I feel bad for Brittney Griner, if only for the fact that she is a 6-foot-8 super-talented, YouTube-sensation freshman for a Baylor team that should be poised for a run into the Elite Eight of the women's NCAA Tournament, and she will now be known almost entirely for clocking that Texas Tech player last night.
However, it did inspire a bit of Quickie-esque shorthand for today's SN column lead: It was her "One Shiner Moment."
I don't think that if this happened in December or January that Griner would be suspended through the end of the season, including the NCAA Tournament. (Who knows: Maybe.) But the fact that this happened in March means that Baylor and the Big 12 can't possibly NOT suspend her through the Big 12 and NCAA Tournaments. That's, like, all of 8-10 games, which is probably not enough for throwing a full-blown punch on the court.
But the reality is that like LeGarrette Blount, this will migrate from niche sports news to mainstream cable news, and Baylor and the Big 12 won't be able to avoid a month-long suspension, because of the extra scrutiny from the national glare.
Anyway, if it was DeMarcus Cousins, I wonder what would happen. You know that Calipari would want to suspend him for the SEC but not NCAA Tournament (Calipari doesn't care at all about winning the SEC; he only cares about NCAA seeding). I would be curious what the SEC would do, given that Kentucky represents the league's best hope for an NCAA hoops title this season and Cousins is an integral part of that run.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Good for Notre Dame! (See: I don't hate everything about ND. Just Charlie Weis and the football team. As far as hoops is concerned, I totally respect their season-ending run.)
*You all know that even though I dislike Duke, how much I like Jon Scheyer -- arguably the greatest Jewish college basketball player of the past 50 years. But watching Maryland beat Duke last night -- what an atmosphere -- I have to give Greivis Vasquez the nod for ACC Player of the Year ahead of Scheyer. No one saw a Maryland regular-season ACC title coming, and that's in large part due to Vasquez's skill -- and demonstrative sensibility, which I love.
*Kansas beats down K-State: I will be curious to see how universal the attitude is to take Kansas to the Final Four on everyone's bracket. I cannot imagine not giving them 4 wins to start the Tournament. (I learned a painful lesson last year not to overthink myself -- that, and the field looks so top-heavy this year... at least among the Top 3.)
*Kennesaw. This is why conference tournaments are fun -- but truly make a mockery of the regular season. As long as a team does the minimum to qualify for their conference tournament, they can offset an entire season's subpar body of work by simply winning 4 straight games in March. There isn't a major-conference Bubble team that has the same level of pressure as the minor-conference regular-season champ that won't go to the Tournament unless they win their league tournament.
*If you were starting an NBA franchise today, trying to win over the long-term, LeBron would be the obvious No. 1 pick, with Kevin Durant likely being No. 2. But today, I think you can make a strong case that Carmelo Anthony is superior to Durant, and I'm not just saying that because Melo put up 30 to Durant's 19 last night in Denver's rout of OKC. Melo has the better team around him -- for now. But in all the hoopla to celebrate Durant's breakthrough this season (and he deserves it), Anthony is more quietly having his best season ever and affirming himself as a top-tier player at the same level as LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Howard and, yes, KD.
*Anyone want to put Jake Peavy in the Top 5 for 2010 AL Cy Young predictions? I'll do it, lumping him in with Greinke, Sabathia, Lackey and... well, I know I'm forgetting someone. (UPDATE: Cripes, how could I forget King Felix and Cliff Lee?)
Tons more in today's column. Check it out here. And check back for more later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Quickie: Bubble, Tiger, Combine, MLB
I don't think it makes me a bad fan that I think -- as of last night -- that Florida doesn't deserve an at-large bid into the NCAA Tournament.
As I mentioned in today's SN column lead, I recognize that a team's fans are mostly bound to make the affirmative case for their team's NCAA Bubble status -- no matter how tenuous.
I think that's misguided, and ultimately, you're only deluding yourself -- not to mention eroding the Tournament.
From a micro perspective, the question is whether Florida has done enough to get in. Yes, they beat Tennessee a week ago, but they lost at Georgia on Saturday, then at home in a "must-win" to Vandy. They play at Kentucky on Sunday, which I'll consider a moral victory if they don't lose by more than 20. But I have watched this team a lot, and they don't play like a Tournament team. In fact, they play like a team that if they DID get in would lose in Round 1.
At the macro level: Does a Bubble team that loses in the Tournament's 1st round mean the spot was wasted on them? Not quite: Half the teams have to lose in the 1st round... and, in fact, those at-large teams seeded 9-13 are, technically, expected to lose in the 1st round. Still: The question is whether the Tournament is better off having the Nth unsatisfying major-conference team that's going to get bounced before the 1st weekend is over... or the plucky mid-major with more upset/upside potential. If they lose, no harm done; if they win, it's a great story.
It's not about Florida. It's about all those Bubble teams that are limping to the finish or with resumes that are hardly compelling.
In fact, the more provocative point from today's lead is not that I'm down on Florida's NCAA chances -- but that I appear to contradict my long-held idea that the 96-team tournament is superior to the 64-team tournament. If I'm deflated by the weak Bubble teams that get in, how will I feel about adding another 32 teams to that mix?
But the fact is that it's just as much of an indictment against a 64-team field. Forget "Last 4 In" -- the last 12 major-conference at-large teams that will get in are all mediocrities who would surprise me to survive the first weekend. (I'm sure that at least 1 or 2 will get to the Sweet 16; that's just numbers. But let's hope of the 9-14 seeds that get to the Sweet 16, they are from mid-major or minor conferences.)
Then again, the reason the 96-team field works is the same reason, in the end, the 64-team field works -- and it has nothing to do with the teams that make it (or don't). The NCAA Tournament has always been about the format. Whether the Last 4 In include Florida or not, fans will still rush to the bracket in two weeks to pore over it and make picks, then stay glued to the TV two weeks from tomorrow to watch the games -- no matter who is playing.
Is it more fun when YOUR team is in it? Most of the time. But it's really worth asking yourself: Do they honestly deserve it? I'm not saying Florida can't play their way back into me thinking they deserve it -- a win at Kentucky would suffice, thanks, but I'll settle for 2 wins in the SEC Tournament. And, frankly, even if they lose to Kentucky then in the 1st round of the SECs, they may still make it in as an at-large. But we're a long way from back-to-back title squads.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
As I mentioned in today's SN column lead, I recognize that a team's fans are mostly bound to make the affirmative case for their team's NCAA Bubble status -- no matter how tenuous.
I think that's misguided, and ultimately, you're only deluding yourself -- not to mention eroding the Tournament.
From a micro perspective, the question is whether Florida has done enough to get in. Yes, they beat Tennessee a week ago, but they lost at Georgia on Saturday, then at home in a "must-win" to Vandy. They play at Kentucky on Sunday, which I'll consider a moral victory if they don't lose by more than 20. But I have watched this team a lot, and they don't play like a Tournament team. In fact, they play like a team that if they DID get in would lose in Round 1.
At the macro level: Does a Bubble team that loses in the Tournament's 1st round mean the spot was wasted on them? Not quite: Half the teams have to lose in the 1st round... and, in fact, those at-large teams seeded 9-13 are, technically, expected to lose in the 1st round. Still: The question is whether the Tournament is better off having the Nth unsatisfying major-conference team that's going to get bounced before the 1st weekend is over... or the plucky mid-major with more upset/upside potential. If they lose, no harm done; if they win, it's a great story.
It's not about Florida. It's about all those Bubble teams that are limping to the finish or with resumes that are hardly compelling.
In fact, the more provocative point from today's lead is not that I'm down on Florida's NCAA chances -- but that I appear to contradict my long-held idea that the 96-team tournament is superior to the 64-team tournament. If I'm deflated by the weak Bubble teams that get in, how will I feel about adding another 32 teams to that mix?
But the fact is that it's just as much of an indictment against a 64-team field. Forget "Last 4 In" -- the last 12 major-conference at-large teams that will get in are all mediocrities who would surprise me to survive the first weekend. (I'm sure that at least 1 or 2 will get to the Sweet 16; that's just numbers. But let's hope of the 9-14 seeds that get to the Sweet 16, they are from mid-major or minor conferences.)
Then again, the reason the 96-team field works is the same reason, in the end, the 64-team field works -- and it has nothing to do with the teams that make it (or don't). The NCAA Tournament has always been about the format. Whether the Last 4 In include Florida or not, fans will still rush to the bracket in two weeks to pore over it and make picks, then stay glued to the TV two weeks from tomorrow to watch the games -- no matter who is playing.
Is it more fun when YOUR team is in it? Most of the time. But it's really worth asking yourself: Do they honestly deserve it? I'm not saying Florida can't play their way back into me thinking they deserve it -- a win at Kentucky would suffice, thanks, but I'll settle for 2 wins in the SEC Tournament. And, frankly, even if they lose to Kentucky then in the 1st round of the SECs, they may still make it in as an at-large. But we're a long way from back-to-back title squads.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Championship Week Pick 'Em
Let's get warmed up for the annual Daily Quickie Readers NCAA Tournament pick 'em contest with a Championship Week pick 'em contest. Sign up here. Group name: Daily Quickie Readers.
Advice for SI.com About Video
As we are on the subject of the future of sports journalism, PaidContent had an update on SI.com's new foray into videos -- besides the cheesecake related to the Swimsuit issue -- and it is an interesting (some might say "must-try" experiment) for them. I would urge them to read this post from Jeff Jarvis about an online-news video success story in SI's backyard.
(SI.com's new video unit includes one of the star students in the Entrepreneurial Journalism course that I co-taught with Jarvis at CUNY this past fall: Collin Orcutt. SI.com ME Paul Fichtenbaum and new video honcho Ian Orefice would be smart to give Orcutt plenty of room to innovate; he intuitively gets this stuff Jarvis talks about.)
(SI.com's new video unit includes one of the star students in the Entrepreneurial Journalism course that I co-taught with Jarvis at CUNY this past fall: Collin Orcutt. SI.com ME Paul Fichtenbaum and new video honcho Ian Orefice would be smart to give Orcutt plenty of room to innovate; he intuitively gets this stuff Jarvis talks about.)
The Future of Sports Journalism?
On Saturday, I will be moderating a panel at this year's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, founded by Rockets GM Daryl Morey and my HBS classmate (and Patriots executive) Jessica Gelman. I think it has become one of the best sports conferences of the year, and since it was started a couple of years ago, I have wanted to participate in some way.
After bugging both Jess and Daryl, they graciously have allowed me to participate in this year's conference, including a headliner panel ("The Limits of Moneyball: What the Geeks Don't Get") that includes Mark Cuban, Bill Simmons and Bill Polian, moderated by Michael Lewis.
Although I have a massive appreciation and enthusiasm for analytics in sports, I am by no means an expert; however, I was thrilled that they wanted to expand the agenda to include a panel about sports media, a topic that I care about -- although it is questionable whether I am expert anywhere but my own mind.
Still: There we are -- "Future of Sports Journalism" -- capping (rather than, say, "ending") the day's program. It is going head-to-head with "Coaching Analytics" (featuring Nate Silver!) and "Buzzworthy Events." I hope that we can draw a crowd and that the panel holds up to its potential.
It is a great group: Rob King, Editor-in-Chief of ESPN.com; Henry Abbott, founder of TrueHoop on ESPN.com; Howard Beck, national NBA reporter for the New York Times; and Jason Fry, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and now one of the most influential thinkers on the state and fate of news media, sports and otherwise. I get to lead them in the discussion.
I have a couple of ideas about things I want to talk about, but I would really love to get your input on big issues -- particularly related to the perspective of how consumers are... well, consuming. It's my thesis -- and others' too -- that in all the navel-gazing about the news industry, there hasn't been nearly enough focus on the customer. I hope to dig into that.
But I would love to hear the issues related to sports journalism -- the "future" of sports journalism -- that you think are particularly relevant or interesting, particularly as they can be informed by the group that will be talking on the panel.
Sincere thanks for your input.
-- D.S.
(Don't think there's a Webcam on the event, but I presume there will be a Twitter hashtag you can follow. I'll pass that along as soon as I find out. UPDATE: #sloansportsconf)
After bugging both Jess and Daryl, they graciously have allowed me to participate in this year's conference, including a headliner panel ("The Limits of Moneyball: What the Geeks Don't Get") that includes Mark Cuban, Bill Simmons and Bill Polian, moderated by Michael Lewis.
Although I have a massive appreciation and enthusiasm for analytics in sports, I am by no means an expert; however, I was thrilled that they wanted to expand the agenda to include a panel about sports media, a topic that I care about -- although it is questionable whether I am expert anywhere but my own mind.
Still: There we are -- "Future of Sports Journalism" -- capping (rather than, say, "ending") the day's program. It is going head-to-head with "Coaching Analytics" (featuring Nate Silver!) and "Buzzworthy Events." I hope that we can draw a crowd and that the panel holds up to its potential.
It is a great group: Rob King, Editor-in-Chief of ESPN.com; Henry Abbott, founder of TrueHoop on ESPN.com; Howard Beck, national NBA reporter for the New York Times; and Jason Fry, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and now one of the most influential thinkers on the state and fate of news media, sports and otherwise. I get to lead them in the discussion.
I have a couple of ideas about things I want to talk about, but I would really love to get your input on big issues -- particularly related to the perspective of how consumers are... well, consuming. It's my thesis -- and others' too -- that in all the navel-gazing about the news industry, there hasn't been nearly enough focus on the customer. I hope to dig into that.
But I would love to hear the issues related to sports journalism -- the "future" of sports journalism -- that you think are particularly relevant or interesting, particularly as they can be informed by the group that will be talking on the panel.
Sincere thanks for your input.
-- D.S.
(Don't think there's a Webcam on the event, but I presume there will be a Twitter hashtag you can follow. I'll pass that along as soon as I find out. UPDATE: #sloansportsconf)
Quickie: Suh, EA, LeBron, Bubble, More
It's a good morning for some predictions, which lead today's SN column:
*Erin Andrews is going to win Dancing With the Stars. It's totally obvious.
*LeBron will sell more No. 6 jerseys in the final three months of this year than he will in the previous 2 or 3 seasons.
*Julius Peppers AND Darren Sproles to the Redskins? Can totally see it.
*Here was my biggest prediction: In 3 seasons, Ndamukong Suh may be an NFL star... but Sam Bradford won't even be starting.
*I love that the US-Canada hockey game earned an insane audience -- it will NOT carry over to the NHL; this was a once-in-a-couple-generations event in American sports, let alone hockey.
*As usual, I really really want to pick Georgetown to go to the Final Four. As usual, they are making it very difficult on me.
(I was just thinking: To the folks who think that expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams will water it down -- and I couldn't disagree more, because the Tournament has always been about the format, not the talent -- I want them to defend some of these mediocrities that are on the Bubble in the 64-team format. In advance of tonight's Clemson-GA Tech game, I was checking to see where on the Bubble they were, and SN had them both as 8-seeds, which isn't even close to the Bubble. Does anyone think that either Clemson or GT is going to make noise in the Tournament? In fact, if both were 8s, I'd probably pick them both to lose to the 9-seed and not even make it past the 1st day. This is hardly supportive that the current set-up is rigorous. Now, you could make the argument that expanding that only waters things down further, but I'd argue that things are already pretty watered-down, so you might as well add two more rounds, which will only increase fan interest. Again: Most fans don't care about the fact that teams on the periphery aren't all that good; they just want to fill out their bracket and watch close games during the work day. /end digression)
Check out the complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Quickie: Canada, Purdue, Combine, More
"It feels like s--t." I feel for Ryan Miller and his USA Hockey teammates -- and all USA Hockey fans everywhere, both die-hard and fair-weather -- but, as I lead in today's SN column, it is very difficult to begrudge this hockey gold to the Canadians.
