the Hall of Fame based on their statistics or not, which may or may not have been affected by illegal supplements or even cheating. They have let cheaters in the HoF in the past, why stop now though?

10. This is big news in my neck of the woods.

So far this year I have said I would not believe Duke is in the contention to even get past the Sweet Sixteen until they have not collapsed in February (lost 3 of the last 5 games) and beaten a quality team on the road in February (hasn't happened). Neither of those things have happened. I also have predicted that UNC is still going to win the National Championship and come February and March we would read a bunch of articles about how the losses at the beginning of the year really helped UNC get better and that is exactly what this article is.

UNC won this game with Hansbrough not having his typical great game against Duke, which should be scary for the rest of the country. After watching the game last night, it is clear that UNC is the team to beat in the country and I really think they are going to win the National Championship.

For Duke, I have heard a lot of people whining about them losing again. I really chalk this up to Coach K and the fact he is not completely focused on the Duke program and that he tends to take guys out of the rotation later in the year, which leads to the fatigue that sets in and causes the team to lose. Every year he has an excuse for why his team loses. Let's look at them and see whose fault it could be:

05-06- The entire team sat around and waited for Redick and Sheldon Williams to do something instead of taking the lead and trying to score on their own. Coach K designs the offense and coaches the team, this is on him.

06-07- His youngest team ever, get beat in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament. Not much anyone can do.

07-08- The entire team got fatigued down the stretch and began to shoot jump shots when they did not have their legs. Coach K did not play other players due to injury or the other players would be ineffective in the game. You could blame him for this, but there was not much team depth at the time.

08-09- No excuse given yet. This Duke team is deeper than they have been in a while and start sophomores and juniors and have seniors coming off the bench. Coach K is letting two freshman, who while not spectacular, can at least not hurt the team while stealing minutes so the starters can be fresh down the stretch of the year and into the tournament. He has gone from a 11 man rotation to an 8 man rotation, which is only going to increase the fatigue and cause another February Fade. Duke haters are going to have a lot to love down the stretch this year based on the team's inability/unwillingness to drive to the basket and they just shoot jump shots and hang out on the perimeter. There is no penetration. I can only attribute it to fatigue (which the announcers commented on continuously). I believe this falls on the head coach, who needs to change the rotation to prevent this from happening, and there are no excuses for this.

I am done talking about this issue now. Duke has a lot to prove to the college basketball world and I don't think they even realize it.

3 comments Obama: Basketball is a Top Priority

What the fuck? Seriously? What the hell? I mean, I understand the election is pretty much the only talking point right now. It's gripped the world, but the coat-tails of an Obama victory cannot possibly be related to basketball without some massive, unsubstantiated stretches. Scoop Jackson just came to the party with five tabs of pure crazy.

Obama victory raises social significance of basketball

Obama trades Billups for hope. Obama makes last out of the world series. Obama reveals son of Jackie Robinson. Obama victory raises social significance of basketball. Obama scores Superbowl winning touchdown for dead grandmother.

No wait; go back one.

It's been a long time coming. Too long. Yeah for that too...

you know what he's saying. My brothers. My boys.

ESPN is culturally relevant to people like me!

but this is about something different. Finally, for America's "other" game, the time has come. You ready? Stand still. Pose. Look happy. Live the moment. Smile. FLASH! Finally … the game of basketball is ready for its official close-up.

Hope won? It's more than that.

this might be, and I speak sincerely, the cheesiest bullshit I have ever read. I mean, if he was just soaking up and gloating over Obama, fine, this is the time, but to try and weasel a shitty column about an utterly fabricated issue just makes it repulsive and manipulative.

Twenty-one presidents and 117 years after Naismith invented the game, basketball has finally found a place inside the place that best symbolizes America -- inside the inside of America.

right up in the colon people. We are talking enema level inside here. I cannot stress the insideness strongly enough. Basketball is well and truly - "inside".

Other presidents have only concerned themselves with basketball when necessary, such as playing host to NBA and NCAA champions at the White House. Barack is about to change all of that.

number one priority! Fuck the economy! Let's play some hoops, finally!

