2 comments Rick Telander Finds Something Meaningless to Complain About

One of the last times Rick Telander was heard from on this blog, he was growing more and more discontented with John Fox as the Bears head coach and reminiscing about the days when Bruce Jenner was a manly athlete and not a woman. Rick has a history of complaining about small problems in sports (and apparently others agreed with Rick that the height of the rim was too short in the NBA) and now Rick has noticed that NHL players are sporting playoff beards. Rick says he isn't "splitting hairs" (get it? GET it? GET IT?...it's a play on words about a beard consisting of human hair and it's funny...or not) and that the NHL players need to find a new tradition rather than growing playoff beards. Rick wrote this on June 11, which was smack-dab right in the middle of the Blackhawks march to another Stanley Cup title and all he could do was talk about playoff beards and how bad they suck. One would think there are more meaningful columns to be written during this time. One would be wrong.

Is it possible to have a meaningful discussion about Stanley Cup-winning hockey and beards?

No, because they are beards and pretending these players having playoff beards is important in any way is just laughable, no matter what any NBC executive claims otherwise. It's like having a meaningful discussion about whether Chipotle, Moe's, or Qdoba has better food. Everyone knows it's Chipotle, so there is no point in having the conversation. 

In case you missed it, the players on the Blackhawks and Tampa Bay Lightning, who are tied at two victories apiece in the Stanley Cup Final, have beards. (Unless there’s a hairless renegade hiding in the blade-sharpening room, which I don’t believe there is.)

They have beards! Oh no!

And not just beards. They have gross, tangly, unkempt things often referred to as ‘‘neckbeards,’’ historically featured on anti-social mountain men, deceased presidents and biblical characters. And Captain Ahab had a dandy.

I don't think the purpose of these beards is to look attractive, so the argument, "they should be more attractive" fails as a real, cogent argument as to why these beards should be shaved. The beards don't negatively impact how they perform on the ice and somehow presidents, though deceased (no telling on whether it is the fault of their beard for their present condition or not), managed to achieve something while having beards. 

This is a playoff tradition, so to speak, even though its roots (roots?) can be traced back to something as banal as the New York Islanders growing out their whiskers during playoff runs back in the 1980s.

Yes, the Islanders won four Cups during that period, but have you heard from them lately? Plus, former Islanders defenseman Denis Potvin has been quoted as saying none of the hirsuteness was by design.

Oh, well if it wasn't by design then obviously a terrible mistake has been made. Playoff camaraderie as shown by not shaving isn't something that should just happen, camaraderie has to be built purposefully over a period of time. It's not real unless it's planned and contrived.  

‘‘It was just something that kind of happened,’’ he said.

The end of civilization is nigh'. Unplanned beards are popping up everywhere.

None of this would matter, except that fully bearded hockey players look ugly.

Yep, and as I said, if the argument against playoff beards are "they look ugly," then these beards truly don't matter. The players aren't trying to look attractive, they are growing beards to show camaraderie. "You look ugly" is a dumb retort to hockey players essentially saying through the action of not shaving, "We don't care how we look." 

But it’s the essential ugliness and disguise that come with the beardedness that has NBC Sports chairman Mark Lazarus’ whisker-free face in a grimace.

Oh no, a wealthy television executive is upset. How can he be appeased? Mark Lazarus' opinion on the facial hair of athletes must be addressed and corrected immediately. 

And his opinion matters because NBC Sports has a $2 billion deal to broadcast NHL games.

Actually, Lazarus' opinion still doesn't matter because he doesn't play hockey, isn't married to any of the hockey players and should only care (like the fans do) whether the games are exciting and garnering good ratings. Good ratings do not depend on playoff beards. I can't imagine someone not watching a hockey game because the players' beards are too ugly to look at. It's hockey. Players have broken noses, bloody lips, missing teeth and probably a concussion, being attractive isn't a part of the deal while on the ice. 

Lazarus told sports-media writer Ed Sherman on Tuesday: ‘‘I wish they all would stop growing beards in the postseason. Let’s get their faces out there. Let’s talk about how young and attractive they are, what model citizens they are.’’

You can still talk about how young they are and what model citizens they are. The beard may takeaway attractiveness to some, but I would have to think the big helmet over their head probably hurts the whole "sexy" nature of the sport while it's being played on the ice more than anything else. 

‘‘I think [the beards do] hurt recognition,’’ Lazarus went on. ‘‘They have a great opportunity with more endorsements. Or simply more recognition, with fans saying, ‘That guy looks like the kid next door,’ which many of these guys do.’’

This is a good reason why NFL players have so many problems getting endorsements. What does Russell Wilson even look like? Who knows, because he always has that stupid helmet on his head. Remove the helmet, then maybe an NFL player will have an opportunity to get some endorsements and more recognition. It's the same issue with hockey. Nevermind there is an entire regular season game schedule consisting of 82 games where there are no playoff beards, it's the playoff beards that cause these players to lose endorsements. It seems Mark Lazarus is under the impression there is no regular season in the NHL. 

But I agree with Lazarus — who is, sadly, not related to Sun-Times hockey writer Mark Lazerus — that the beards are dumb and stale.

If anyone knows about things that may be dumb and stale, it's Rick Telander. After all, his writing career is becoming dumb and stale if all he has to discuss in the middle of the Stanley Cup Finals is playoff beards. This is the same Stanley Cup Finals where the hometown team was attempting to win their third Stanley Cup title in less than a decade. Playoff beards, that's what should really be the topic of discussion for a Chicago-based writer though. 

Everybody looks the same with a beard, like genetic splicing run amok.

Perhaps Rick thinks all white people look alike or he has face blindness. I don't watch that much hockey (though I do enjoy it whenever I do) and I can tell the difference in the players. Plus, there are these things on the back of the uniform right above the player's number. It's called "the player's name" which really helps me figure out which players are which. It's the same thing everyone has to use when watching the NFL because it's hard to tell the players apart on the field otherwise. Somehow football fans don't get too confused. Try to pay attention to the names on the back of the uniforms. It may help more than Rick thinks.

My question is this: Why doesn’t a team such as the Hawks have the courage and creativity to do something different with their manliness and be a true difference-making dynasty?

The Blackhawks are not a true difference-making dynasty because they have playoff beards. Obviously.

My question is this: Why should the Blackhawks have to do something different with their manliness and spend time thinking of ways to be courageous and creative when that time could be used figuring out how they will win another Stanley Cup title? Is the Blackhawks' dynasty really going to be dependent on whether they wore playoff beards or not?

‘‘The worst has got to be Teuvo [Teravainen],’’ backup goalie Scott Darling said. ‘‘He’s got the [Justin] Bieber ’stache going. I said, ‘By the time you can actually grow one, it’s going to be illegal.’ ’’

The players enjoy playoff beards. Let them enjoy it and stop being an old man. 

The point is, break away. Do your own thing. Be original.

My advice would be to continue to win hockey games, since that's the entire point of being in the playoffs and all. The Blackhawks are doing their own thing. They are winning Stanley Cup titles, not trying to set a fashion trend. And no, playoff beards aren't holding them back from getting endorsements and or winning "People Magazine's Sexist Man of the Year" award. 

That’s how a team can win titles, too — by thinking outside the, uh, barber’s chair.

Apparently a team can win titles by growing playoff beards, because the Blackhawks have won plenty of Stanley Cup titles when the entire team was growing a playoff beard. And saying they need to "think outside the barber's chair" is an indication the team should not go to the barber's chair, thereby not getting their face shaved. Rick Telander wants hockey players to think inside the barber's chair. Oh, and it's so stupid to equate shaving as a way to win titles. It's just stupid and whether the hockey players shave or not is so irrelevant I don't see how this is an issue for Rick.

Coach Joel Quenneville certainly went all over the place in the Hawks’ victory in Game 4, mixing up his lines as though he had flung a deck of cards in the air.

As we know, we can’t trust either coach to tell us the truth about injuries, strategies or much else. And we won’t know whether Lightning goalie Ben Bishop, who was held out of Game 4, will play in Game 5 until the puck drops.

Rick doesn't have enough material to write an entire column on this issue, so he has to go off-topic briefly in order to hit the word count he wants to hit. Modern sports journalism at it's best. Telander writes an uninspired and irrelevant article bemoaning the existence of playoff beards and still has to pad it with enough rambling to hit the required word count.

But back to the beard thing. Think about it, Hawks. Think about a new tradition.

Yes, think about not having playoff beards because Rick Telander doesn't like them. I also like the idea of starting a new tradition, all while Rick provides no real suggestions for a new tradition. Just do it. It's Rick's decree, so make it be.

Be creative. More creative than Rick Telander, who wrote this uninspired column and can't even be creative enough to suggest another playoff tradition. All he is worried about is ensuring the sexiness of the NHL players shines through. Obviously these playoff beards, not the helmets or the fact hockey isn't the most popular sport in the United States, is the reason these players don't get endorsements.

How about reverse bearding? Start the playoffs with a fully grown beard, then reduce it each series — first to a goatee, then to a mustache before finishing with (ta-da!) soul patches.

Right, but the players would have to grow a beard during the regular season, thereby hurting the chances fans will recognize the players, reducing their sexiness and preventing the players from receiving endorsements. So Rick's only solution to growing playoff beards is for NHL players to grow regular season beards. If you know why regular season beards will not hurt endorsements and recognition for NHL players, like Mark Lazarus and Rick Telander claim occurs when playoff beards are grown, then please tell me. It sounds like Rick is suggesting the players grow a beard for a longer period of time during the regular season (in order to grow a full beard) as an alternative to growing playoff beards. Because apparently endorsements and recognition aren't important during the regular season. The regular season consists of a larger number of games than the playoffs by the way. 