But if you want grudging, the rest of the column will make you happy:
*I remain stunned that any self-respecting bracket expert would even consider Purdue a No. 1 seed -- and that was BEFORE they lost to Michigan State. Let's hope people come to their senses and put them where they should be -- around No. 4.
*Before this weekend, I thought my pick of Syracuse to win the national title was safe but not so conventional that I would be out-bracketed by the masses picking either Kansas or Kentucky. But now EVERYONE will be on the Cuse bandwagon. Drat.
*Speaking of KU/UK, those are precisely the kind of losses that should make you tremble as you stick with the chalk on your bracket in two weeks. (Two weeks? TWO WEEKS!) I still don't know what to make of New Mexico. But I really like Xavier (and Richmond, for that matter).
*Yeah, yeah: I'm in the tank for Tebow, but his Combine measurables WERE impressive -- he will enter the NFL as just about the most overall athletic QB in the league, when you factor in speed, size, strength... my only disappointment is that he didn't do the bench press.
(That I'm in the tank for Tebow also influences my criticism about Bradford and Clausen, but I don't think I'm the only one to question that Bradford (a) has a bum shoulder that may or may not stand up to constant pounding from NFL DE's, and (b) played in just as much of a "system" as any QB in the country. Clausen may or may not be good, but is certainly unlikable.)
*Shaq's out for the rest of the season? Shrug. The Lakers win over the Nuggets feels like foreshadowing. More on the Mavs later -- I was at the Mavs-Hawks game on Friday night and have a few thoughts on both teams.
*Yesterday while in Atlanta, I had the chance to play a die-hard Quickie reader (and Morning Quickie regular) in a game of H-O-R-S-E, and if I lost, I owed him a shout-out in the column. Well, I lost -- barely (and I have some embarrassing potential YouTube video to prove it) -- but I neglected to put him in the SN column today, but I'll make it up in a post later today. And perhaps posting the video.
Complete SN column here.
It's March, everyone. Full-throttle college hoops from here on out. Isn't that glorious?
-- D.S.
But if you want grudging, the rest of the column will make you happy:
*I remain stunned that any self-respecting bracket expert would even consider Purdue a No. 1 seed -- and that was BEFORE they lost to Michigan State. Let's hope people come to their senses and put them where they should be -- around No. 4.
*Before this weekend, I thought my pick of Syracuse to win the national title was safe but not so conventional that I would be out-bracketed by the masses picking either Kansas or Kentucky. But now EVERYONE will be on the Cuse bandwagon. Drat.
*Speaking of KU/UK, those are precisely the kind of losses that should make you tremble as you stick with the chalk on your bracket in two weeks. (Two weeks? TWO WEEKS!) I still don't know what to make of New Mexico. But I really like Xavier (and Richmond, for that matter).
*Yeah, yeah: I'm in the tank for Tebow, but his Combine measurables WERE impressive -- he will enter the NFL as just about the most overall athletic QB in the league, when you factor in speed, size, strength... my only disappointment is that he didn't do the bench press.
(That I'm in the tank for Tebow also influences my criticism about Bradford and Clausen, but I don't think I'm the only one to question that Bradford (a) has a bum shoulder that may or may not stand up to constant pounding from NFL DE's, and (b) played in just as much of a "system" as any QB in the country. Clausen may or may not be good, but is certainly unlikable.)
*Shaq's out for the rest of the season? Shrug. The Lakers win over the Nuggets feels like foreshadowing. More on the Mavs later -- I was at the Mavs-Hawks game on Friday night and have a few thoughts on both teams.
*Yesterday while in Atlanta, I had the chance to play a die-hard Quickie reader (and Morning Quickie regular) in a game of H-O-R-S-E, and if I lost, I owed him a shout-out in the column. Well, I lost -- barely (and I have some embarrassing potential YouTube video to prove it) -- but I neglected to put him in the SN column today, but I'll make it up in a post later today. And perhaps posting the video.
Complete SN column here.
It's March, everyone. Full-throttle college hoops from here on out. Isn't that glorious?
-- D.S.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday 02/28 (Very) Quickie
Sorry for the light posting this weekend. I'm in Atlanta and access to the Web is spotty. Unfortunately, I'm flying back during the US-Canada hockey game, but hoping I can track things via in-flight WiFi.
Meanwhile, aside from satisfying a craving for Chik-Fil-A and Waffle House, I got a chance to go to the Hawks game on Friday night. More on that tomorrow, but it was a great game. I had never seen Jason Kidd in person, so the fact that he had a monster triple-double -- not to mention that crazy play where he ran into the Hawks coach -- was fun. I have a lot of thoughts on Josh Smith, coming tomorrow.
The Kansas and Kentucky losses are precisely the kind of late-season results that can mess with your mind, as we all start to think about how to fill out our brackets. I had been sitting on Syracuse as my pick to win it all -- thinking the majority of people would pick KU or UK -- but after yesterday, Syracuse will likely be the popular pick to win it all. (We'll see if the Big East Tournament cools things off.)
On a random note, I cannot believe that people are still listing Purdue as a No. 1 seed -- these "real-time" brackets completely undercut their credibility by not dropping Purdue until they prove that, without Hummel, they are still worthy of a No. 1. Let's wait and see what they do against Michigan State -- or even in the Big Ten tournament. But I stand by Friday's column: Without Hummel, they are -- at best -- a 4-seed. Tournament seeding should reflect late-season injuries.
But, anyway, yesterday was a great day of games -- precisely for the craziness. (I watched the Florida loss to Georgia in UGA country, and it sucked. I don't understand how Florida can beat Tennessee one night, then lose to Georgia the next; actually, that's exactly the profile of a Bubble team that does NOT deserve to get in... if they do, I can't imagine not picking them to get bounced out early.)
I loved that New Mexico win over BYU -- but I have no idea how to value UNM (or BYU, for that matter) against the Tournament field. Are the Lobos a Xavier-style squad that will make a run to the Elite Eight? Or a nouveau riche pretender that will earn a 3-seed only to flame out early, like South Carolina in 1997 (2-seed loss to Coppin State).
Anyway, complete catch-up tomorrow, both in the SN column and here on the blog. The USA-Canada hockey game should be insane -- I was too young for 1980 (as is anyone under the age of 40), and so this is arguably the most interesting or exciting hockey game that I or anyone under the age of 40 can remember. I'm bummed to not be able to watch it live, but hopefully I can follow the live-blogs and tweets about it, then catch extended highlights. That'll teach me to not bring my laptop on the road for the weekend. If I had to make a Quickie jinx prediction, it would be that Canada is going to win -- it is just easier to be fueled by justifiable revenge than it is to find the power to pull a second straight upset over a superior team on its home ice. I didn't think it was possible for otherwise docile Canadians to get insanely fired up, but this would be the moment.
-- D.S.
--
Meanwhile, aside from satisfying a craving for Chik-Fil-A and Waffle House, I got a chance to go to the Hawks game on Friday night. More on that tomorrow, but it was a great game. I had never seen Jason Kidd in person, so the fact that he had a monster triple-double -- not to mention that crazy play where he ran into the Hawks coach -- was fun. I have a lot of thoughts on Josh Smith, coming tomorrow.
The Kansas and Kentucky losses are precisely the kind of late-season results that can mess with your mind, as we all start to think about how to fill out our brackets. I had been sitting on Syracuse as my pick to win it all -- thinking the majority of people would pick KU or UK -- but after yesterday, Syracuse will likely be the popular pick to win it all. (We'll see if the Big East Tournament cools things off.)
On a random note, I cannot believe that people are still listing Purdue as a No. 1 seed -- these "real-time" brackets completely undercut their credibility by not dropping Purdue until they prove that, without Hummel, they are still worthy of a No. 1. Let's wait and see what they do against Michigan State -- or even in the Big Ten tournament. But I stand by Friday's column: Without Hummel, they are -- at best -- a 4-seed. Tournament seeding should reflect late-season injuries.
But, anyway, yesterday was a great day of games -- precisely for the craziness. (I watched the Florida loss to Georgia in UGA country, and it sucked. I don't understand how Florida can beat Tennessee one night, then lose to Georgia the next; actually, that's exactly the profile of a Bubble team that does NOT deserve to get in... if they do, I can't imagine not picking them to get bounced out early.)
I loved that New Mexico win over BYU -- but I have no idea how to value UNM (or BYU, for that matter) against the Tournament field. Are the Lobos a Xavier-style squad that will make a run to the Elite Eight? Or a nouveau riche pretender that will earn a 3-seed only to flame out early, like South Carolina in 1997 (2-seed loss to Coppin State).
Anyway, complete catch-up tomorrow, both in the SN column and here on the blog. The USA-Canada hockey game should be insane -- I was too young for 1980 (as is anyone under the age of 40), and so this is arguably the most interesting or exciting hockey game that I or anyone under the age of 40 can remember. I'm bummed to not be able to watch it live, but hopefully I can follow the live-blogs and tweets about it, then catch extended highlights. That'll teach me to not bring my laptop on the road for the weekend. If I had to make a Quickie jinx prediction, it would be that Canada is going to win -- it is just easier to be fueled by justifiable revenge than it is to find the power to pull a second straight upset over a superior team on its home ice. I didn't think it was possible for otherwise docile Canadians to get insanely fired up, but this would be the moment.
-- D.S.
--
Friday, February 26, 2010
Quickie: Kim, Hockey and Olympic Legacy
I feel foolish for having mocked the Winter Olympics before they started as irrelevant and something that most fans don't care about and don't watch.
The ratings have been the biggest they have been in a generation. And some of the performances have been legendary -- Kim last night wasn't just the greatest skating performance of all time, but arguably one of the greatest Winter Olympics performances of all time, period.
For the Olympics to have its greatest moment in its biggest event caps what was overachievement on almost every level for these Games. That's the lead of today's SN column.
There's a lot more. I'm rushing off to try to catch a flight to Atlanta, where I will hopefully, weather-permitting depart and arrive in time to catch the Hawks-Mavs game tonight. More later or via Twitter.
-- D.S.
The ratings have been the biggest they have been in a generation. And some of the performances have been legendary -- Kim last night wasn't just the greatest skating performance of all time, but arguably one of the greatest Winter Olympics performances of all time, period.
For the Olympics to have its greatest moment in its biggest event caps what was overachievement on almost every level for these Games. That's the lead of today's SN column.
There's a lot more. I'm rushing off to try to catch a flight to Atlanta, where I will hopefully, weather-permitting depart and arrive in time to catch the Hawks-Mavs game tonight. More later or via Twitter.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Quickie: Where Expectations Meet Injuries
I love mashing up topics for my SN column lead, but it really doesn't lend itself to attaching itself to a particular story. For example, I was struck by two very separate pieces of news:
Lindsey Vonn's injury when she fell in yesterday's race, and Robbie Hummel's knee injury in Purdue's win.
I want to tie them back to expectations: Vonn was expected to compete for five medals -- now she might not even get through 4 races, let alone race her 5th. And Purdue is on the short list for bonafide Final Four contenders... that is, if Hummel is healthy. Without him? Not so much.
It's a reality in sports -- just ask Texas football fans about Colt McCoy in the national title game -- and it feels like one of the more unfair bits of random luck.
By all accounts, this should be One Of Those Years for Purdue -- a program for whom Those Years don't come along very often. If Hummel is healthy, they're in it. If not: Tough luck.
Vonn is in a slightly better position: She already has a dramatic gold -- her first race of the Games -- and a bronze, to go with her two spills. Still: Not quite "cover" worthy.
(It won't matter: If the US hockey team wins gold, they will be next week's cover. They better hope no one gets unexpectedly injured.)
More in today's column:
*Sucks to be Russia hockey.
*Canada: Better off for US loss?
*Combine: All about Bradford
*Kobe: Not ready for back-to-backers?
*Bubble pops for Dayton, San Diego St?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Lindsey Vonn's injury when she fell in yesterday's race, and Robbie Hummel's knee injury in Purdue's win.
I want to tie them back to expectations: Vonn was expected to compete for five medals -- now she might not even get through 4 races, let alone race her 5th. And Purdue is on the short list for bonafide Final Four contenders... that is, if Hummel is healthy. Without him? Not so much.
It's a reality in sports -- just ask Texas football fans about Colt McCoy in the national title game -- and it feels like one of the more unfair bits of random luck.
By all accounts, this should be One Of Those Years for Purdue -- a program for whom Those Years don't come along very often. If Hummel is healthy, they're in it. If not: Tough luck.
Vonn is in a slightly better position: She already has a dramatic gold -- her first race of the Games -- and a bronze, to go with her two spills. Still: Not quite "cover" worthy.
(It won't matter: If the US hockey team wins gold, they will be next week's cover. They better hope no one gets unexpectedly injured.)
More in today's column:
*Sucks to be Russia hockey.
*Canada: Better off for US loss?
*Combine: All about Bradford
*Kobe: Not ready for back-to-backers?
*Bubble pops for Dayton, San Diego St?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Quickie: Best Game of the Year?
My biggest problem with the US win over Canada was that it lacked "win-or-else" stakes that undermine virtually every regular-season game in every sport (except, relatively, college football).
But that is precisely what makes today's Canada-Russia so awesome: The two pre-Olympic favorites for gold (featuring the top two players in the world, no less), playing with some crazy stakes: The winner moves onto a medal opportunity, the loser is utterly humiliated.
Period. Zero-sum.
This is not a professional championship on the line; this is nationalism at its most fervent. This is psyche. This is bragging rights that make UNC-Duke or Red Sox-Yankees look insubstantial.
I think that it is one of the most intriguing single games of the year -- either the past year or the upcoming year, I don't really care which. (You'll groan, but it reminds me of Alabama-Florida in the SEC title game.)
You all know that I don't know much about hockey -- it's why I stay away from it here and in the SN column. But I think this transcends "just" a hockey game. So it leads today's column.
That's not to say that there isn't a ton more in the column:
*Did Kim just put on the performance of the Olympics?
*Did Kramer suffer the biggest choke of the Olympics?
*NFL Combine: Count me among the "meh" crowd.
*Brian Westbrook: Retire his number, Philly. And maybe he should retire, period.
*Kobe is back: And killing it, of course.
*Florida: Off the Bubble with the most energizing win since the 2007 team made its Tournament run. Naturally, this sets up the Gators getting their clock cleaned on the First Thursday.
*More Bubble: Watch San Diego State (at BYU) and Dayton (at Temple) tonight. If either pull an upset on the road, they should move into the field.
(It's this time of year that I look back on my time as college basketball editor at ESPN.com and remember how much fun I had with the Bubble Watch.)
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
But that is precisely what makes today's Canada-Russia so awesome: The two pre-Olympic favorites for gold (featuring the top two players in the world, no less), playing with some crazy stakes: The winner moves onto a medal opportunity, the loser is utterly humiliated.
Period. Zero-sum.
This is not a professional championship on the line; this is nationalism at its most fervent. This is psyche. This is bragging rights that make UNC-Duke or Red Sox-Yankees look insubstantial.
I think that it is one of the most intriguing single games of the year -- either the past year or the upcoming year, I don't really care which. (You'll groan, but it reminds me of Alabama-Florida in the SEC title game.)
