2 comments Here's a Scorching Hot Take About the Redskins Naming Controversy

Careful, I don't want you to burn yourself. There is an old, old hot take coming from Mike Sielski who gives no-nonsense looks at Philadelphia sports for Philly.com. Well, maybe this isn't a no-nonsense look at Philadelphia sports (it's more for Washington D.C. sports), and it's more nonsense-filled than no-nonsense, but that's okay. See, his hot take says that reporters and sportswriters not only should use the term "Redskins" even if they find it offensive, but they have a journalistic obligation to use the word. They are being dishonest to their readers by simply referring to the Redskins team as "Washington." There is also something about being an unreliable narrator, which only proves the author may not know what a true unreliable narrator is.

The Eagles play the Washington Redskins on Saturday.

That sentence wouldn't appear on the editorial page of The Washington Post, or under the bylines of various sports columnists around the country, or in the student newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Bucks County. Those publications and people have decided that the word "Redskins" is so offensive, as a slur against Native Americans, that they will not use it.

No more offensive than the way Daniel Snyder runs the Redskins, but that's beside the point (puts up the tag about Daniel Snyder being a terrible owner). 

To these writers and media outlets, the NFL team in the nation's capital is always "Washington,"

And nobody is confused by them being called "Washington" because there is only one NFL team in Washington and that is the Redskins. I don't even notice when a columnist uses "Redskins" or "Washington" and not the word Redskins. Maybe I'm super-racist and am not aware of how racist I am. Otherwise, if a writer doesn't want to use the word then it is up to him or her. I only notice when a writer does something stupid like Gregg Easterbrook does and writes "R*dsk*ns" to where it calls attention to the fact he's using the word, but not really. 

never "the Redskins," and they are of course free to take such a principled stand.

Except they aren't free to take this principled stand. 

It's just that they really shouldn't.

See? They are free to take this stand, except not really. 

Here's why: This idea might come off as old-fashioned, especially in our diverse and ever-expanding media world,

Usually when a writer says he's going to come off "old-fashioned" he is about to complain about others censoring what he wants to say that some find offensive, clinging to old ideas against the use of new ideas or knows what he is about to write is a load of crap but wants to make it seem like the idea is tied to old values and not backwards thinking.

but if you're a reporter or a columnist or a newspaper or a magazine or a news website or maybe even an independent blogger or pretty much anyone who practices what can be called journalism, your primary responsibility ought to be the same: Report the facts as accurately and completely as possible, present them as accurately and completely as possible, and don't let any agenda - political, social, personal - get in the way of those goals.
 

Absolutely. I'm going to write two sentences as if I were a sportswriter or journalist and you as the reader tell me if by changing a single word if I have let any agenda get in the way of reporting the facts accurately and completely. 

"The Redskins announced today that they were going to be benching Robert Griffin and Jay Gruden would be the new starting quarterback, while Jim Haslett will take over head coaching duties. The Redskins have decided to put Robert Griffin on the trade block." 

"Washington announced today that they were going to be benching Robert Griffin and Jay Gruden would be the new starting quarterback, while Jim Haslett will take over head coaching duties. Washington has decided to put Robert Griffin on the trade block." 

So in substituting "Washington" for "Redskins" how in the hell have I let any agenda I have affect how the facts are presented? Are the facts more incomplete now that I didn't call them the "Redskins"? Does the reader become confused about the news I am presenting? Not at all. So while if I refused to use the word "Redskins" then I would obviously have some sort of social agenda, it has not and it will not, affect the news or reporting that is contained in these sentences. There is no commentary involved and the reader doesn't get different news simply because I don't use the word "Redskins." 

You start with that foundation, and you build your news story, your analysis, your commentary (however mealy-mouthed or strident) from there. That's the promise you make to your readers.

The problem with banning "Redskins" as a reference to Washington's football team, then, is that you're breaking that promise right off the bat.

But using "Redskins" or "Washington" isn't breaking the promise, it's simply referring to the NFL football team in Washington by one name rather than the other. That's all. I don't care if someone uses the word "Redskins" or not. It doesn't matter to me. As long as they are called the "Redskins" I will probably use the term. But the use of "Redskins" or "Washington" doesn't affect the overall reporting by a journalist like the author wants to believe happens. 

You're revealing immediately that, in what's supposed to be your role as a reliable narrator, you are actually unreliable.

The definition of an unreliable narrator is a narrator whose credibility has been seriously compromised.

It's a narrator who can't be trusted because the narrator makes mistakes, speaks with bias and lies. How in the process of reporting a story about the Redskins is the narrator lying, making a mistake in his report or having a bias when simply referring to the team as "Washington"? The information is the same and nothing is being withheld from the reader.

You're telling your readers: We have a principle or an agenda that goes beyond informing you. In fact, we'll withhold information from you if we believe it runs counter to that agenda.

What information is being withheld? If anything, a journalist is being reliable in allowing the reader to see off the bat he won't use the term "Redskins" because he/she finds the term offensive. A reader can catch on quickly to an unreliable narrator and the narrator is still considered unreliable, but in the case of journalists reporting on the Redskins, there are no lies or a bias that can come from not using the term "Redskins." The information is the same no matter which term the journalist uses. 

Once a news organization places such advocacy ahead of thorough, precise, honest reporting, it fails to stick to the fundamentals of journalism, and it puts its credibility at risk

How does Peter King fail to stick to the fundamentals of journalism by calling the Redskins "Washington" in his columns? He's reporting the same information he would otherwise if he did call them the "Redskins," but he's just not using the term. 

This author is taking a no-nonsense approach and filling the reader's eyes with nonsense. As long as a journalist isn't secretly creating fake stories that make the Redskins look bad because they won't change their team name (which there is no evidence any journalist who won't use the term "Redskins" is doing this), there is no advocacy being placed ahead of journalism. 

But there is at least a general consensus in our society and culture about which words rise to the level of vulgarity, and that consensus hasn't been reached yet with respect to "Redskins" - at least, not as this particular sports franchise still uses the word.

Fine, it's not a vulgar word as defined by the FCC. I would love to read how the author can explain simply referring to the Redskins as "Washington" is hurting a journalist's credibility. He won't do that. He prefers to simply state that it makes a journalist who won't use the R-word look like an unreliable narrator or as lacking credibility, but won't explain how the information given to the reader by an author who won't use the R-word is different to cause this imprecise, dishonest reporting. 

Remember: No one's suggesting that, for all his faults, owner Daniel Snyder wants to retain the franchise's name for the express purpose of demeaning or mocking Native Americans.

Unintended consequences. Snyder knows some people are offended by the word and regardless of whether he is retaining the name because he doesn't want to change it or because he wants to mock Native Americans is irrelevant. So regardless of his intentions, some Native Americans feel demeaned or mocked. 

I like how the author doesn't give a shit about the unintended consequences of Daniel Snyder keeping the Washington team name as the "Redskins," but he creates unintended consequences that don't actually exist when referring to journalists who report on the Redskins but call the team "Washington." Daniel Snyder doesn't mean to mock Native Americans, but journalists who don't use the term "Redskins" are lying to their readers and putting their credibility at risk. Got it. 

(Does Snyder want to continue making millions of dollars by keeping the name and its recognizable tradition? Sure. Does he want to avoid upsetting the team's fans and sacrificing ticket sales? Absolutely. That makes him rather greedy, which means he's pretty much just like any other NFL owner.)

This is pure speculation, but I would imagine Daniel Snyder would sell as many t-shirts and sell as many tickets to games if the Redskins were called the "Washington Bureaucrats." Okay, maybe not that EXACT name, but you get the point. There is tradition behind the team name, but fans tend to get over things and re-naming the team gives them a chance to buy all new Washington apparel. 

The objections to the name are grounded in the notion that the word itself is offensive, no matter how or why it's used or why the franchise won't change it, and therefore it should not appear in print or online.

And some journalists choose to not use the term "Redskins" which doesn't change the meaning of what they write at all. The information is still the same. 

But if we're to apply that logic to similar terms or words, there should have been media who referred to this former NFL quarterback as Chris Guy Who Went To Louisville. See if you can find anyone who did.

Okay, so it's really hard to take this guy seriously when he writes shit like this. For a guy who writes in a "no nonsense" fashion these are two sentences full of nonsense. Chris Redman's name was "Chris Redman," so that's why he was referred to in that fashion. He could change his name, but it's not considered to be offensive like "Redskins" is deemed offensive. One is the name of a professional sports team and the other is the last name of a human. I don't see the parallel being drawn. 

I'm not arguing that the franchise should change its name or that it shouldn't,

Of course not. A person would be silly to think deeming those who refuse to use the term "Redskins" as lacking credibility and being dishonest is even close to supporting the Washington Redskins not change their team name. There is a much stronger parallel to Chris Redman having to change his name because no one finds it offensive. 

and I'm not arguing that it's wrong for a media member to support a name change and say so publicly.

Support the name change and do it publicly, but just don't write it down, then go about doing your job. That's the key. Support the name change. That's fine. Just don't use the term "Washington" in place of "Redskins" because that throws all journalistic credibility out the window. 

But I am arguing that even if Snyder were refusing to change the name solely because he was an overt bigot and racist, the journalistic responsibility to provide information to news consumers supersedes the desire to avoid offending anyone.

The information shouldn't change if the author is using the term "Redskins" or "Washington." I'm not sure how this is so confusing. 

"Redskins" is the official name of a franchise in the National Football League. It is a fact. You report facts.

They also play in Washington D.C. and calling them "Washington" is also reporting a fact. It's a very weak argument to claim journalistic credibility is being ruined by using "Washington" in place of "Redskins." This stand against the use of the R-word is just a refusal to use the word, not the very basis upon which a journalist discusses the Washington Redskins. Using the word or not using the word should not affect the coverage. 

You call them the Washington Redskins because it's their name, and because that's supposed to be your job.