And Coach Q? Well, if he had a full beard, we’d know who Santa Claus really is.

Yes, Rick does know dumb and stale best. This last sentence shows this clearly. 

4 comments MMQB Review: Violations of the Code of Conduct Edition

Peter King allowed anonymous GM's to anonymously discuss Michael Sam in last week's MMQB. See, none of these GM's were willing to go on the record about Sam, but they wanted the world to know THEY weren't going to hold Sam's sexuality against him when it comes to where he gets drafted, but they know OTHER GM's would. But none of the GM's Peter talked to would hold it against Sam, it's just they didn't want to go on the record saying so and Peter knew they wouldn't go on record...despite the fact other GM's did eventually go on record with their opinion of Sam's draft status. This week Peter talks about Jonathan Martin, Michael Sam (maybe he'll find some more anonymous GM's bravely willing to criticize Sam anonymously), spends almost 25% of MMQB talking about hockey, and finally gets around to talking about NFL news/scoops in his "Ten Things He Thinks He Thinks." It's not like MMQB is a football column nor is it as if most people read MMQB to find out inside information about the sport of football from a guy who has a huge Rolodex of NFL contacts. Not at all, people read MMQB to find out what Peter thinks about hockey, Cate Blanchett, and what his favorite Tweets of the Week are. Sadly, Peter probably believes this is true.

Before we all get totally depressed about the NFL’s South Beach Locker Room Reality Show, something good to start your week: T.J. Oshie.

Let's talk about hockey. It's not like this is supposed to be a column about the NHL.

Did you notice what Oshie did Saturday, seconds after he scored his fourth goal of the shootout against Russia—in the eighth round of the shootout, against some of the best scorers on the planet—to give the United States a 3-2 victory in a game that wasn’t for a medal but had the intensity of the seventh game of the Stanley Cup? He slid the puck through Russian goalie Sergei Bobrovsky’s legs for the winner, whirled, raised his arms in jubilation, and then immediately pointed to his own goalie, Jonathan Quick.

“What was that about?’’ I asked Oshie on Sunday.

Really, Peter? Oshie has just scored a goal to win the game for the United States in a shootout and you can't figure out why he pointed towards his own goalie after the shootout was over? The answer to this question is shockingly obvious. Of course Oshie was pointing to Quick because Quick managed to stop the Russians from scoring a goal and allowed Oshie to win the hockey game for the United States in a shootout. You should not have to ask this question. It's obvious.

“Well,’’ Oshie said from Russia, “it was a two-man team there. I have to put the puck in the net, and he has to stop it from going in the net. 

Then Oshie followed this up with his own question for Peter, "Why in the hell did you think I pointed to my own goalie after we had won a shootout for the United States? I just like pointing?"

How do you not root for Oshie and his mates?

I don't know Peter. I don't think anyone in the United States is actively rooting against the United States men's hockey team. It seems easy to root against the United States if you are a citizen of another country, so that is how you don't root for Oshie and his mates.

Much more with Oshie, and on the hockey game, later in the column.

Great because this column is called Monday Morning Goalie isn't it? If so, then hockey fits right in and feel completely free to not report any NFL news so your readers can find out which quotes and Tweets you thought were the most interesting, in between making obvious comments about hockey and complaining about having to travel so much. Really Peter, MMQB is about you. It's not like the column is supposed to be a weekly useful resource about the latest NFL news as told by a sportswriter who has deep connections in the NFL and can better inform the audience as to what this NFL news may or may not mean. Really, tell us how good of an actress Cate Blanchett is, because that's why your readers read MMQB.

It’s time for Roger Goodell to earn his $44 million—if that absurd sum is possible for anyone running any sports venture. It’s time for him to professionalize professional football.

While I agree, I also disagree in some way. The reason the NFL can run the way it does and get around the monopoly rules here in the United States is because each NFL team is considered a separate entity. I do agree that Goodell should come down hard on the Dolphins or at least ensure what has happened in the Dolphins locker room is at least enough of a warning to the rest of the NFL teams to ensure similar behavior isn't happening in their locker room. I don't agree that Goodell should be responsible for making sure on a micro-level that this behavior isn't happening in the locker room of NFL teams. It's Goodell's job to punish and set a standard that NFL teams must follow, I agree with this, but it's up to the NFL teams to police the behavior in NFL locker rooms. So I think creating a written code of conduct for an NFL locker room seems incredibly difficult to achieve and on a micro-level it's not Goodell's job to professionalize professional football.

Goodell can set a standard, but he isn't capable of enforcing that behavior on a day-to-day basis. This situation that occurred with Richie Incognito and the Dolphins team isn't because Roger Goodell did a poor job of setting a standard of what should happen in an NFL locker room. Honestly, Goodell shouldn't have to tell grown men how to behave in a locker room, but apparently that's necessary now.

In the past 60 days, Goodell, I’m told, has met with more than 30 players, asking them how to make the locker room a more tolerant, more professional place. Players like Avant have told Goodell what he needs to hear.

I think it's a little silly that the players are going to Goodell asking him to make the locker room a more tolerant, professional place. He's not in the locker room on a day-to-day basis, so the players and coaches have the most influence on how tolerant and professional that locker room is. At some point there has to be a realization these NFL players are grown ups and they need to learn to act that way without Roger Goodell looking over their shoulder. And I would bet some of these 30 players who want Goodell to step in and fix NFL locker rooms also think that Goodell oversteps his authority by disciplining players for getting arrested or may think he is exerting too much authority to try to make the game of football safer. It's funny how the players want Goodell to get out of their locker rooms and stop trying to dictate standards to them until they need him to do so.

In the end, Richie Incognito and his perverse and persistent bullying and sister-raping jokes and goonishness gone mad will do a favor for the league. All the gone-too-far frat boys in locker rooms around the league can thank Incognito now, because when the NFL adopts a locker-room and meeting-room behavior policy, it’s going to be for adults. Will veterans be able to make rookies sing their college fight songs? Yes. Will vets be able to run kangaroo courts and fine peers $100 for especially stinky farts? Yes. Beyond that, vets won’t be allowed to shame young players the way it happened in Miami.

While I understand there may be a need for a code of conduct, though I really wish the NFL players could police themselves like adults, I philosophically have a problem with the NFL telling an individual NFL team what can and can not happen in their locker rooms. I just feel like these players should be adults and this code of conduct should be more understood than written down. I guess a written code of Hammurabi is necessary in order for NFL players to feel like it is wrong to make sexually explicit comments about a teammate's sister or mother. I'll remember this code of conduct is necessary the next time an NFL player claims he can determine for himself whether he should risk his mobility and health as he ages when complaining about safety measures Goodell has enacted to reduce concussions.

I say good. And good riddance to the bad-cop stuff—or whatever disgusting crap—Incognito and John Jerry and Mike Pouncey were advocating in the past couple of years.

It won't just magically go away. It will still occur.

And while they’re at it, the NFL is going to put in a seminar for players and coaches and staff on sexual-orientation training. Call it the Michael Sam Seminar. It’s coming, and it should. Homosexuality is not going away, and there’s no reason why any gay player in any NFL locker room should be subject to one-tenth of what Jonathan Martin had to endure over the past two years.

As weird as this may sound, I think Michael Sam would be subjected to less harassment than Jonathan Martin was subjected to. Players in the locker room know homosexuality is a touchy, hot-button subject so it's easier to make fun of a straight guy and his family than it is to make fun of a homosexual guy for his orientation. One can be played off as just good fun, while the other can't be played off for much more than bigotry. That's just my experience. I think any harassing Michael Sam will endure is going to be completely behind his back and not in the way Jonathan Martin endured harassment.

Get ready for several weeks (months?) of internal and external debate around the NFL over how to professionalize the players’ workplace.

Don't be a dick, family members are generally off limits, it's fine to tease someone and if you don't know the point at which teasing becomes something more perhaps you shouldn't tease a teammate, and don't be a dick. I think that covers it all. Obviously it's easier said than done.

the scathing Ted Wells report told the world what a soulless place an NFL locker room can be. “Can” being the operative word, because I do not believe there are many, if any, other locker rooms or portions of locker rooms that go so over the top as the Incognito-led Miami offensive-line group went.

Which means while I was a little offended by the behavior in that locker room, this is an outlying case it seems. I don't know if this outlying case should provide the impetus for Roger Goodell to provide a code of conduct for each NFL team's locker room. I'm a little surprised these players can't police themselves.

Roger Goodell has to suspend Incognito, and give more than a slap on the wrist to partners-in-intimidation John Jerry and Mike Pouncey.

I think this is the commissioner's job. I'm not sure telling each locker room how to behave as if it were a kindergarten class. Besides, what is and is not permissible to say and do seems easy in theory but I can't help but wonder how it will work in practice.

Miami will have to fire offensive line coach Jim Turner, who the report says was complicit in the atmosphere of bullying. How can owner Steve Ross say he’s serious about a respectful work environment and keep employing a coach who went along with Incognito’s incessant bullying of two of his linemen, going so far as to give a male blow-up doll to one player whom the others chided as being gay?