You all know that I don't know much about hockey -- it's why I stay away from it here and in the SN column. But I think this transcends "just" a hockey game. So it leads today's column.
That's not to say that there isn't a ton more in the column:
*Did Kim just put on the performance of the Olympics?
*Did Kramer suffer the biggest choke of the Olympics?
*NFL Combine: Count me among the "meh" crowd.
*Brian Westbrook: Retire his number, Philly. And maybe he should retire, period.
*Kobe is back: And killing it, of course.
*Florida: Off the Bubble with the most energizing win since the 2007 team made its Tournament run. Naturally, this sets up the Gators getting their clock cleaned on the First Thursday.
*More Bubble: Watch San Diego State (at BYU) and Dayton (at Temple) tonight. If either pull an upset on the road, they should move into the field.
(It's this time of year that I look back on my time as college basketball editor at ESPN.com and remember how much fun I had with the Bubble Watch.)
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
2/23 Quickie: Appearances And Reality
Canada hockey has benched its goalie. UConn notches another win over a Top 10 team. Tim Tebow has remade his throwing mechanics. LT will have a new jersey next year. The Hawks won in Utah for the first time in forever.
The common thread of most of the biggest storylines this morning in today's column is that appearances are reality.
Is Luongo better than Brodeur? It doesn't matter: Canada HAD to make a cosmetic change.
Is UConn worthy of making the Tournament? My point in this morning's column is that when you fill out the "at-large" field, you want a couple teams that are inconsistent enough that they could seriously freak out the chalk -- that's UConn.
Are Tim Tebow's new mechanics going to be enough to quiet the haters? As long as he ingrains them, yes. (See Teblog for more on that.)
Is the Hawks win in Salt Lake City one of those "symbolism" games that points to a larger season of breakthrough? Probably. (I'm going to Atlanta this weekend and to the Hawks game on Friday night, so I'll get to see for myself.)
Will LaDainian Tomlinson look weird in another team's jersey? Probably, but all he really wants is those reps. He will go into the Hall of Fame as a Charger, but the LT/Charger era is over.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether I could have that column theme EVERY day, not just today... I don't think so. Some days, it's simply about appearances.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
The common thread of most of the biggest storylines this morning in today's column is that appearances are reality.
Is Luongo better than Brodeur? It doesn't matter: Canada HAD to make a cosmetic change.
Is UConn worthy of making the Tournament? My point in this morning's column is that when you fill out the "at-large" field, you want a couple teams that are inconsistent enough that they could seriously freak out the chalk -- that's UConn.
Are Tim Tebow's new mechanics going to be enough to quiet the haters? As long as he ingrains them, yes. (See Teblog for more on that.)
Is the Hawks win in Salt Lake City one of those "symbolism" games that points to a larger season of breakthrough? Probably. (I'm going to Atlanta this weekend and to the Hawks game on Friday night, so I'll get to see for myself.)
Will LaDainian Tomlinson look weird in another team's jersey? Probably, but all he really wants is those reps. He will go into the Hall of Fame as a Charger, but the LT/Charger era is over.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether I could have that column theme EVERY day, not just today... I don't think so. Some days, it's simply about appearances.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Quickie: Hockey Win Was No Miracle
Forgive me for being entirely underwhelmed by the US hockey win over Canada. Well, not entirely: It was certainly an upset. But hardly anything definitive.
It wasn't for a medal. And, leading up to the game, a lot of folks had gone a long way to downplaying this US squad, talking about 2010 as a stepping stone to REAL success in 2014.
The operating theory I come back to is that this was no more meaningful than any regular-season win. Did the Cavs' win over the Lakers this season really mean anything? How about the Colts beating the Pats? Or the Red Sox beating the Yankees? Or UNC beating Duke?
The proof is in the championship -- or medal. And all that the US has done is implode the old expectations and move themselves into more the more standard scrutiny of American Olympic exceptionalism:
Medal or bust.
That's the lead of today's SN column, but you'll find a lot more, including:
*The most interesting thing about Tiger's thing on Friday.
*Why I'm off the Villanova Final Four bandwagon.
*Why I'm still not convinced the Cavs are the team to beat in the East.
*Why T-Mac saves the Knicks' season.
*Why the Hot Rod circuit is in for a huge change.
*Why Oregon is the new The U.
And more. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
It wasn't for a medal. And, leading up to the game, a lot of folks had gone a long way to downplaying this US squad, talking about 2010 as a stepping stone to REAL success in 2014.
The operating theory I come back to is that this was no more meaningful than any regular-season win. Did the Cavs' win over the Lakers this season really mean anything? How about the Colts beating the Pats? Or the Red Sox beating the Yankees? Or UNC beating Duke?
The proof is in the championship -- or medal. And all that the US has done is implode the old expectations and move themselves into more the more standard scrutiny of American Olympic exceptionalism:
Medal or bust.
That's the lead of today's SN column, but you'll find a lot more, including:
*The most interesting thing about Tiger's thing on Friday.
*Why I'm off the Villanova Final Four bandwagon.
*Why I'm still not convinced the Cavs are the team to beat in the East.
*Why T-Mac saves the Knicks' season.
*Why the Hot Rod circuit is in for a huge change.
*Why Oregon is the new The U.
And more. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tiger Apology Reax
*I'm surprised he didn't specify a return to golf -- he must have been coached that talking about returning to playing would undercut his apology.
*Do I believe he was sincere? I believe he is sincerely sorry that he has to prostrate himself publicly, and I believe he is really sorry about the pain he's caused his wife -- then again, not so sorry that he could keep from engaging in the behavior in the first place. But, yes: I caught whiffs of sincerity.
*A wee bit too much angry defiance at some straw men within the media.
*I have heard plenty of people trying to be publicly contrite talk about their Christianity; I have never heard someone talk about Buddhism. It was the most unexpected and refreshing part of the speech.
*Most sincere moment: The long hug Tiger gave his mom. Now THAT was real.
*Do I believe he was sincere? I believe he is sincerely sorry that he has to prostrate himself publicly, and I believe he is really sorry about the pain he's caused his wife -- then again, not so sorry that he could keep from engaging in the behavior in the first place. But, yes: I caught whiffs of sincerity.
*A wee bit too much angry defiance at some straw men within the media.
*I have heard plenty of people trying to be publicly contrite talk about their Christianity; I have never heard someone talk about Buddhism. It was the most unexpected and refreshing part of the speech.
*Most sincere moment: The long hug Tiger gave his mom. Now THAT was real.
Quickie: Tiger, Olympics, NBA Trades, CBB
"I'm sorry" is a minimum threshold from Tiger this morning. The fact that there won't be any media questions to follow that up -- it's not like the questions would have been more than softballs, from the pliant golf media -- make it much less interesting or even sincere than it could have been.
But the real way Tiger could move the needle -- and change the story -- is simply by announcing when he is returning to golf.
THAT is the story that sports media wants to glom onto; they have been uncomfortable reporting on the scandal from the start, and this puts them back on more familiar ground and allows them to begin the "redemption" angle.
So if Tiger was smart, he would add "I'm back" to "I'm sorry."
Meanwhile, more you'll find in today's SN column:
*The most fascinating thing about the NBA trade-deadline jockeying is that it is entirely about the coming offseason. The Cavs wanted to prove to LeBron that he is better off being surrounded by a contender with top pieces; the Knicks simply want to be able to throw money at LeBron and the running buddy of his choice.
*I'm no ice skating aficionado, but I appreciate when athletes save their best performance for the biggest moment in their careers. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it is about as special as it gets in sports. So I salute you, Evan Lysacek -- particularly in fending off Pluchenko, the reigning Olympic champ.
*It is totally the time of year when I begin to solidify my biases for NCAA Tournament bracket-picking. Syracuse had shaken my confidence when they lost at home to Louisville, but they got it back with a win at Georgetown. (Gonzaga? Not buying.) And the Bracket Buster is less about helping a mid-major get an at-large bid than evaluating which, if any, are potential crashers in the Sweet 16.
Lots more in there. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
But the real way Tiger could move the needle -- and change the story -- is simply by announcing when he is returning to golf.
THAT is the story that sports media wants to glom onto; they have been uncomfortable reporting on the scandal from the start, and this puts them back on more familiar ground and allows them to begin the "redemption" angle.
So if Tiger was smart, he would add "I'm back" to "I'm sorry."
Meanwhile, more you'll find in today's SN column:
*The most fascinating thing about the NBA trade-deadline jockeying is that it is entirely about the coming offseason. The Cavs wanted to prove to LeBron that he is better off being surrounded by a contender with top pieces; the Knicks simply want to be able to throw money at LeBron and the running buddy of his choice.
*I'm no ice skating aficionado, but I appreciate when athletes save their best performance for the biggest moment in their careers. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it is about as special as it gets in sports. So I salute you, Evan Lysacek -- particularly in fending off Pluchenko, the reigning Olympic champ.
*It is totally the time of year when I begin to solidify my biases for NCAA Tournament bracket-picking. Syracuse had shaken my confidence when they lost at home to Louisville, but they got it back with a win at Georgetown. (Gonzaga? Not buying.) And the Bracket Buster is less about helping a mid-major get an at-large bid than evaluating which, if any, are potential crashers in the Sweet 16.
Lots more in there. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Quickie: Tiger Hasn't Changed At All
I had to take the lead of today's SN column to tee off on this Tiger "press conference," on a few levels:
(1) Tiger: What a fool. This kind of "no questions" insulation is what got him into trouble in the first place. Hard to believe his advisors were OK with that.
(2) The golf media: Any reporter that is hand-picked by Tiger to watch his press conference should probably be taken off the Tiger beat -- if not the golf beat -- by their editor.
Compounding the ridiculousness is that these hand-picked media toadies aren't even allowed to ask Tiger what would invariably be softball questions! They don't even get to stand in the same room as Tiger and his flunkies. The "media" has to stand in a side room, and they don't get to ask questions. One more time: What self-respecting editor would let their reporter be used like that?
I appreciate the need to show the statement live on TV -- it's news. Check that: It's p.r. performed by a newsworthy subject. (Then again, that's 98 percent of journalism sourcing.)
But I hope it comes with some side commentary from the media folks that don't go for the easy "Tiger redemption" narrative that Team Tiger is surely banking on (and golf media would love to be able to pick up, leaving the unseemly storyline behind -- not that they were covering it particularly aggressively, if at all).
As you can see: I'm a bit fired up about this.
More in today's column: OK, I'm ready to move the Cavs ahead of the Magic as my team to beat in the East. Jamison defends Rashard Lewis really well, and that's what Cleveland needed.
It's hard to pick between Vonn, Shaun and Shani as the biggest star of the Olympics yesterday. Vonn, probably, if only because of the "comeback" storyline. But Shaun might just be the biggest name at the Games. Shani is just effective, and doesn't embrace the p.r. game nearly as effectively or intensely as Vonn and Shaun do.
Purdue gets a win that might put them in consideration for me to pick them into the Final Four; Northwestern gets a loss that is so bad that it's almost better than barely missing the Tournament -- losing a relatively easy must-win at home to Penn State should disqualify any bubble team. Ridiculous.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
(1) Tiger: What a fool. This kind of "no questions" insulation is what got him into trouble in the first place. Hard to believe his advisors were OK with that.
(2) The golf media: Any reporter that is hand-picked by Tiger to watch his press conference should probably be taken off the Tiger beat -- if not the golf beat -- by their editor.
Compounding the ridiculousness is that these hand-picked media toadies aren't even allowed to ask Tiger what would invariably be softball questions! They don't even get to stand in the same room as Tiger and his flunkies. The "media" has to stand in a side room, and they don't get to ask questions. One more time: What self-respecting editor would let their reporter be used like that?
I appreciate the need to show the statement live on TV -- it's news. Check that: It's p.r. performed by a newsworthy subject. (Then again, that's 98 percent of journalism sourcing.)
But I hope it comes with some side commentary from the media folks that don't go for the easy "Tiger redemption" narrative that Team Tiger is surely banking on (and golf media would love to be able to pick up, leaving the unseemly storyline behind -- not that they were covering it particularly aggressively, if at all).
As you can see: I'm a bit fired up about this.
More in today's column: OK, I'm ready to move the Cavs ahead of the Magic as my team to beat in the East. Jamison defends Rashard Lewis really well, and that's what Cleveland needed.
It's hard to pick between Vonn, Shaun and Shani as the biggest star of the Olympics yesterday. Vonn, probably, if only because of the "comeback" storyline. But Shaun might just be the biggest name at the Games. Shani is just effective, and doesn't embrace the p.r. game nearly as effectively or intensely as Vonn and Shaun do.
Purdue gets a win that might put them in consideration for me to pick them into the Final Four; Northwestern gets a loss that is so bad that it's almost better than barely missing the Tournament -- losing a relatively easy must-win at home to Penn State should disqualify any bubble team. Ridiculous.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Quickie: Birthday Fun
So today is my birthday. To celebrate (or "celebrate?"), I'm hopping on a plane -- weather-permitting -- and going to Seattle, a city I last left in my rear-view mirror nearly 13 years ago. If the flight is long enough -- oh, and it is -- I'm going to try to put together a post about my return to the West, because it is loaded with all sorts of nostalgia and symbolism.
In the meantime, here is today's SN column. Sprinting off to the airport. More later, if I can get it posted.
-- D.S.
In the meantime, here is today's SN column. Sprinting off to the airport. More later, if I can get it posted.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Quickie: NBA 108K, Daytona Pothole
Your work or school may be closed today, but the Wake-Up Call at SportingNews.com published in full force this morning, focusing on a couple of big stories from the weekend:
*108,000 people is a lot to watch a basketball game in a single arena. I care more about that particular superlative novelty than the actual game itself.
*Sorry, Jamie McMurray. This will be remembered as the "Pothole 500."
*Yesterday's losses by Syracuse and Georgetown are enough to really shake whatever confidence you had in them as top-tier Final Four contenders.
*More lamentation of the Wizards-Mavs trade, plus a look-ahead at what Amare would do to the balance-of-power in the East if he joined the Cavs.
*In praise of the underappreciated Frank Thomas (and the underpaid Tim Lincecum).
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
*108,000 people is a lot to watch a basketball game in a single arena. I care more about that particular superlative novelty than the actual game itself.
*Sorry, Jamie McMurray. This will be remembered as the "Pothole 500."
*Yesterday's losses by Syracuse and Georgetown are enough to really shake whatever confidence you had in them as top-tier Final Four contenders.
*More lamentation of the Wizards-Mavs trade, plus a look-ahead at what Amare would do to the balance-of-power in the East if he joined the Cavs.
*In praise of the underappreciated Frank Thomas (and the underpaid Tim Lincecum).
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Sunday (Very) Quickie
That was a truly underwhelming dunk contest.
Convincing win for Kentucky: Wall was his usual dominant self. Eric Bledsoe had 16 in the 2nd half -- if Wall/Bledsoe is the best backcourt in the country, it begs the question if there has ever been a better two-freshmen backcourt in the country. The only one I can think of is Jalen Rose-Jimmy King, but I'm sure I'm missing someone.
Congrats to Hannah Kearney.
Question for Apolo Ohno: Do you really accept that silver pridefully, when the only reason you won was because two other skaters ahead of you crashed? I mean: I appreciate that "staying upright for the full race" is a key qualification to winning, but it seems like he backed his way into the record. Of course, other people's mistakes turn losers into winners all the time -- maybe the real lesson is that is precisely the essence of sport and, more specifically, competition.