If a journalist can call them the "Redskins" then why not call them "Washington"? And it's not necessarily "your job" to refer to the Washington Redskins as the "Redskins." The job is to present information about the NFL team in an accurate fashion. Calling them "Washington" should have no effect on that end goal.

2 comments Dan Shaughnessy Gleefully Takes a Piss All Over the Red Sox; Exposes Them For the Failures They Are

Dan Shaughnessy loves to revel in the failures of Boston area sports teams. There is plenty of evidence this is true. Here. Here. Here. And here. So when the Red Sox are struggling he just can't help himself but to rub it in just a little bit and bash the team for even considering they could be a contending team. He's looked stupid in the past when he's bashed the Red Sox and then the team turned out to win the World Series that same year. I'm not sure if that will be the case for the 2015 season, but his trolling and asshole-ish glee at watching the Red Sox fail, all while holding the team to a ridiculous standard by acting like their recent success isn't impressive, is very much annoying to read. His disdain for common sense and hiding behind his telling "the truth" is just one of the many journalistic crimes he commits. Jay Mariotti likes Dan Shaughnessy, so that tells me all I need to know even if I didn't ever read Dan's writing.

So here he is reveling at the myth that the Red Sox are a contending team. You can feel his joy at being able to bash them dripping off the computer screen. He bashed them here on June 2, then the Red Sox starting winning games so he jumped back on the bandwagon, then they started losing games and he bashed them again.

The Red Sox are a myth,

The entire franchise. It doesn't exist. The Red Sox are the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus of professional sports, just created to give fans in the Boston area something to cheer for during the summer.

The myth of the Sox is that they are some kind of perennial playoff contender.

This isn't a myth. Over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs 10 times. 50% of the time over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs. That's a pretty impressive run of making the playoffs. It could be better, but it could also be worse. The bottom line is going into each season, the Red Sox are contenders to make the playoffs. Dan can argue this is ridiculous based on the eventual outcome of a season, but his protests don't make the fact the Red Sox are consistently playoff contenders false. 

You know . . . three championships in 10 years.

Swell.

The only team that can say they have three championships in the last 10 years is the Giants. Before that, it would be the Yankees. Before that, it would be Oakland Athletics in the early 1970's. So the snide, "swell" is misinformed and needless. Three championships in 10 years is impressive, no matter how much Dan wants to downplay it.

But despite the hype, the highest prices in baseball, and the $200 million payroll, the Sox are no longer legitimate contenders. They are not a good team and they have not been a good team for quite some time.

"For quite some time." They won the 2013 World Series. The Red Sox have won 90+ games 11 times in the past 20 years. They have had 3 seasons with a losing record in the last 20 years. All this while playing in a division (the AL East) which had a team from that division make the World Series 13 times since 1990. But yeah, the Red Sox haven't been good for "for quite some time."

Simply because Dan recites a lie doesn't mean this lie becomes the truth.

“When you look at this team — and I tell you we’ve analyzed this team — this is a strong team,” said Henry. “They’ve just played not up to their capabilities.”

What else would the owner say? Would he say he doesn't think they put a good team together? Perhaps after the season is over the owner may say this, but of course he will think the team is strong prior to the season starting and during the season. This quote isn't the result of a delusion, but the result of Henry really believing the Red Sox put a good team together.

The Red Sox bottled some lightning in 2013, but clearly that was an outlier season, one that contributes to the ongoing phony narrative that the cutting-edge Sox are ahead of the curve and loaded with talent throughout the organization.

Ah yes, go ahead and crap on the World Series title in order to make it seem more significant than it was. Dan would really have freaked out if he covered the Red Sox from 1919-1945 when they didn't make the World Series once. The playoff set up was much different then, but the Red Sox were mostly terrible during that time. I imagine how bad Dan would flipped out believing the Red Sox wasted the golden years of Ted Williams' career. He would have gotten off so much bashing them in his column. 

Wake up, people. Your baseball team is not smarter than all the other teams. Your farm system is not the best in the majors.

I'm not sure "people" think the Red Sox are smarter than other teams. They just try to use different methods of player evaluation from other teams. It's not them thinking they are smarter. Taking a different road to reach a destination doesn't necessarily mean the road you have chosen is the faster path (you can find that on a fortune cookie somewhere). The Red Sox having faith in the players in their farm system, and not wanting to trade players from that system, is a reflection that they like their own players. It doesn't mean the organization or fans think the Red Sox have the best farm system in the majors. 

Your Red Sox are an aggregate 31 games under .500 (267-298) since Sept. 1, 2011. According to the Providence Journal, the 2015 Red Sox entered Tuesday as Boston’s worst baseball team since 1960 in the area of run differential — minus-48 after 51 games.

It's so weird how Dan Shaughnessy uses September 1, 2011 as the cut-off date. I really do believe many of these sportswriters needed to take more statistics courses in college. September 1 is a sort of random cut-off date that intentionally tries to mislead the reader on the Red Sox record during the 2011 season prior to September 1. The 2015 Red Sox aren't a very good team. It doesn't mean the entire organization is fatally flawed. 

Despite these inconvenient truths, folks at the top continue to say that all is well. And rest assured the Sox soon will be OK because . . . you know . . . they are loaded with prospects.

Yet another contention by Dan that the Red Sox believe themselves to be "loaded" with prospects, but amazingly he can't seem to include a quote from the Red Sox that supports this belief. It's almost like Dan is exaggerating (or at best, misinterpreting) the Red Sox expectations for their prospects in order to make his point seem stronger. 

Asked to characterize the state of his franchise, Henry answered, “From my perspective, it’s never been better. I think we’re as strong throughout the organization as we’ve ever been.’’

Henry says they are "strong throughout the organization," he didn't say they are "loaded with prospects."

“We have a strong commitment to winning,’’ added chairman Tom Werner. “We play for championships . . . It is our intention to play baseball in October every year.’’

Yep, nothing about prospects in that quote. Nothing about having a "loaded" system. The idea the Red Sox organization constantly talks about their loaded system is a fantasy that Dan tells himself in order to make his lies and deceptions seem more real.

Increasingly invisible Sox CEO Larry Lucchino (now “busy” with Rhode Island’s Triple A team and Boston’s 2024 Olympics bid) chimed in with, “We’re in it to win it, to win championships. If that means this kind of manic-depressive kind of course, maybe that’s not so terrible . . . We’re well prepared to be a successful franchise in the next several years.’’

Again, there is nothing said here about being "loaded" with prospects. It's just talk about where Lucchino wants the franchise to go and where he thinks the franchise currently is. 

National media folks gushed about the new Red Sox lineup and predicted another worst-to-first season for Boston. Sports Illustrated and USA Today picked the Sox to finish first in the AL East — which, of course, is still possible in the toxic landfill that the division has become.

And when have national experts ever been wrong about anything? Just check out the ESPN experts' predictions for the 2014 season to see how wrong these "experts" were about the World Series participants. Expecting experts to be correct all the time, when that's not close to being the case, and then basing criticism of the Red Sox on not meeting the expectations of "experts" is ridiculous. 

Sox starting pitchers mocked the naysayers, wearing T-shirts that said, “He’s the ace,’’ and after Clay Buchholz outpitched Philadelphia’s Cole Hamels on Opening Day, Henry noted to a reporter that the Sox did indeed have an ace starter.

Outpitching Cole Hamels is now turned into a bad thing, because it wasn't a sign of things to come for the entire season. 

And now here we are again. Worst-to-first has become worst-to-worst.

Yes, here the Red Sox are "again." The last time they finished in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons was 1993-1994 and the Detroit Tigers were in the AL East at that point. But yeah, "again" the Red Sox are going to be in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons. It happens all the time, just as long the fact it hasn't happened in over 20 years gets ignored. 

But many of the Red Sox’ current problems are still rooted in arrogance, NESN ratings (Messrs. Sandoval and Ramirez are looking like Crawford and Gonzalez from 2011), an insistence that an ace pitcher is not a good value, and a system philosophy that relies heavily on new metrics.

Except Sandoval and Ramirez are signed to smaller contracts than Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez were signed to, so Ramirez and Sandoval are not quite the burden Crawford and Gonzalez were on the Red Sox payroll. The new metrics have paid off for the Red Sox in the past ten years. 

Turning their backs on arcane thinking (and 130 years of baseball history), the Sox are out to prove that a team does not need a true No. 1 starter. Instead, the organization chooses to live on the cutting edge of WAR, VORP, BABIP, DIPS, EqAS, and UZR.

So what? Other teams use these metrics and have success. At no point has any front office that uses advanced metrics stated these metrics are the end-all be-all to determine whether a player is successful or not. This is a constant misinterpretation baseball writers like Dan Shaughnessy (and Steve Dilbeck, Murray Chass, Jerry Green, Terence Moore) have, which is front offices that heavily use advanced metrics still factor in they need good players to be successful. They are simply using different metrics to evaluate players, along with the traditional player evaluation metrics. 

OMG. LOL.

STFU. 

Alex Speier’s feature on Mookie Betts in the Globe in February informed us that the Red Sox partnered with a technology company to measure how fast a baseball brain works. They developed a proprietary SAT-like testing system to tell them who the good hitters might be. One of the Sox draftees who crushed the neuroscouting tests was Jackie Bradley Jr., who has batted .192 over parts of three big league seasons.

This is compared to human baseball scouts who haven't missed on a prospect over the past 130 years, right? Human scouts are allowed to miss all of the time, but when new technology is used to scout or gather information about a prospect then it has to be correct 100% of the time or else it's considered absolutely useless. So the neuroscouting test didn't accurately show Jackie Bradley's skill level. Real human scouts use metrics that don't correctly evaluate a player's skill all the time.

A lot of big contracts have been given to the wrong people, and it might be time for the Sox-loving world to stop perpetuating the fallacy of Boston’s amazing scouting and player development.

They screw up sometimes. Yes, the Red Sox have missed on players who received big contracts. 

