On paper alone, the NBA playoffs look like they are going to be unreal. Forget matchups for a second (and only a second) and look at just the names in the playoffs: LeBron (for the first time!) Kobe, Nash, D-Wade, Melo, Dirk, Ginobili, The Matrix, The TruWarrior...andit just goes on and on, and on and on...like that Q-Tip song.
You know how in the NCAA Tourney, you fill out your bracket, and then something completely unexpected and enjoyable happens, but you feel kinda guilty rooting for it because it screws up your whole bracket? Well, we will have none of that in the NBA Playoffs. We're just enjoying them: they seem like they have too much potential to be off the charts to really care too much about who we picked (except LeBron. We love LeBron). But that's not gonna stop us from making predictions. Just the opposite. Just understand that we're making them, but that doesn't mean we care about them.
Onto the picks!
Spurs over Kings in 6. The Kings are good, and we think they match up fairly well with the Spurs to steal a game, maybe two. But the Spurs know what they're doing, nothing is going to surprise them or throw them off their game at the last second. they have bigger fish to fry than the Kings, but it should be fun to watch Manu and Artest going at it. Flopper vs. Crazy. Sounds like a good combination to us.
Suns over Lakers in 5. We have officially had enough of the Lakers Are Going To Upset The Suns Because of Kobe Theory. There is a reason the Suns are the 2 seed and the Lakers are the 7 seed: the Suns are good, the Lakers are OK. Phoenix beat the Lakers three times this season and their only loss came when Nash sat out. Bottom line: LA just can't keep up with the Suns. This series fails to live up to the hype.
Nuggets over Clippers in 7. Clips get home court, but no one who tanks a game - for any reason - is winning a playoff series. No one who truly understands winning would allow that to happen. Plus, Melo hits 2 - you know what, screw it: 3! - game winners this series, including a jab left, go right one dribble pullup from the left wing (how ya like that prediction?) to win the series in the final game.
Mavs over Grizzliesin 4. Gasol might be out, and even if he isn't, he needs to have the series of his life to get the Griz even a pair of wins. Is anyone playing better than Dirk right now? Man seems like he's on a mission. Statement series for the Mavs. (I'm sure I could have squeezed a beard joke in, but...we all know he has a beard. Let's move on.)
Pistons over Bucks in 4. Duh.
Heat over Bulls in 5. Ben Gordon gets hot - for a game. Besides that, Wade & Shaq show the 'new guys' how they roll in the playoffs. Miami gets plenty of time to rest before Round 2. Gordon and Dwyane Wade in the same series is fun as hell though. Brief but enjoyable.
Pacers over Nets in 7. My God, who cares? For some reason, this series makes us want to take a nap. Yea, the Nets are fun to watch, but Indiana isn't going to let them fast break all over the place in the playoffs. The half court sets are going to be brutal to watch. We say Jermaine O'Neal wants this badly; we save Vince Carter could really care less. We'll take the superstar who's hungrier, although we still aren't watching. Tell us who won.
Cavs over Wizards in 4. Now this is what we're watching! Bronny in the playoffs, baby! I'm two more sentences away from turning into Dick Vitale, with a capital D! OK, we're done, our apologies...but LeBron in the playoffs? We're officially giddy. And screw Washington, this is a team that had a chance to finish 7th - in the East, for the love of Dick Bevetta - on the last day of the playoffs. That means the Bulls and Pacers were pretty much just as good as them. Please. LeBron proves everyone wrong again as the Cavs sweep the Zards.
Alright, that was fun. Let us know your picks. Now let's get these games started. (And as much fun as this is, we still say, Screw the Conferences!)
Saturday, April 22, 2006
We don't care about our own playoff preview.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Pull the trigger, Billy (not that one, though)
The "Trade Allen Iverson" rumors are starting to become a summer time tradition, kind of like hearing the ice cream man's music for the first time. Once you hear Philly half-heartedly trying to trade AI, its safe to run through sprinklers, drink lemonade and swim in your neighbor's pool when they aren't home because they won't let you swim there anymore because for some reason they think you ruined their pool the one time you were there, even though you didn't really do that, it was like that when you got there....ah, where were we?
Oh, right - Iverson. Every year now, it seems, the Sixers aren't very good, so Philly claims it wants to ship the face of the franchise out of town. But there are a couple problems with this:
1) He isn't getting any younger. Iverson turns 31 in a couple of months, and with the way he plays - just throwing his body recklessly, almost carelessly into high risk situations - that age is higher than it looks. It makes you wonder how long he can keep that up.
2) His attitude. This is well documented, but showing up late for Fan Appreciation Night seems to be if not the final nail in the coffin, one of the last. Billy King was pissed. If a team is going to take him on, they are going to get an insane amount of hustle, energy at both ends and one of the greatest scorers ever, period. But they also get a borderline headcase. Iverson just plays by different rules, period, and that can be infuriating, but that's just the way he is. That isn't changing now.
3) You have to revolve your entire offense around him. And this seems to be the real hang up. Because if you are already a contender, you have guys who you are running your offense through, and if you bring in AI, its unlikely the two can coexist. There simply aren't enough basketballs for AI and any other top-flight player. And if you are in the building phase, bringing in AI means blowing up the rebuilding process.
So Iverson seems screwed. And he probably is. But we think we found a situation that could work. It isn't exactly ideal, but after looking over the rosters, it seems like the most viable move. Ship The Answer to Orlando. Trade him for Grant Hill, straight up.
Clearly, Philly just needs to start over. They should take whatever they can get for Iverson. And with one of the five-highest payrolls in the NBA, they need to start saving money too. Iverson makes 16 mil and change; Hill makes 15 mil and change, so the money works out. But Hill's contract expires at the end of next season. Getting Iverson's salary of the books should be enough incentive for Billy King to pull the trigger (on the trade, not on the gun that King has pointed at this temple). Plus, as a bonus, what if Hill gets healthy? What if he plays 70 games? When Hill is healthy, he's an All-Star, plus he has a great attitude. So roll the dice, Philly. And if you can find an option better than this, take it.
But why would Orlando make this trade? First of all, it gives them a chance to make a deep playoff run right away. Remember that Philly team lost to the Lakers in the finals? Iverson running around, shooting whenever he wanted - hey, kinda like now - but he had Mutumbo underneath to grab all his misses? Well, Orlando has The Man Child that is Dwight Howard underneath and guess what: he's second in the NBA in both overall and offensive rebounds. Dwight should be salivating at the chance to go get all those boards.