Mavs-Wiz trade: See the post from last night. It's a steal for Dallas -- I'm particularly a fan of Butler -- and I just with the Wiz had the intellectual honesty to say "We're just dumping salary and we've basically given up. Wouldn't you?" At least they aren't dithering.
-- D.S.
Convincing win for Kentucky: Wall was his usual dominant self. Eric Bledsoe had 16 in the 2nd half -- if Wall/Bledsoe is the best backcourt in the country, it begs the question if there has ever been a better two-freshmen backcourt in the country. The only one I can think of is Jalen Rose-Jimmy King, but I'm sure I'm missing someone.
Congrats to Hannah Kearney.
Question for Apolo Ohno: Do you really accept that silver pridefully, when the only reason you won was because two other skaters ahead of you crashed? I mean: I appreciate that "staying upright for the full race" is a key qualification to winning, but it seems like he backed his way into the record. Of course, other people's mistakes turn losers into winners all the time -- maybe the real lesson is that is precisely the essence of sport and, more specifically, competition.
Mavs-Wiz trade: See the post from last night. It's a steal for Dallas -- I'm particularly a fan of Butler -- and I just with the Wiz had the intellectual honesty to say "We're just dumping salary and we've basically given up. Wouldn't you?" At least they aren't dithering.
-- D.S.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Saturday Night (Very) Quickie
I'm going to DVR the Dunk Contest, so I can skip through almost everything and just watch the handful of dunks being done. And I'm in a crappy mood because I just watched Florida lose at home to Xavier (not that I wasn't convinced they would lose -- who didn't see that coming?)
And I just watched my Wiz get fleeced by the Mavericks in a trade. Trading Caron Butler for Josh Howard? OK, I get it. But throwing in Brendan Haywood seemed unnecessary, given that Haywood was attracting his own attention. The Mavs got much better (Butler is terrific and Haywood is a body to throw at Bynum and Gasol. Even Stevenson is a fearless chippy defender to stick on Kobe.)
The Wiz have given up -- we knew that was coming. Back in June, I appreciated them going for broke this season with their core and Miller/Foye; right now, I wish they had Ricky Rubio or Brandon Jennings and at least some hope for the future. Things will get much much worse for the Wiz before they get better -- short of winning John Wall in the Draft lottery.
Danica was a dud today -- the wreck put a point on it, but it's not like she was challenging the leaders before that happened.
More tomorrow.
And I just watched my Wiz get fleeced by the Mavericks in a trade. Trading Caron Butler for Josh Howard? OK, I get it. But throwing in Brendan Haywood seemed unnecessary, given that Haywood was attracting his own attention. The Mavs got much better (Butler is terrific and Haywood is a body to throw at Bynum and Gasol. Even Stevenson is a fearless chippy defender to stick on Kobe.)
The Wiz have given up -- we knew that was coming. Back in June, I appreciated them going for broke this season with their core and Miller/Foye; right now, I wish they had Ricky Rubio or Brandon Jennings and at least some hope for the future. Things will get much much worse for the Wiz before they get better -- short of winning John Wall in the Draft lottery.
Danica was a dud today -- the wreck put a point on it, but it's not like she was challenging the leaders before that happened.
More tomorrow.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Quickie: Olympics, NBA All-Star, Daytona
For an event so many people purport not to care about, the Winter Olympics generate a couple of different responses:
*Yay, love it all!
*Eh, who cares!
I'm of the mind that it's the ultimate "Did you hear about X?!" -- there are so many athletes (and sports) you haven't heard of or don't care about that the news is distilled down to the weird or uber-dramatic. You might not have seen it live, but you hear about it instantly afterward. It is an event made for viral sensationalism.
That's the essential point of today's SN column: We pretty much know what's going to happen at the NBA All-Star Game, as well as the Daytona 500. The Olympics are about a lot of sports we don't know much about and athletes we know even less about.
And that's the opportunity for excitement.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
*Yay, love it all!
*Eh, who cares!
I'm of the mind that it's the ultimate "Did you hear about X?!" -- there are so many athletes (and sports) you haven't heard of or don't care about that the news is distilled down to the weird or uber-dramatic. You might not have seen it live, but you hear about it instantly afterward. It is an event made for viral sensationalism.
That's the essential point of today's SN column: We pretty much know what's going to happen at the NBA All-Star Game, as well as the Daytona 500. The Olympics are about a lot of sports we don't know much about and athletes we know even less about.
And that's the opportunity for excitement.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Quickie: Bigger Dud: UNC-Duke or Vonn?
I was all set to lead today's SN column with something about Lindsey Vonn, THE star of the Winter Olympics and whose shin injury may turn her into the biggest Olympic fizzle since... eh, Bode? (But that would be last Winter Olympics...hardly a big superlative there.)
But I was compelled by Duke-UNC last night to lead with that, because it's two programs I have no love for -- and college hoops' "best" rivalry looked like a dog.
Duke may be 20-4, but does anyone have any confidence that they will get to the Final Four? Go back and watch the tape of the Georgetown shellacking.
UNC is having a humiliating season on par with Doherty in '02-03 -- maybe worse. We all knew Doherty couldn't coach; Roy is coming off a title and his team was preseason Top 10.
(That detail about preseason expectations/hype -- however ludicrous and wrong-headed... DECOURCY!!! -- allows me to compartmentalize Williams in '10 from Florida in '08.)
UNC being so mediocre gives one last bonus to those of us who hate Duke: It deprives Duke of the full thrill of beating UNC, which so rarely happens these days. And in Chapel Hill, no less! Alas, the rest of us say: "Big whoop: UNC stinks this year."
But I will say this for Duke fans: They dish out the schadenfreude as good as they get it -- at least when it comes to UNC. Duke fans will be willing to trade the rest of us discounting their win over UNC if it means that UNC is so bad this year that they deserve the discounting.
See the rest of today's column here. Apologies for the late posting.
But I was compelled by Duke-UNC last night to lead with that, because it's two programs I have no love for -- and college hoops' "best" rivalry looked like a dog.
Duke may be 20-4, but does anyone have any confidence that they will get to the Final Four? Go back and watch the tape of the Georgetown shellacking.
UNC is having a humiliating season on par with Doherty in '02-03 -- maybe worse. We all knew Doherty couldn't coach; Roy is coming off a title and his team was preseason Top 10.
(That detail about preseason expectations/hype -- however ludicrous and wrong-headed... DECOURCY!!! -- allows me to compartmentalize Williams in '10 from Florida in '08.)
UNC being so mediocre gives one last bonus to those of us who hate Duke: It deprives Duke of the full thrill of beating UNC, which so rarely happens these days. And in Chapel Hill, no less! Alas, the rest of us say: "Big whoop: UNC stinks this year."
But I will say this for Duke fans: They dish out the schadenfreude as good as they get it -- at least when it comes to UNC. Duke fans will be willing to trade the rest of us discounting their win over UNC if it means that UNC is so bad this year that they deserve the discounting.
See the rest of today's column here. Apologies for the late posting.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Quickie: Most Memorable, Cont'd
Thanks for the discussion yesterday -- the list of most memorable champs ever, by sport, was the lead of today's SN column, coming to you from a snowed-in NYC. It's a REALLY slow morning in sports news.
Things will pick up by Friday for the NBA All-Star Weekend preview, but when the biggest story is Michigan State losing at home to Purdue (or perhaps Illinois winning at Wisconsin), it's a slow news cycle. I will say that whoever coined "Lombardi Gras" wins the day.
Check out the whole column here. I'm going to look for more things to blog about around here.
-- D.S.
Things will pick up by Friday for the NBA All-Star Weekend preview, but when the biggest story is Michigan State losing at home to Purdue (or perhaps Illinois winning at Wisconsin), it's a slow news cycle. I will say that whoever coined "Lombardi Gras" wins the day.
Check out the whole column here. I'm going to look for more things to blog about around here.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Quickie: Most Memorable Champs Ever?
The Saints win was pretty monumental, on a lot of levels:
*I can't remember a more universally liked champ -- or a more universally appealing story of a city and fan base.
*The way they won -- including what I would argue was the gutsiest single play-call in Super Bowl history -- was admirable.
*And, from what we found out yesterday: It was the most-watched TV show ever. Not most-watched Super Bowl -- most-watched TV show, displacing the MASH finale.
All those things are packed into today's SN column lead, but it all begs what I think is a pretty interesting question, which I don't cover in the SN column but open up here:
Who was the most memorable team sports champ of all time?
Factors to consider (and this is intentionally related to the details above): Backstory of the team, how they won, how many people were watching (or: how many people were paying attention).
This goes way beyond the avid fan's recollection of a particular champ -- or their ability to reel off champs in whatever sport, year-by-year.
This is about which champs the casual fan -- even the NON-fan -- will remember most. I think these Saints have to qualify at or near the top.
I was curious if you had any other ideas for contenders: The 2004 Red Sox immediately come to mind. If you head back into the '90s or earlier, you start to (a) lose the ubiquity that comes with being a champ in the digital age and (b) lose the 20- and 30-something fans. For example, the '85 Bears were insanely memorable... but if you're under the age of, say, 33, you mostly likely have no memory other than some hazy notion of the Shuffle and "The Fridge."
I'm going to try to figure out the quintessential, most-memorable champion, team sport-by-sport, and I'd love your input/corrections/etc in the comments:
NFL: '09 Saints
MLB: '04 Red Sox
NBA: '96 Bulls
CFB: '05 Texas
CBB: '85 Villanova (?)
NHL: Yikes. You tell me. ('94 Rangers?)
If the input in the Comments helps me work this out, I think I'll try to make it tomorrow's lead item in the SN column. Here's today's version. More later.
-- D.S.
*I can't remember a more universally liked champ -- or a more universally appealing story of a city and fan base.
*The way they won -- including what I would argue was the gutsiest single play-call in Super Bowl history -- was admirable.
*And, from what we found out yesterday: It was the most-watched TV show ever. Not most-watched Super Bowl -- most-watched TV show, displacing the MASH finale.
All those things are packed into today's SN column lead, but it all begs what I think is a pretty interesting question, which I don't cover in the SN column but open up here:
Who was the most memorable team sports champ of all time?
Factors to consider (and this is intentionally related to the details above): Backstory of the team, how they won, how many people were watching (or: how many people were paying attention).
This goes way beyond the avid fan's recollection of a particular champ -- or their ability to reel off champs in whatever sport, year-by-year.
This is about which champs the casual fan -- even the NON-fan -- will remember most. I think these Saints have to qualify at or near the top.
I was curious if you had any other ideas for contenders: The 2004 Red Sox immediately come to mind. If you head back into the '90s or earlier, you start to (a) lose the ubiquity that comes with being a champ in the digital age and (b) lose the 20- and 30-something fans. For example, the '85 Bears were insanely memorable... but if you're under the age of, say, 33, you mostly likely have no memory other than some hazy notion of the Shuffle and "The Fridge."
I'm going to try to figure out the quintessential, most-memorable champion, team sport-by-sport, and I'd love your input/corrections/etc in the comments:
NFL: '09 Saints
MLB: '04 Red Sox
NBA: '96 Bulls
CFB: '05 Texas
CBB: '85 Villanova (?)
NHL: Yikes. You tell me. ('94 Rangers?)
If the input in the Comments helps me work this out, I think I'll try to make it tomorrow's lead item in the SN column. Here's today's version. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 08, 2010
My Favorite Super Bowl Image:
Drew and Baylen Brees
My favorite image from the Super Bowl? This one of Drew Brees holding up his 1-year-old son, Baylen -- or one of the dozens of variations of it that are circulating today.
Baylen is three months younger than my second kid, and I could not only totally picture myself holding him up in this situation, but I can actually sort of understand how Dad Brees must have been feeling in that moment, sharing it with his son. (And I love the detail of the headphones.)
-- D.S.
Baylen is three months younger than my second kid, and I could not only totally picture myself holding him up in this situation, but I can actually sort of understand how Dad Brees must have been feeling in that moment, sharing it with his son. (And I love the detail of the headphones.)
-- D.S.
Quickie: Saints Are The Anti-Colts?
What stood out for me most about the Saints' Super Bowl win over the Colts was that they quashed the cranks and doubters and pundits who consistently challenge any attempt to go against established NFL orthodoxy.
How many "experts" ripped Sean Payton for going for it on 4th down late in the 1st half?
How many "experts" would have ripped Payton for the onside kick, had it failed?
How many "experts" thought it was crazy to go for 2 on that TD? (I can't believe anyone would find it at all gutsy for Payton to have challenged the call, but I'm sure they are out there.)
How many "experts" -- say, Phil Simms, 10 freaking seconds before the play went off! -- would say that you simply can't run an all-out blitz on Peyton Manning with the game on the line?
And yet: Sean Payton and the Saints did all those things, enthusiastically and confidently. And you can only hope that it cracks the -- shall we call it -- "Dungy-esque" school of conservatism.
You all know how annoyed I am at the Colts for having thrown -- yes: thrown -- their final two regular season games, all in some belief it would help them win the Super Bowl.
It is a tenuous connection to link them, I know, but I can't help it: The team of tank-the-game conservatism lost; the team of go-for-it assertiveness won.
Can you imagine Caldwell going for it on 4th? Or trying for 2? Or -- ha! -- attempting that unprecedented onside kick? No way.
And if Payton had embraced his inner Caldwell, the Saints would have lost.
I needed a good superlative for this Super Bowl, and I got one in that onside kick, which I would argue is the gutsiest/most impressive/best play-call in Super Bowl history.
Obviously, we can say that because it worked. But it definitely wouldn't have worked had Payton not even bothered to try, out of fear or NFL convention or whatever drives most of the league.
Today's SN column leads with a tribute to Payton and the Saints playing to win, not playing it safe -- in stark relief to the way the Colts approached the season.
It was thrilling to see such aggressiveness rewarded.
Tons more in the column, including calling the game-sealing INT Peyton's career-defining moment, my favorite ads, an analysis of the Tebow ad, Georgetown, the Caps and more.
Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
How many "experts" ripped Sean Payton for going for it on 4th down late in the 1st half?
How many "experts" would have ripped Payton for the onside kick, had it failed?
How many "experts" thought it was crazy to go for 2 on that TD? (I can't believe anyone would find it at all gutsy for Payton to have challenged the call, but I'm sure they are out there.)
How many "experts" -- say, Phil Simms, 10 freaking seconds before the play went off! -- would say that you simply can't run an all-out blitz on Peyton Manning with the game on the line?
And yet: Sean Payton and the Saints did all those things, enthusiastically and confidently. And you can only hope that it cracks the -- shall we call it -- "Dungy-esque" school of conservatism.
You all know how annoyed I am at the Colts for having thrown -- yes: thrown -- their final two regular season games, all in some belief it would help them win the Super Bowl.
It is a tenuous connection to link them, I know, but I can't help it: The team of tank-the-game conservatism lost; the team of go-for-it assertiveness won.
Can you imagine Caldwell going for it on 4th? Or trying for 2? Or -- ha! -- attempting that unprecedented onside kick? No way.
And if Payton had embraced his inner Caldwell, the Saints would have lost.
I needed a good superlative for this Super Bowl, and I got one in that onside kick, which I would argue is the gutsiest/most impressive/best play-call in Super Bowl history.
Obviously, we can say that because it worked. But it definitely wouldn't have worked had Payton not even bothered to try, out of fear or NFL convention or whatever drives most of the league.