Here's a great example of how it seems easy in theory, but I wonder how the code of conduct will work in practice. Is a male blowup doll to a straight player in and of itself offensive or bullying? Ignoring all the factors around it, if the Dolphins team got Player X a male blowup doll is that offensive and does that break the code of conduct? What if the doll is given to a straight player and the doll is female? Is this harassment or bullying in and of itself? I would argue I'm not sure it is. Now the background of the Dolphins team calling this Player X gay is what makes the blowup doll harassment and offensive. Can the Dolphins team give a gay player a male blowup doll if they have never teased this gay player for being gay? Is that in and of itself offensive and harassment? How about giving a gay player a female blowup doll? Again, ignoring all of the other factors would this present violate the code of conduct as harassment? I'm not sure it would. Depending on the situation, it can be in good fun. I'm afraid this code of conduct is going to be more subjective depending on each situation.

Martin should have talked to Joe Philbin. Martinmight be a fish out of water in the NFL and certainly deserves empathy for having to deal with 18 months of mental beatdowns from veterans like Incognito. But he should have told his head coach what was going on.

Then Peter's very next point negated this one and shows why his criticism of Martin for not going to Philbin doesn't really matter.

For Philbin not to know anything definitive about the crisis with Martin, he had to be either tone deaf or not paying enough attention to his team. Head coaches have their locker-room sources.

And that is exactly why I don't buy Peter's criticism of Martin for not telling Philbin what was going on. Philbin should have known, and if he states he didn't know then he either, (a) is lying or (b) is negligent for not knowing what is going on with his team.

I do understand he asked Turner about what was going on with his players, and Turner told him everything was fine. But what caused Philbin to ask Turner? Obviously his antennae were up. Philbin, whom I find to be a good man, still should know better, and this had better be a very good lesson for him, or his time in the head coach’s chair is going to be short.

I obviously have zero inside information, but I think Joe Philbin knew what was going on and intentionally ignored it or didn't think it had escalated to the point where Martin had contemplated suicide. So yes, at this point I can see where Martin should have gone to Philbin, but perhaps Philbin should have gone to Martin first. 

For the NFL, Sam and this report are two firecrackers designed to wake up anyone who can’t see that the league needs to have its collective head examined. It’s time, and Goodell can’t let this moment get away.

This isn't just an NFL problem though. Bullying and sensitivity problems in the locker room or clubhouse can be found throughout sports. 

A year ago, the American sports media trooped to Indianapolis for the annual NFL Scouting Combine, and the story was the distraction that Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o would be for the team that drafted him, in the wake of the girlfriend hoax. 

In the end, the Chargers drafted Te’o with the sixth pick of the second round. Think back now: What do you remember about his rookie year, on or off the field? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He was unimpactful on the field, particularly against the run, playing 56 percent of the defensive snaps. He kept his mouth shut off the field. He’s a vanilla interview anyway, and eventually the questions about the phony girlfriend went away.

I don't think this is a very good comparison. Te'o's lifestyle wasn't the issue in regard to what questions he would be asked. Michael Sam is going to be the first openly gay athlete to play in the NFL, which is a totally different issue than what Te'o faced and introduces a whole new set of questions that can be asked of him and the team that drafts him. I think it's typical Peter King to say the NFL needs to change the entire way it polices NFL locker rooms and introduce a code of conduct for NFL locker rooms, partially because of Michael Sam, but also believe Sam will not be a distraction or a subject of great discussion at the Combine or prior to the draft. Apparently Peter seems to think the presence of Michael Sam in an NFL locker room is the type of great sociological change to the NFL that no reporter or team official will care to ask about or discuss in any depth. To urge the NFL to introduce a code of conduct, partially because of Michael Sam, but to claim his presence could not initially be a distraction seems like conflicting points of view to me.

IT'S A CULTURAL REVOLUTION IN THE NFL! Except, it's not really.

Now, Sam is likely to be just as big of a story at the combine. And, unlike Te’o, Sam probably will be more of a lingering story, wherever he is drafted. But I think Sam will be a mega-story only for several days, when you might see Anderson Cooper with a CNN crew on the sidelines early in training camp.

And now Peter starts backing down from his comment that Sam won't be a distraction. Well yeah, he will be a distraction for a little bit at the Combine (I capitalize it for some reason), immediately after the draft, and probably during training camp...but that's about it and the story will eventually die. Well yes, this is absolutely true. The issue is that the Michael Sam story will be a bit of a distraction for a period of time. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that no one will talk about anything but Michael Sam for the entire training camp or Combine, but it's going to be a big story and whichever team drafts him will have to be prepared for Anderson Cooper to possibly be on the sidelines during training camp for a few days. Since Peter has such great NFL connections, he would know NFL coaches consider something like this to be a distraction.

If Sam can play, his teammates will accept him—maybe with a hiccup or two from a very religious teammate who disapproves of homosexuality or an unenlightened teammate who thinks it’s cool to make gay jokes. And it could be that some of those on the team will simply steer clear of Sam. No one knows. But there won’t be much of a problem, I don’t think, if Sam is contributing as a player.

I don't think there will be a problem either. I think any real problems will come from outside the locker room to make their way into the locker room, when one of Sam's teammates says something construed to be insensitive and then it has to be taken care of in the locker room. This is known as a "distraction" and no matter how much Peter denies it, I can see Sam temporarily being one with the media covering his every move. The issues won't come from the locker room, but from outside the locker room to make their way inwards. Think of all the Tebow over-coverage and how that seemed to eventually make it's way into the Jets locker room where the team was just tired of hearing about him.

Speaking of Tim Tebow, I would love to get his comments about being on the same team as Michael Sam. I'm sure he would be very polite, but I think I know how he would truly feel.

The 3-2 victory by the United States hockey team over Russia on Saturday really wasn’t a significant event, if you consider that it meant nothing in the medal standings. But you couldn’t watch the game and listen to the explosions by the fans (particularly the Russians, who outnumbered the Americans so clearly) and not feel there was something riding on this.

It actually was a significant game because if the United States won their draw then they would have an extra day of rest before they had to play again.

But that’s what great about hockey: Even in a game that’s being played for future seeding only, the players care so much.

This is true for most Olympic sports and not just hockey.

Sunday, when I got to ask Oshie about it, he was still stunned about it all. “The president tweeted about you,” I said. “America went pretty nuts. The New York Post and the New York Daily News both had you on the back pages this morning, with screaming headlines. Yesterday morning, no one knew you. Now, this.”

Great question, Peter! Wait, that wasn't a question at all. Glad you could contribute to the discussion, Peter by not really asking a question when given the opportunity other than to say, "So how cool is all of this!" and then stare intently into the phone waiting for Oshie's reply.

Then Peter gives the play-by-play on what happened during the shootout because killing space is important.

I asked Oshie if he’d been the kind of kid who grew up—in Washington state and Minnesota—shooting the puck into a net, imagining it was for the Stanley Cup or Olympic gold.

Sweet Jesus, Peter certainly sucks at asking questions. No Peter, T.J. Oshie has wanted to play hockey professionally for his entire life but he never envisioned himself trying to score a goal in the Stanley Cup or for Olympic Gold. He's the only kid who ever grew up not imagining this.

Not to be snide, but what does Peter think the answer to this question is? Of course Oshie imagined shooting a puck at the net for the Stanley Cup or Olympic Gold.

“Yeah, I was that type of kid,” he said. “I did it a lot, playing in the backyard, playing wherever, 9 or 10 o’clock at night, just before you leave the ice, you’re alone, and you think, ‘This one’s for the Stanley Cup,’ or ‘This one’s for the gold medal.’

Great, hard-hitting question Peter that got an answer where I learned nothing new from what I had already assumed to be true.

Oshie skated in deliberately, as always. “If you skate in fast, you’ve only got a chance to make one or two moves—that’s it,” he said. He swept in toward the right, the back left, then right in on goal, and he saw a little hole between the legs, and he aimed for it, and bang … right in.

Yeah, I needed Oshie to skate faster. He was going to slow for me. It worked obviously, but I think I lean more towards the "skate fast towards the goal" crowd.

And then the quote America loved, about how he felt about being an American hero, in a group interview with some American writers and TV people. Oshie said to them, “The real American heroes are wearing camo. That’s not me.”

Clearly Oshie is talking about the guys from "Duck Dynasty."

“Thanks,” I said when we were about to get off the phone. “Hope you bring home the gold.”

“Thank you sir,” said the 27-year-old hockey player, not hero, from Warroad, Minn. “We will sure try.”

Ignoring that Peter just threw a good portion of hockey discussion into his weekly NFL column, what was the point of transcribing this interview with Oshie other than to kill space in MMQB? There are better places to transcribe this interview with a hockey player than on a site dedicated specifically to the NFL.

“I was a kid who made some goofball decisions. That’s been part of my journey. Maybe it’s part of the whole Johnny Football deal that I’m trying to get away from. I’m trying to show people I’ve grown up, and I’ve learned from my experiences. I feel like you’re a stupid person if you continue to make the same wrong decisions. I don’t want to hear, ‘Oh, anybody in his situation would have been doing the same thing.’ I’m 100 percent responsible for my actions.”

—Johnny Manziel, the Texas A&M quarterback who wants to be the first pick in the draft to the Houston Texans, in an interview he clearly hopes will be image-altering with John McClain of the Houston Chronicle.

Oh, it seems like someone has found themselves a PR firm to do good work for him. I'm sure the notes given to Manziel from the PR firm were very similar to this:

1. Own your actions.

2. Explain how you have changed.

3. Refer to it as a "journey" so your actions in college seem like a minor road on the overall path you take to being who you are.