This really has a chance to work in Orlando, we think. They need to get a defensive stopper on the perimeter, and they can be a hell of a team. Having Iverson shifts defensive focus from Howard, who every time we see him, has three defenders just draped all over him. If Darko and Ariza continue to emerge, and they can convince Arroyo that "Orlando" is English for "Puerto Rico" so he plays like he does in the Olympics, and this is an automatic contender in the East. Plus, Iverson would look sweet in the shiny little starts. Do it, Orlando.
This may not be ideal for either team, but its close enough and its the best thing they are going to find. Pull the trigger, fellas.
What if there were no conferences...
In case you were a fan of the Let's Get Rid of Conferences idea from yesterday, here's what the playoff matchups would be if all the playoffs consisted of what a 16-team bracket. And yes, we are aware that if there were no conferences, schedules would be different. The one thing that surprised us the most: 9 teams from the West got in, 7 from the East. We thought the discrepancy might be a little higher, like, you know, 14 from the West and 2 from the East. Guess we were wrong.
And another reason the NBA's current playoff system was designed next to a jungle gym and probably in crayon: the Nuggets and Kings both had 44 wins. Nuggets are a 3 seed, Kings are the 8 seed. The Nuggets are the worst team in the West's playoffs, and they are a 3 seed. Think about that for a second (but only for a second).
Couple of notes: NJ and Memphis tied for the 7 and 8 seeds with 49 wins apiece. We gave Memphis the 8 seed for no reason other than to see them play the Clippers again, to see if any franchise felt the need to tank a playoff game. Should be fun. Also, Indiana, Chicago and Utah all had 41 wins to earn the last three playoff spots. Our tiebreaker for those three team was win % against eachother. Indiana (14) was 4-2, Chicago (15) was 3-3 and Utah (16) was 1-3. Not exactly the most fool proof tie breaker, but what do you want from us? You got a better idea, let us know.
OK, enough babble. Here's the matchups, bracket style.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Pistons
(16) Jazz
AK 47 can think of no better time to take his wife up one her offer, considers using his one free pass. See's Detroit groupies. AK 47 reconsiders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Grizzles
(9) Clippers
Hey, we can lose playoff games, too! Vin, put the bottle down, you're in!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Heat
(12) Nuggets
D-Wade vs. Melo in the playoffs. Wipe the drool of our faces (could these match ups be any more perfect?).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Suns
(13) Wizards
Probably a low-scoring, defensive affair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Cavs
(11) Kings
Can Artest lock up LeBron (Good God, these storylines just write themselves).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Mavericks
(14) Pacers
Except for this one. Pacers are boring. Although Bill Walton said last night that Jason Terry "can single handedly win any single game he is playing in." Swear to God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Nets
(10) Lakers
Rematch of the Finals from a few years back. Both teams were good then, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Spurs
(15) Bulls
The next great dynasty knocks off the last great dynasty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, was that fun. So much fun, in fact, that we'll be back with the Elite Eight just in time for the NBA's second round. Until then, enjoy.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
No more divisions!
Yesterday's Clippers/Grizzles fiasco raised a few questions. Should you lose on purpose? Well, probably not. Besides that, though, it made us wonder: what, exactly, is the point of divisions?
We understand why they exist in sports like football and baseball - where each team isn't given the chance to compete against every other team. But in the NBA, every team gets to play eachother, so overall record is a fair indicator of who the best team is. Why can't we just take the best eight records in each conference, seed them according to who has the most wins, and move on?
You know what...we're even willing to throw out conferences in the NBA. Screw the East and the West. Take the 16 best records, regardless of conference or division, and there is your playoffs. The best 16 teams are in, no argument.
You wouldn't have embarrassing scenarios like the Griz/Clips tankfest or the East trying as hard as it can to send four teams to the playoffs with sub-.500 records.
What would change? Well, divisions, we are told, make certain games more competitive, because teams see eachother more often. Rivalries emerge. Grudges fester (and anytime something is festering, that's a good thing.) Except, well...we can't really think of any heated NBA rivalries at the moment. I guess you could call Indiana-Detroit one...but not really. Miami and the Lakers? Eh, not really, ever since Shaq and Kobe kissed and hugged. Honestly, when is the last time two teams got together and you thought to yourself, "Wow, I'd better not miss this one, who knows what could happen!?!?"
Rivalries, in the age of the free agent, exist only when teams meet repeatedly in the playoffs. Players switch teams so often, divisional rivalries just aren't that meaningful. Jonny Damon playing centerfield for the Yanks and Adam Vinatieri kicking game winners for the Colts should tell you all you need to know about the state of rivalries in pro sports. They are meaningful to the fans, but to the players? Not so much.
So let's get the 16 best teams in the playoffs. Give the fans the most competitive games. If the NBA insists on making every round 7 games and having the first round last longer than Hanukkah, the least they could do is have the 16 best teams available to watch, right?
The only confusing thing would be how to handle the All-Star Game, sans conferences. But wait! We have a solution. Continue to have the fans vote for the best players. But now, the two-highest vote getters are the captains. They can now pick their teams from the next 30 highest vote getters. They can even give their teams their own names.
And we will do this live, at half-court, right before the dunk contest. It will be like we are at recess, only we are grown up and on national TV. Seeing Yao Ming mumble through his picks, while Vince Carter imitated revving a motorcycle every time he made his pick might be exciting, we aren't sure. Plus, imagine the rivalries that would create? How pissed would the two guys who don't get picked be?
Who would be against this? No one! Is there anyone even casually interested in basketball that wouldn't be glued to their TV sets for this?
Not only would that single handedly make the All-Star game worth watching, it could intensify rivalries as well. You think Gilbert Arenas hold grudges now, wait til Vince leave him off the All-Star team. Like you wouldn't be cheering for a Washington-NJ playoff series? And if it happened? Could you even imagine the ratings.
Now, where is the guy who convinced David Stern to go to the current playoff format, where being a 6 seed is better than being a 5. We need to get this idea in that guy's head - now - because this needs to happen. It doesn't even matter if the NBA decided to keep its conferences (which it might, hey you never know). The All-Star game was just saved.
Dwyane Wade is better than you at standing up
This has been bugging us for quite some time: Dwyane Wade's Converse commercial. You know the one. "Fall down seven times. Stand up eight."
Now, the commercial is pretty cool - anytime you get to see clips of NBA players in high school, that's kinda neat. And when Dwyane is "knocked over" and laying out of bounds, and gives that camera that little head nod...well, it's so fake even Danny Almonte wasn't buying it (a Danny Almonte reference! what year is it?!?!). But the tag line...it, well...it just doesn't make any sense.