Today's SN column leads with a tribute to Payton and the Saints playing to win, not playing it safe -- in stark relief to the way the Colts approached the season.
It was thrilling to see such aggressiveness rewarded.
Tons more in the column, including calling the game-sealing INT Peyton's career-defining moment, my favorite ads, an analysis of the Tebow ad, Georgetown, the Caps and more.
Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Who Dat? Saints Topple Colts in Thriller
I'm still working on my SN column for Monday morning, but I thought that game was terrific, for three big reasons: (1) The Saints -- the new "America's Team" -- won. (2) The win was punctuated by some truly bold calls by Sean Payton. And (3) the game-sealing ending of Peyton's INT couldn't have been more epic -- the league's best QB throwing his Super Bowl chances away in a pick-6.
Much more tomorrow, but a quick congrats to the long-suffering Saints fans -- enjoy it. I thought the Google ad was the best one -- a simple yet smart version of your typical "guy-centric" Super Bowl ad (of which there were way too many and all running together).
And the Tebow ad was an absolute non-event, except that I did not see his tackle of his mom coming; I give them credit for adding in a little playfulness to it. (Too bad CBS ran the Snickers Betty White-tackling right before it, because it gave the appearance of being derivative, which it obviously wasn't.)
More tomorrow.
-- D.S.
Much more tomorrow, but a quick congrats to the long-suffering Saints fans -- enjoy it. I thought the Google ad was the best one -- a simple yet smart version of your typical "guy-centric" Super Bowl ad (of which there were way too many and all running together).
And the Tebow ad was an absolute non-event, except that I did not see his tackle of his mom coming; I give them credit for adding in a little playfulness to it. (Too bad CBS ran the Snickers Betty White-tackling right before it, because it gave the appearance of being derivative, which it obviously wasn't.)
More tomorrow.
-- D.S.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Saturday (Very) Quickie
Wow, for the second straight Saturday, Georgetown is just throttling a Top 10 opponent in D.C. Last week it was Duke; this week it's Villanova -- a much better team than Duke.
So yeah: Chauncey Billups (39 pts vs. LAL) deserved that All-Star fill-in spot for Chris Paul.
The Mariners are giving Erik Bedard another try -- he's a bit like Ben Sheets: He's probably not going to stay healthy, but if he is healthy, he could be productive.
The Tebow Super Bowl ad will run in the high-profile 1st quarter. Prediction: It will be the ad that everyone is talking about on Monday -- as it was the ad everyone was talking about last week.
The Saturday before the Super Bowl is particularly slow, like everyone is just laying low before diving headfirst into tomorrow.
-- D.S.
So yeah: Chauncey Billups (39 pts vs. LAL) deserved that All-Star fill-in spot for Chris Paul.
The Mariners are giving Erik Bedard another try -- he's a bit like Ben Sheets: He's probably not going to stay healthy, but if he is healthy, he could be productive.
The Tebow Super Bowl ad will run in the high-profile 1st quarter. Prediction: It will be the ad that everyone is talking about on Monday -- as it was the ad everyone was talking about last week.
The Saturday before the Super Bowl is particularly slow, like everyone is just laying low before diving headfirst into tomorrow.
-- D.S.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Quickie: Can You NOT Root for Saints?
Some (or many) of you may argue with my contention that if the Saints win the Super Bowl, it would be the most meaningful championship in NFL history, possibly sports history.
(That feels like a classic piece of Quickie "instant history.")
But I'd be curious if any of you disagree that this Super Bowl has a greater disparity between rooting interests than any championship game before it.
Aside from Colts fans, it's very hard to find someone not rooting for the Saints.
Partly, that's because the Saints have few "natural enemies" among other fanbases. And that's because they were so prototypically bad for so long. And that's why the Saints winning matters.
Yes, there's a sense of post-Katrina sympathy. But I think most football fans feel good for the Saints and their fans because of the legacy of horrible football, finally being upended.
And so while more people than not think the Colts will win the game -- in today's SN column, I pick the Saints to beat the Colts, 34-28 -- almost everyone WANTS the Saints to win.
*****
There are plenty of other storylines -- I covered them in Monday's column: Manning's destiny, Manning vs. Brees, the Colts' formerly anonymous WRs, Dwight Freeney, Reggie Bush, the Saints' opportunistic D, the Bill Parcells tree vs. the Tony Dungy tree, the Tim Tebow abortion ad, all the other ads.
I think my personal favorite storyline is that this is really the first "Twitter Super Bowl."
Two years ago, I was on Twitter and one of the first things I did was tweet during the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. It was a ton of fun, although I'm not sure if anyone was actually following. Last year it was a little more active, but Twitter didn't hit its tipping point -- particularly in sports media -- until after last year's Super Bowl.
This year it will be overwhelming -- everything will be dissected within nanoseconds, every ad critiqued within 30 seconds, every possible joke made so quickly that seeing it the next morning will feel stale. It will be interesting to watch -- and follow.
More you'll find in today's column:
*But Mike Dunleavy is still the GM!
*Don't ride GA Tech in the Tournament.
*CBB's Weekend Best: Nova at G'town
*Orlando Hudson: Stealth Hot Stove steal?
*Tomlinson: Anyone want him?
*NFL Lockout a near-certainty?
*What will Tiger do first thing after rehab?
*Danica Patrick takes NASCAR.
Check out the whole thing here. (If it's not there, just check back around 9-ish.) More later.
-- D.S.
(That feels like a classic piece of Quickie "instant history.")
But I'd be curious if any of you disagree that this Super Bowl has a greater disparity between rooting interests than any championship game before it.
Aside from Colts fans, it's very hard to find someone not rooting for the Saints.
Partly, that's because the Saints have few "natural enemies" among other fanbases. And that's because they were so prototypically bad for so long. And that's why the Saints winning matters.
Yes, there's a sense of post-Katrina sympathy. But I think most football fans feel good for the Saints and their fans because of the legacy of horrible football, finally being upended.
And so while more people than not think the Colts will win the game -- in today's SN column, I pick the Saints to beat the Colts, 34-28 -- almost everyone WANTS the Saints to win.
*****
There are plenty of other storylines -- I covered them in Monday's column: Manning's destiny, Manning vs. Brees, the Colts' formerly anonymous WRs, Dwight Freeney, Reggie Bush, the Saints' opportunistic D, the Bill Parcells tree vs. the Tony Dungy tree, the Tim Tebow abortion ad, all the other ads.
I think my personal favorite storyline is that this is really the first "Twitter Super Bowl."
Two years ago, I was on Twitter and one of the first things I did was tweet during the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. It was a ton of fun, although I'm not sure if anyone was actually following. Last year it was a little more active, but Twitter didn't hit its tipping point -- particularly in sports media -- until after last year's Super Bowl.
This year it will be overwhelming -- everything will be dissected within nanoseconds, every ad critiqued within 30 seconds, every possible joke made so quickly that seeing it the next morning will feel stale. It will be interesting to watch -- and follow.
More you'll find in today's column:
*But Mike Dunleavy is still the GM!
*Don't ride GA Tech in the Tournament.
*CBB's Weekend Best: Nova at G'town
*Orlando Hudson: Stealth Hot Stove steal?
*Tomlinson: Anyone want him?
*NFL Lockout a near-certainty?
*What will Tiger do first thing after rehab?
*Danica Patrick takes NASCAR.
Check out the whole thing here. (If it's not there, just check back around 9-ish.) More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
What To Do With Championship Loser Gear
As most of you know, I come up with a lot of really cockamamie ideas -- most of the time, they have at least some tangential relationship to business, because that's the way I convince myself that I'm putting my MBA to good use.
Earlier today, I saw this tweet from CNBC's Darren Rovell that referenced some news that the NCAA and the apparel-maker from the national title game are going to send $300,000 worth of "University of Texas 2009 College Football National Championship" gear to Haiti.
No, they're not sending $300,00 -- they're sending the T-shirts. Now, I'm sure the T-shirts can help. When championship games are over, the losing team's pre-printed "Champions!" gear is either destroyed or shipped across the world to developing countries.
Here's the thing: I can't possibly be alone in considering that gear the Holy Grail of sports memorabilia. Partly, because it's this amazing "What coulda/shoulda/woulda been" for your team, but mostly because you can NEVER find it. Not on eBay. Nowhere. It has to be the most locked-down product in the world -- it makes Apple pre-launch secrecy look porous.
So my initial reaction was that some enterprising relief worker should grab 100 of the shirts, take them back to Texas, sell them for $100 each to desperate, crazy Texas fans and bring back $10,000 to help the relief effort.
Then, in writing this idea out to Rovell in an email, I realized that this is a pain in the ass for the relief worker. What should really happen is that the NCAA (or NFL or MLB or NBA) should make the gear available for limited time sale at some price commensurate with its scarcity and "Holy Grail" value -- say, $100 per shirt, with only a limited batch available. Then the NCAA can give that cash directly to the relief efforts.
I called it the "You Lost, They Win" campaign, which I think is kind of catchy.
Anyway, to the point of the the post it turned into for Darren: When the Super Bowl is over, the NFL should sell the "Champions!" gear of the losing team and send all the proceeds to Haiti. It's better than shipping them the shirts -- and it sure is better than simply destroying them.
In my ideal world, the NFL -- and all the other leagues -- makes an entire line of these (down to the retro logo of that particular year's championship event), because most fans have lost a championship game or series at one time or another, and the chance to own a piece of the alternate history would be a huge appeal for many fans.
And it would create a lot of money for relief efforts in Haiti. Isn't that the point? Donating the shirts is nice -- sending cash is better.
Thoughts on that? Yes, I know the leagues would never agree to it -- although the notion that it's for Haiti relief rather than to line the pockets of a T-shirt entrepreneur should help. And if thousands of fans are wearing team gear, isn't that good for the leagues' marketing efforts? Who cares if it says "Seattle Seahawks: Super Bowl XL Champions" -- everyone wins, literally.
-- D.S.
Earlier today, I saw this tweet from CNBC's Darren Rovell that referenced some news that the NCAA and the apparel-maker from the national title game are going to send $300,000 worth of "University of Texas 2009 College Football National Championship" gear to Haiti.
No, they're not sending $300,00 -- they're sending the T-shirts. Now, I'm sure the T-shirts can help. When championship games are over, the losing team's pre-printed "Champions!" gear is either destroyed or shipped across the world to developing countries.
Here's the thing: I can't possibly be alone in considering that gear the Holy Grail of sports memorabilia. Partly, because it's this amazing "What coulda/shoulda/woulda been" for your team, but mostly because you can NEVER find it. Not on eBay. Nowhere. It has to be the most locked-down product in the world -- it makes Apple pre-launch secrecy look porous.
So my initial reaction was that some enterprising relief worker should grab 100 of the shirts, take them back to Texas, sell them for $100 each to desperate, crazy Texas fans and bring back $10,000 to help the relief effort.
Then, in writing this idea out to Rovell in an email, I realized that this is a pain in the ass for the relief worker. What should really happen is that the NCAA (or NFL or MLB or NBA) should make the gear available for limited time sale at some price commensurate with its scarcity and "Holy Grail" value -- say, $100 per shirt, with only a limited batch available. Then the NCAA can give that cash directly to the relief efforts.
I called it the "You Lost, They Win" campaign, which I think is kind of catchy.
Anyway, to the point of the the post it turned into for Darren: When the Super Bowl is over, the NFL should sell the "Champions!" gear of the losing team and send all the proceeds to Haiti. It's better than shipping them the shirts -- and it sure is better than simply destroying them.
In my ideal world, the NFL -- and all the other leagues -- makes an entire line of these (down to the retro logo of that particular year's championship event), because most fans have lost a championship game or series at one time or another, and the chance to own a piece of the alternate history would be a huge appeal for many fans.
And it would create a lot of money for relief efforts in Haiti. Isn't that the point? Donating the shirts is nice -- sending cash is better.
Thoughts on that? Yes, I know the leagues would never agree to it -- although the notion that it's for Haiti relief rather than to line the pockets of a T-shirt entrepreneur should help. And if thousands of fans are wearing team gear, isn't that good for the leagues' marketing efforts? Who cares if it says "Seattle Seahawks: Super Bowl XL Champions" -- everyone wins, literally.
-- D.S.
Quickie: Big Day for South Florida
South Florida has the Super Bowl. It was the heart of Florida's No. 1-ranked recruiting class. And it's the home of the USF Bulls, who went on the road and upset Georgetown last night.
Pretty good time for the region, and that leads today's SN column. There's a lot more in there, including the Seantrel Henderson situation, Jason Verlander's new contract, Chauncey Billups and the new Chris Paul and the obligatory reference to Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad.
Check it out -- and let's get the Super Bowl predictions going in the Comments. I'll have mine tomorrow. I want to pick the Saints, but I feel like the Saints winning is too important to ruin with the Quickie jinx...
-- D.S.
PS: Thanks to all who came out for the panel last night. A lot of fun and I thought a very interesting conversation.
Tonight, I get a homecoming with Varsity Letters -- about to finish its 4th year of existence since I launched it in March 2006 -- for what might be the most high-profile event yet: A sold-out reading from Malcolm Gladwell and Chuck Klosterman. Kudos to Gelf Magazine for such big "gets" and for turning the series into something so consistently amazing. Should be fun.
Pretty good time for the region, and that leads today's SN column. There's a lot more in there, including the Seantrel Henderson situation, Jason Verlander's new contract, Chauncey Billups and the new Chris Paul and the obligatory reference to Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad.
Check it out -- and let's get the Super Bowl predictions going in the Comments. I'll have mine tomorrow. I want to pick the Saints, but I feel like the Saints winning is too important to ruin with the Quickie jinx...
-- D.S.
PS: Thanks to all who came out for the panel last night. A lot of fun and I thought a very interesting conversation.
Tonight, I get a homecoming with Varsity Letters -- about to finish its 4th year of existence since I launched it in March 2006 -- for what might be the most high-profile event yet: A sold-out reading from Malcolm Gladwell and Chuck Klosterman. Kudos to Gelf Magazine for such big "gets" and for turning the series into something so consistently amazing. Should be fun.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Quickie: National Signing Day as Holiday
Indulge me for a minute (ed.: a minute?), as I attempt to tie today's National Signing Day in college football to something more of us can relate to.
When I was a freshman in college, I participated in the fraternity rush process. At Northwestern, rush week was the first week of the winter term, in January, so that meant you could look around in the fall -- it also meant that, unofficially, fraternities could put on the full-court press starting the first week of school in September.
Now, the houses weren't supposed to do this, but they did it anyway, for obvious reasons: A strong (usually big) class would ensure the fraternity's vitality for at least a few more years, would impact subsequent years' "recruiting" efforts, enhance its stature in the school's social system, etc. And, not unlike college football, some fraternities were really good at the unofficial rush process.
I'm not ashamed to say -- although maybe I should be, a little -- that I really enjoyed this unofficial recruiting season. I'm not saying I showed up for free steaks at houses that I had no interest in joining, but for the ones I did want to join, I really liked the attention they paid.
And who wouldn't? You're a new freshman. These older students are hanging out with you. You'd like to think they were being sincere, but if they were kissing your ass a bit, what's the harm? (Nevermind that the payback from "rushee" to "pledge" is typically taken out harshly, with usurious interest.)
The process made you feel really good about yourself -- frankly, I look back at my attitude that first fall semester and am in retrospective awe/embarrassment of my own opinion of myself. If 36-year-old me met 18-year-old me, I'd either throttle myself... or try to bottle it to bring it back with me.