4. Explain how you've learned from this part of your journey.

“Bob McNair and Bill O’Brien. Those are the two guys I really want to meet.”

—Manziel, to Charean Williams of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. McNair owns the Texans. O’Brien coaches them. This was in response to a question about whom the famous Manziel really wants to meet.

Great answer. Of course it's probably a lie and Manziel probably really wants to meet Kate Upton...assuming he hasn't already.

“In light of the Incognito/Martin story, people would have you believe that you have to be some raving lunatic to play in the NFL, wound so tightly that the slightest spark will insight an insatiable inferno. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’m 48 years old now and about the least confrontational person you’ll ever meet. My fists have never found purchase on the flesh of another man’s face. I’ve never been in a fight. Yet I succeeded for many years in the trenches of the NFL, in which there are several confrontations on every play. It can be done—

—Former NFL guard Mark Schlereth, in an excellent column written for ESPN.com about how, from his experience, he feels what happened in Miami is more of an outlier than common. 

This brings me back to my point that I think an overall code of conduct for NFL locker rooms may seem to be a bit of overkill. Not that I don't think NFL locker rooms probably don't need changing in some aspects, but the Incognito/Martin issues seem to be the outlier and having the commissioner dictate what can and can't be said or done in NFL locker rooms seems a bit much. Of course, Peter also thinks Michael Sam won't be a huge distraction, yet he supports this idea of a code of conduct being passed down, which I'm still having trouble rapping my head around.

I am still trying to figure out why NFL Network and NFL.com are based in Culver City, Calif., and not in either Mount Laurel, N.J. (home of NFL Films) or Manhattan (home of the league office).

I don’t buy the it’s-good-for-business-to-have-a-West Coast-presence thing. You mean it’s good for business to be 3,000 miles away from the capital of the capitalism world, New York?

Maybe, and this is just a guess, NFL Network and NFL.com don't want to be based in New York? Maybe that's a good reason to not move to New York. Of course Peter King has a massive East Coast bias and can't figure out why everyone doesn't want to move to the upper Northeast because that's obviously where anything important in anyone's life comes from.

Let’s say the whole operation was moved to One Sabol Way in Mount Laurel (yes, that’s the address of the huge office park that contains NFL Films). On a Monday after a big weekend, Eagles quarterback Nick Foles or Giants receiver Victor Cruz could be in studio to dissect big wins on the set, and they could cycle through NFL.com to be grilled by one or two of the writers on site. Let’s say the Ravens are the hottest team in football, with the best defense. On Tuesday, the entire Haloti Ngata-led defensive front comes in to do the car wash on TV and the website.

What if they want to have the Seattle Seahawks on the show or the 49ers have just won a big game and want to come do the car wash on TV and the website. There are NFL teams not in the upper Northeast, Peter. Sometimes they matter and win Super Bowls too. Shocking, I know.

Take a look.

Culver City to:
 
San Diego 129 miles
Santa Clara, Calif. (S.F.) 345 miles
Oakland 371 miles
Tempe, Ariz. (Cardinals) 393 miles
Denver 1,028 miles
Seattle 1,137 miles

Mount Laurel to:

Philadelphia 17 miles 
New York City 83 miles
East Rutherford, N.J. (Giants) 83 miles
Florham Park, N.J. (Jets) 88 miles
Baltimore 119 miles
Asburn, Va. (Wash.) 179 miles
Foxboro, Mass. (N.E.) 282 miles
Pittsburgh 321 miles

So: seven teams and the league office are within 330 miles of Mount Laurel. One team is within 330 miles of Culver City.
I just don’t get it. Never have.

Maybe NFL Network and NFL.com don't care if they are close to NFL teams. I recognize that Peter hasn't ever thought about that because his East Coast bias warps his thinking, but maybe they don't give a shit if they are close to NFL teams. It's 2014 and there are other ways to interview or talk to an athlete when that athlete isn't in the same room as the interviewer. I know it shocks Peter to think that not everyone and every company wants to be based out of New York or based on the East Coast, but it does happen.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Worst part about going someplace warm for three days and flying back into New York in February: When you return, you fly low over inlets and small fingers of water that are either frozen or ice-capped, and you get off the plane and walk back into the freezer and think there is no way spring is coming. Ever.

Hey, maybe this is a reason NFL Network and NFL.com don't want to be based in New York. Also, Peter chooses to live in New York so his bitching about the weather falls on my deaf ears. If only we lived in a world where Peter King could live anywhere in the United States of his choosing and wasn't forced by no one in particular to live where he does. What would Peter bitch about, besides free coffee, the service industry, and anyone else he comes into contact with during the week?

“Dempster is a real character. Wore a t-shirt around the clubhouse with a picture of Shakespeare. ‘This **** writes itself’ it said.”

—@peteabe, Boston Globe Red Sox beat man Pete Abraham, on pitcher Ryan Dempster, who announced Sunday he was walking away from a contract that would pay him $13 million in 2014 for physical and family reasons.

Let's say I'm a distant relative of William Shakespeare and my family runs a Shakespeare museum here in the United States. I'm also a teammate of Ryan Dempster, so does this count as bullying or harassment under the NFL's new code of conduct for the locker room? I ask because my family takes great pride in our relation to Shakespeare and Dempster has mocked me repeatedly in the past for loving reading Shakespeare's writing. He's called me a nerd and made derogatory comments about my love for reading. I know when he wears this shirt he is trolling me, which makes me upset. Would this shirt pass the code of conduct?

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think I really hope one team—the Saints or Ravens—challenges the idiotic tight end franchise-tag designation, a $4.8 million difference between the tight end and wide receiver positions. My feeling on this is simple: If Jimmy Graham and Dennis Pitta are drafted as tight ends and used as tight ends and voted to the Pro Bowl as tight ends, then their team’s salary caps should not be punished by having them shown as wide receivers.

There's nothing idiotic about it. It's in the CBA. As it reads: 

The CBA requires a franchise player be tendered at the position

“at which [he] participated in the most plays during the prior League Year.”

If Jimmy Graham is lined up as a wide receiver for the majority of the plays during the League Year then he may have a good argument as to why he should be franchised as a wide receiver and not a tight end. It's right there in the CBA and it's not idiotic, no matter how much Peter wants to protect his friends who are NFL coaches and GM's. The Titans chose not to fight this fight with Jared Cook and the Packers settled with Jermichael Finley rather than keep fighting with him about this issue.

Being placed in the slot or split wide on multiple occasions per game should not change their designation.

Maybe this "should not" change their designation, but according to the CBA the owners and players agreed upon there is a case that Graham being split wide or in the slot could theoretically change his designation as a tight end. Thems the rules. I can't figure out why Peter is so vexed by this. Just because a guy is drafted as a tight end doesn't mean that if he is used mostly as a receiver then he shouldn't get the receiver designation. The CBA specifically lays this situation out.

4. I think many of you have rightfully asked me, and others who work in NFL locker rooms, how surprised we are about what was in the Wells report...Now, I know lots of untoward stuff goes on, because it always has, and there’s an Animal House element to every locker room. But I just don’t believe what happened in Miami is common to every NFL locker room.

Again, this causes me to ask the question...if what happened in Miami isn't common to every NFL locker room, then why is it so necessary to put together a code of conduct for NFL locker rooms or enforce rules that teams must follow as to what is and is not proper conduct? If NFL teams do a generally good job of policing themselves, why overreact to an outlying incident? NFL locker rooms probably need a change in attitude and mindset, but no rules can make a player change his mind on what he thinks about a homosexual person. If that player's locker room is policed it won't be an issue though, because that issue gets squashed before it becomes a bigger issue. That's the hope at least.

8. I think, with franchise tags able to be used beginning today, I would be stunned if defensive end Greg Hardy isn’t tagged by the Panthers—who have the moderate sum of about $8 million in cap space and will have to shed some contract in order to tag him. But Hardy, 25, is the kind of player teams develop and keep, not develop and let walk.

Unless that team has $8 million in salary cap room and has a secondary and offensive line they desperately need to improve, along with 26 free agents they may or may not want to sign.

9. I think the University of Missouri must be a great place these days. A great journalism school, obviously, from the alums who work all over our business … but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the loyalty to Michael Sam. An AP dispatch out of Columbia over the weekend quoted the student body president, Mason Schara, thusly: “The majority of us knew [Sam was gay] and we just didn’t think anything of it because that’s just who we are here.” And a large group of students, hearing there would be a protest Sunday on campus opposing Sam’s declaration, linked arms in solidarity as a protest to the protest.

I hope this gets remembered the next time Peter or one of his sportswriting friends writes about "Middle America" and the supposedly conservative and overly-religious nature of the middle part of the United States. There seems to be a "Wow, Michael Sam was accepted in Middle America" vibe going on at times, as if citizens west of the Mississippi and east of Colorado all think being attracted to a person of the same gender is the same thing as being attracted to one of the farm animals that every family in Middle America has.

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

a. A fond farewell tour is my hope for Derek Jeter. And that, to him, would mean a 162-game regular season and playing well enough to lead the Yankees deep into the playoffs. As I’ve written, I believe he’s the best all-around baseball player and leader I’ve seen play a complete career.

Or as Peter originally wrote this statement a few years ago, Jeter is "the best player of his generation" or some variation of this statement that was just absolutely absurd. Peter later clarified that he meant Jeter was the best player whose career he (Peter) has seen completely, which was a backpedal so hard that it left skidmarks.

it’s amazing to me how he not only played at such a high level, but led at the highest level as well—and never the hint of a scandal, playing on the team with the highest profile in American professional sports.