Think about it. If you fall down once, how many times do you have to get up? Once, right? OK, so if you fall down twice, you get up...twice! Good, you're starting to get the hang of things here. Let's see if we can keep the pattern going: three falls...stand up three times! Now let's really get crazy: if you fall down seven times, how many times should I stand up?
Eight. Very good, class.
Even David Beckham could figure this out.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Why do you have to stand up eight times, if you only tripped seven? What if Converse ran an ad saying, "fall down once, stand up twice." They'd get hammered! Are we all really that bad at math? Seven and eight are too high for us?
(And this is coming from someone who has dropped more math classes than a certain college allows. Something isn't right here.)
Losing is better than winning...when?
So the Clippers lost to the Grizzles last night, and by doing so, improved their chances of advancing in the playoffs. Makes sense.
You've probably been beaten over the head with this, but in case you were living under a rock the last two days, here's why: The NBA rewards the its three division winners in both the Eastern and the Western conferences with the 1, 2 and 3 seeds. So the three best records aren't given seeds 1-3; the three teams that win its respective conferences are. So Dallas went out and won 60-plus games, far and away the second highest total in the Western Conference, but because they finished second in their Division to San Antonio, they were given the 4-seed. Denver was given the 3-seed, despite winning 45/46 games.
Denver as a 3-seed makes the 6-seed much more appealing, because if you are the 6-seed, you are matched up with the 3-seed in the first round. So despite being a 6-seed, you would get to have home court advantage in the first round. If you are a 5-seed - which is better than the 6, mind you - you have to play Dallas on their home court. Seems fair and well thought out.
So in a playoff format that David Stern had to have borrowed from Bud Selig ("Bud...Dave here...yea, hey listen...say you were running my league...what's the one thing you'd change? Playoffs, really? Hmm, alright...I'm gonna trust you with this one...start talkin'.") it's better to be a 6-seed than a 5. You're saying that the NBA front office envisioned no scenario in which this could have happened? For as shrewd as Stern always is...this just leaves us shaking our head. We want to meet the guy who convinced Stern this was a good idea. We think he has a future selling stuff to people.
But the scenario brings up a question that ops up from time to time: Is there ever a scenario where it is better to lose than to win?
A couple scenarios happen every once in a while that makes losing seem the more logical choice than winning: should a team tank its last 10 meaningless games to ensure the No. 1 draft spot? Should the Clips or Grizz try to lose to get that 6-seed? Both of those instances make losing look awfully appealing.
But if your team is willing to go out and intentionally tank games...that's just not good. On any level. You think a team that blows games on purpose going into the playoffs is a good team or has any shot in the playoffs? That's the kind of attitude you want on your team? What kind of coach ever - under any circumstance - encourages losing? That "culture of losing" is incredibly hard to turn around, and if the coach is encouraging it, hell, if anyone in the organization is encouraging it, your team is going to suck - and suck hard - for the foreseeable future. At least as long as that person is there. Losing on purpose undermines anything the coach ever said. It's the easy way out - and players taking the easy way out is worse than it sounds. Much worse. No one taking that path will ever be successful.
And to tank games for a draft pick? Kind of like the way the Cavs tanked it in hopes of getting LeBron? Its arguable that the culture of losing was so firmly embedded there that they might as well start fresh. Which seems reasonable. But if you are going to do that, you had better clear house. Any player or coach who can stand to intentionally blow games has to be gone - every single one. This better be a firesale that makes the Florida Marlins look like the Louvre - just clinging onto every single asset for dear life.
And that player you are losing to get? He had better be a demi-god. An absolute franchise-maker, a no-way-in-hell-is-he-not-an-All-Star-every-year kind of guy. If he walks on water, you are only mildly surprised. "LeBron just skipped acorss the pool? Yea, saw him do that last week, pretty cool, huh?" So drop the Nuke on your team, fine: but you better be getting the Next Coming as a result. Its the only way that works.
And losing games to move from the 15th spot to the 11th? Hope that chair at the Ping Pong Party is comfortable, because you're going to be sitting in it for a while.
That "culture of losing" is so, so, so hard to turn around. Harder than the average fan realizes, we think. Fans have a tendency to look solely at a roster, see the obvious talent, and wonder why they aren't more successful. Well, fans and Isiah Thomas (it is so hard not to use him as a punchline; you have no idea).
Here's a perfect example: When Jim Leyland flipped out the other day, all people heard - analysts and fans alike - was, "we stink, we stink, we stink, I'm outta here!" Don't get us wrong, that's great television, but everyone missed the most important part, and we're paraphrasing here, but it was something along the lines of, "We could have won today and that would have been OK, or we could have lost today and that would have been OK, the guys were just ready to get on the plane to Oakland." That kind of indifference caused Jim Leyland - when's the last time you heard him go on a tirade? - to snap.
The reason is, he knows how hard it is to turn around the culture of losing. And if your team is actively encouraging that at any level? Well, you better enjoy those draft picks, because you're going to be getting a lot of them.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The anti-MVP
Last season's MVP race was the fourth-closest vote in the history of the award (thank you very much, Dan Le Betard) and this season's vote figures to be even closer, with multiple candidates this year rather than the two-man race between Steve Nash and The Daddy a year ago. Nash, Bronny, KB8, D-Wade, Dirk, Mr. Big Shot, Melo...so many individual performances, you could make a case for a handful of ballers and you'd be hard pressed to find fault with it.
Of all those names, though, one of them leave us shaking our head: Kobe.
Now, don't get us wrong. Bean is far and away the best one-on-one player in the League. In fact, he routinely scores over double and triple teams. We're not sure there's a conceivable defense that can stop him; certainly no one-on-one defender stands a chance. He makes bad shots into good shots and good shots into lay ups. Plus, "specialists" aside, you aren't going to find a better perimeter defender. Seems like the complete package. And he dubbed himself "the black mamba," disregarding the rule that you cannot give yourself a nickname. The message: conventional rules don't apply to Bean.
But the MVP doesn't go to the best individual player; if that were the case, MJ would have won every year and Shaq every year since 23 retired. The ambiguity of "most valuable" is what makes the debate...well, a debate. How the hell do you define "most valuable"? The fact of the matter is, you can't.
But you can define "unvaluable," even if it's not a real word. MVP's are supposed to win games for their team, not lose them. And no other MVP candidate has cost his team more games than Kobe. He's cost the Lake Show game directly and indirectly this year. How? So glad you asked.
