OK, so the Masters was kind of interesting -- even without Tiger at the top. Still: Not quite the event it would have been had Tiger won.
The big point was in today's SN column: You'll get folks who will argue that the Tiger-free Masters finish was great for the game; I'll maintain that nothing beats Tiger. Except Angel, I guess.
Meanwhile, more you'll find in today's column:
*The Celtics aren't beating the Cavs in the playoffs. No chance.
*The Cubs stake their claim on the NL Central.
*My fantasy baseball season continues to produce in an inverse ratio to my NCAA bracket: I drafted Josh Johnson, who -- for now -- looks amazing.
*Which was more impressive: Dwyane Wade's career-best double-nickel (does every superstar get a chance to devour the Knicks?) or Chris Paul's 31-17-9 on national TV?
*If it's less than two weeks til the NFL Draft, that means the obfuscation ramps up -- say, Shonn Greene's "work habits" issues.
*Ed Davis back at UNC next year -- he should have a huge year, especially with all those good freshmen behind him.
There's a lot more. I'll leave you with the idea that anyone who can pull off a cowboy hat and a pink T-shirt at Augusta National deserves our admiration.
Complete column here.
-- D.S.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
You're golf analysis is so weak it's laughable.
Phil sets a Masters front 9 record and you dismiss it as almost tiger-ish???
I guess it's almost Tiger-ish in the fact that Tiger's never done that before.
Being so Tiger-centric is fair, but to go so far as to trash the entire sport completely if he doesn't win is irrational and completely lazy on your end as a sports journalist.
If Tim Tebow doesn't turn out to be a great pro, will you start a campaign to ignore the NFL too?
the whole "the masters can't be exciting without tiger" attitude is obnoxious.
Post a Comment