So Derek Jeter is the best all-around baseball player and leader Peter has ever seen because he doesn't give a good juicy quote? Sounds logical.

d. Hey Pierre McGuire: Great call on the heretofore unknown T.J. Oshie being one of the U.S. shooters in the shootout as everyone debated who would get the call for the Americans.

It's almost like he gets paid to cover the NHL or something.

i. Coffeenerdness: I’ve crossed over to the darker side now. Four shots of espresso in a medium drink at Starbucks now. Someone has to stop me before it’s too late.

It's been too late for many years now. We are just a few months away from Peter accusing a Starbucks barista of only putting in three shots of espresso (because Peter watched him only put three in there) and then the barista deny it when Peter confronts the barista about this. Peter will obviously share this story in MMQB.

k. I saw The Monuments Men, and though it had its share of clichéd dialog and scenes, I liked the story a lot. Cate Blanchett’s really good in it.

If Cate Blanchett died of a drug overdose then Peter could tell us all that he finds her to be the best actress of her generation. She has to be dead before she gets this distinction though.

The Adieu Haiku

The combine’s this week.
Hearty welcome, Michael Sam.
Welcome to mayhem.

But not too much mayhem of course, because Manti Te'o wasn't a distraction so Michael Sam certainly won't be either. At least until he is a short-term distraction, but this doesn't count because it doesn't count and being the first active NFL player to be gay is the same thing as pretending you have a girlfriend who died and then lying about it for three months. The social issues and media interest from outside football are the same in each case obviously.

17 comments Bill Simmons Talks about the Hockey Lockout Since He's Such a Big Fan of Hockey Now and All

I never thought this blog would use the "lockouts suck" tag as often as it is being used. In the past two years we have had an NBA, NFL, and NHL lockout. There has been a lot of owner-player's union disagreement over the past two years. One thing that shouldn't be disagreed upon is my opinion is that Bill Simmons is running out of things to write about. In this past week's NFL picks he criticizes Gary Bettman because it is low hanging fruit and Bill has become such a big hockey fan since the Bruins won the Stanley Cup two years ago and his magical daughter helped the Los Angeles Kings to win the Stanley Cup last year. Gary Bettman isn't exactly the best commissioner in sports, no doubt. It's just any time Bill writes about hockey I can't get his "I'm a hockey widow" column out of my mind. This is the same "hockey widow" column that apparently has been scrubbed entirely from the Internet by ESPN. I tried for five whole minutes and couldn't find it anywhere.

News broke last night that embattled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested a two-week moratorium from lockout negotiations with the NHLPA. The reason? Things had just become too heated. I guess that's what happens when you cancel six weeks of games and Thanksgiving is looming — maybe there's a little more urgency, you say some things you regret, people take those things personally, and suddenly you're threatening each other in monotone Canadian accents...But canceling another two weeks just so everyone can cool off? Who does this? 

Perhaps two sides who can't seem to come to an agreement and don't want to cause harm to the current negotiations? Donald Fehr didn't exactly reject this idea outright, instead he took it back to his membership, so maybe this wasn't such a terrible idea.

And you wonder why hockey fans were regarding Bettman's lockout leadership the same way you'd act if you were watching a baby play with a chainsaw.

This joke.

Somewhere 2001 Bill Simmons is laughing at the asshole who just wrote a comedic "baby with a chainsaw" analogy. Somewhere else Adam Sander just read this analogy and just got an idea for a scene in his new movie about an immature guy who looks like Adam Sandler who is married to an attractive woman. The rest of the plot doesn't matter. Hijinks ensue. 

Oh God … wait, is that on … OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Writing down the sound effect of someone reacting to a baby playing with a chainsaw doesn't make it any more funny. It makes it sound a little more desperate and ill-fitted to this column.

This is a guy who recently earned the following e-mail from a Minneapolis reader named Peter Gilbertson: "How does one impeach a sports commissioner? How can a commissioner on the verge of losing two NHL seasons in one decade, with four work stoppages during his tenure, continue to keep his job?

It's always fun to read when Bill uses his reader's comments on a subject as if these comments are fact instead of an opinion. For some reason, Bill believes the opinion of one of his readers actually serves as proof of something being true.

First of all, how much fun would it be to impeach Gary Bettman? Can't you see him sweating and stammering through the hearings as various politicians rehashed an endless list of mistakes over the years?

This sounds like it would be about as much fun as hearing about Bill's fantasy football team, which we will have honor of briefly hearing about in this column.

Gary Bettman should have lost his job years and years ago. He kept it for the same reason David Stern plans to hang around for three decades, Bud Selig will still be running baseball when he's 80,

Because the owners like them?

Roger Goodell will probably get a contract extension even after he handled the Saints debacle so badly that he had to bring back his old boss to fix the situation for him.

I am not entirely sure Goodell exactly brought back his old boss to fix the situation for him. It was more of a situation where the Saints requested another party hear their grievance and make a judgment. One way or another, Paul Tagliabue ended up being the arbitrator and the players union even made a motion to have Tagliabue recuse himself from the proceedings. Not that Goodell handled the bounty scandal deftly and with aplomb, of course, but even Goodell's old boss hasn't seemingly helped the situation too much.

after I joked recently for the umpteenth time about Bettman's former boss, David Stern, planting him in the NHL to ruin hockey, a few readers e-mailed me wondering if that could be legitimately true.

I'm a grammatical mess. You only need to read pretty much anything I write to see I am not going to be named Grammar and Sentence Structure King anytime soon. Bill has started a trend (and I blame Bill because I remember Bill first writing this way and I like to blame him for things that aren't his fault) of using the word or some derivation of the word "legitimate" as a descriptive-sort of word in a sentence. It doesn't bother me all the time, but in this sentence he could have left out "legitimately" because it is unnecessary. If it is true, then doesn't that mean it is "legitimate" as well? It feels unnecessary to me, like a baby pushing a lawnmower would be unnecessary.

The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.

So they really needed a mulligan? This changes my point of view tremendously.

That's all you need to know.

But is that all I need to know? I ask this because Bill now lists various other reasons why Gary Bettman sucks. While he is correct in his assessment of Bettman, clearly the reimagining of the salary structure isn't all we needed to know.

I didn't even need to bring up the league's botched television deals, overexpansion, poorly picked markets, belated acknowledgement of the concussion epidemic, or more incredibly, how they stupidly forgot to limit the length of contracts.

Remember seven years ago when Bill was writing these same things during the previous lockout? Wait, you don't? That's probably because he was a hockey widow at that point since he didn't feel the Bruins were competitive enough (the Bruins went 41-19-15 in 2003-2004). Once the Bruins put together a "legitimately" good team, Bill started paying attention to hockey again. 

Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel.

Here begins an overly-long analogy that can be summed up in 1-2 sentences. I will take a shot at doing so.

Gary Bettman should have been smart enough to figure out the NHL's problems during the previous lockout. Yet, he helps cause another lockout this season to correct what he should have corrected during the previous lockout.

Let's check on how Bill's overly-long analogy is doing,

He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."

And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.

That's Gary Bettman.

That's Bill Simmons.

Hockey depends on its attendance and the unwavering devotion of its zealous fan base. From a television standpoint, the league will always be handicapped by its lack of marketable stars (the biggest reason it can't command anything close to the NBA's television deal), a glaring problem that I noticed during my first year owning Kings season tickets, 

It was a glaring problem that "The Sports Guy" didn't notice until he was 41 years old. Quick to the take, he is not.

Anyone who went to Wednesday's Heat-Clippers game was thinking I'm going to see LeBron!, because they knew he was playing 90 percent of the game. In hockey, you don't say "I'm going to see Ovechkin!," because he might play one-third of the game if you're lucky (and might not make a single meaningful play).

So hockey has fewer fans who are bandwagon fans who only like a team because they like a certain player on that team? I think this makes me enjoy hockey even more.

It's the ultimate team sport, and really, that's the best thing about hockey — there's a guaranteed level of entertainment night after night after night that transcends star power. 

(one paragraph later in this very column)

So how do we end up with a salary system that allows Minnesota to spend $196 million on Ryan Suter and Zach Parise? And that's not to pick on those guys — you could build a decent playoff team around them as long as your goalie didn't stink.

Hockey is the ultimate team sport! All you need is two good players and an average goalie, then you have a playoff team. It's the ultimate team game where Bill believes three players are all a team needs to make the playoffs. Team. Game.

Just know that nobody is saying the words, "Suter and Parise are coming to town tonight!" It's just not that kind of league. You go to hockey games to see quality teams, not quality players. 

So hockey fans don't say, "Crosby and Malkin are coming to town tonight!"? I feel like some hockey fans might actually say something like this and try to get tickets to the game.

Suter and Parise shouldn't make that much money because hockey players shouldn't make that much money. 

It has nothing to do with them. If you think of the cable television model, it makes more sense —

A convoluted analogy to cable television show will help this make more sense. Not less sense, but more sense. Actually, in debating this issue I will confuse myself and probably you. I apologize in advance.

channels like AMC, FX and Showtime realized that the quality of their shows matter a thousand times more than the "star power" of the actors on those shows. 