First, directly: When Kobe drilled Mike Miller with that elbow, the flagrant foul gave the Grizz a pair of FTs, which they converted. Guess how many the Lakers lost by? It was more than 1 and less than 3. Then, after the game, Kobe inflamed the situation, which contributed to his ensuing 2 game suspension. Brilliant, Kobe. The Lakers lost both games Kobe was suspended. So Kobe retaliates against Miller, "sending a message," in his words, and in the process cost his team 3 games, all of which they probably could have won if he was in the lineup.
Let's take this a step further. Say the Lakers win those three games, which they probably would have, considering they were against the Grizz and the Jazz. That gives them 47 W's through 81 games, with a chance of 48 if they beat the Hornets (34-47) tonight. Those 48 wins would be good enough for the 6 seed in the playoffs, better than the 7 seed they currently hold. Eh, what's one spot, right? Well, the 7 seed earns them the right to play the Suns without homecourt advantage. The 6 seed earns them the right to play Denver, and because the Lakers would have a better record than the Nugs, the Lakers would have home court advantage.
So not only did Kobe cost his team three games for "sending a message," he also likely cost them home court in the first round of the playoffs. Message sent, Bean.
Now, indirectly. And this is arguable, but he probably cost the Lakers multiple championships. Depending on who you believe, Kobe at worst single handedly destroyed the Laker dynasty by running Shaq out of town or at best had such a destructive attitude management decided that was the best way to go. Either way, he was at least 50% responsible for separating the 2 most unstoppable players in basketball.
Kobe was so gung ho on proving he could be successful on his own, he contributed to getting Shaq ran out of Tinseltown. So why should he be rewarded for orchestrating a situation in which he could be successful as an individual at the expense of the team? Why should he be rewarded for sneaking a team into the 7 spot in the playoffs when they should be winning their 5th title? That doesn't sound very valuable, regardless of the definition. A true MVP would have found a way to make that situation work. No one was a bigger dick behind the curtain than Jordan, but nothing like this ever happened to him. Wonder why.
(Disclaimer: Yes, Shaq wasn't perfect. But Kobe apologized to Shaq this year, not vice versa. You only apologize if you did something wrong. Just something to think about.)
So is Kobe the most feared player in basketball? Yes. Was his 81 point outburst the defining individual performance of the season? Yes. A sure-fire, first-ballot Hall of Famer? Yes. But the MVP? Not this year.
Sorry, Bean.
D League's Slippery Slope
(Editor's note: Every once and a while, when The Sports Guy writes a new column, its prefaced by "this article appears in ESPN the Mag," which is just a bad sign. Those articles just aren't the same as his regular ones. And while you could argue that his articles have been slipping lately and are becoming a little outdated, he's still a fun read, even if he isn't what he once was. Anyways, the point is, when we see "Editors note," our heart drops a little bit. But that's not going to stop us from doing the same thing to you. So, Editors note: This article appears in this week's issue of (our small college newspaper, which will remain nameless for various and sundry reasons). Sorry.)
Sometime last week, the NBA’s Developmental League announced it was lowering its minimum age requirement one year, from 19 down to 18.
The announcement was so seemingly insignificant that I can’t even remember what day it happened on. So some minor basketball league changed an age requirement by a year. So what? I’ve never seen a D league game, and I’m guessing the overwhelming majority of basketball fans haven’t, either. In fact, I would bet my ’92 Dream Team action figures that most basketball fans haven’t even heard of the rule change, and if they did, few cared.
So why is this a big deal? Well, in the immediate future, it really isn’t. But eventually, it could be. It has the potential to completely alter the face of the sport of basketball as we know it (could I be any more dramatic here? I sound like the bad guy in a cheesy movie, revealing my sinister plot for world domination). And no one seems to really care. That’s not good. At least not if you care about basketball.
So who gets affected here? Well, everyone does…but the NCAA is the one with the best chance of getting completely obliterated. If you enjoy college basketball, its officially time to start holding your breath.
The NCAA has to be so ticked off with the NBA. The NBA seems, at least to me, to be the older brother who messes with the younger brother just because he can. First, the NBA institutes its Go to College for At Least a Year Policy, to the absolute delight of the college game. The NCAA was getting all the best players back, at least for a year, which, hey, is better than nothing.
The top prospects had to go to college for at least a year. What were their other options? Go to a prep school and dominate pimply kids with glasses while their peers competed for national championships all while in the national spotlight? Maybe go oversees, collect a decent paycheck and live thousands of miles away from everything he knows - family, friends, culture – just for a year? With the NBA’s new age limit, going to college for a season was the fastest and most viable route to the NBA.
Not anymore. Now that players can play in the D League straight out of high school, the nation’s top prospects can get paid to play, all while living in America and having the undivided attention of NBA scouts while competing against the best talent not in the NBA. Deep breathes.
I mean, if you were a top prospect, why would you even go to college? Live in a dorm, or live in a mansion [if you don’t think an agent isn't going to front these kids money, well…maybe its time you helped Isiah run the Knicks (Parentheses inside parentheses! How fast did Isiah Thomas become a national punch line? Dick Cheney has to be ecstatic.)]? Go to class or go to the club? Have coaches who are bigger (figuratively) than you yell at you every day or have the power to get your coach fired? Maybe the only thing colleges have going for them would be the cute little co-eds over the trashy D League groupies.
Now, this probably won’t happen right away. The point is, college hoops isn’t looking like the Highway to the NBA that it was just about a year ago. All it takes is one enterprising young baller to open the door, and there will be an absolute stampede away from Chapel Hill and towards Roanoke, home of the almighty Dazzle.
And when that happens, the NCAA is done. Without the top talent, the NCAA just isn’t as much fun to watch. This year’s Final Four was a colossal bore, with the only entertainment being the chance Billy Packer would say something so stupid and irritional, even Jim Nance would start yelling at him (Just curious: has anyone watched a basketball game that Billy was announcing and not yelled at the TV? My grandmother? The Pope? Anyone?).
The NCAA was banking hard on the infusion of talent coming in next year. They needed it. But pretty soon, that talent could be in the D League. And it will be even worse than before. Under the old system, maybe the top 10, 15 guys skipped college. But with a readily available pro league as an option, how many top players will skip school? 50? 100? More?
Can you imagine an NCAA Tournament with the top 100 players gone? It would be atrocious. It would be boring. And the most important thing: it would be meaningless. Sure, the NCAA could continue the routine and trot teams out hoping fans would tune in just to see the names on the front of the jersey. But the quality of play would be so eye-poppingly inferior, only the hardest-core fans would keep watching.