There’s a nationwide insistence that no Sox minor leaguers can be dealt to the Phillies for Hamels because the Sox are just too gosh-darned loaded with great prospects.

Well, plus Hamels is a 30+ year old pitcher who is making a lot of money per year. He could end up being one of those big contracts the Red Sox have taken on which continue to perpetuate the fallacy of Boston's amazing scouting. Of course Dan complains the Red Sox have too many underachieving, expensive players and then bemoans they won't trade their prospects for a 30+ year old pitcher who has a large contract. I wouldn't expect him to be consistent in his criticism though. 

the sad fact is that the Red Sox have not drafted and developed a big league starting pitcher or an All-Star position player since Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury were drafted by Theo Epstein 10 years ago.

What about Anthony Rizzo? (ducks as Red Sox fans throw things at me)

Another question. Shouldn't Hanley Ramirez and Justin Masterson count? They were both considered (and proved to be) ready for the majors when the Red Sox traded them and now they are back on the Red Sox team. I would probably count them both as players the Red Sox developed. Justin Masterson is a big league pitcher while Hanley Ramirez has made an All-Star team.

It’s fitting that the Minnesota Twins are in town this week. The Twins share Fort Myers with the Red Sox, and we feel sorry for them all spring. The Red Sox get all the attention and have all the fans and are nationally acclaimed as the brilliant, big-money franchise, always ahead of everybody else. The poor Twins have no payroll, no star power, and no national following.

They also have a first-place team with the third-best record in the American League.

This is absolutely laughable. With no sense of irony, in a column where Dan Shaughnessy bemoans that the Red Sox are "again" in last place in the AL East, he starts talking about the Twins coming to town. This is the same Twins team that has been last in the AL Central 6 times in the last 20 years. They have been next-to-last in the AL Central 4 times in the last 20 years. They have made zero World Series and one ALCS in that time, along with having a losing record in 11 of those seasons. THIS is the team he talks about as the antithesis of the Red Sox. Why? Because the Twins are currently in first place in the AL Central. Dan pays studious attention to the Red Sox recent history in an attempt to paint them as a failed franchise, while dismissing their successes, yet he pays attention to the Twins record this season and dismisses their recent history by simply not acknowledging it. He's the worst. This is what to expect from Dan Shaughnessy though. He's incapable of being a good writer when it comes to making a point outside of his trolling opinion.

We have the Red Sox.

We have the myth.

The biggest myth overall is that the Red Sox are a failing organization. They may not be succeeding right now, but they have the resources to improve quickly. Of course, when that improvement comes, and it will, Dan is going to forget entirely that he wrote this column. Just like he forgets the variety of other columns he's written bashing the Red Sox. Dan's only purpose as a writer is to serve as a troll and be negative. It gets him attention, which is mostly what he craves. He's horrible.

To add to the hilarity, Dan wrote this column on June 2 and then on June 8 he changed his tune about these Red Sox team. All of a sudden, after a few wins the myth of the Red Sox being contenders may not be a myth. I will have Dan's contradictory column about the Red Sox in my next post. He's the worst. Just the worst. He can't even troll consistently.

3 comments Skip Bayless Knew The Dallas Cowboys Would Win The NFC East This Year Except For When He Said They Would Go 6-10

Skip Bayless is a joke. He's a clown and should have no place in the sporting world with his ridiculous views and junior high debate class antics. He has no point of view or belief outside of whatever point of view or belief he thinks will get him the most attention. He's the 6th grader pulling girls' hair and pretending to fart in class solely for the basis of gaining attention for himself. Unfortunately, Skip is a grown 62-year old man and not in 6th grade. Skip thrives on attention, which means he can often contradict himself when he espouses two opposing viewpoints that both eventually lead to him getting attention. So Skip says the Cowboys are for real, just a few months after saying they were going 6-10. Life as a sportswriter must be fun and easy when you have no determined beliefs and can change your opinion as often as the wind blows.

You may not believe this, but Skip makes the Cowboys' hot start completely about him. I know, it's shocking that Skip brings the focus back on himself. 

Feel free to dismiss me as just another desperate Dallas Cowboys fan again falling for America's Tease.

I will feel free to dismiss you totally as another desperate attention-seeking troll who insists on playing the villain because it beats working hard for a living.

I talked my uncle, a high school football coach, into taking me to my first Cowboys game, at the Cotton Bowl on Nov. 5, 1961, when I was in fourth grade. Quarterback Eddie LeBaron's Cowboys lost to the St. Louis Cardinals 31-17 -- hey, Eddie Football was only 5 feet, 7 inches tall -- but I was hooked for life.

Great story, don't care. This isn't about you, it's about the Dallas Cowboys.

But I did manage to maintain objectivity in writing three books about America's Team -- three inside looks far too revealing for some fans.

What Skip may mean about "far too revealing" is he stated that Barry Switzer claimed Troy Aikman was gay, and Skip found no proof this was true and Aikman denied it, but Bayless included this in his third book on the Cowboys anyway because controversy equals book sales. A whore has to put out and a shill has to shill.

So maybe I'm not writing just with my heart when I say I believe in this Cowboys team more than any since the 1995 Super Bowl champion about which I wrote my last book.

Skip KNOWS the Cowboys are for real this year. He didn't know earlier during the summer, but he totally knows now.

This team is different from the many since then that have inspired predictions (and delusions) of grandeur.

You know how Skip knows this Cowboys team is different? They are winning games. It's a dead giveaway only he can notice.

This team -- if it stays reasonably healthy -- will win the NFC East.

Skip has to put that qualifier on there, just in case the need to backpedal at a furious speed should the need arise.

That's what I predicted on air on the Thursday this NFL season opened. My prediction so stunned and disgusted Stephen A. -- who grew up a Cowboys-hating New York Giants fan -- that he got up and walked off the set babbling about how I had lost my mind.

So dramatic! So scandalous! It's like the "Jerry Springer Show" for sports. Stephen A. had to walk away because Skip's view was so stunning. I'm so dismayed I couldn't view this circus first hand, but will have to settle for not watching it on YouTube.

He had no idea that was coming because I had spent the entire preseason saying this Cowboy team had 6-10 written all over it.

But you knew this team was different. You...you...you...are going all-in on the Cowboys winning the NFC East like you knew this would be happen, but your words didn't always back this prediction up. This is what is known as "flip-flopping" and having a contradictory opinion. Skip will get no credit for stating the Cowboys will win the NFC East because he said all preseason the Cowboys would go 6-10. He can't have it both ways. Now if the Cowboys suffer injuries (and I like how Skip throws in the qualifier that the Cowboys have to say "reasonably healthy" as if they hadn't been hit hard by injuries on defense before the season began), Skip can weasel out of this prediction and fall back on his "Dallas Cowboys will go 6-10" prediction. I'm sure there will be a gratuitous mention of Tim Tebow in there somewhere.

So why did I suddenly reverse field and book it that Dallas would go 10-6 and win the division?

Because you are a clown who holds no opinion which doesn't gain attention for yourself and you thought stating the Cowboys would go 10-6 was a good way of self-promotion?

It started two days earlier, during a round of golf, when a friend listened to my rant about how last year's historically bad Cowboy defense (which allowed an NFL-record 40 first downs at New Orleans) could be even worse without Sean Lee, DeMarcus Ware and Jason Hatcher.

Remember, Skip is working under the theory the Cowboys will win the NFC East if they stay reasonably healthy. So naturally, his conclusion the Cowboys will win the NFC East is reached based upon knowing the Cowboys most important defensive player is lost for the season.

My friend's response was so simply profound that I cold-topped my next shot: "You wonder if those guys will finally get so sick and tired of hearing how historically bad they are."

Wait, he was talking while you were putting? Or is Skip being overly-dramatic again like he was when he mentioned Stephen A. walking off the set so stunned by Skip's prediction the Cowboys would win the NFC East? I'm guessing the latter. Either way, this is how Skip Bayless works. Reason goes out the window for the sake of hot sports takes and attention-seeking comments.

Herm said: "Trust me on this: Rod will get them to play hard. If they don't" Herm's famed emotions rose. "... Rod WILL get in their face."

Oh, well I didn't know Rod Marinelli would get in his players' faces. That totally changes my opinion on the Cowboys. If I had known Marinelli would get in his players' faces in the same manner that helped him achieve a 10-38 lifetime heading coaching record in the NFL then I would have predicted the Cowboys to go 16-1. Yes, the Cowboys players would be so motivated by their coach yelling at them they would play an extra game during the season just so they could claim they won 16 games.

For the first time in forever, nobody was picking the Dallas Cowboys to do anything. At least, nobody I knew of...Seriously, you'd have to go back to 1989 and 1990, the first two expansion-like seasons of the Jimmy Johnson/Jerry Jones Cowboys, to find a year in which nobody thought the Cowboys had a chance.

So then Skip Bayless saw a void where he could troll and knew he had to fill that void. He can get attention, not by bashing the Cowboys as he had done all preseason, but predicting them to win the NFC East. Skip was going to differentiate himself by being positive about the Cowboys rather than negative, because that's how he could get attention. He would just ignore that he said they looked like a 6-10 team in the preseason, because who cares?

Leading up to this season, many of their own fans had given up on them. That's why, for the home opener, JerryWorld appeared to reporters to be half-filled with 49ers fans, and why during the home game against Houston, Texans fans made so much noise they forced Tony Romo to resort to a silent count.
At "HOME!"

The Cowboys were 3-1 when they faced the Texans. It seems kind of funny that Skip is using reasoning like Cowboys fans giving up on the team as the reason Texans fans made so much noise.

Perfect: Zero expectations for this Cowboy team.