Or they realized they have a tighter budget than shows on ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS, (and certainly have a tighter budget than a movie has) so they have to rely on lesser-named actors to carry their shows. NHL teams don't necessarily have a bigger and better league the players can go to as opposed to playing in the NHL, so this isn't a very good comparison. There is one other major reason as to why these cable channels don't use "star power" to carry their shows. Most actors/actresses with "star power" don't want to do television. Where are the "stars" on ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS? Kevin Bacon and Zooey Deschanel are on FOX. CBS replaced Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher. Is this "star power" on the major networks? I don't recall a lot of "stars" doing network television. Another issue with this analogy is actors/actresses mainly want to do movies, so that dilutes the cable television talent pool. There is no major competitor to the NHL that dilutes the talent pool. Needless to say, this doesn't fit Bill's analogy so he skips over this little fact, but if an actor/actress has "star power," they usually want to do movies where the most money and exposure is at. I do agree shows on AMC, FX and other networks realize quality of the show matters more than the names in the cast. I'm just not entirely sure I see Bill's analogy to hockey though.

Not to mention, FX has had shows with Glenn Close, Rose Byrne and Timothy Olyphant as the leads. These aren't necessarily big name actors/actresses (well, except Close), but certainly big enough for television, no matter the network the show is on. Showtime has created shows around Laura Linney, William H. Macy, Don Cheadle, Kristin Bell, Jeremy Irons, Matt LeBlanc, Lisa Kudrow, and David Duchovny. These actors and actresses could also carry a show on ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS. If this cable model was a good comparison to the NHL, then guys like Sidney Crosby would be playing in a different professional hockey league from the NHL, while the NHL settles for their best players being Ryan Suter. But the best hockey players like Alex Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin all play in the NHL, while the best actors aren't necessarily on television, but are in the movies.

These names above aren't big names by any measure, but there are quite a few Oscar winners and big salaries thrown in there. So I'm not sure Bill's "star power" analogy makes sense because I don't think it is always a conscious decision by these cable networks to not get a big name actor/actress for a television show, any more than it was a conscious decision by big name actors/actresses to not do television shows. The NHL should be "the movies" in this example because that's where most actors want to end up doing the most work, just like the NHL is where most hockey players want to end up.

Yeah, AMC could have spent an extra $15 million per season on Keanu Reeves to play Rick in The Walking Dead, but why would they?

Again, Bill's analogy fails because he is seems to think the cable television model is by choice. I'm not sure it is. To hire Keanu Reeves for $15 million wouldn't make sense in the context of the show, while paying a hockey star $15 million might make sense in terms of marketing, ticket sales and the success of the team. "The Walking Dead" has an ensemble cast, so it wouldn't make sense to pay $15 million for one actor. It's not a decision to avoid big name actors more than it is a decision to understand the format of the show and what would work financially. If Keanu Reeves said, "I will do this show for $50,000 an episode," then perhaps AMC would consider him for the part. Would NBC hire Keanu Reeves for $15 million per season? I doubt they would.

Same for Showtime's hit Homeland, which features only one star (Claire Danes, who certainly isn't making Parise/Suter money) surrounded by well-casted actors, including a few good ones whom you'd recognize from other shows (including Mandy Patinkin, a fairly famous name in his own right) and certainly weren't expensive.

I think Damian Lewis may be slightly more expensive than Bill would think. Of course I'm a big Damian Lewis fan (I know, I am the only one) so I could be delusional. Not to mention, if Mandy Patinkin is a famous name in his own right, then doesn't that mean "Homeland" has two stars that were cast?

You might recognize that same blueprint from Breaking Bad, Dexter, Californication, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy and about 10 other cable shows.

I guarantee Michael C. Hall makes a lot of money as the lead on "Dexter." I also guarantee he cost a lot of money (relative to television of course) when the show started as well because he would bring a fan base from "Six Feet Under" to the show. "Game of Thrones" is another show with a huge ensemble cast. It simply doesn't make sense to hire an actor/actress making $10 million per season to do the show when there are 15-20 "stars" of that show. David Duchovny did "X-Files" for years and probably wasn't cheap when he started doing "Californication" and I am guessing William H. Macy is well-compensated for "Shameless." If Bill wanted a better comparison it would be a comparison between the NHL and an overseas hockey league that wants to lure above average NHL players to their league.

While I don't hate Bill's analogy, I think he is making a truth in cable television casting (that it is hard to get stars to do television, whether network or cable, and ensemble casts simply can't work financially with 2-3 stars in them on one television show) and trying to turn this type of casting into a conscious decision on the part of the networks. It is a conscious decision, but a decision decided by the fact "stars" of acting don't necessarily want to do television. The stars of hockey do want to play hockey in the NHL, so I think this analogy doesn't make a ton of sense. If George Clooney wanted to do a Showtime show and the money was right, he would be on a Showtime show. Of course, what do I know? I don't live in California like Bill does.

On cable television, the showrunner and the writing matter more than anything else. In hockey, the sport and the fans matter more than anything else. It doesn't matter who Minnesota's third-best player is any more or less than it matters who plays Mike on Homeland. Fans are coming, regardless.

It helps that Mike on "Homeland" is the 6th or 7th lead on the show behind Saul, Carrie, Brody, Brody's wife, Brody's daughter, and the CIA Director. So it wouldn't make sense to find a big name actor who will only be in 5-10 minutes of each episode. Also, the idea that "fans are coming" to NHL games regardless of star power seems pretty faulty to me. It's a huge assumption in my opinion.

Wasn't the league supposed to be regaining control of its broken salary structure? How are we back here seven years later battling the exact same problem?

Probably. Gary Bettman does suck at times.

He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.

Shots fired! Bill should know Peter likes his men more grizzled and quarterback-y than Roger Goodell.

If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you. On to the Week 12 Picks …

Ziiiiiiiiiiing. It's good to see Bill cares so much about the NHL now that he is writing critical columns about the NHL commissioner.

Speaking of skunks, I have the following thoughts about the Marlins skunking the entire city of Miami …

2. Everything you ever wanted to know about professional sports in 2012 could be summed up with the sentence, "Jose Reyes needs to pass a physical but is currently still on vacation in Dubai."

I'm not entirely sure if I understand what this means. Jose Reyes makes a ton of money and it is MLB's offseason, so he is visiting a really nice city using all of the money he has. Does Bill think it is a bad or over-glamorous thing for Jose Reyes to be in Dubai?

4. The Red Sox definitely would have jumped on the Jose Reyes–Josh Johnson–Mark Buehrle trio if John Henry were still alive.

I would if Bill thinks this would have been a good idea or not. He doesn't say, probably so he can withhold judgment until May or June when he writes a column complaining the Red Sox should have traded for Jose Reyes or Josh Johnson...unless the Red Sox start off well, in which case he will write a column saying the "new" Red Sox are better built for the future. Either way, it's best not to get an opinion on the record in case it gets in the way of second-guessing or narrative building in the future.

Packers (-3) over LIONS

Remember when it seemed like things were falling apart for Aaron Rodgers? His offensive line couldn't block anyone. His skill position guys kept getting hurt. His agent badly overexposed him by throwing him into too many commercials, which had a habit of running back-to-back during the most dire parts of every Packers game.

No, I remember when Rodgers wasn't playing very well and the media built up this narrative that Rodgers had things falling apart for him and then tried to create some sort of dissension within the Packers locker room that probably didn't exist to the extent the media insisted it did. I recall how Rodgers still has skill position guys hurt, his offensive line still isn't great, and he is still in too many commercials. The Packers are winning though, so all of that is now forgotten.

And really, Rodgers has been crushing teams ever since. At the same time, his NFC nemesis Eli Manning contracted the E Coli Delhomme virus, Matt Ryan's Falcons lost a textbook "We would have believed in you if you won THAT game, but you didn't" game,

The Falcons are 9-1, but THAT game is the one which causes Bill not to believe in Matt Ryan. The game against the Saints, where Matt Ryan really didn't do a hell of a lot to lose the game.

In other news, here are some fun stats about Calvin Johnson's total number of touchdowns this season (two).

Calvin Johnson has the same number of TDs (two) as my West Coast fantasy team has wins (two).

Somehow, Calvin Johnson is still the best guy on my West Coast fantasy team.

This is reason no. 610 why I'm retiring from fantasy football after this season.

Fantasy sports: They are called "fantasy" because that's your state of mind if you think anyone cares to hear about your team.

Reason no. 611 was this e-mail, courtesy of Steve in Bedford, Massachusetts: "Fantasy is kind of like cheating on your wife. You don't get any solid action for a while (seven months of crappy SportsCenter bits with Jon Gruden), then you get an opportunity to get some (three hours with your friends drinking and competing about football knowledge with the promise of real football to come) only to spend the following 17 weeks living with regret and not wanting to check your e-mail."

I really have nothing to say about this. I think this analogy speaks for itself. Complaining you don't have a good fantasy team is really complaining how bad you are at fantasy sports. In other words, don't complain to us you suck.

Here's the point: Now that Nate Silver has solved the polling process in politics, I'd like to see him devote his attention to something much more meaningful … football gambling. How hard could this be? Couldn't Nate just study all the patterns from every football season and come up with 20 steadfast rules/tips/guidelines that should never be violated? 

Perhaps the problem, and the reason putting rules/tips/guidelines that should never be violated is a losing proposition, is that there aren't any patterns? I'm just guessing though.

Jaguars (+15) over TEXANS
 
I know the Jaguars stink, but Houston plays again on Thursday — this is the all-time Milton Berle "Pulling Out Just Enough To Win" game if there ever was one.

This was a good call by Bill. I like to give him credit at least once per post. This was me giving him credit.