All of this is fine for the NBA. This system will probably help them create a more skilled, more talented, deeper and ultimately more fun product to watch. But they are doing it at the expense of the NCAA.
The NCAA may have only one choice: pay its players. And with the NCAA’s well-documented stance on that issue, along with a brain trust that makes MLB’s front office look like a Mensa meeting, I think its safe to say we had better enjoy March Madness while we still have the chance.
The NCAA will “amateur” itself right into oblivion, and March Madness will become a glorified high school tournament. All because of an insignificant rule change in an insignificant league.
Thanks, D League.Thursday, April 13, 2006
Turns out, Tang is the bitch
We were a little concerned for our manhood yesterday after we learned that a 10-year old absolutely smoked us. Course, it was in bowling, but still. A 10-year old shouldn't be able to beat us at anything, except maybe bowls of cereal eaten or action figures collected. But nothing that matters.
Turns out, we came across a 9-year old who makes the little bowler look like the 10-year old that he really is.
Rafita Mirabel, a 9-year old from Mexico, routinely fights bulls. Let that sink in. A NINE YEAR OLD IS FIGHTING BULLS. I mean, granted, they aren't full grown bulls and he doesn't kill them, but still. The bull is really trying to win. He, like, you know, hit the kid with his horns and stuff. Good God. We already went into our less than accomplished athletic prowess when we were 10; there's nothing to say about this that will make us feel better at all.
Even now, when a squirrel jumps out from behind a bush, we jump back a little (Shh, don't tell anyone that). And if a dog is really losing its mind, we aren't opposed to crossing the street. And this kid is fighting bulls. We really can't express how impressed we are. Wonder if we could beat him up? Bet he would whoop our ass. Man.
At least he makes Tang look like a pretty boy.
But Tang makes us look like pretty boys. We're really having a rough week.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Dynasties should win more than one.
The Detroit Pistons had better be careful, or they are going to turn into the USC Trojans.
If you ask the casual fan or even a lot of the hardcore fans what team has been the face of college football over the past three years, the answer will invariably come back USC. And that's probably the right answer. Actually, it is the right answer. But the fact of the matter is, as great as they have been, they have only one National Title to show for it.
(Yes, we know how ridiculous it is to say "only" one. We know how hard it is to win a national title and how great they've been lately. Just go with us for a second.)
"USC dynasty" gets thrown around a lot, which is a shame, because its disrespectful to the term dynasty. Jordan's Bulls, Brady's Patriots - those are dynasties, at least the most current examples. Titles are all that matter when you are talking dynasties. USC had a hell of a run - and, hey, they could still become a dynasty - but they aren't one now.
So where do the Pistons come in? Well, they are arguably the face of the NBA over the last three years. After they upset the Lakers, they had dynasty written all over them. They had an approach that would revolutionize the NBA (5 studs, no The Man's) and had all their key guys locked up. But the next year, they missed a chance to go back-to-back.
Now this season, they have as good a chance as ever to win 2 titles in 3 years. They look like they have their conference sewn up - they are the overwhelming favorite to win the East, especially with home court advantage throughout.
But what happens in the Finals? If they take home trophy number two, then let the dynasty start talk. But if they come up short again, what are they? A really, really good team? Half of the Buffalo Bills? Or the USC Trojans of the L?
And what does this say about their philosophy? We love watching them play, and clearly they are successful as nearly anyone, and not only do they play "right" but they are fun to watch, too. But can it get you all the way? Did they get "lucky" running into a dysfunctional Lakers team for their title? This year's final should make all that a little clearer (more clear? Help us, please).
The strange thing is, we really should be having this conversation about the Spurs. A championship this year makes 3 in 4 years - not too shabby. Maybe we don't talk about them because they are boring as all hell, with Mr. Exciting as a Nap Tim Duncan as the face of the team. Plus, no one on the team speaks the same language, so they aren't exactly media darlings. (With the notable exception of the Manu/Parker commercial a few years back where they were describing the affection for The Trophy to Dr. J - "Manu?" "Tony?" Always good for a giggle.)
This years playoffs has a chance to be The Year of the Birth of a Dynasty. Or someone else could win it all, and the whole point is moot. Either way, the Pistons have a chance to go down with the Bad Boys from the early 90s or the Pretty Boys from SoCal of the early '00s.
Speaking of the Pistons, here's a link to one of the best NBA pieces in recent memory. Usually those fluff pieces are so stiff, they make Tim Duncan look like TO. But ABC actually had some fun with this one, and it showed. Good times, via Need4Sheed: The Mask.
(You know what? We're not even sure what the point of this was. But we are sleepy now.)
Tang is good.
We hadn't bowled since back in the day, back when there were bumpers in the gutters and everyone won and we all got cake. A couple weeks ago, we decided to go bowling again. Guess what? It was really freakin' hard.
The damn ball - which is pretty heavy, think we started with a 12-pounder - won't go straight. Pretty sure the lane is waaaay to long. So we decided we'd get a lighter ball. Problem solved, right? Nope. Do you know how hard you have to throw an 8 pound bowling ball to knock over all - or even most - of the pins? Neither do we, because we can't throw it that hard. We were feeling like bitches.
Needless to say, we sucked. Bowled like a 116 in our best game. For those of you unfamiliar with bowling, that's bad. We were awful. Our self esteem wasn't exactly soaring. So when we heard this story, we felt like absolute bitches.
Michael Tang bowled a perfect game, and he's 10 years old. Ten! What grade is that, third? In third grade, we could barely get a basketball to the rim, and this little kid just bowled a perfect game in a sanctioned event. I bet he can even do this spin thing, too, which if we would have tried would have snapped our wrist in three places.
At least the little spin thing would explain how he could knock over all the pins with an 8 pound ball, unlike us. Oh, he used a 16 pound ball? Twice the weight we could handle?
Oh.
We are bitches. Ouch.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Ric Bucher, you timely bastard
We hate Ric Bucher. We really, really hate him. Alright, we don't hate him - although we do think he is a little presumptious, spelling his name without the "k." (While not thinking twice about abusing the 'editorial we' that we routinely butcher beyond recognition.)
We're just jealous because he beat us to the punch. We were going to make a post about all the different MVPs this year, and all the different ways to define them, and that bastard went and beat us to it. That's why we're jealous. (That, and the fact that millions will read his column, and only three people will read ours. Whatever.)
But you know what? That's not going to stop us. We had the idea first. Some of the ideas here are probably similar, but we thought off all this before Ric published his. And if you don't believe us, well...nothing we can do about that. So here it is, Ric Bucher be damned.