Yeah, but Skip didn't know that Cowboys fans had given up on the team when he made the 10-6 prediction. That prediction came before the 49ers and Texans games. So he couldn't have known then the fans gave up on them and this wouldn't have affected his prediction. Seems like Skip is working hard to link a narrative to his trolling attempt at getting attention. He's taking information he knows now and tries to pretend he knew it before the season began when he could not have. That is unless Skip Bayless is omniscient or psychic. Obviously he is not. 

When I reminded Stephen A. that if Romo hadn't hurt his back in the big win at Washington, the Cowboys very possibly would've beaten Philadelphia in the 2013 regular-season finale at home and would've gone 6-0 in the division, Stephen A. reminded me they went 8-8. Again.

Well, it is all about you and conversations you have with Stephen A. Smith.

Yet ... even with that historically bad defense, in week 7 last year the Cowboys somehow held Chip Kelly's attack to three points in Philly, winning 17-3. Hmmm. Wasn't last year's near-flawless division record a quiet little building block toward winning this year's East?

Apparently you didn't think so, because you said the Cowboys looked like a 6-10 team during the preseason. Aren't all of these observations simply hindsight on your part? And focusing on one game where the Cowboys defense played badly with Demarcus Ware and Jason Hatcher doesn't explain how the "building block" game involved this same Cowboys defense giving up 31, 49, 31, 45, and 37 points after Week 7. This explanation for the Week 7 game being a "building block" makes not of sense.

I plunged. Eli Manning and Robert Griffin III had struggled through preseason games, and I was sure the Eagles would ultimately miss DeSean Jackson's deep speed, so I predicted the Dallas Cowboys would go 10-6 and win the division "by default."

That was as insanely bold as I could go.

But now that Skip sees he could end up being correct, he's doubling down and explaining why he believed all those things he didn't believe at the time which led to him making his prediction the Cowboys would go 10-6. This wasn't simple trolling on Skip's part, it was him knowing things that either (a) he couldn't know, like Cowboys fans had given up on the team or (b) claiming conclusions that don't make sense, like the Cowboys defense had a "building block" game in Week 7 of last year, while ignoring all the points the defense gave up after that week.

But it happened again, two Sundays later at St. Louis. Murray fumble, Romo pick-six: Rams, 21-0. Final score: Dallas, 34-31.

Last year, Dallas would've lost that game. Last year's Cowboys would've lost to Houston after blowing a 17-7 fourth-quarter lead and finding themselves in overtime. Dallas 20, Houston 17.

This was a resilient Cowboys team, which Skip knew when he made his prediction of the Cowboys winning the NFC East "by default." By the way, the Cowboys were tied with the Eagles for the NFC East lead when Skip wrote this, so they weren't even winning the NFC East as he had predicted and the Eagles do not miss DeSean Jackson's deep speed, as Skip predicted. Skip would rather we focus on his correct predictions though, while ignoring any prediction that may have been off-base a little bit.

This year's Cowboys keep facing down past demons. On a Sunday night last season in New Orleans, they suffered what I called "the biggest humiliation I can ever remember as a Cowboy fan" -- Saints, 49-17. On a Sunday night this season, they led the Saints 24-0 at half on the way to 38-17 retribution. Backbone. Then, at Seattle last Sunday, they basically recreated past nightmares up there -- blocked punt for a TD, fumbled punt, fumbled snap -- and bounced right back to bully the bullies in their backyard 30-23.

It's always fun how the conclusion here can't simply be, "The Cowboys are a good team who are getting a great year rushing the football from DeMarco Murray with a surprisingly good defense," there has to be a narrative running through all of these victories. They got retribution on the Saints, they were getting over past nightmares against the Seahawks. That's the narrative Skip wants to further.

Cowboy glitz has turned back into Cowboy guts. The primary architect of the new resolve: Marinelli, a far better coordinator than he was a head coach in Detroit. Same for play-caller Scott Linehan, who failed as a head coach in St. Louis. Bill Callahan had his moments as a head coach, but he just might be the NFL's best offensive line coach. Head coach Jason Garrett? Shaky play-caller but not a bad buffer between the team and frustrated coach Jerry Jones.

Everything is awesome now! Skip knew the Cowboys would bounce back this season because of these coaches, it's just he didn't know it earlier in the preseason when he thought the Cowboys, with these exact same coaches, looked like a 6-10 team. It turns out one of Skip's trolling attempts has turned out to be correct so far.

Skip is full of shit. He's very much full of shit. He's so full of shit that he's not actually full of shit, but he's just made of shit and it's overtaken his body to where all he is now is shit. Skip claims that the Week 7 game in 2013 was a turning point. Yet, on November 1, 2013 Skip Bayless wrote a column stating "Why Jerry Jones' team won't win." He made the following points (and I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum because you guys are smart enough to see the contradictions in his current position and his position less than a year ago after the "building block" game in Week 7):

That said, I've reached this painful conclusion: I'll be surprised if one of Jerry Jones' teams ever even comes close to winning another Super Bowl.

His Cowboys remain America's Team, in large part, because Cowboys lovers and the many, many Cowboys haters know that just when they start looking like a Super Bowl team, oh my god, did you see that?

The Cowboys fan in me is getting increasingly sick and tired of watching Jerry Jones enable his team to lose without fear. Super nice guys Romo, Jason Garrett, Jason Witten and DeMarcus Ware now lead the league in post-loss patience -- in handling tougher and tougher media questions with shrugging imperturbability -- because they aren't afraid of being held accountable by the owner. 

Who really cares? Jerry is still able to sell the illusion of hope because -- gusher luck! -- his team still leads the NFL's worst division at .500. But it isn't really based on quality. The Cowboys have lost to four over-.500 teams and beaten four under-.500 teams.

The Cowboys were 3-0 in the division at this point. They had their "building block" game that Skip didn't recognize as a "building block" game at the time.

And don't forget that Skip was on the Johnny Manziel train and wanted the Cowboys to trade Tony Romo to draft Manziel.

And this bullshit about the Cowboys winning the NFC East by default because the NFC East isn't strong? Well, that's typical bullshit from Skip because he was singing a different tune in May. From Skip:

“It says that the oddsmakers have little to no respect for next year’s NFC East, because the oddsmakers are saying that only one team in the East is even going to be slightly above .500 when all is said and done,” Bayless said. 

So the Cowboys would win the division "by default" at 10-6? But there's more...

“That would be the Eagles at around 9-7, and yet I think the oddsmakers at this moment … are overestimating Dallas to win eight games and go 8-8 again. I think that’s high. And I think the Redskins at about seven-and-a-half wins — projected — I think that’s low. Right now, if you backed me into a corner, I’m picking the Redskins to win the NFC East.

As if you needed proof that Skip was changing his position on the Cowboys. Remember, the Cowboys had Linehan, Callahan, and Marinelli on the coaching staff at this point. Also, remember that Skip moved the Cowboys up from 6-10 to 10-6 after a bad preseason, but then moved the Redskins down from 8 or more wins because of a bad preseason from Robert Griffin. So the preseason matters to Skip, unless the preseason doesn't matter at all to Skip. It depends on which way he wants to troll.

I think that will really help mold that defensive secondary and I like where they’re headed if RGIII is RGIII, and I believe with all my heart he will bounce completely back. So I have the Redskins winning 10 games next year.”

Smith also predicted the Cowboys will finish in last place and Bayless said he can’t see Dallas winning more than six games.

Boy, this is awkward. 

It's almost like all these things Skip claims he knew which would lead to success for the Cowboys during the 2014 season, the Cowboys having a "building block" game in Week 7 against the Eagles, the Cowboys having a good coaching staff and almost going 6-0 against the NFC East during the 2013, are things he knew prior to making the 6-10 prediction in May prior to the preseason. Yet, Skip still thought the Cowboys would win 6 games in May. That is, until he saw a chance to troll and differentiate himself from everyone else for the sake of gaining attention and claiming the Cowboys would win the NFC East. When it turned out Skip looked smart when the Cowboys started the season 5-1, but OF COURSE he knew the Cowboys would win the NFC East. Look at all these reasons on why his prediction was fact-based and not attention-based! Too bad reality doesn't match up with Skip's claims. Of course Skip isn't interested in reality, he is interested in attention.

Yep, Romo's offense leads the NFL in third-down conversions. Something also is different about Romo this season. Maybe he faced his NFL mortality for the first time. At 34, as he underwent his second back surgery, he had to suffer through owner/general manager Jones' painfully public fascination with Johnny Manziel -- and the regret Jones expressed over not drafting Manziel, sometimes within earshot of Romo.

Yes, Tony Romo is totally different now due to Jerry Jones' painful public fascination with Johnny Manziel. Remember when Jones said:

"If Texans would take Romo for Manziel, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Romo will tease w/ near-greatness then break your heart. Manziel=winner."

Ugh, that is a painful public fascination. I can't believe Jerry Jones said that. Wait, Jerry Jones didn't say that! That was Skip Bayless who said those words.

Maybe Romo is finally worried enough about losing his job that he's no longer treating it with shrugging carelessness.

Romo has a great running game and a defense that is stopping the opponent from scoring, so naturally this means Tony Romo has changed in some way. Narratives, people! Stick to the narratives! It all has to come back to how Romo has changed. Do not focus on how anything around Romo may have changed.

On third-and-8 in overtime against Houston, his spin-away heave was high and far enough that only power leaper Dez Bryant had a shot at coming down with it. And his third-and-20 escape at Seattle -- the NFL's play of the year so far -- was thrown where only Terrance Williams could snag it and toe-tap it in bounds.

Romo, finally matching his talent and toughness with ... maturity?

That's the narrative. Must stick to it. Romo, finally matching his talent with a good offensive line, good defense and an excellent running game? BORING! Let's talk about how Romo is more mature now. That'll get pageviews.

This team WILL last ... if Murray does. This man sets the backbone tone. Yet, while Cowboy great Emmitt Smith was the greatest I ever saw at avoiding injurious contact, Murray keeps attacking as if his offense and defense need his every punishing yard.