In other news, here's an important e-mail from Phil in Irving: "I need your help to bring this problem to more people's attention — 'I will say this … ' is the new 'Having said that … ' Doesn't this phrase drive you crazy? Someone smarter than me could probably figure out how certain phrases seem to become trendy (ex: 'it is what it is' circa 2010),

John Fox has been saying "It is what it is" at every press conference since 2002, so perhaps he helped to introduce that phrase to the public as a whole. He usually said it after losses and he had a lot of losses in 2010.

but suddenly I can't enjoy TV or a podcast without talking heads obscuring their own valid points by throwing in an unnecessary, 'I will say this … ' You don't have to tell me you're going to say something — just say it!

And yet you are writing to the king of the overly-long analogy to have him help solve this problem for you? Bill Simmons, the same guy who takes 100 words to say what someone else can state in one sentence, is the guy you take your "Just say it" complaint to?

Besides, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" ruined "Having said that..." in one of its latest seasons. Now I can't type the phrase without laughing (or chortling as the Peter King/Gregg Easterbrook hybrid would say).

Here's the point: If Tom Brady doesn't completely, totally and irrevocably carve up that openly lousy Colts pass defense — at home, in a relatively important game that he's going to care about winning — it will be one of the biggest upsets of the 2012 season. Which means Luck (10 TDs, 9 picks) has to score 30+ points to hang around … something the Colts have done only once all year (30 against Green Bay in Week 5).

Bill gets credit twice this week. He pretty much nailed what would happen in the New England-Indianapolis game.

RAIDERS (+4.5) over Saints 

Warning! Classic trap game, correct? Instead of avoiding the Saints here, let's get aggressive, Billy! What's the opposite of a trap game? An escape game? Isn't this an escape game for the Raiders, too? I can see it now: in a furious fourth-quarter comeback, Carson Palmer conjures up his best impression of Kenny the Snake Stabler as the Raiders 'escape' with a win!!!"

But nailing his NFL predictions isn't exactly a trend with Bill, so there is this one to counteract the New England-Indianapolis prediction.

Speaking of gimmicks that I've beaten into the ground in this column, Peter from Iowa City wonders simply, "Has the David Petraeus scandal entered the Tyson Zone yet?"

The problem isn't Bill admitting that he beats gimmicks into the ground. The problem is that he continues to do so. Self-awareness isn't very useful if you don't use that self-awareness to adjust how you write.

A quick recap: "Tyson Zone" status officially happens as soon as you find yourself saying the words, "I don't know what's happening next, but I'm prepared for anything."

If you want or need a recap of the "Tyson Zone," then you should feel shame on just so many levels.

That's what happened (for me, a least) as soon as Chuck Klosterman became a bit player in a CIA sex scandal.

A new characteristic of Bill's writing is that he seems to constantly plug other Grantland columns in his column. It's like Bill's column is just another marketing branch of Grantland. There are seven links to either Grantland columns or a Grantland columnist in this article by Bill Simmons. This doesn't include the links to ESPN.com. So basically Bill is using his column as another way of marketing other Grantland columns. He's very smart in that fashion, but his intelligence in putting Grantland links into his columns doesn't make me shake my head at his shamelessness any less.

Bears (+4.5) over 49ERS

Doesn't Chicago's defense and special teams have just as good of a chance to single-handedly win the game against Colin Kaepernick as San Francisco's defense and special teams have to single-handedly win the game against Jason Campbell? What am I missing?

Apparently you are missing that Greg Roman is a coaching genius and Colin Kaepernick is the next great NFL quarterback.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 5-9
Season: 74-70-3

Bill may as well flip a coin. In fact, during this year's playoffs if we do our typical playoffs picks against Bill Simmons then I may include a coin flip as one of the "competitors."

2 comments ESPN Shows Transparency by Answering Softball Questions; Creating Their Own Questions to Answer

John Walsh is ESPN's executive vice president and executive editor. He also looks like your grandfather or the type of guy who would build a park full of extinct dinosaurs brought to life by genetic engineering and then attempt to sell this park as an attraction for families. Fortunately, Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum were able to contain the dinosaurs that escaped from their cages and get off the island alive. So after building and presiding over the disaster that was Jurassic Park, John Walsh went to work for ESPN. He is kind of a big deal at ESPN and he had a chat recently to allow for more transparency and answer questions about the editorial decisions ESPN makes. Unfortunately, he only fields the softball questions and he answered a question every 4-5 minutes. This tells me there were tough questions not fielded by Walsh. Why have a chat to show transparency if you only answer the softball questions?

John Walsh (11:06am)

Good morning everyone, let's get to your questions.

John Walsh wrote this at 11:06am. The first question will be answered at 11:19am. I would love to know what questions were not answered during this time. I'm betting there was a lot of Mark Schwarz/Bernie Fine questions, questions about the insane amount of coverage of QB Jets by ESPN, or questions about how ESPN can have an "analyst" in the form of Skip Bayless be the leading proponent of an NFL player without this affecting credibility as an unbiased journalist. None of these questions got answered. More importantly we didn't questions answered about why ESPN's ombudsman still hasn't addressed Craig James' role as an ESPN employee while being involved with Mike Leach's firing. I'm sure they are getting to it though. They just haven't had time...right?

Let's prepare for some softball questions to get answered.

Randy Rubin (Phoenix)

After the Jeremy Lin situations on ESPN TV and your mobile site, the network pledged changes to prevent future occurances. What have you done in these arenas?

First, off there is no Randy Rubin who lives in Phoenix, Arizona according to www.whitepages.com. The names go from Mitchell Rubin to Richard Rubin. A very preliminary Google search shows no Randall Rubin nor a Randy Rubin in the Phoenix, Arizona area. This doesn't mean there is no Randy Rubin that lives in Phoenix, Arizona. He may not own a house or have a phone number listed. This called also be a nickname this person specifically used for this chat. As I was reviewing this chat, I noticed a lot of the questions came from people put their location as "USA," and "NY." More than I usually see in a chat.

It may not mean anything, but after randomly choosing two other chats, a Mike Wilbon chat and a Matt Williamson chat, I couldn't help but notice there was slightly more specificity and diversity in the location of people asking the questions. This could all be a product of the fact John Walsh answered fewer questions than any of these other writers and a few of the questions Walsh was asked came from the same person. I don't think ESPN made up the chat questions, but I also wouldn't put it past them.

Andrew Colburne (Tampa, FL)

I recently read a fascinating article by Poynter about an interviewing guru at ESPN. Why did the network hire him? Do you see any tangible results from his teachings?

For the record, there is an Andrew Colburne in Tampa, Florida. John Walsh answered this question three minutes after he answered the last one. Guess he found two softball questions in a row he felt like answering.

John Walsh: I saw the article and recommended that we comission John to hold seminars in Bristol on interviewing.

Perhaps we could also have someone come into Bristol and hold a seminar on how to spell the word "commission" or "occurred," both words John Walsh has misspelled so far in the first two questions.

Mark came to me and said why don't we become the first and only media company to hire an interview coach.

Great question, Andrew! It gives John Walsh a chance to talk about what a forward-thinking company ESPN is and then mention they are the only media company to hire an interview coach. Why answer tough questions when you can use the chat as a way of pumping up your own company?

If you watch ESPN's interviews, whether sideline, sitdown or even press conference, it is obvious that John's techniques have elicited more revealing and explicative answers.

(ESPN reporter) "Why are so awesome Tim Tebow? Tell me more about your awesomeness."

(Tim Tebow) "Because of my parents and the way I was brought up. Because of Jesus and my parents. Really that's the source of my awesomeness."

(ESPN reporter) "Now, that's revealing. So Jesus and your parents made you the person you are. Do you think you would be the awesome person you are with them?"

(Tim Tebow laughs) "Definitely not. It's the basis of who I am as a person and Christian. Without both of these things, I am nothing."

(ESPN reporter) "Provocative. Hard hitting."

Rand Copper (Boston)

Have noticed A LOT more NHL playoff coverage on ESPN this year, especially on SportsCenter and ESPN.com. What finally made you pay attention?

What a softball question. Not only is this not even a question, in reality it is a tickling of ESPN's balls with a feather, but this question is also incredibly inaccurate. ESPN's coverage of hockey isn't non-existent, but there is very, very little hockey coverage on SportsCenter.

Awful Announcing has repeatedly made mention of how SportsCenter doesn't cover hockey. Awful Announcing isn't the only site that has noticed this. In fact, ESPN has explicitly said hockey doesn't translate to the national discussion. So it's clear there isn't a commitment to covering hockey by ESPN. So why would this questioner act like ESPN's coverage is sufficient and why would John Walsh pretend ESPN cares about hockey in his answer?

But in a fictional world, where ESPN is showing more coverage of hockey (by going from 30 seconds of highlights on SportsCenter to 1 full minute of highlights), let's see what John Walsh's answer is for this question would be.

JW: We have many dedicated, die-hard NHL fans who are intricately involved in the decision making and execution of our highlight shows and Web site. Their voices are always loud, strong and passionate.

"Which is why we don't give these people airtime to talk about hockey. We don't have the rights to the NHL games, so we don't give a shit about the NHL. If diehard hockey fans talk about hockey, it only serves to tell our viewers another channel has the rights to those games and we refuse to give free advertising for our competitors. Stay tuned for a 5 minute breakdown of the Women's Basketball NCAA Tournament and then a hard-hitting debate between Skip Bayless and a sign language monkey on whether Tim Tebow will be the starter for the Jets this year."