So I spent the majority of my time in the fall hanging out with folks -- both freshmen and upperclassmen -- of one particular house. Terrific guys. In college football recruiting terms, I think they counted me as a "solid." That said: I did not commit to anything. I got an official offer to join the house within minutes of the opening of regulation "rush week." I think they were surprised -- even shocked -- when I didn't immediately accept. All of the other guys I hung out with the previous fall had all accepted on the spot. It was awkward. I felt awkward. But I wasn't sure.
With the bid in hand -- and feeling weird about what was increasingly becoming a hard sell -- I started spending time at another house where I knew and liked some of the guys. In fact, I spent the majority of my rush week there. The long-time favorite was getting nervous. The underdog got more confident that they could flip my would-be commitment. I was torn -- extremely torn. (Again: Looking back, it seems silly, but at the time it felt like one of these "your life, long-term, will be impacted by this decision." Maybe it was one of those rare instances.)
I was not unlike some of these college football recruits who waited until today -- National Signing Day -- to declare their allegiance. And I wasn't milking it -- I was really confused. After creating these relationships, I didn't want to let one of the groups down.
I was down to the last day of rush week, and I had offers from both houses. I yanked myself out of the process and hung out with a bunch of seniors I was rowing with (the crew team was its own quasi-fraternity, but that's another story). They weren't particularly pro-fraternity, but they appreciated my interest in it and tried to give me some perspective, which turned out to be helpful in making my decision.
I ended up turning down the fraternity I had spent most of the fall with. At the time, it was a tough conversation -- but once I made the decision, I knew it was the right one. And it's not unlike picking a school or two competing jobs: Everyone understands that's how the business goes. (And, later in my college life, I was on the other end of the process, when great freshmen I was hoping would join my house went another way. If nothing else, I could relate.)
I'm not saying that rushing and joining a college fraternity is exactly like committing to a school to play football -- but I think anyone who has gone through a rush-style process, whether it's for a fraternity/sorority or a job or any kind of club, have at least some accessibility to what these kids are going through today.
Obviously, it's a bigger deal -- picking a fraternity isn't nearly as big as picking a college, particularly when the college you pick might materially influence your ability to develop yourself for a professional career. This is among the biggest choices these players have ever made -- and might ever make.
You'd like to think that they could end up at plenty of places and still succeed -- I doubt my college experience would have suffered had I joined the other house. It would have been different, no doubt, but would it really have been worse?
But, more than that, you hope that after these months and months of consideration, they make their decision and can put it behind them.
Here's the lesson I took away from the rush process: You make the best choice you can, based on whatever factors are important to you, then you move on to the next challenge. The worst thing you can do is say, "I wish I chose differently" or "What if..."
It's not a bad attitude for fans to have if/when certain recruits spurn their program for someone else.
Check out today's SN column here, featuring more on NSD, Super Bowl Media Day, John Wall, Michigan State, South Carolina football, Joe Mauer, McDonald's Super Bowl ads, The Blind Side and more.
-- D.S.
When I was a freshman in college, I participated in the fraternity rush process. At Northwestern, rush week was the first week of the winter term, in January, so that meant you could look around in the fall -- it also meant that, unofficially, fraternities could put on the full-court press starting the first week of school in September.
Now, the houses weren't supposed to do this, but they did it anyway, for obvious reasons: A strong (usually big) class would ensure the fraternity's vitality for at least a few more years, would impact subsequent years' "recruiting" efforts, enhance its stature in the school's social system, etc. And, not unlike college football, some fraternities were really good at the unofficial rush process.
I'm not ashamed to say -- although maybe I should be, a little -- that I really enjoyed this unofficial recruiting season. I'm not saying I showed up for free steaks at houses that I had no interest in joining, but for the ones I did want to join, I really liked the attention they paid.
And who wouldn't? You're a new freshman. These older students are hanging out with you. You'd like to think they were being sincere, but if they were kissing your ass a bit, what's the harm? (Nevermind that the payback from "rushee" to "pledge" is typically taken out harshly, with usurious interest.)
The process made you feel really good about yourself -- frankly, I look back at my attitude that first fall semester and am in retrospective awe/embarrassment of my own opinion of myself. If 36-year-old me met 18-year-old me, I'd either throttle myself... or try to bottle it to bring it back with me.
So I spent the majority of my time in the fall hanging out with folks -- both freshmen and upperclassmen -- of one particular house. Terrific guys. In college football recruiting terms, I think they counted me as a "solid." That said: I did not commit to anything. I got an official offer to join the house within minutes of the opening of regulation "rush week." I think they were surprised -- even shocked -- when I didn't immediately accept. All of the other guys I hung out with the previous fall had all accepted on the spot. It was awkward. I felt awkward. But I wasn't sure.
With the bid in hand -- and feeling weird about what was increasingly becoming a hard sell -- I started spending time at another house where I knew and liked some of the guys. In fact, I spent the majority of my rush week there. The long-time favorite was getting nervous. The underdog got more confident that they could flip my would-be commitment. I was torn -- extremely torn. (Again: Looking back, it seems silly, but at the time it felt like one of these "your life, long-term, will be impacted by this decision." Maybe it was one of those rare instances.)
I was not unlike some of these college football recruits who waited until today -- National Signing Day -- to declare their allegiance. And I wasn't milking it -- I was really confused. After creating these relationships, I didn't want to let one of the groups down.
I was down to the last day of rush week, and I had offers from both houses. I yanked myself out of the process and hung out with a bunch of seniors I was rowing with (the crew team was its own quasi-fraternity, but that's another story). They weren't particularly pro-fraternity, but they appreciated my interest in it and tried to give me some perspective, which turned out to be helpful in making my decision.
I ended up turning down the fraternity I had spent most of the fall with. At the time, it was a tough conversation -- but once I made the decision, I knew it was the right one. And it's not unlike picking a school or two competing jobs: Everyone understands that's how the business goes. (And, later in my college life, I was on the other end of the process, when great freshmen I was hoping would join my house went another way. If nothing else, I could relate.)
I'm not saying that rushing and joining a college fraternity is exactly like committing to a school to play football -- but I think anyone who has gone through a rush-style process, whether it's for a fraternity/sorority or a job or any kind of club, have at least some accessibility to what these kids are going through today.
Obviously, it's a bigger deal -- picking a fraternity isn't nearly as big as picking a college, particularly when the college you pick might materially influence your ability to develop yourself for a professional career. This is among the biggest choices these players have ever made -- and might ever make.
You'd like to think that they could end up at plenty of places and still succeed -- I doubt my college experience would have suffered had I joined the other house. It would have been different, no doubt, but would it really have been worse?
But, more than that, you hope that after these months and months of consideration, they make their decision and can put it behind them.
Here's the lesson I took away from the rush process: You make the best choice you can, based on whatever factors are important to you, then you move on to the next challenge. The worst thing you can do is say, "I wish I chose differently" or "What if..."
It's not a bad attitude for fans to have if/when certain recruits spurn their program for someone else.
Check out today's SN column here, featuring more on NSD, Super Bowl Media Day, John Wall, Michigan State, South Carolina football, Joe Mauer, McDonald's Super Bowl ads, The Blind Side and more.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
NYC Social Media Week Sports Event
If you live in NYC, think about dropping by for the Social Media Week panel I'm hosting tomorrow about the new realities of sports media. It features Will Leitch, Jason Fry, Stephanie Wei and Amy K. Nelson. Should be a lot of fun. It's from 5-6 at Destination (211 Avenue A at 13th St.) Doors open at 4:30. Strategically, the place only holds 75, so even when only a handful of people show up, it'll look not embarrassingly full. (Actually, I've just been alerted that the event web site lists it as "sold out." Have no idea if someone is checking some kind of ticket at the door or if you get there, you can just walk in and take a seat, regardless of RSVP.)
Quickie: Super Bowl Media Day - or Daze?
You all know I'm all for unconventional media -- and I'm no great fan of traditional sports media coverage -- but Super Bowl Media Day is a joke.
First, the mainstream media people ask questions that define "trite." Then they grumble when the entertainment interlopers show up and distract from the trite questioning.
But it's not like the interlopers are particularly funny. Ooh, it's a hot foreign TV reporter! Ooh, that hilarious late-night correspondent is doing something "edgy!" Please.
In the end, blame the NFL -- they embraced the tradition of Media Day dumbness.
All this so we can talk about the same half-dozen storylines -- with the exact same quotes used -- between now and Sunday.
BTW, you can watch the media horde for yourself at NFL.com -- and I'm sure Twitter will have a banner afternoon of updates and meme-watching.
That's the lead of today's SN column. There's a ton more in there, including:
*Why expanding the NCAA Tourney to 96 is great.
*Why Joe Mauer is the LeBron James of MLB.
*Why golf really needs Tiger back on the course.
*Why Groundhog Day is a classic movie.
*And a lot more.
Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Monday Quickie: Super Cliched Storylines
Due to some weird error, I didn't link today's SN column this morning as I thought I did. Here you go, featuring the 8-10 Super Bowl storylines you'll be sick of by Sunday. Or, say, tomorrow.
Sorry about that. A lot more in there, including why I think Kansas deserves to be named the team to beat.
Back at the usual time tomorrow -- probably leading with Media Day or Joe Mauer, if you want some sort of sneak-peek.
-- D.S.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday (Very) Quickie
Just a couple quick things -- I'm headed out to a Bloomberg/MLB product demo that I'll either tweet about or write about... as soon as I figure out what they're actually doing.
*I know college hoops maniacs start obsessing in November, but in a larger sense, college hoops felt like it hit its crazy season (48 hours ahead of February) yesterday. The G'town throttling of Duke -- in front of the First Fan, no less -- was fascinating. But the main event was Kansas edging K-State in Manhattan, which had to be among the best college hoops environments I have ever seen. Kudos to the K-State fans, who were insanely awesome. And what a win for KU -- that's one of those I file away for March. As was Gonzaga's loss to San Francisco. (More on that file-away-for-March stuff later this week.)
*Yes, I watched most of the Senior Bowl. Yes, it was the worst game performance by Tim Tebow since he entered college. It probably couldn't have gone worse, right down to the solid play, in contrast, by "Tebow Lite," Dan LeFevour. No, I think it doesn't change anything about Tebow's NFL Draft stock or his NFL future.
*I didn't watch the game, but how the eff did Andre Miller score 52 points? 50+ remains a really cool barrier in NBA games, and Miller is an unlikely addition to the list.
*Herschel. Walker. (Enough said.)
*Roger Federer reminds us why he's the greatest tennis player of all time, with another major title.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Anyone watching the Pro Bowl? I'm not.
-- D.S.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Quickie: Exhibition Bowls: Do You Care?
(I didn't write a post about the Tebow Super Bowl ad here yesterday, but I did do a long post over at TimTeblog.com -- check it out. It says everything I would have written here.)
But all eyes -- or at least some eyes -- are on the single-star power at the Senior Bowl (Tebow) and the non-star power at the Pro Bowl (where the big storyline is the players who AREN'T playing). The big question is: Will fans watch?
Will fans watch the Senior Bowl because of their intrigue over Tebow? His inclusion in the game sparked a run on ticket sales -- will curious fans tune in on TV? And will fans watch the Pro Bowl because -- well -- it's the first Sunday without non-exhibition pro football in 21 weeks? The players may not want to be there, but I'm predicting fans tune in (at least enough to keep the game as a pre-Super Bowl event in the SB host city).
The Bowls (Senior and Pro) lead today's SN column, but there is a lot more:
*Kurt Warner's retirement: Or will he pull a Favre?
*NBA All-Star Snubs: Josh Smith vs. David Lee
*Ken Griffy: 40 and sexy?
*Steven Jackson: Yikes
*CBB Games of the Weekend: More than Ivies.
*Super Bowl ads: Focus on the Family vs. GoDaddy
*Why Carrie Underwood and not Ke$ha.
See the whole thing here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Quickie: Arenas, Tebow, Warner, More
I'd like to think that I don't write about Tim Tebow gratuitously -- I can picture almost all of you saying, "Ha!" -- and yet of all the days when I could clearly justify leading today's SN column with him, I bump him down to the second spot, behind Gilbert Arenas.
Maybe I'm just projecting your Tebow Fatigue (or fatigue that I continuously write about him), but there are two separate Tebow issues this week: One is the Senior Bowl, which I covered on Monday. (Rightfully so: He's THE story of the Senior Bowl and the biggest storyline of the NFL Draft. I'm hardly the only one talking about how he's doing in Mobile.)
But the second is his controversial Super Bowl ad. I had covered the inklings of the ad on TimTeblog a month ago -- I should have put some money down back then that it would become a huge issue in the slow week before the week before the Super Bowl, because it has.
Everyone is weighing in -- many did it last week (I revisited it at Teblog last week, too, an analysis I have adjusted my opinion on slightly), but it went a little more mainstream this week: Joy Behar talked about it on The View, and yesterday Sarah Palin made it the subject of her widely followed Facebook page, elevating it further.
It's fair to say that it has become the most talked-about ad of the Super Bowl -- which is saying something (and undoubtedly was something that Focus on the Family had to have planned for, giving them way more value for their money than the simple $2 million payment to CBS).
While I have talked about it at TimTeblog, I haven't really covered it here. I'll do that in a post later today. But there's no question that the story is "national" and "mainstream." One more data point about Tebow's prominence as an athlete, whether in college or the pros.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Arenas done for the season: Let the healing (or negotiations) begin? As a huge Arenas and huge Wizards fan, I actually hope they can work it out and he can stay on the team. But I suspect that they'll end up paying him a ton of money to play for someone else. Great...
*Kurt Warner retiring: I have said this before and say it again in the column -- Warner is the single-greatest individual player story in NFL history. He went from Arena League-playing, grocery-bagging nobody to a Hall of Fame quarterback, the ultimate rags-to-riches story.
*It's hard for me to get too excited about New Mexico beating BYU -- both are going to make the NCAA Tournament, so it's not like they were playing a knock-out game. I had thought UNM was overrated, so it was a very good win -- although The Pit is a huge advantage.
*One more reason to think the Baseball Hall of Fame is a joke: They are forcing Andre Dawson to be enshrined in an Expos hat, even though he personally wants to wear a Cubs hat. How could the Hall not let the player pick their own hat? This seems like an overreach.
Tons more in the column. Check back later for more.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tablet Mania
Like a lot of other people, I'm genuinely excited about the announcement about Apple's new "tablet" product today.
I do think it will be a game-changer, for consumers and even for old-line media companies, which hopefully will be as concerned with innovation as monetization.
I will leave you with this simple equation:
Apple tablet + Red Zone Channel = !!!!!!!!!!!
(I don't get Red Zone through my cable network, but if I was given the opportunity to subscribe to an a la carte mobile version of it for my phone and tablet, I would pay a lot, just as I would for March Madness. Let's start at my willingness to pay $100 for the season and go from there.)
Quickie: State of the Sports Union
On the day of the actual State of the Union, I try to put together a "State of the Sports Union" -- and, usually, it's a pretty good report. This year is no exception, leading today's SN column. (Sorry for the bad link yesterday.)
The NFL has never been stronger. The NBA is in a renaissance. MLB has its king back on top. College football has BCS issues, but fans care more than ever. College hoops -- thanks to last night's South Carolina upset of Kentucky -- is wide open for March.
Golf? Well, Tiger was humiliated in 2009, but that only sets up a "redemption" storyline in 2010 (not that golf media will EVER reference Tiger's off-course dalliances).