Picking an MVP, we think, is like eating a Reese's. There really is no right way. (We like to eat the peanut butter first, leaving a little chocolate ring for last. But that's just us.) Everyone has different criteria, but there are a few that seem to carry the most weight. In no particular order, they are:
This year's winner: Kobe Bryant.
Bonus points for showing us every night that not only would he win a one-on-one contest, he'd also win a one-on-tw0 contest, a one-on-three contest, a one-on four contest...plus, he scored 81 in a game. Damn.
Points taken away for jacking like a mad man, circumstances and teammates be damned. Plus, the 8-seed just doesn't cut it. You gotta win, homie. And we can't forget that it was at least 50% his fault the greatest big man of the generation and the greatest guard of the generation quit after winning three titles, so all those losses are at least 50% his fault.
This year's winner: Dwyane Wade.
Bonus points for carrying a team of good players and one pretty good player to the 2 seed in the East. The Heat were injured all year, and D-Wade was the glue that kept them together. And the way he splits the D on ball screens? Damn near poetic.
Points taken away because..I mean, it is Shaq, regardless of how his skills have eroded or how many games he missed. The Big Second Fiddle racked up a triple-double the other night. The man's still a force. So he's had some help.
This year's winner: Steve Nash.
Bonus points for proving last season wasn't a fluke - and without Amare Stauadamire. You can argue that style is what makes him good..but that's backwards. He's what makes Phoenix' style great. No other guard in the league - maybe Jason Kidd - could do what Nash is doing in the desert.
Loses points because we are pretty sure we could score on him. He plays no defense at all. The Texans secondary thinks Nash doesn't play and D. And even though he makes PHX's style work...he's still at least partially a product of that system.
This year's winner: Mr. Big Shot, Chauncey Billups.
Bonus points because he - nor any one else on his team - is really an All-Star, but he is just so damn successful, how are you gonna knock him? Plus, you need a dagger shot late in the game? Look no further.
Points taken away because..well, remember that one-on-one contest?
Let's just say he won't be losing to Kobe in the finals. If he was doing on another team exactly what he was doing for the Psitons, he wouldn't even be mentioned here.
This year's winner: Dirk Nowitzki.
Dirk has been playing this year with a chip on his shoulder, we think. He always had the skill, but this season, there is just that extra oomph manifesting itself in those buzzer beaters. Remember when Happy Gilmore taunts Shooter after he learned how to put? Dirk had a similar breakthrough this year: "Uuuuh ooooh...some one learned how to drill game wiiiiiiiiiiinners."
Points taken away because...well, its still the regular season. And we've been waiting forever for this. Kind of like when the honor student starts paying attention in class. Still, that should't diminish the season Diggler is having.
This year's winner (and winner for the forseeable future): LeBron James.
Bonus points for being a video game player brought to real life. He's almost too good to be believable. Simple as that. No one can guard him - no one. He decides how well he plays. He had two knocks heading into the season: No postseason appearences and no game winners. Check and check.
Points taken away for...well, the fingernail biting was a little disconcerting. Looks nervous. Guess he's not, but that doesn't exactly inspire confidence when The Franchise Guy looks like he'stoo nervous to ask a girl to dance at an 8th grade formal And admitting he didn't have Kobe's killer instinct is no good, either. Maybe he's just messing with us though. Sure hope so.
This year's winner (and first in a while): Elton Brand.
Bonus points for taking the flippin' Clippers to the playoffs! Is the Earth still spinning? Is gravity still working? Are Phil's man boobs still jiggling? He took the Clippers to the playoffs! You know exactly what you are getting every single night. No one more reliable. Just a rock.
Points taken away because...well, he's their best player, but Sam Cassell seems like the difference maker there. ET is like Al Davis - he just wins, baby - and Elton needed that before he was this great. Makes you wonder a little bit...but just a little. And, well...you knoe exactly what you are getting every night. Just sayin'. Oh yeah - he went to Duke, too. Ouch.
So who's the MVP? We're giving it to Bron Bron. The man is just unreal. He continues to outshine the spotlight, which, considering how bright that spotlight was and is, is impressive as anything anyone else has done this year. And when his team needed him most - down the stretch - he dropped 35 in nine straight games and picked up win after win - the Cavs were 8-1 during that stretch. One on one you can't stop him, he has a good team winning and every single GM in the L would start their franchise with him, bar none (insert Isiah Thomas joke here). That's the complete package. He did everything short of getting the Clip Show in the playoffs. Case closed.
Who's your MVP? Vote or leave a comment. Let's get a little debate going here.
Duke has nation shaking its head
We don't know how Duke does it. These people are supposed to be smart, right? That's what they brag about, isn't it? How hard it is to get accepted there, how they are the "Harvard of the South"? This is the school that chants, "That's alright, that's OK, you're gonna work for us someday"? That's Duke, right?
Well, for being a group of supposed elite geniuses, they botched this lacrosse alleged-rape case worse than Greg Paulus on a 2-on-1 fast break.
Now, we understand this is a rape case, and that means it needs to be handled with all seriousness and sensitivity. But man, did Duke blow it.
First, when the stripper initially made her accusation, Duke reacted as if everything she said was true. Two reactions here:
First, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Games were suspended, and then eventually the whole season was ended and the head coach resigned; players were even suspended from school. Keep in mind, this was before there was any evidence, besides the accusation. (Note: We have a feeling there are going to be a lot of italics coming up. Just letting you know.) They acted as if the girl marched into the president's office with a video tape of the entire crime. Reacting like that without any real evidence makes us think the lacrosse players had a reputation on campus as being a bunch of untrustworthy, disruptive, arrogant assholes (either that, or there is some pretty damning evidence the school hasn't made public). And to get a reputation like that on Duke's campus of all places, you really have to go out of your way to be a prick. Jus' sayin'.
Oh, and that e-mail Ryan McFadyen sent out - probably not the smartest thing in the world there Ryan, and I'm sure it did nothing to help the team's image.
Second, they took the word of a stripper as fact. Now listen, we're not saying they should have ignored her because she was a stripper. They should have taken it very seriously. And they were also screwed because she was making her claim against Duke lacrosse players, and, well...neither party is exactly Abe Lincoln reincarnated. Its not like one of them is inherently believable. Imagine if Barry Bonds was claiming OJ was a murderer, and OJ was still saying, "Nu uh. Barry is on 'roids. He's crazy." You're not believing either one of them right off the bat. Same with a stripper and students from Duke.
When Duke decided to do this, no one even batted an eyelash. "Damn right! Cancel the season! They don't deserve to play!" Ah, Duke? How about a little more hypocrisy? Would you like to try to be a little more inconsistent?