His history and logic would dictate that DeMarco Murray will not make it the entire 16 game schedule at this pace. Once/If Murray gets injured then the "It's the same Tony Romo who chokes in the clutch and is careless with the football" stories can start up again with no sense of irony.

Maybe underrated backup Joseph Randle will stay out of trouble long enough to give Murray just enough rest. Maybe the injury gods will smile on him. Maybe this season is just meant to be for the "historically bad defense" and the "accident waiting to happen" that has been Romo.

Maybe, but Skip certainly didn't think this was true prior to or during the preseason. Only when he saw the opportunity to troll and have a controversial hot sports take did he decide that the Cowboys would win the NFC East. For a guy who makes his living voicing his opinion, Skip's opinion should does fail to stay consistent or even seem to be based on the facts he claims his opinion is based upon when changing his opinion. It's always about attention to Skip.

And maybe I'm being set up for the biggest letdown of my Cowboy-loving life.

Maybe, it is after all completely about you. In your mind, it always will be. Skip Bayless is an embarrassment to AARP members everywhere. 

5 comments Desperate for Attention, Skip Bayless Wants Us To Know He's Changed His Mind about Jay Cutler For No Explicable Reason

Skip Bayless is a well-known attention hog. He is under the impression that his opinion on a story should be widely known, and in fact, he thinks his opinion should be the story. So Skip goes well out of his way to talk in the first person and insert himself into the story or narrative. He did it with Tim Tebow and LeBron James. It's less about his opinion of either player and more about everyone else's reaction to his opinion of each player. Feeling insecure and sad that he hasn't received as much attention as Stephen A. Smith lately, Skip writes a column saying he's changed his mind about Jay Cutler. As usual, Skip's opinion of a player needs to be the story. It's all about Skip Bayless. He is incapable of talking about Jay Cutler's performance in the past, present or future without mentioning his own opinion of Cutler during that time. When Cutler struggled at times, it isn't about Cutler struggling, but about how Skip stood by him. It's nauseating.

I'm sorry, Jay Cutler, I'm done defending you.

Right from the start, the reader knows this column isn't about Jay Cutler, it's about Skip Bayless.

No more being true to my school -- our school -- Vanderbilt. Time for some tough love.

It's good to hear that Skip Bayless allows his personal feelings to impact what he thinks about a player or school. Not that it should shock anyone of course. His job is to be a troll, so no person can troll by not having an obvious bias of some sort.

I'm calling you out, pal, just before you take the national stage again on "Monday Night Football."

Skip is calling you out, Jay Cutler! He's calling you out just in time for you to play in a nationally televised game on ESPN where Skip can get the most attention possible for calling you out. No really, pay attention to Skip. Look what he can do! Over here!

Cutler was 23-38 for 225 yards and 2 touchdowns for a 94.7 QB rating and 72.4 QBR in the "MNF" game. His ESPN Grade ranking for mixing athletics and academics was probably off the chart though. So I am sure Skip would argue that Cutler was motivated by getting called out. It's all about Skip.

I'm not buying what I saw from you a week ago Sunday, when you wrecked San Francisco's housewarming with the best stretch of quarterback I've ever seen you play. Four touchdown passes, zero "no, Jay, no" turnovers. You took a helmet to the chest that would have brought the trainer and doctor running for a lot of QBs.

This is the mind of Skip Bayless. Jay Cutler plays well and Skip decides that is the point at which he will jump off the Cutler bandwagon. Not that he would do this just for attention of course. Skip only obeys logic and the facts as they are presented. He would never have a crazy opinion just for the sake of gaining attention and trolling.

I've always praised and defended your physical toughness. But your mental toughness ... I suspect you played so beautifully -- dare I say so patiently -- against the 49ers because you felt little to no pressure. Nobody expected you to win that game. Brandon Marshall (ankle) and Alshon Jeffery (hamstring) weren't healthy enough to run an errand, let alone a route. So for once you didn't try to live up to your "rocket arm" reputation.

Skip Bayless has always had your back, Jay, which I am sure was a huge comfort to you. But now that you are becoming the quarterback other NFL analysts wanted to see you become, Skip realizes he's not the contrarian anymore and must immediately hop off the bandwagon and become a Cutler hater. How can Skip get attention if his opinion isn't insane to the point of being indefensible?

Meanwhile, Colin Kaepernick went Jay Cutler. He launched misguided missiles into three bad-idea interceptions and lost one careless fumble. You, Jay, from Santa Claus, Indiana, are usually the one handing presents to opponents. You probably were as surprised as anybody by the final score: Bears 28-20.

Yes, I am sure Jay Cutler was shocked that he played well and didn't commit any turnovers. Being a professional athlete, he probably lacks confidence in his ability.

Just after the past season ended with your Bears going 8-8 and your missing the playoffs for the seventh time in your eight NFL seasons, you were given three more seasons with guaranteed base salaries totaling $54 million (plus four more years with club options). That's in the ballpark of guaranteed money awarded to Drew Brees ($60 million), Matt Ryan ($59 million), Tony Romo ($55 million) and Aaron Rodgers ($54 million) in the past year and a half.

And yet, the other option was to dump Cutler, letting Josh McCown start, or wait until the offseason to allow Cutler to become a restricted free agent. Neither option seems terribly fun to think about for a Bears team that has struggled to find a quarterback in the past 20 years.

Santa Claus has always been very good to you, Jay, even when you've been bad.

You are the worst and make me question the existence of a higher power with sentences like this.

In your career, you've played in all of two playoff games. You won one at home and played little more than a half of that 2010 season's NFC Championship Game at home against archrival Green Bay. That was the turning point moment in which you asked out of the game because you said you could no longer plant and throw on an injured knee (later reported to be a sprained ligament), even though you pedaled an exercise bike on the sideline. 

Pedaling a bike and throwing a football require two different motions of the leg.

On "First Take," I angrily defended you for days, months, even years after that game and said no QB is tougher than you. 

Skip angrily defended Jay Cutler. With passion. With vigor. That sprained ligament isn't about Jay Cutler or about how Cutler asked out of a playoff game, it's about Skip Bayless and what people thought about his hot sports take regarding Jay Cutler's sprained ligament.

But maybe I missed the point.

Skip, there are so many points you have missed that there isn't enough time to go back and discuss them.

Maybe you didn't trust yourself enough to lead your team back against Aaron Rodgers and a 14-0 halftime deficit you helped create with an interception. Maybe you hid behind a knee that no doubt was hurt ... but so much so it kept you from the greatest opportunity of your career and a moment you might never again know?

This isn't the point you missed, Skip. This is what those who were critical of Cutler after the 2010 NFC Championship Game were stating while you defended Cutler. It's not the point you missed, it's that you took the opposite of point of view and are now trying to entirely change your position on Cutler to the position others took regarding him previously.

I thought you could soon own a city whose heart beats strongest for its Bears; I know because I was once a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Well, then YOU KNOW, don't you Skip. You once worked for the Chicago Tribune for three years.

I thought you would soon change that. Heck, win a couple of Super Bowls, and your football legend might even start to threaten Michael Jordan's basketball legacy in Chicago.

You may want to calm down a little bit. I know you worked for the Chicago Tribune for three whole years, but I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan's legacy is secure. Both players could have great legacies in Chicago. There doesn't have to be a winner.

Somewhere, Michael Jordan is rolling his eyes.

Everyone is rolling their eyes. You are a joke, Skip.

The more I watched you in Chicago, Jay, the more I thought of Phil Mickelson. 

Up next on First Take: Forced analogies comparing athletes who play different sports.

Yep, remember the many years Mickelson failed over and over to break through and win a major championship? That didn't happen until Mickelson was 33 at the 2004 Masters. Until then, Mickelson (like you) was known for always going for broke, damn the consequences.

He hid behind his gambling "nature,"

Interesting turn of phrase considering Mickelson's supposed affinity for gambling and the accusations of insider trading from earlier in this year.

I'm now convinced you sometimes gunsling passes just to enhance your big-arm, big-guts mystique. Your excuse: You have such a competitive cannon that you just can't keep yourself from trying to pull off the near-impossible throw.

Skip Bayless thinks that Jay Cutler has too much confidence in his throwing arm to not try and pull off the near-impossible throw. Except, he just stated he thought Cutler didn't have enough confidence in his ability just a few paragraphs ago:

Maybe this had nothing to do with pain threshold and everything to do with self-belief. Maybe you didn't trust yourself enough to lead your team back against Aaron Rodgers and a 14-0 halftime deficit you helped create with an interception. Maybe you hid behind a knee that no doubt was hurt ...

It sounds like ol' Skip is having some difficulty keeping his story straight.

Many times you have completed "Wow Factor" throws that have made you a ton of money. Too many times, you have thrown it to the wrong team or waited too long for a deep route to develop and gotten the ball swatted from your careless grip.

This is literally what everyone said about Jay Cutler while Skip Bayless was defending Cutler. It seems nothing has changed, Skip Bayless has just decided it's in his best trolling interest to change his mind about Jay Cutler to represent the point of view he once derided.

I still haven't quite recovered from this season's opener at home against Buffalo. Your two interceptions canceled your 349 yards passing and two touchdown passes and helped cost your team a 23-20 loss to Buffalo.

It's not about Jay Cutler's performance, it's about how Jay Cutler's performance made Skip Bayless feel.

After a decade of bleeding Vanderbilt black and gold for you on "Cold Pizza"/"First Take," I'm now mostly bleeding guilt, Jay.

I can't imagine a society where anything Skip Bayless has written so far would be considered to be top-notch sportswriting. So far it's been the ramblings of a fickle Jay Cutler fan who is overly-emotional about his hero's failings.

It started your junior year at Vandy, when I boasted on air about how you could be the next Brett Favre, and I pretty much got laughed off the debate desk.

This is usually how I laugh at Skip Bayless when I would watch him on "Cold Pizza." There is nothing really funny about his trolling opinions. It's sad to see a grown man work so hard in order to get attention.