All in all, things are going REALLY well in sports right now. Should ticket prices be lower, to make going to games more affordable? Sure. But if you've got your HDTV -- and your new tablet -- you're better off at home anyway.
Complete SN column here, featuring:
*South Carolina saves the college hoops season!
*A wee bit on Tebow at the Senior Bowl (just a bit, promise)
*A look at SN's CFB preseason Top 10 (Miami at 6?)
*Ben Sheets: This is the new Moneyball?
*What's next for Favre? Eh: Would rather talk about what's next for the Vikings.
Check out the whole thing. More later. Meanwhile, what's YOUR take on the state of the sports union?
-- D.S.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Quickie: Tebow Freaks Out The Draftniks
There is a force out there in sports -- call it the "draftnik-industrial complex" -- that has tried to entrench itself as the experts in the NFL Draft: Analysis, grades, etc.
And Tim Tebow must drive them crazy.
He is the most prominent draft prospect in the recent history of the NFL Draft. Therefore, they HAVE to have an opinion about him.
For the most part, the draftniks (the combination of mostly anonymous scouts and independent draft experts) have not been kind: They are quick to praise Tebow's "intangibles," but essentially gut his skill-set, at least for the role of NFL quarterback.
Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. Maybe they are being extra-harsh because they get more attention if they are bearish on his potential.
They make pronouncements, like giving him a grade as a "3rd-rounder," maybe 2nd-rounder. Todd McShay makes it sound like he is being forced to upgrade Tebow to an early-2nd-rounder. (He uses the made-up word "overdraft" -- expect to hear that a lot in the next few months.)
Here's the thing that must drive the draftniks crazy:
Because of his popularity, his regional tie to north Florida and Jacksonville's position in the Top 10 of the draft, Tebow will very likely be a Top 10 pick.
We can definitely argue about whether that is a reach for the Jaguars -- or to what extent marketing should ever come into play for a team making a 1st-round selection.
But what is obvious is that the draftniks look like fools if Tebow goes in the Top 10 -- heck, if he goes in the 1st round. Because it means that they are being ignored.
And here's the insidious part of the whole thing: If draftniks are ignored, they are irrelevant. They are exactly what their critics claim they are -- something that draftniks fight like crazy to beat back.
It's almost Zen-like: If the draftnik has a prospect graded as a 3rd-rounder and the player goes in the 1st, does the draftnik make a sound?
Here is where we get into a seemingly odd dynamic: At some point, the draftnik must reconcile their "mock" draft with... "reality."
No one cares about the grades -- they care about the mock. And if you say Jimmy Clausen is going No. 10 to the Jags and Tebow isn't taken until the mid-2nd round, and Tebow actually goes No. 10 to the Jags, you are -- more than anything -- wrong.
And while draftniks are historically wrong about their mocks to a staggering degree, this would be particularly, egregiously wrong.
Consequently, there is a moment of cognitive dissonance: The experts' honest-to-God opinion and the "reality" of the very mock drafts that have made the draftniks so popular to begin with.
The draftnik must decide if they would rather be right or reflect reality -- ultimately, reflecting reality IS being right, whether the draftnik agrees with it or not.
So the draftnik enters a vicious cycle: Right but wrong or wrong but right?
And, to make this all the more absurd, we're all of 24 hours into this process.
(I promise that unless I think Tebow is the lead story of the day -- and it did lead my SN column today in part because he was the lead story on SN.com -- I will keep most of my Tebow analysis to TimTeblog.com. That said: It's not me -- Peter King, Chris Mortenson, all the ESPN draft folks, all the NFL Network draft folks... they all recognize Tebow as the story everyone wants to talk about. The irony, as I noted on Twitter yesterday, is that he's going to go No. 10 to the Jags and we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.)
More in today's column:
*Preview of LeBron-Wade combo in Miami next season!
*Syracuse has the goods to beat Kentucky in March.
*Ben Sheets is NOT "Moneyball."
*Sick of the Super Bowl storylines yet?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
And Tim Tebow must drive them crazy.
He is the most prominent draft prospect in the recent history of the NFL Draft. Therefore, they HAVE to have an opinion about him.
For the most part, the draftniks (the combination of mostly anonymous scouts and independent draft experts) have not been kind: They are quick to praise Tebow's "intangibles," but essentially gut his skill-set, at least for the role of NFL quarterback.
Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. Maybe they are being extra-harsh because they get more attention if they are bearish on his potential.
They make pronouncements, like giving him a grade as a "3rd-rounder," maybe 2nd-rounder. Todd McShay makes it sound like he is being forced to upgrade Tebow to an early-2nd-rounder. (He uses the made-up word "overdraft" -- expect to hear that a lot in the next few months.)
Here's the thing that must drive the draftniks crazy:
Because of his popularity, his regional tie to north Florida and Jacksonville's position in the Top 10 of the draft, Tebow will very likely be a Top 10 pick.
We can definitely argue about whether that is a reach for the Jaguars -- or to what extent marketing should ever come into play for a team making a 1st-round selection.
But what is obvious is that the draftniks look like fools if Tebow goes in the Top 10 -- heck, if he goes in the 1st round. Because it means that they are being ignored.
And here's the insidious part of the whole thing: If draftniks are ignored, they are irrelevant. They are exactly what their critics claim they are -- something that draftniks fight like crazy to beat back.
It's almost Zen-like: If the draftnik has a prospect graded as a 3rd-rounder and the player goes in the 1st, does the draftnik make a sound?
Here is where we get into a seemingly odd dynamic: At some point, the draftnik must reconcile their "mock" draft with... "reality."
No one cares about the grades -- they care about the mock. And if you say Jimmy Clausen is going No. 10 to the Jags and Tebow isn't taken until the mid-2nd round, and Tebow actually goes No. 10 to the Jags, you are -- more than anything -- wrong.
And while draftniks are historically wrong about their mocks to a staggering degree, this would be particularly, egregiously wrong.
Consequently, there is a moment of cognitive dissonance: The experts' honest-to-God opinion and the "reality" of the very mock drafts that have made the draftniks so popular to begin with.
The draftnik must decide if they would rather be right or reflect reality -- ultimately, reflecting reality IS being right, whether the draftnik agrees with it or not.
So the draftnik enters a vicious cycle: Right but wrong or wrong but right?
And, to make this all the more absurd, we're all of 24 hours into this process.
(I promise that unless I think Tebow is the lead story of the day -- and it did lead my SN column today in part because he was the lead story on SN.com -- I will keep most of my Tebow analysis to TimTeblog.com. That said: It's not me -- Peter King, Chris Mortenson, all the ESPN draft folks, all the NFL Network draft folks... they all recognize Tebow as the story everyone wants to talk about. The irony, as I noted on Twitter yesterday, is that he's going to go No. 10 to the Jags and we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.)
More in today's column:
*Preview of LeBron-Wade combo in Miami next season!
*Syracuse has the goods to beat Kentucky in March.
*Ben Sheets is NOT "Moneyball."
*Sick of the Super Bowl storylines yet?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Quickie: Feel The Schadenfavre!
Oh, I could have led with the Saints today, but as someone who has promoted "schadenfavre" for a very very long time, how could I not lead today's SN column with the way his season ended last night?
First of all: What a game. Couldn't have been more dramatic. When you read the column, you'll see that I actually had gained some level of zen acceptance that Favre was -- on one ankle -- going to lead the Vikings to the last-second win in the rocking Super Dome, thus simultaneously crushing the dreams of Saints fans (and their ancillary supporters) and launching what can only be described as the most painful two weeks of fawning coverage of all time.
But then... that INT. Like it was scripted. Like it HAD to end. So improbable and yet so probable at the same time, it was like some sort of mythological enigma.
(Then we got to that OT coinflip. If you were following me on Twitter last night, you saw my allergic reaction. Seriously: Can this be the moment that the NFL finally changes its system? Or will it take a "Coin-Flip Super Bowl Champ" to make it happen?)
Anyway: For all my talk about Jets-Saints being superior to Colts-Saints in the Super Bowl, I can live with Colts-Saints. These are the best teams in each conference -- we have known that since about the one-third mark of the season. It should be a wild display of scoring and rabid New Orleans fans and media love for Peyton Manning. Oh, and Katrina. Take a drink every time someone mentions Katrina. You'll be drunk enough throughout the two weeks to blur the experience.
As for the losers: I don't want to talk about Favre next season, except to say that he would be crazy to retire now -- the Vikings will be even better next season, and obviously, they can win the conference. And the Jets have only one problem: Anything but a Super Bowl trip will be a let-down. Consider the expectations completely blown out of whack. (But they might just get there in the next few years.)
The other big story today is the Tim Tebow Show down in Mobile for the Senior Bowl. He is the most prominent participant in Senior Bowl history. I'm not sure if that means much, but it reflects his status as one of the -- if not THE -- most intriguing NFL Draft prospects of all time.
We're all going to talk and write a LOT about him over the next three months. The irony is that the Jaguars are going to take him with the No. 10 pick and that's going to be that. It doesn't matter what other teams' scouts think of him. It doesn't matter what Todd McShay or Mel Kiper thinks of him. It doesn't matter where he projects.
He's going to the Jags at 10, and the only thing he's going to do this week or at the Combine in a few weeks or in private workouts between now and Draft Day is clear the low expectations that have been set for him and make it that much easier for the Jaguars to take him (because no team in the Top 9 is going to use their pick on him, no matter how good he looks in workouts).
See the entire SN column here. More later, and if you're intrigued by Tebow at the Senior Bowl, keep an eye on TimTeblog.com.
-- D.S.
First of all: What a game. Couldn't have been more dramatic. When you read the column, you'll see that I actually had gained some level of zen acceptance that Favre was -- on one ankle -- going to lead the Vikings to the last-second win in the rocking Super Dome, thus simultaneously crushing the dreams of Saints fans (and their ancillary supporters) and launching what can only be described as the most painful two weeks of fawning coverage of all time.
But then... that INT. Like it was scripted. Like it HAD to end. So improbable and yet so probable at the same time, it was like some sort of mythological enigma.
(Then we got to that OT coinflip. If you were following me on Twitter last night, you saw my allergic reaction. Seriously: Can this be the moment that the NFL finally changes its system? Or will it take a "Coin-Flip Super Bowl Champ" to make it happen?)
Anyway: For all my talk about Jets-Saints being superior to Colts-Saints in the Super Bowl, I can live with Colts-Saints. These are the best teams in each conference -- we have known that since about the one-third mark of the season. It should be a wild display of scoring and rabid New Orleans fans and media love for Peyton Manning. Oh, and Katrina. Take a drink every time someone mentions Katrina. You'll be drunk enough throughout the two weeks to blur the experience.
As for the losers: I don't want to talk about Favre next season, except to say that he would be crazy to retire now -- the Vikings will be even better next season, and obviously, they can win the conference. And the Jets have only one problem: Anything but a Super Bowl trip will be a let-down. Consider the expectations completely blown out of whack. (But they might just get there in the next few years.)
The other big story today is the Tim Tebow Show down in Mobile for the Senior Bowl. He is the most prominent participant in Senior Bowl history. I'm not sure if that means much, but it reflects his status as one of the -- if not THE -- most intriguing NFL Draft prospects of all time.
We're all going to talk and write a LOT about him over the next three months. The irony is that the Jaguars are going to take him with the No. 10 pick and that's going to be that. It doesn't matter what other teams' scouts think of him. It doesn't matter what Todd McShay or Mel Kiper thinks of him. It doesn't matter where he projects.
He's going to the Jags at 10, and the only thing he's going to do this week or at the Combine in a few weeks or in private workouts between now and Draft Day is clear the low expectations that have been set for him and make it that much easier for the Jaguars to take him (because no team in the Top 9 is going to use their pick on him, no matter how good he looks in workouts).
See the entire SN column here. More later, and if you're intrigued by Tebow at the Senior Bowl, keep an eye on TimTeblog.com.
-- D.S.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Quickie: Time For Saints to Be Super
Counting down until the Jets-Colts and Saints-Vikings games...
*In the vapid 2.5 seasons since Florida cut down its second straight national championship in basketball, last night's buzzer-beating game winner was the best moment for the program I've seen. (Memo to coaches: See how Donovan just let the guys run a play and didn't demand they take a time-out? I love that.)
*Northwestern beats Illinois: When a team has never been to the NCAA Tournament, games in the middle of January can qualify as "must-win" for March Madness. NU got it.
*Kansas State had exposed Texas as overrated early last week -- and UConn is a tough place to play -- but that was a tough loss for the Longhorns, precisely the kind you file away when you don't take UT to make it to the Final Four on your bracket in March. (Speaking of K-State, they turned around and got beat by Oklahoma State.) The only team that really seems to be as awesome as they look: Kentucky, No. 1 with a bullet.
*Anyone see that Georgia thumping of Tennessee coming?
*LeBron edges Durant in a match-up that totally met the expectations: 37 pts, 9 ast, 12 reb for LeBron; 34 points, 10 rebounds for Durant. And the Cavs escaped by a point.
*Urban Meyer's "leave of absence" was never going to be substantial. He was always going to stick with recruiting through national signing day. He was always going to be integral in spring practice. There is plenty of time between the two for him to chill out a bit. The (wrong-headed) assumption was that "leave of absence" meant that he would actually step away from the program, when in reality he was simply reducing his workload...slightly.
*East-West Shrine Game: Kafka! (You get the sense that Todd McShay thinks that Mike Kafka is a better NFL QB prospect than Tim Tebow. Then again: McShay thinks that everyone is a better NFL QB prospect than Tim Tebow.)
*Miguel Tejada back to the Orioles. It feels like only yesterday he was an uber-paid superstar with no taint of the PED scandal.
*Get ready for a week of Tebow insanity from Mobile, Alabama. (And that's not just me saying it -- you will be inundated from all corners about it. It is not just the biggest Senior Bowl storyline of the week, but he is the biggest Senior Bowl storyline of all time.)
-- D.S.
*In the vapid 2.5 seasons since Florida cut down its second straight national championship in basketball, last night's buzzer-beating game winner was the best moment for the program I've seen. (Memo to coaches: See how Donovan just let the guys run a play and didn't demand they take a time-out? I love that.)
*Northwestern beats Illinois: When a team has never been to the NCAA Tournament, games in the middle of January can qualify as "must-win" for March Madness. NU got it.
*Kansas State had exposed Texas as overrated early last week -- and UConn is a tough place to play -- but that was a tough loss for the Longhorns, precisely the kind you file away when you don't take UT to make it to the Final Four on your bracket in March. (Speaking of K-State, they turned around and got beat by Oklahoma State.) The only team that really seems to be as awesome as they look: Kentucky, No. 1 with a bullet.
*Anyone see that Georgia thumping of Tennessee coming?
*LeBron edges Durant in a match-up that totally met the expectations: 37 pts, 9 ast, 12 reb for LeBron; 34 points, 10 rebounds for Durant. And the Cavs escaped by a point.
*Urban Meyer's "leave of absence" was never going to be substantial. He was always going to stick with recruiting through national signing day. He was always going to be integral in spring practice. There is plenty of time between the two for him to chill out a bit. The (wrong-headed) assumption was that "leave of absence" meant that he would actually step away from the program, when in reality he was simply reducing his workload...slightly.
*East-West Shrine Game: Kafka! (You get the sense that Todd McShay thinks that Mike Kafka is a better NFL QB prospect than Tim Tebow. Then again: McShay thinks that everyone is a better NFL QB prospect than Tim Tebow.)