Imagine for a second that the men's basketball team was accused of this. As much as we would like to see Lee Melchionni frantically trying to hold onto some soap, do you think for one second they would even consider ending the season prematurely? The gavel would have to drop sending the entire team to prison before they did that, and even then we aren't so sure they would forfeit the season. It's ludicrous.
(Quickly: don't think for a second we feel any remorse that the lacrosse player's season was ended early, especially since they are Duke lacrosse players. We don't. We're just saying Duke administration messed up - royally - and that if it happened anywhere else, we would probably say it was unfair. Lacrosse got cancelled because only their parents come to watch the games and it probably costs Duke money to keep them around. That's all we're saying.)
Now some evidence has been made public seemingly clearing the lacrosse team. DNA from Duke players is no where to be found on the stripper. And there are time-stamped images, allegedly, of the accuser strolling into the house looking like hell, bruises everywhere. And then when they threw her out - again, allegedly - she was demanding to come back in.
Honestly, who the hell knows what happened in there. It could range anywhere from a gang rape (God forbid) to some drunk Duke students kicking a crappy stripper out of their house. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, only time will tell. The facts are blurred, and it is going to take some time for all of them to boil to the surface. One fact is indisputable, though: In typical Duke arrogance, they acted as if they knew everything, when they really didn't. And now the whole school - from the lacrosse team to the administration - looks like jackasses on a national stage.
This just in: King James is good
Remember back when LeBron was passing on game winners? If memory serves, he was 2-for-3 when doing that. Donyell Marshall and Flip Murray each hit shots, but Larry Hughes missed his. Twice his teammates hit the game winner, and one time they missed. As far as game winning shots go, those are pretty good results. We think so, anyways.
Well, Bron Bron took some heat for not shooting the game winner himself. He's the superstar, the logic goes, so he should always take them, no matter what. Even if every defender on the court simultaneouosly converges on him like he's David Carr, he needs to be The Man.
Critics were quiet about The Chosen One passing on the last shot - until it didn't work. Then they came out of the woodwork in droves. "Hey, that was cute while it was working, but start taking some clutch shots...and stop chewing your fingernails like a third-grade girl trying to do long division at the blackboard in front of the whole class."
BJ Armstrong, among others, voiced his displeaseure with Bron Bron passing with the clock winding down. This raises the question, Why would you ever let your name be BJ? What are the benefits there? None, right? I don't care what BJ stands for, thats what you go with. If it stands for Ben James, you are known as Ben James. If it stands for Boner Juice, you are known as Boner Juice. Anything is better than BJ. Even Boner Juice. This tanrnishes BJ's credibility a bit, no?
(By the way, have you ever seen Boner Juice try to talk on ESPN? It is excruciating; we can't even sit still. It's like that scene in Swingers when Mike leaves message after message on that girl's answering machine, only so much worse.)
The Chosen One may have heard all this chatter, because he started dropping game winners like..well, The Chosen One.
First, he KO'd the Bobcats (notice the trip-doub as well), and then last night, he slit the throats of the NewOrleansOklahomaCityCharlotteHornets. The message from LeBron, at least to us, is quite clear: "Suck my dick."
And we couldn't agree more. The best always take the last shot? Really? We seem to remember Jordan passing on last shots like it was his job (partly because it was his job) - and in huge situations, not meaningless regular season games against the trainwreck that is the New York Knicks. Remember when John Paxson hit that shot to win the NBA Finals? Remember when Steve Kerr hit that shot to win the NBA Finals? Who was passing them the ball? Was it the most lethal assassin in the history of sport? Nod your head up and down. Yes, that was MJ dropping dimes to win NBA titles. (Oh, he passed to beat the Knicks, too: Remember when he came back from the Barons, dropped a double-nickel in MSG, then found Bill freakin' Wennington to win the game? We do.)
(And shouldn't Boner Juice know this? He did play with Jordan, didn't he? Was he paying attention at all?)
Plus, think of the benefits this will have in the playoffs. The defense has no freakin' clue what will happen. It really limits the ability to double him at the end of the game, because LeBron has proven to everyone in the L that his teammates are capable of beating you. And he has the confidence of his teammates through the roof. How is any of this bad?
We think this is the final nail in the coffin of the LeBron James Haters. Just quit doubting him, alright? It's not a good idea. (You know what? We changed out mind. We like LeBron. Keep doubting him. Seems he does pretty good under those circumstances) He has a team with questionable talent making a legit grab at 50 wins. He wins games, either on his own, or by finding teammates.
Results are what matter, right?
Batman is a jackass
The Pirates got shallacked by the Dodgers, 8-3, on Monday and then had to suffer through something even more degrading. Michael Keaton, who the Pirates invited to throw out the first pitch, ripped the team for not spending enough money to be competitive.
Now, there are several things to take away from this. We are all for free speech...but was Batman's timing really the best here? Do you really need to rip the team that invited you to throw out their first pitch at their stadium? It's a pretty nice gesture, we think, to be invited. The least you could do is maybe show a little support...you know, at least pretend.
It raises the question, Does Batman do this in all walks of life? When a friend invites him over, does he rip him, too? "Hey pal...nice to see you...you know, your whole interior design scheme sucks...you need to do something here. And that dinner your wife just cooked? I'd rather lick the floor. I'm going to throw up just so that shit isn't in my stomach any more. Oh, and just talking out loud here...your kids are so damn ugly, they make Lorenzo Mata look like a Calvin Klein model. I'd shoot 'em, but I don't want to waste the bullets...now where is your dog, I want to kick that little bastard one more time before I leave."
Amazingly, though, Batman just didn't rip them. He compared them to the Clippers. The definition of ineptitude. And we quote:"For my money, that's disrespectful. At some point, you either have to write the check or do something and not assume, well, we're OK and, ultimately, the franchise is valuable, anyway, like Donald Sterling did with the Los Angeles Clippers."
We don't even know who should be offended here. Was he insulting the Clippers there? Was he praising them? (Does it even matter? It's Batman!) The Clippers are having a bit of a renaissance this season, so was this a good thing? Ah, Batman...so many questions, so few answers.
Two other things to note here:
1) Batman showed up to the game wearing a Hines Ward hat. Man, the Pirates had to be pissed. When he goes on dates, does he say things like "You know, you're nice, but your sister is smoking. What's she doing tonight?"
2) When he actually stopped talking and threw out the first pitch, it was so wide of the catcher, it rolled all the way to the back stop. Warrants mentioning, we think.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang. We mean you, Jose.