That is every racist white dudes wet dream right there. If this ridiculous "prioritising basketball" presidential platform was, even alluded to, they would have all the ammo they'd feel justified hurling forever. You would never be able to yell them down. I don't even know what you're talking about Scoop.

Obama's predecessors all treated the game as a spectator, embraced it from a distance, considered it an afterthought. All the while, over the decades the sport has become more and more intertwined into the sociofabric of America, slowly symbolizing what this country really is, what it's really about.

for centuries to come, historians will mull over one basic fact - was Bush's jump shot the true liability in Iraq?

This makes Obama's election that much more revealing. His connection to basketball and inclusion of the game in his campaign is a testament to his message of change and the love he has for the least elitist sport to be held in high regard by anyone to occupy the White House.

this is so blatent. This gets published in ESPN, unbelievable. OK, my turn.

The ramifications of the nuclear strikes in Japan were felt in area more so than in Major League Baseball where - mere decades later, steroids, provided by the very same science that gave the bomb, would ruin the game.

"In any basketball game you can go from the leader, to a follower, to a team, all in the span of a few trips up and down the court," ESPN's Stuart Scott said after watching and playing with Obama. "That's the beauty of it. And that's what I noticed about Barack Obama. I think that's what basketball has taught him. He's got to be the leader of this country. But sometimes he's going to have to step back and let other people give him advice, let other people lead in moments, and he's always going to have to be a part of a team -- Senate, Congress, his cabinet, his most trusted advisers -- team.

and basketball is played by humans! Where will the similarities end? The Legislative branch of government is very much like a basketball team except in the sense that it is not in the slightest like that at all.

"He has to be involved in all of that, but mostly he has to be the leader. And that's one of the things that having played basketball is going to benefit him greatly. I think that's how basketball has shaped him."

shaped? Like, come on. He played it in his spare time, whatever. His grandmother shaped him. His time in Indonesia shaped him. His wife and children shaped him. His time in Chicago shaped him. Basketball was pretty much the 96th most important thing in his life. Shaped is a ridiculous term to use.

George Washington rode horses. George H.W. Bush played college baseball. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon played college football. Nixon was so immersed in football, he was reputed to call Redskins coach George Allen and Dolphins coach Don Shula with play ideas. Many presidents had a passion for golf.

For whatever reason, basketball was the one sport that none of them brought with them to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

how poignant. Let us all pause for a moment to soak the majesty, of this, a defining moment, when someone who likes basketball is in the White House. We're all very emotional.

"His character is totally revealed when he's on the ball court," said Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan, a friend of Obama who plays basketball with him regularly. "Basketball reveals who you really are. You can't fake it."

wouldn't it be great if people voted like this. Like apparently CEO's! Scoop's questionable CEO associates have shown less than wonderful judgement before. This election, Scoop Jackson had nothing, nothing - less than nothing - to do with basketball. End.

"What the outside world doesn't see in (Barack) when he's playing are three things," said Duncan. "One is how much of a competitor he is. I think the country underestimated him on that. Two, how he has real courage, that he will step up with the game on the line and take the big shot when others won't. And three, how really, really smart he is. His intellectual capacity is amazing. And that translates to how he does things off the court as well."

what the hell? The outside world doesn't see these admirable qualities? Are you serious? He's the most famous person on the planet, he got elected President of the United States. People like him. I don't know what possible validation could satisfy your unreasonable criteria for evaluating what people do or do not know.

In "The Games Presidents Play," author John Sayle Watterson wrote, "Increasingly, sports have defined the presidency." If that's true, the change that occurred with Obama's victory might transcend politics and policy. Basketball could finally be looked upon as something more than just a game of escapism from the ghetto and be seen for what it honestly is -- the most democratically open sport in the country.

It could be seen as a game that "people of every creed and color, from every walk of life … young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled" can help prove, as Barack said, "that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one."

I'm genuinely speechless. This is fucking amazing this gets published. He's got to be giggling somewhere right?

This we hope. Because just as the country proved it was ready for Obama, it will prove it's ready for a different sport to define this presidency.

Can basketball finally find that embrace? Can it finally and truly become America's game because one person won an election?

Yes it can.

you've genuinely lost it Jackson. November 11 was the day Scoop Jackson lost sight of reality. Ground control to Major Tom style. Wow, seriously worried about his mental health.