By the way, John Walsh answered this question nine minutes after he answered the last question. Nine minutes. Took him a while to find a softball question.

You must consider that there are many factors in determining how we handle NHL highlights. They are: the size of the audience interested in the results; the drama of the event -- championships and six-OT games pretty much make the decisions for you; there is the individual spectacular performance by world-class players; finally, there is the other news of the day.

"Even when there isn't news, we create the news ourselves. So if we run the risk of having hockey lead off SportsCenter then we catch up with Tim Tebow in New York or manufacture an argument about the NBA. Really, in between manufacturing arguments and talking about Tim Tebow, we barely even have time to cover sports."

aroznowski (USA)

Just how disappointed were you and your colleagues when ESPN was unable to secure the television rights to NHL, FIFA, and Olympic telecasts?

JW: Very.

Clearly, that new interviewing guru at ESPN doesn't help ESPN employees GIVE more revealing and explicative answers.

Patty Shields (Philadelphia)

Hi John, thanks for chatting with us. ESPN seemed all over the board on recently on whether announcers could support Trayvon Martin on twitter (hoodie images, tweets, that sort of thing). While the inconsistency bothered me, to me, allowing them to put a hoodie on Twitter was an overt poltical statement. Why did you allow it?

This is about as close as we get to a tough question and it wasn't really a tough question.

Eric Kudrow (Austin)

What's happening with the Longhorn Network? I really want to see it, but don't have access yet. I need my Horns fix.

So instead of answering a question about WHY ESPN is in bed with a specific college and how this affects ESPN's coverage of the University of Texas since the success of the network is indelibly tied to the success of the football team...we get a question of "Derp. I want Longhorn Network, but I don't have it. How do I get new cable channels that I don't have? WHO IS IN CHARGE OF DECIDING MY CABLE CHANNELS?"

By the way, I can't find an Eric Kudrow in Austin, Texas. I also did a Google search and couldn't find one there either. It's kind of weird in the age of Facebook. Again, I'm not saying Eric Kudrow doesn't exist, but this seems like a pretty stupid question that coincidentally also serves as a reminder of how ESPN viewers can get the Longhorn Network if they choose to. What a great accidental advertisement/reminder to be found in a chat question!

JW: You and your friends should call your cable distributor. The programming and producing are superb.

Actually, Eric never said anything about his friends wanting the channel. I'm not going to beat around the bush now. I think ESPN made this question up because it seems like a very convenient advertisement for the Longhorn Network.

Mike D. (New York)

John, I saw that ESPN recently responded to a Sports Business Journal column with an excellent op-ed about the value of the ombudsman at ESPN.

Come on. You can't be serious with the beginning of this question. I see one of two issues at hand here. Either Mike D. from New York is tickling ESPN's balls with his question and John Walsh thought it was the perfect softball question to answer or ESPN made this question up. By the way, one of the Beastie Boys goes by Mike D and he is from New York. Either the questioner is making this inside joke or ESPN's question creators have a sense of humor.

As a long-time journalist, I applaud your efforts in this area, especially when you don't have to take on this self-examination.

I mean...for fucking real? There is no way this is a real question. Even the biggest fan of ESPN would have to question whether a person would really be this complimentary of the network. It doesn't end here though. The questioner goes on...

Why haven't others followed your lead, and what do you see as the big wins for ESPN in having an ombudsman?

Again, John Walsh picked the questions that were the most complimentary to ESPN or they are creating their own questions to answer. Either way, ESPN and John Walsh have done a disservice by not answering the tough questions that viewers of ESPN want to know the answers to. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN made this question up because it is overly complimentary about ESPN, to the point it has to come from someone who has a vested interest in the company.

JW: Our biggest advantage is that our four ombudsmen have made us better, have inspired animated discussions in the workplace, have affected our policy and decision making and made us more self-aware of the issues in the sports media space.

ESPN has become more self-aware of the issues in the sports media space...other than the fact the ombudsman doesn't answer any questions about Craig James or address his role in the Mike Leach firing at all. The ombudsman has created animated discussions about ESPN's role in keeping Craig James employed and they created these animated discussions by not sufficiently addressing the topic.

aroznowski (USA)

How concerned and worried are you and your colleagues at ESPN about the NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network, and possibly a national sports network owned by FOX? I would guess that the concern isn't all that extreme since ESPN is a mogul and the worldwide leader in sports.

What a ridiculous question to answer. It isn't even really a question. It asks how concerned ESPN is about competition and then answers the question for John Walsh, while acknowledging how all-powerful and large the ESPN family of networks truly is. Ridiculous. You can't tell me there weren't more interesting and discussion-worthy questions posed.

Interested reader (USA)

Why have ESPNW? Shouldn't ESPN.com cover women's sports?

What do you know? It is a softball question from an "Interested reader" from the "USA" who just happens to remind everyone that ESPN.com also has an ESPNW. Yet another convenient advertisement for a less broadly known ESPN format. These readers keep setting up John Walsh with these questions and he keeps knocking the answers out of the park. It's fun to read chats about ESPN editorial coverage that can also serve as a way to advertise for ESPN's lesser known channels and sites.

Robert Cheatham (SLC, UT)

What is the position of ESPN in regards to employee relationships with athletes. Specifically friendships, intimate relationships, joint business ventures, etc. I often wonder if many of your staff temper their remarks and opinions for fear of personal retribution from the athlete. I have an impression, maybe wrongly, that so much milquetoast comes from ESPN I have to Google for the "real story".

What? A semi-tough question?

JW: It is instructive that Roger Clemens was in a "This is SportsCenter" commercial years ago, and now SportsCenter, Outside the Lines and ESPN.com have devoted resources -- including investigative reporters -- to look into allegations against Clemens.

Oh yeah, ESPN really went out on a limb here. I don't see how this is instructive. Clemens was in a "This is SportsCenter" commercial a few years ago and John Walsh wants credit for ESPN covering an ongoing trial that Clemens is involved with and to look into whether the allegations are true or not? This is sports news. ESPN shouldn't get credit for covering sports news. I don't think this is instructive at all, other than to show ESPN covers news stories about sports. It's not like ESPN originated the allegations against Clemens. Maybe I'm being hard on them, but to me this just seems like Walsh wants credit for ESPN performing the job they claim to their viewers they perform.

Deven (Los Angeles, CA)

What would you say was the last mistake ESPN made, editorially, that they have learned from?

You won't get an answer to this question. ESPN has to first acknowledge a mistake, which they don't prefer to do.

JW: We take risks, both editorially and in business, so much of the time at ESPN, that we make all kinds of mistakes.

And yet, we don't get a specific example of one of these mistakes. Why? Well, it turns out ESPN doesn't want to open itself up to criticism they can't control. See, when the ombudsman criticizes ESPN, they can control the message they want to send out, but if John Walsh makes a mistake the blogosphere will go bananas, do research into the mistake and not even give ESPN a chance to spin the mistake favorably! How unfair is that?

Citing any one of our mistakes is a disservice to the blogosphere because we realize our mistakes are their red meat.

How is the blogosphere done a disservice by hearing ESPN acknowledge a mistake? If anything, ESPN not admitting a mistake does a disservice to the blogosphere. In reality, ESPN does not want to admit mistakes because it gives other sites a chance to hold these mistakes against ESPN. ESPN doesn't like having other people acknowledge their mistakes because they want to spin it and control the message. They prefer to control the message when it comes to mistakes, which is why they hired an ombudsman.

Robbie Crowley (Anaheim, CA)

Given the dustup over Sarah Phillips, what is ESPN's policy as it relates to hiring prospective workers? And what's the difference at ESPN between a freelancer and a fulltime columnist?

JW: We need to remember she was a freelance contributor, not an employee or full-time staffer, or part-time staffer, or contractual contributor. As such, she was properly vetted for the normal hiring standards for per-piece contributors, which is common not just at ESPN, but throughout the media industry.

Don't blame ESPN for this issue. Though they pride themselves on being better than the competition and being the worldwide leader in sports, they are perfectly content to lower their standard down to the standard throughout the media industry when it comes to explaining a mistake. Again, they believe themselves to have higher standards, the best talent, and the most interesting and creative content...unless something goes wrong, in which case they want to lower their standard to the "industry standard."

I don't think ESPN handled this situation poorly, but I always find it interesting when a company falls back on the "industry standard" to excuse a mistake, but otherwise considers themselves above the "industry standard" when bragging about their accomplishments. This doesn't go just for ESPN, but it is funny how a company will lower the expectations for themselves to explain a mistake.

Orrin Reischl (Chicago)

I saw a lot of criticism of ESPN for not being the first to report the tragic passing of Junior Seau this week, even though ti was on Twitter. I also saw some people defend ESPN for being appropriately cautious. What's your take?

Just to beat a dead horse, I couldn't find an Orrin Reischl in Chicago, Illinois. That doesn't mean this isn't a nickname he is using for this chat or something like that of course.

This just another softball question posed, which helps to avoid John Walsh from having to answer the tougher questions that readers/viewers of ESPN really care about.

JW: Thanks for your questions. I'm always happy to be thinking rock and roll and explaining what happens at ESPN. Please add Kenny Chesney, Jimmy Buffett, Nils Lofgren, Steven Van Zandt to my rock Mt. Rushmore.

I'm not sure you can trust anyone who wants to put Kenny Chesney on the Mount Rushmore of rock 'n roll.