*Miguel Tejada back to the Orioles. It feels like only yesterday he was an uber-paid superstar with no taint of the PED scandal.
*Get ready for a week of Tebow insanity from Mobile, Alabama. (And that's not just me saying it -- you will be inundated from all corners about it. It is not just the biggest Senior Bowl storyline of the week, but he is the biggest Senior Bowl storyline of all time.)
-- D.S.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Quickie: Saints Win Would Be Superlative
This NFC title game is going to be tremendous.
The atmosphere in the Super Dome should be among the best -- if not THE best -- we have ever seen for a meaningful NFL game.
That's because it IS one of the most meaningful NFL games, and certainly the most meaningful game in the history of the Saints franchise -- even more than the first Super Dome game after Katrina.
A Saints win represents the best of the NFL -- the most historically hapless franchise, breaking through to the Super Bowl, led by a completely revamped D and a QB who, by all scouts' "analysis," has no business destroying the league, as he does most every week.
(That a Saints win would also mean a Favre loss would only be a bonus -- I'm trying to be positive here!)
I am thrilled for Saints fans, and I am rooting for a Saints win. Mostly, I am excited to watch the game and try to capture some of the vibe from inside the dome.
As far as superlatives go, beyond this being the best atmosphere for an NFL game ever, I would say that the Saints going to the Super Bowl is hard to top among all-time Super Bowl participants.
In today's SN column, I pick the Saints to win by 3.
I also pick the Jets to upset the Colts by 3 (in overtime, no less). I think the Jets' D is playing that well -- my overarching estimation is that if the Jets can stifle the Chargers, they can contain the Colts. All of the pressure is on the Colts. And even though Peyton doesn't need much time to score points, the Jets running game will presumably keep him off the field. I buy into Rex Ryan's mad genius. And, as I've said for a few weeks, I would like to see the Colts get a karmic payback for throwing the game against the Jets (and then again in Week 17).
More in today's column:
*Kobe vs. LeBron: I really don't care that the Cavs swept the season series. In a 7-game Finals -- even with Cleveland having home-court advantage -- I'm taking the Lakers until convinced otherwise.
*Love that AI is in the starting lineup for the NBA All-Star Game. It's everything that's good and wacky about having the fans vote. And AI deserves the stage, if it is his swan song.
*College Hoops Game of the Weekend: Ohio State at West Virginia. Evan Turner vs. Devin Ebanks.
*Yes, that Prince song about the Vikings is pretty lame, but it's Prince -- show some respect.
A lot more in today's column. Check out the whole thing here. More later, and all weekend.
-- D.S.
The atmosphere in the Super Dome should be among the best -- if not THE best -- we have ever seen for a meaningful NFL game.
That's because it IS one of the most meaningful NFL games, and certainly the most meaningful game in the history of the Saints franchise -- even more than the first Super Dome game after Katrina.
A Saints win represents the best of the NFL -- the most historically hapless franchise, breaking through to the Super Bowl, led by a completely revamped D and a QB who, by all scouts' "analysis," has no business destroying the league, as he does most every week.
(That a Saints win would also mean a Favre loss would only be a bonus -- I'm trying to be positive here!)
I am thrilled for Saints fans, and I am rooting for a Saints win. Mostly, I am excited to watch the game and try to capture some of the vibe from inside the dome.
As far as superlatives go, beyond this being the best atmosphere for an NFL game ever, I would say that the Saints going to the Super Bowl is hard to top among all-time Super Bowl participants.
In today's SN column, I pick the Saints to win by 3.
I also pick the Jets to upset the Colts by 3 (in overtime, no less). I think the Jets' D is playing that well -- my overarching estimation is that if the Jets can stifle the Chargers, they can contain the Colts. All of the pressure is on the Colts. And even though Peyton doesn't need much time to score points, the Jets running game will presumably keep him off the field. I buy into Rex Ryan's mad genius. And, as I've said for a few weeks, I would like to see the Colts get a karmic payback for throwing the game against the Jets (and then again in Week 17).
More in today's column:
*Kobe vs. LeBron: I really don't care that the Cavs swept the season series. In a 7-game Finals -- even with Cleveland having home-court advantage -- I'm taking the Lakers until convinced otherwise.
*Love that AI is in the starting lineup for the NBA All-Star Game. It's everything that's good and wacky about having the fans vote. And AI deserves the stage, if it is his swan song.
*College Hoops Game of the Weekend: Ohio State at West Virginia. Evan Turner vs. Devin Ebanks.
*Yes, that Prince song about the Vikings is pretty lame, but it's Prince -- show some respect.
A lot more in today's column. Check out the whole thing here. More later, and all weekend.
-- D.S.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Quickie: Kobe vs. LeBron, Bush vs. Greene
I don't mind admitting it: It's a slow morning. No really big compelling storyline -- wait, check that:
I realize now that I should have held Tuesday's SN column lead about the NBA at midseason until today, in preview of Kobe-LeBron tonight and in celebration of the Thunder already topping last season's total win mark (supporting my Durant-for-MVP argument).
But I already went there, so today's SN column is heavy on the items that come AFTER the lead:
*Reggie Bush vs. Shonn Greene
*Duke's loss to NC St vs. UNC's loss to Wake
*The irrelevancy of Kobe-LeBron tonight.
*A bit, naturally, about Tebow's SB ad.
*Joel Pineiro: The new John Lackey?
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
I realize now that I should have held Tuesday's SN column lead about the NBA at midseason until today, in preview of Kobe-LeBron tonight and in celebration of the Thunder already topping last season's total win mark (supporting my Durant-for-MVP argument).
But I already went there, so today's SN column is heavy on the items that come AFTER the lead:
*Reggie Bush vs. Shonn Greene
*Duke's loss to NC St vs. UNC's loss to Wake
*The irrelevancy of Kobe-LeBron tonight.
*A bit, naturally, about Tebow's SB ad.
*Joel Pineiro: The new John Lackey?
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tebow's Super Bowl Ad: An Analysis
Over at TimTeblog.com, I have tackled the Tim Tebow topic of the week: This "controversial" Super Bowl ad he is a part of -- it may or may not be on the actual game broadcast, but in the YouTube era, that's not such a big deal. The news about CBS nixing the ad will give it new life and scrutiny. So what does it mean for Tim Tebow? Ironically: I think the entire thing is overblown. Check out my take here.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Via Ad Age, CBS has approved the ad's script and accepted the ad for airing. It is worth noting that the ad is not expected to be a "hard sell" or "anti-" anything, at least from FoF's perspective. I don't think this changes any of the analysis below, and -- if anything -- will create even more of a muted response from sports media and fans.
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Via Ad Age, CBS has approved the ad's script and accepted the ad for airing. It is worth noting that the ad is not expected to be a "hard sell" or "anti-" anything, at least from FoF's perspective. I don't think this changes any of the analysis below, and -- if anything -- will create even more of a muted response from sports media and fans.
Quickie: What's the Ideal Super Bowl?
So the question mid-week is not who you think will win the NFL conference championship games, but who you WANT to win the games.
I'm of two minds:
(1) I'm definitely rooting for the Saints. Like many/most of you without a rooting interest among the remaining four teams, the prospects of the most historically futile franchise getting to the Super Bowl is a wonderful prospect. I like Saints fans. I like New Orleans -- there's no question, the region deserves the break.
(2) I'm rooting against Brett Favre and rooting against the Colts. I'm a longtime Favre-hater, but I actually respect and admire the way he has killed it this season as a 40-year-old. And while Peyton annoys me, I'd like to think that I am watching the greatest QB in NFL history. Still: The Colts essentially threw an NFL game -- "tanked" doesn't do justice to their decision against the Jets in Week 16. And, yes, I'd like to see that kind of decision given a karmic punishment.
Mainly, I cannot fathom what two weeks of Super Bowl lead-up will be like if it's Favre vs. Manning. I'm totally OK with Saints lead-up. And, while New York media annoys me to no end, I'm OK with Jets lead-up, mainly because it would be so unpredictable.
And so I'm rooting for Saints-Jets in the Super Bowl. How about you?
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
I'm of two minds:
(1) I'm definitely rooting for the Saints. Like many/most of you without a rooting interest among the remaining four teams, the prospects of the most historically futile franchise getting to the Super Bowl is a wonderful prospect. I like Saints fans. I like New Orleans -- there's no question, the region deserves the break.
(2) I'm rooting against Brett Favre and rooting against the Colts. I'm a longtime Favre-hater, but I actually respect and admire the way he has killed it this season as a 40-year-old. And while Peyton annoys me, I'd like to think that I am watching the greatest QB in NFL history. Still: The Colts essentially threw an NFL game -- "tanked" doesn't do justice to their decision against the Jets in Week 16. And, yes, I'd like to see that kind of decision given a karmic punishment.
Mainly, I cannot fathom what two weeks of Super Bowl lead-up will be like if it's Favre vs. Manning. I'm totally OK with Saints lead-up. And, while New York media annoys me to no end, I'm OK with Jets lead-up, mainly because it would be so unpredictable.
And so I'm rooting for Saints-Jets in the Super Bowl. How about you?
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Congrats, Basketball Jones: 500 Episodes
I'm a day late on this, but I wanted to offer my congratulations to JE Skeets and Tas Melas of The Basketball Jones, on their 500th episode. TBJ is the best sports podcast out there, and they've been doing it for four years. This anniversary episode was one of their best:
TBJ Ep. 500: Live From Toronto from The Basketball Jones on Vimeo.
Quickie: The NBA at Midseason and More
Aside from the Arenas-like newsy flare-ups or YouTube moments, the NBA -- like baseball -- settles into a daily rhythm that is hard to lift out of to get a macro view.
The midseason mark is a pretty good moment for it -- and with every team hitting 41 games at a slightly different moment, I used the defending champs as my proxy for a moment to review the league at midseason, leading today's SN column.
It's fortuitous, because the Lakers are not only trying to keep their title, but they remain the overwhelming favorite to win this year's title. Last night's win over the Magic provided a nice symbolism, bridging last season to this season.
I'm trying not to be too cynical, but I find it hard to envision any team beating the Lakers in the playoffs -- it feels like the biggest done deal in regular-season sports of the past year.
Being a fan of the Celtics or Cavs or Mavs or Spurs must be maddening: Oh, sure, you'll have a playoff season. But good luck winning the title. It's like being a fan of the San Diego Chargers.
To the extent that being a winning team can be dreary, there is a monotony to those non-Lakers contenders, like they are going through the motions before ultimately being dispatched.
That's why at the midseason, I find myself gravitating toward the over-achievers -- the players, teams and storylines that are independent of championship aspirations in 2010.
Kevin Durant and the Thunder. The rising Hawks. Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings. There are no expectations beyond upside -- there is something liberating about that.
As a Wizards fan, my midseason is -- unbelievably -- a worst-case scenario. I thought this team was a playoff lock, with even an outside chance at making a run in the playoffs.
Now: My favorite player, Arenas, is likely banned for the season. The team is trying to unload him, as they are Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison. They are Lottery-bound. I can't believe that my lone-standing rooting interest is that they luck into John Wall.
Above it all is the Lakers: Slicing their way through the league. As long as they worry about everyone being healthy for the playoffs, they make the regular season nearly irrelevant.
Check out the rest of today's SN column here, featuring: An homage to Kansas State, NFL Coaching Carousel movement, admiration for the Mariners and more.
-- D.S.
The midseason mark is a pretty good moment for it -- and with every team hitting 41 games at a slightly different moment, I used the defending champs as my proxy for a moment to review the league at midseason, leading today's SN column.
It's fortuitous, because the Lakers are not only trying to keep their title, but they remain the overwhelming favorite to win this year's title. Last night's win over the Magic provided a nice symbolism, bridging last season to this season.
I'm trying not to be too cynical, but I find it hard to envision any team beating the Lakers in the playoffs -- it feels like the biggest done deal in regular-season sports of the past year.
Being a fan of the Celtics or Cavs or Mavs or Spurs must be maddening: Oh, sure, you'll have a playoff season. But good luck winning the title. It's like being a fan of the San Diego Chargers.
To the extent that being a winning team can be dreary, there is a monotony to those non-Lakers contenders, like they are going through the motions before ultimately being dispatched.
That's why at the midseason, I find myself gravitating toward the over-achievers -- the players, teams and storylines that are independent of championship aspirations in 2010.
Kevin Durant and the Thunder. The rising Hawks. Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings. There are no expectations beyond upside -- there is something liberating about that.
As a Wizards fan, my midseason is -- unbelievably -- a worst-case scenario. I thought this team was a playoff lock, with even an outside chance at making a run in the playoffs.
Now: My favorite player, Arenas, is likely banned for the season. The team is trying to unload him, as they are Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison. They are Lottery-bound. I can't believe that my lone-standing rooting interest is that they luck into John Wall.
Above it all is the Lakers: Slicing their way through the league. As long as they worry about everyone being healthy for the playoffs, they make the regular season nearly irrelevant.
Check out the rest of today's SN column here, featuring: An homage to Kansas State, NFL Coaching Carousel movement, admiration for the Mariners and more.
-- D.S.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Quickie: Satisfied With NFL's Final Four?
I'm not going to say that the Jets saved the NFL postseason, but it did create the most unpredictable ending of the 8 games played so far.
It also set up an ideal dynamic for the AFC title game: You could have watched Norv Turner choke in Indy... or watch the Colts try to earn back their pride by beating the team that took it from them.
The NFC is ideal: The most appealing team story in NFL history (you cannot say that the Saints winning the Super Bowl wouldn't be the nicest moment in league history, displacing the Giants beating the Patriots, which -- while utterly amazing -- was fueled by schadenfreude) against the 40-year-old Favre.
Aside from Vikings fans, I cannot imagine anyone not rooting for the Saints; aside from Colts fans, I cannot imagine anyone not rooting for the Jets.
Now, are they rooting because they love the Saints story or the Jets story? Or are they rooting because they want to see Favre and Manning fail so close to the Super Bowl precipice?
I would like to think it's the former, but it is almost surely the latter. I can live with that.
More in today's SN column:
*What next for Cowboys, Chargers, Ravens, Cardinals.
*The weekend's biggest college hoops winner: Northwestern!
*The opening notes of my analysis of the Tebow Super Bowl ad.
*"Pants on the Ground." Because... why not?
See the whole thing here. Quiet the rest of the day, but back in full force tomorrow.
-- D.S.
It also set up an ideal dynamic for the AFC title game: You could have watched Norv Turner choke in Indy... or watch the Colts try to earn back their pride by beating the team that took it from them.
The NFC is ideal: The most appealing team story in NFL history (you cannot say that the Saints winning the Super Bowl wouldn't be the nicest moment in league history, displacing the Giants beating the Patriots, which -- while utterly amazing -- was fueled by schadenfreude) against the 40-year-old Favre.
Aside from Vikings fans, I cannot imagine anyone not rooting for the Saints; aside from Colts fans, I cannot imagine anyone not rooting for the Jets.
Now, are they rooting because they love the Saints story or the Jets story? Or are they rooting because they want to see Favre and Manning fail so close to the Super Bowl precipice?
I would like to think it's the former, but it is almost surely the latter. I can live with that.
More in today's SN column:
*What next for Cowboys, Chargers, Ravens, Cardinals.
*The weekend's biggest college hoops winner: Northwestern!
*The opening notes of my analysis of the Tebow Super Bowl ad.
*"Pants on the Ground." Because... why not?
See the whole thing here. Quiet the rest of the day, but back in full force tomorrow.
-- D.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