What amazed me most was you played SEC football with the arrogance of the pre-med National Merit Scholars with whom I had to compete in freshman biology. You did my heart proud, Jay.

But now you are becoming the kind of quarterback that Skip Bayless can't support, due to your success, so he's going to have to take the contrarian opinion. See, you aren't a gunslinger anymore who commits too many turnovers, except when you were a gunslinger in the first game of the season and committed too many turnovers, so how is Skip supposed to get attention by advocating for you?

But when Denver coach Mike Shanahan traded up four spots to take you with the 11th overall pick in the draft, right behind Heisman winner Matt Leinart, I looked pretty good.

And that's really what it is about, isn't it?

But once you got to Chicago, where I have lots of media friends,

No you don't. Don't lie. No one likes you.

the arrogance that mesmerized me at Vandy began to alienate reporters and teammates alike. You often refused to accept any blame after multi-interception losses. You sometimes showed up teammates by chewing them out in plain sight during games.

Yes, and we all know no real leader ever shows up his teammates or coaches.

It's always interesting how some quarterbacks are uber-competitive and yell at their teammates, while other quarterbacks chew out teammates because they aren't accepting any blame. Players yell, it happens. Narratives don't have to be written.

Have you been using your arrogance as a shield to cover your insecurity?

You are not a psychologist. Don't try to be. Don't use Cutler's insecurity as a shield to cover up for the fact you are switching your position on Jay Cutler in order to gain attention.

In your ninth NFL season, the Bears have invested once again in your prototypical potential, your perennial on-the-verge-ness, your 57 career wins (!) and 49 career losses (?), your 161 career touchdown passes (!) and 114 career interceptions (?).

But all of this arrogance and gunslinging is just a way to cover up for your massive insecurity. Skip Bayless has you all figured out, Jay Cutler! And as a result, Skip Bayless does not like competing with other insecure people, so he will now not like you anymore.

So Monday night against Rex Ryan's Jets defense, will we see the Buffalo you or the San Francisco you, Jay? Did you finally "get it" against the 49ers? Or was it just another misleading tease, compliments of "Jay" Kaepernick?

Go play in traffic, Skip. Really, please. Do it. Your arguments make no sense. When Cutler is careless with the football you like him, but once Cutler isn't as careless with the football you accuse him of being insecure because you need to manufacture a few more debates for "First Take." Cutler is overly-confident, unless he isn't, which means he's insecure and Skip Bayless can't ride that train.

I minored in history at Vandy, Jay. Yours tells me you will be what you've always been.

That is interesting, because I feel the same way about Skip Bayless. It's sad to see a 62 year old man want attention as badly as Skip Bayless does. Skip talks about Cutler being a "misleading tease," but this is the person he has defended over the past eight seasons. Why is it now a bad thing? Because Skip feels the tide turning and has to take a contrarian view on Cutler? It's that important for him to stay relevant that he will completely change his mind under the guise of Cutler being too insecure to succeed. 

0 comments Lowell Cohn Is Very Upset at Colin Kaepernick's Contractual Demands; Possibly in His Senility Thinks Jay Cutler Has Won a Super Bowl

Lowell Cohn has his very own blog that he probably doesn't call a blog called "Cohn Zohn" (Get it?) and the description of this blog that he probably doesn't call a blog says Cohn "never runs out of things to say." Just because you have an opinion and say things doesn't mean what you have to say has value. So Cohn seems personally offended that Colin Kaepernick wants a lot of money and a new contract and shakes his fist at the clouds out of anger at these new-fangled quarterbacks and their contractual demands prior to winning a Super Bowl.

Colin Kaepernick is not an attractive personality. Usually he doesn’t say jack. And that’s not attractive.

Fortunately, his job is not to be an attractive personality but to play quarterback in the NFL and do his best to help his team win games. So far, he's been pretty good at that.

When he says jack — and more — he’s even less attractive.

Well, this definitely should be taken into account when contract negotiations begin. An attractive personality is mainly what quarterbacks should be judged upon.

He wants Jay Cutler money. He wants Tony Romo money. He wants more than those guys get.

Well first off, these are negotiations so obviously Kaepernick is going to start off wanting a lot of money and then 49ers would counter with a lot less money and then both parties will eventually meet in the middle if there is a deal to be done. In fairness, Kaepernick is younger than Cutler and Romo and (whether it's due to him or not) he has made more NFC Championship Games than both of those quarterbacks combined. So in terms of team success and how it reflects on the job Kaepernick did as a quarterback, his market value is probably close to what Cutler and Romo received.

FYI, Cutler signed for $18.1 a year, $38 million guaranteed. Romo signed for $18 million a year, $40 million guaranteed.

Kaepernick is younger than these two quarterbacks too. Just imagine what quarterbacks like Andrew Luck and Cam Newton are going to be demanding as well. Don't forget Russell Wilson. He's a nice guy, but he's also a Super Bowl-winning quarterback playing on a third round pick's salary.

He actually said, according to the Globe, he’ll play out the final year of his contract, base salary just south of one mil, and negotiate after next season instead of settling for what he considers a contract unworthy of his eminence.

And that's his right to do if he chooses to. If Kaepernick doesn't accept a salary he perceives to be too low, he will negotiate later when the 49ers might be more generous...or just become a free agent. It's his right to do, so don't begrudge him this simply because that's not how Joe Montana would have done it.

He went on with Murph and Mac and, in a sensitive, reasonable voice, said he’s not looking to break the bank in his next contract. What a guy. He’d accept a reasonable contract, not a whopper, so the 49ers can have enough money to sign key players like Donte Whitner and keep the team together. Kaepernick wanted everyone to see him as the ultimate team player.

Sounds like he changed his mind. Is that why Lowell Cohn is so angry? That Kaepernick originally said he would take a team-friendly contract and now has decided against this (probably on advice of his agent who knows the NFL is a league where players are one hit away from a career-ending injury)? Does this make Cohn's delicate senses so angry he can't fathom why Kaepernick would want to maximize his value? Tough. Get over it.

Now this. It’s like he’s saying, “To hell with the team. I want mine.”

There are words to describe his position starting with “hypocrite” and ending with “phony.” You can fill in words in between.

Great, I will.

Hypocrite isn't what Colin Kaepernick is. He spent some time during Super Bowl week saying he would accept a reasonable contract and now has changed his mind. He is completely within his right to do this and this means his agent helped him come to his senses and it doesn't make him a phony.

Kaepernick has started 23 regular-season games. That’s not even two seasons’ worth of games. In his 23 starts he has done some things well. He also has created two iconic images in the minds of 49ers fans. Those images would be flopping at the end of the Super Bowl against the Ravens on useless, repetitive, unimaginative passes to Michael Crabtree.

Well, Kaepernick isn't the person who called the plays in that situation. I'm not sure if there was an open receiver for him to throw to and I'm also not sure if he threw a more imaginative pass to Michael Crabtree that it would have resulted in a touchdown.

And then flopping yet again in last season’s NFC championship game, throwing the same useless, repetitive, unimaginative pass to Crabtree.

I'm not a 49ers fan, but I remember Kaepernick taking the 49ers to back-to-back NFC Championship Game appearances and coming one short touchdown pass away from winning the Super Bowl. Perhaps my memories are flawed.

For those passes, for freezing under pressure,

Of course, making the NFC Championship Game two years in a row and almost winning the Super Bowl involves having to deal with no pressure. Kaepernick freezes under pressure, so there's obviously no pressure in playing in the Super Bowl and NFC Championship Game.

for not seeing the entire field, for all that and more, Kaepernick does not rate top money. Let the Bears and Cowboys make desperate, silly moves. Let them throw away money

Or pay market value for the quarterback on the roster, where the alternative is to take a chance on finding an equally talented quarterback in free agency, through a trade or in the draft.

Our wisdom tells us the Niners should pay for what a player actually did in real life, in the hurly-burly of action on the field with the stakes high and everything depending on his wits and his arm. The Niners should not pay for what a twice-failed quarterback might do,

I think if Lowell Cohn considers Colin Kaepernick to be "twice-failed" then he needs to reset his expectations for the quarterback position. If failing to win the Super Bowl is being a failure then Dan Marino would like a word with Cohn. It's simple trolling to call Kaepernick a failure of any type.

could possibly do some day in a vague future that may never happen.

Literally every contract in sports is signed based on what a player might do some day in a vague future that may never happen. That's the nature and risk of a contract.

And make no mistake, Kaepernick has failed twice.

And make no mistake, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning could all be described as multiple failures if Colin Kaepernick is considered a failure. Make no further mistake, Lowell Cohn is very wrong. Perhaps it's his age. I don't know why "The Press Democrat" continues giving Cohn employment based on some vague future that may never happen.

Jim Harbaugh dumped Alex Smith — there’s no polite way to put it — after Smith got injured, an unusual move, and made his guy, Kaepermick, the quarterback expressly to win a Super Bowl.

Every head coach puts his quarterback in the game for the express purpose of winning the Super Bowl. That's the intent.

Smith already proved he could lose in the NFC championship game. Harbaugh wanted someone to do better. He wanted someone to win the championship game and win the Super Bowl. Well, Kaepernick won and lost the championship game. He also lost the Super Bowl in horrible ways.

I like how Lowell Cohn is holding Colin Kaepernick personally responsible for losing the Super Bowl and the NFC Championship Game, but refuses to give him credit for making the NFC Championship Game two years in a row. This is something no other quarterback who has played in the NFC over the past two seasons can claim, but I guess that doesn't matter because Kaepernick is a phony and a failure. Let's see how Lowell Cohn reacts when Kaepernick takes his talents away from San Francisco and gets the chance to fail somewhere else.

The Niners gave the team to Kaepernick to win the Super Bowl. Not to lose the Super Bowl. They expected him to deliver. He did not. 