Fresh off the beanfest that was the Nats-Mets series last week, MLB has stepped in to tell the two squads to "just play ball."
Now, Major League Baseball is normally all over this kind of thing. Look how quickly and tidily they cleaned up that whole steriod mess. Frankly, we are stunned it even came to this. The Metropolitans and the Nationals should know better.
MLB giving the two teams a stern warning reminds us of growing up in our household, which contained six kids. The house was just small enough that everybody was always all over the place. Things got chaotic, especially during our more formidable years. You'd get smacked around, and then you'd smack the little brother around. Sometimes you got away with it, most of the time you didn't.
But when things got too crazy, Mom or Dad would come over and say, "Hey - knock it off," and give that look that you really didn't want to get. The ante got upped. You had to be sneaky about what you were about to do, because if (read: when) you got caught, you were in big trouble. But the fact remained: you were going to smack him back. Oh, please believe that.
Same thing with the "just play ball" warning from MLB. "We let you mess around, but if you start plunking people in the helmet again, you are really in trouble." Now, our parents were alot scarier than MLB. You think either the Mets or the Nats are scared of any retribution from Selig Fife (can't tell you how much we love that nickname)? Well, they aren't. That warning will have no bearing on any beanballs either team was planning on throwing. If anything, it upped the ante even more. Knowing the suspension will be even greater, its now more of a badge of honor to "defend" your teammates.
We predict a hail of beanballs, suspensions galore, fans loving it and not one player caring in the slightest that they were suspended.
And if Jose Guillen has any nuts at all, he'll charge the mound like a man when he gets drilled. That was such a sorry exhibition of mound-charging, he should be ashamed of himself. No one thinks any less of you if you don't charge the mound. But if you are going to walk out there, THEN GO. None of this walk out halfway, point your bat and wait for everyone to grab you. "Hold me back! I swear to God, I'm gonna...hey, why isn't any one holding me back? Oh, there we go...I'm gonna kill you, you're lucky they're holding me back!" I'm sure Pedro was shaking. The man took on Don Zimmer for God's sake.
Cory Sullivan goes down in history
Cory Sullivan of the Colorado Rockies hit two triples in the same inning last night against the San Diego Padres. First time its been done in over 50 years. Cory has to be stoked he got his name in the record books in one of the most unexpected ways possible.
Sullivan's feat was one of those random, exciting, cool little things it would be great to brag to your buddies that you saw in person. So, if you were at a baseball game, what random thing would you most like to see?
Obviously, things like perfect games or four home runs in a game rarely happen, and are usually reserved for super star level players, although not always. What we're talking about are random plays that could happen to anyone - and that's usually the way it goes down. The player doesn't really "achieve" them, it just seems to happen to them. Anyways, which one would you most want to see live?
Judgement Day
For every athlete, it happens at one time or another. Its what seperates the good from the great, the great from the legendary. It is that one moment that will always associate itself with that player. It can make them or break them, but one thing is certain: it will define them.
For Ricky Williams, that day is today.
Ricky meets with league officials today in an attempt to overturn his fourth drug-related suspension in his career. If he fails, he's suspended for a year. If he succeeds, he hits paydirt. Considering Ricky owes the 'Fins over 8 million dollars, I'm sure he's giving this all the seriousness it deserves.
We aren't sure about Ricky, but if we had a meeting with $8 mil riding on it, we'd be a little tense. The key is to find a way to unwind, to relax. Do a little yoga, squeeze a stress reliever, light up a J. Just do something. If you just sit and think about it, you'll go nuts.
Ricky's agent said that Ricky's test was a "false-positive," that some other drug caused Ricky to fail his test (we're going to play it conservative and rule out steriods, considering he looked like he rolled in off the beach and into training camp last season).
Now, far be it from us to presume that an agent is lying for his client, but let's face the facts. Ricky is a pothead. That's all there is to it. You are who you are, and Ricky likes the herb. Fine. He can wrap it up in any life style he wants and say he's changed until he's blue in the face (which you can see through all those little holes in his patchy beard). Makes no difference. Ricky gets high. It's what he does. If he wins his meeting, he'll celebrate with a nice, fat blunt, probably rolled in one of the hundred dollar bills he owes the Dolphins, and then go have a urine replacment procedure, like Omar Gooding on Playmakers..
Now, Ricky might pull this off, but even if he does, something tells me it isn't the last time you will hear weed and Ricky Williams in the same sentece. Just a gut feeling.
A Tradition Unlike Any Other
The Masters has possibly one of the coolest slogan's in sports - "A tradition unlike any other." It's simple, it's powerful, it's inviting, and it's damn-near intimidating. Plus, it's better than the slogan for the NBA Finals: "We can't believe how long it took to get to this point, either. Was that first round series between the 4 and 5 seeds going seven games really necessary? Frankly, we're tired. Let's hope for some close games, but perhaps a sweep." Just a bit on the lengthy side, we think.
But the Masters really does have a tradition unlike any other. The winner gets his Green Jacket (one of the most badass pieces of clothing in sports, by the way, right up there with NBA players wearing tights, the Laker's title jackets and the Mavericks shiny uniforms) placed on him by last year's winner.
Now, this might get taken for granted just a little bit. Imagine if this was how champs were crowned in every other sport? Could you see Rasheed Wallace handing a trophy to Bruce Bowen? Hell no. The Patriots showing up in Indianapolis to give the Lombardi to the Steelers? The White Sox being crowned by the Red Sox? Whoever won the NHL last year being given the trophy by whoever won it the year before (if they even had a season)?
Take it a little further, to the divisional level. How about Peyton giving the AFC trophy to Tom Brady, or Jonny Damon being handed some hardware by Curt Shilling? While we're at it, let's have the Pacers presents the Pistons with a trophy any time they play eachother in the playoffs.
Can you imagine that happening? Of course not. It would be so incredibly akward, and there is an above average chance a fight would break out. At the very least, we'd get some spirited trash talk. The trophy might even get smashed. Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Which is exactly why it needs to happen. We vote for The Masters tradition to no longer be unlike any other - we want it for all sports! Winner take all, then humiliate whoever won it before you!
Just look at the fake smile on Tiger's face in the picture (above). He's thinking to himself, "You little mulleted bastard. You know I'm better than you, right? You do know I could kick your ass, and my nanny is hotter than your wife, right? You're aware of this? You're aware that if this wasn't in public, I would be giving your man boobs the biggest titty twister ever, right? K, just makin sure."
Just think: if Tiger can work up that kind of animosity, can you imagine 'Sheed?
