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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