He's been in the NFL for three years now and a starter for a little over one-and-a-half years, let's give him a little more time to deliver. Under Cohn's idea that if a quarterback doesn't win the Super Bowl then he is a failure then Peyton Manning must be a HUGE failure and quite a few Hall of Fame quarterbacks could have been called failures at some point in their career. This is completely unreasonable and just overall cranky to expect Kaepernick to win the Super Bowl or else he is a failure. Did the San Francisco area cable company take re-runs of "Matlock" or "I Dream of Jeannie" off the air and that's why Lowell is so pissy?

They didn’t put him in to learn. They put him in to win.

Actually, he was put in to learn and win. Which by the way, Kaepernick has been pretty damn successful at both of those things.

I'm sure Lowell knows this, though maybe in his rage and unbridled anger he has forgotten it, but this article is supposed to be about Kaepernick's contractual demands. Quarterbacks are not judged solely on wins and losses and the fact one guy views Kaepernick as a failure because he hasn't won a Super Bowl in his first two seasons as a starter doesn't mean other NFL organizations wouldn't mind "failing" in the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl. Therein lies Kaepernick's market value and therein lies why Kaepernick makes the contract demands he does.

Kaepernick is the quarterback of the NFL’s most talented roster. Neither Kaepernick nor Harbaugh has won the Super Bowl with those players. Other quarterbacks would have won. Other head coaches would have won. Not these guys.

This is pure conjecture. There's no evidence other quarterbacks would have won a Super Bowl nor proof another head coach would have won a Super Bowl with the 49ers roster. It seems to me like Lowell Cohn is overestimating the 49ers talent on the roster. He obviously doesn't remember how good the 49ers were before Jim Harbaugh came rolling into town.

If the 49ers give Kaepernick the money the Globe says he wants, that will sink the whole franchise. For a quarterback who’s still learning?

Actually yes, especially if the quarterback is still learning. If Kaepernick is still learning and he has led the 49ers to the Super Bowl and NFC Championship Game during his first two seasons as a starter then he has the ability to win a Super Bowl and therefore be the non-failure that Lowell so desperately craves his quarterback being.

Here’s what the 49ers should do. They should remind Kaepernick and his agent that Kaepernick has a contract. A valid, binding contract. Written on paper. A document he signed in sound mind.

I'm sure Kaepernick knows this. He has stated after all that he is willing to play out the final year of his contract. See, this is where Lowell Cohn is making up a reality that doesn't exist. This isn't about Kaepernick wanting the 49ers to rip up his current contract and get a new contract immediately. Kaepernick is perfectly willing to play out his current contract, so the whole "Tell him his current contract means something and it's binding" attitude is not relevant. Kaepernick is aware of this and is perfectly willing to honor his contract. He's just telling the 49ers if they want to re-sign him where the negotiations will start.

I recognize it's easier and lazier for Cohn to paint Kaepernick as ungrateful and a potential holdout, but that's not the reality at this point. Kaepernick will play out his contract, but he just wants a much bigger contract next time. For some reason, this offends Cohn and causes him to call Kaepernick a failure.

See how he plays next season. See if he improves in the red zone. See if he sees the entire field. See if he wins the Super Bowl.

Stuff like that.

And if Kaepernick doesn't win a Super Bowl, then what? What if he improves but doesn't win the Super Bowl? Should the 49ers not sign Kaepernick after that or should they demand he lower his contract demands while putting the franchise tag on him? After all, no matter how much he improves he is a failure until he wins the Super Bowl.

If he wins the Super Bowl, sure, give him Cutler money.

Jay Cutler hasn't appeared in a Super Bowl, much less won a Super Bowl. Cutler doesn't have the team-based achievements, especially compared to Kaepernick, that Cohn so desperately craves in his quarterback. Why does Jay Cutler deserve Cutler money I have to wonder?

If not, well things will get real interesting. But, please, make his contract performance-based, not extortion based.

It's not extortion. It's the beginning of contract negotiations based on Kaepernick's perceived market value. The market dictates his value, not some Bay-area writer who has no concept of how a quarterback's market value is dictated other than to crankily complain Kaepernick should be judged on whether he won a Super Bowl or not.

And if the next contract is supposed to be performance-based then would part of that performance be based on team success, like making NFC Championship Games/Super Bowls? It's fine to make Kaepernick's contract performance-based, but this doesn't mean Kaepernick has to sign this contract. I think Lowell Cohn believes the NFL doesn't have this little thing called "free agency" where a player can play out his contract and then choose the next team he wants to play for and isn't stuck playing for one certain team.

Because there is a certain amount of extortion involved in his negotiations and Harbaugh’s negotiations. It’s like they own the franchise. It’s like they are holding it up, like without them the Niners will revert to being complete failures.

I always love it when a sportswriter gets indignant at how much money a player and his agent are asking for while calling it "extortion." I wonder if Lowell Cohn has ever asked for a raise from any of his employers in order for him to not take a job at a rival paper? If so, that's extortion, because Cohn is holding his value over his employer's head. I'm sure Cohn sees his own personal experiences as just doing what's right for him, while Kaepernick should look out for himself and the 49ers franchise.

I hope York asserts himself, lets Kaepernick and Harbaugh know he runs the team and these are the 49ers, for God’s sake, and they are bigger than two guys, no matter who those guys are.

Better find a new quarterback and coach then. Good luck with that.

Advice to Jed York: If Kaepernick persists in his unrealistic, impertinent, rude demands, give him jack.

That's great advice, except it totally ignores what Kaepernick is requesting in a contract could end up being his market value. If the 49ers fail to meet Kaepernick's demands after next season then they could franchise tag him or risk having to find another quarterback who can "fail" by making back-to-back NFC Championship Games and a Super Bowl in his first two seasons as a starter.

I love how Lowell's advice is to give Kaepernick "jack" as if Kaepernick will then retire and regret the day he wanted $18 million (or is it $20 million?) per year. I don't think it would be hurting Kaepernick if he becomes a free agent and the 49ers decide they want to go in a different direction at the quarterback position.

Lowell Cohn, this was terrible. You have been bookmarked.

12 comments Skip Bayless Talks about How the NCAA Tournament Sucks, but He'll Still Watch

It took five years (holy crap, is that correct?) but I have finally added a "trolling" label to this blog. Skip Bayless has decided to write about the NCAA Tournament and how it is exciting, but the talent level sucks compared to the NBA. It's standard Skip Bayless crap and he even manages to sneak in a knock (actually two) on LeBron James, because of course he did. If you really feel the need to read it (and I only read it out of duty to you, the readers...well, mostly I read it because I loathe myself), here is the link.

Meet Fred. He is about to win this year's ESPN Men's Tournament Challenge, beating about 7.15 million other brackets.
 
When asked how in the name of John Wooden he picked 20-loss Liberty to be the first No. 16 seed ever to upset a No.1 seed -- Duke! -- Fred will say, "John who?"
 
Then he'll explain: "I remembered the old line, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' so I said, 'Give me Liberty!' You know, the George Washington line."

Wow, I can't believe Skip Bayless is revealing to the public his secret to being a good troll---have no idea what you are talking about but state your claim loudly and with as little logical reasoning as possible and you too can get noticed! It seems since trolling is Skip Bayless's only real talent he would keep this close as if it were proprietary information.

"Whatever," Fred will say. "Look, I just got lucky with most of my picks. I didn't watch a single college basketball game this season until March Madness started."

It seems fictional Fred and Skip have something in common. Neither watch any college basketball but feel like they are expert enough to comment on the sport.

Welcome back to Madness. Absolute, divine Madness. March Madness. Or Badness.

March Badness! Get it? It's a play on words AND it shows that Skip Bayless thinks the NCAA Tournament and entire basketball season has been really boring. I'm not sure how Skip knows this college basketball season has been terrible considering he seems to have spent most of his time over the last six months debating the merits of Tim Tebow, criticizing LeBron James and looking at himself in the mirror. You can always trust the opinion of someone who claims to think Tebow is great and LeBron James has more to prove, that much I do know as true.

Prediction 1: The worst men's college basketball season I can remember

We won't fall for that one, Skip. We all know the only long or short-term memory you are capable of retaining is a constant loop of Tim Tebow running shirtless in the rain. So this is the worst men's college basketball season that you can remember because you can't remember anything other than the look of Tebow's pecs jiggling in the rain.

is about to launch the greatest NCAA tournament yet, with buzzer-beating elation and deflation exploding all over your bracket next Thursday and Friday.

Hence, the March Badness. How clever to call the tournament "March Badness" and then talk about how exciting the NCAA Tournament is.

Prediction 2: Especially this year, the more you know about college basketball, the worse you'll do in your pool.

I think it is fantastic that Skip Bayless is essentially championing being more successful by being more ignorant on the topic you are discussing. It fits Skip's personality and how he has become popular and infamous over the last decade. He's dumb on a given topic, but he has a really strong opinion on the topic. Be dumb, but give your opinion very strongly. That's pretty much the mantra of Skip's entire journalistic career.

Experts will be out-picked by dogs, cats and monkeys.

Not ironically if any of these dogs, cats or monkeys considered themselves enough of an expert to go on "First Take" then they will be debating a horses's ass.

This will happen more than ever this year because nobody's very good. And nobody watching will care.

It's good to see that Skip is copying the Bill Simmons "overuse of italics" type of writing. Also, there are teams that are very good, but the consensus seems to be there aren't great teams. Also also, I feel like I hear every single year there are no good college basketball teams.

More than ever, college basketball has become overcoached, under-reffed, evenly matched mediocrity with perfectly flawed rules and tournament format.

I'm not even close to being sure that Skip Bayless has a clue what he is talking about. Most college teams are overcoached because these teams consist of 18-22 year old kids. I'm trying to figure out what the hell Skip means by saying NCAA basketball has "perfectly flawed rules" since he, as usual, isn't specific at all when throwing random and unprovable observations like this. Skip doesn't need to be more specific because he's getting attention! Is it the three point line, the lack of consistency in the charge/block calls among officials, or the amount of physical play that is allowed that seems to vary from game-to-game? What are these perfectly flawed rules?

The open secret is that it doesn't matter to Skip. He just wants to say shit and hear you react.

Throw an overrated high seed with a panicky coach against an unknown, underrated low seed at some strange site with a strange shooting background at a strange first-round tipoff time with strange refs for a mere 40-minute game allowing only five fouls and featuring a 3-point line three feet shorter than the NBA's … you bet, you, Fred and Irene have just as good a chance picking the winner as Dickie V or Jay Bilas. Maybe better.

This just in, the NCAA Tournament is unpredictable! Thanks for noticing and commenting on this, Skip. You are the first to do so.

So yes, I trust some kid playing for LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast to drop a walk-off bomb more than I do, say, three-time NBA MVP LeBron James.

And there we go. Just a little LeBron trolling for everyone. You didn't think Skip could make it through an entire column without one insult to LeBron James did you? This sentence doesn't even deserve a reply, other than a swift kick to the crotch of Skip while hundreds of people spit on him, but notice how obvious his trolling has become. It's pathetic. Skip couldn't name one player on LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast, yet he claims to trust this unnamed player more than LeBron James to hit a game-winning shot.

Just watch. I know you will.

Yes, many will watch. Not because Skip Brainless tells us to, but because people find the NCAA Tournament interesting. I'm sure Skip thinks 100% of the NCAA Tournament viewership is a product of him writing this column. He dares us to watch the NCAA Tournament and then will smirk at the camera like the ego-driven dipshit he truly is and tell us how he said the NCAA Tournament would be exciting. Skip takes credit for everything. He motivated LeBron James to have the success he had last year and now the NCAA Tournament is thriving due to the words written and spoken by the lizard-skinned know-nothing troll sent by Satan to torture souls on Earth.

Who doesn't have a chance to win? Who cares that office pools are technically illegal -- unlicensed sports betting carrying a misdemeanor charge and up to one year in prison?

Nobody cares.

This column basically boils down to "It's hard to pick who is going to win the NCAA Tournament and people like gambling." The obviousness of this column is only being masked by the smarminess of Skip's writing. I will give Skip that, his personality does mask his overwhelming stupidity.

The FBI has better things to do than bust pools that build some of America's best intra-office camaraderie.

Yes, they are way too busy doing the music industry's business and busting people who download music and have the audacity to not-really-but-sort-of-kind-but-not-entirely cut into their massive profits while they squeeze out and take advantage of the artists they are claiming to fight so hard for.

Nobody cares that Gonzaga rose from No. 21 in the AP preseason ranking to No. 1 at regular season's end. Or that no player made a sensational case for player of the year.

One year it was between Adam Morrison and JJ Redick for Player of the Year. I think it's not so bad to have the Player of the Year award between guys like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, or Otto Porter. Again, I shouldn't expect much from Skip since we all know he started paying attention to college basketball five minutes before writing this column.

Nobody cares that no college player looks like a surefire NBA All-Star.

This is not really very relevant at all in terms of the excitement of the NCAA Tournament and I also think there is probably only 3-4 guys coming out of college every decade who are surefire NBA All-Stars. So it doesn't matter to me if college players don't look like surefire NBA All-Stars and Skip needs to go back to championing Tim Tebow for whatever he thinks Tebow can do successfully.

Or that UCLA, which had the No. 1 recruiting class, has only the No. 28 RPI (though freshman Shabazz Muhammad is finally starting to flash NBA talent).

This is not accurate. Muhammad has looked better towards the beginning of the season (in terms of statistics) than the end of the year. Either way, Muhammad has looked pretty good all year. I am not a huge fan of Muhammad, but he has flashed NBA talent pretty much all year.

For sure nobody cares I've slowly but surely become more of a fan of the NBA than college basketball -- which was all I was for a long time.

Yep, that's true. Nobody gives a shit if you like the NBA more than college basketball.

The first championship game I covered, in '79 in Salt Lake City, lifted the Final Four into Big Event status: Magic vs. Bird! I was there when a Carolina freshman named Michael Jordan beat Patrick Ewing's Georgetown … when Jim Valvano's NC State shocked Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler and Phi Slama Jama … when Villanova stunned Ewing's Georgetown … when Danny (Manning) and the Miracles, a No. 6 seed, upset Oklahoma.

Those were the nights, studded with stars bound for the NBA's Hall of Fame. At first it was Goliath vs. Goliath. Then David started beating Goliath. Now this year we could see another David vs. David, such as 2011's final pitting Connecticut (a No. 3 seed in the NCAA tournament but merely a No. 9 seed in the Big East tournament) versus Butler, a mid-major. Final score UConn, 53-41. Butler: 18.8 percent from the floor. Only one player from that game is starting in the NBA: Kemba Walker -- for Charlotte, the NBA's worst team.

So Skip just named almost a decade of NCAA Championship Games and then with a straight face tries to compare those players to those that played in the 2011 National Championship Game. His point stands, yes, college basketball is weaker in terms of how many college teams have a depth of star players (partly because of the NBA and the NBA's one-and-done rule), but it's not fair to compare a decade worth of games and say, "look at all those stars," while cherry-picking one game from less than two years ago as an example of what a crappy product college basketball is.

The Final Four as NBA showcase began to fade in 1995 when Kevin Garnett skipped college.

Yeah, well fuck you. I hate the idea college basketball is simply a showcase for the NBA. I know NBA fans feel that way, but it is not true. And yes, I know Skip is trolling by essentially calling college basketball's most popular weekend just a showcase for the NBA. The Final Four didn't start to fade in 1995 anyway. Skip is desperately trying to tie the one-and-done rule into college basketball's assumed demise.

Soon, Kobe and LeBron did, too.

Kobe went to the NBA the next year, but LeBron didn't go to the NBA "soon," after Kevin Garnett. He skipped college and went straight to the NBA eight years after Kevin Garnett did so. I do enjoy Skip's shameless attempt to blame/mention LeBron in this column one more time.

"College basketball is broken and it is LeBron James' fault! He was the problem and now he isn't working to find a solution!"

I can't wait for Skip to start screaming this argument.

Which is why many anti-NBA college fanatics I know or hear from via Twitter would just as soon have the best players leave college basketball alone and go straight to the pros. Give them J.J. Redick battling Adam Morrison for player of the year in 2006, Tyler Hansbrough dominating college basketball in '08 and '09, and Jimmer Fredette becoming the (Smiling) Face of College Basketball in '11. Never mind that none of those college idols went on to start, let alone star, in the NBA.

Which again, is irrelevant in terms of how exciting college basketball is. Kevin Durant also dominated college basketball for one year, Kyrie Irving played pretty well for one year, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, and Anthony Davis all dominated college basketball and then played well in the NBA. Any discussion of the NCAA Tournament or the Final Four should in no way be focused on how many of the players go from college and make a big impact in the NBA.

They don't care that college basketball belongs more to egomaniacal coaches, kings of their college-town kingdoms, and that the NBA is more of a players' game. 

We also don't care about you, Skip. Don't forget that. You are the rash on the ass of the sports world. Just because we scratch you from time-to-time doesn't mean we like having you around.

Or that the NBA's playoff format -- best of seven, 48 minutes per game with six fouls and a 3-point line 23 feet, 9 inches from the basket, a man's distance -- is the far more conclusive method of identifying the better team.

This is pretty much an opinion. I enjoy larger sample sizes, but I think there is something to be said for three weeks of win-or-go-home games as opposed to two months of playoff games. Skip is always trying to pass his opinion off as fact. Most of the players who play college basketball aren't men yet, so perhaps they don't shoot from "a man's distance" of 23 feet 9 inches for that reason.

I shudder every March when I absently flip from a routine NBA game to a March Madness barn burner. The drop-off in skill, strength and athleticism is stunning.

BREAKING NEWS: Professional athletes are better at their given sport when compared to amateurs.

I do get how Skip Bayless feels. It's much like when I am watching any other sports channel and I accidentally flip to ESPN and hear Skip talk on "First Take." The drop-off in knowledge, ability to persuade an audience, and not to be a trolling horse's ass is stunning as well. To think Skip has had other morons like Rob Parker to debate against and slowly numb the viewer to the stupidity being spewed blows my mind. Imagine if Skip's moronic talking points were surrounded by coherent and well-thought out arguments and reasoning? Then we could really see Skip for who he is, instead of having part of his stupidity masked by other stupidity.

Yet I must admit I rarely flip back to the NBA game.

Most likely because in that split second where the channel has changed and the television has gone to black Skip sees his own reflection in the television and he becomes distracted by how impressed with himself he is.

Every year I rail on "First Take" about how the NCAA gets away with awarding automatic bids to the winners of conference tournaments designed mostly to generate revenue. Hence, Liberty finished 6-10 in the (Not So) Big South, got hot, won its tournament and stole an NCAA bid from a far more deserving at-large "bubble" team from a power conference.

And every year no one at ESPN is smart enough to call Skip on this bullshit. Liberty didn't steal an NCAA bid from any other school in a power conference. The only way Liberty stole a bid from a bubble team is if there were another team in the Big South who would earn an NCAA bid regardless of whether they won the Big South Tournament. There wasn't. The Big South only was going to have one bid no matter who won the tourney, so Liberty never stole that bid from a more "deserving" team in the Big South. Liberty winning the Big South had no effect on the bubble teams because there was no team in the Big South outside of the automatic qualifying team who had earned an NCAA Tournament bid. What can I say? Thinking isn't Skip's thing.

This year's Madness will be madder than ever, for all the wrong reasons.

I have read this entire column and I am still not sure why the NCAA Tournament will be madder than ever for the wrong reasons. I am sure it is LeBron James fault.

Okay, well I am back to ignoring Skip Bayless and taking away the relevancy he so desperately craves.