Instant Karma's Gonna Get you

So I won't be the first or the last to rub salt in the wounds of Bill Simmons in regard to tonight's NBA Draft Lottery. But I did think it was nice to post the following I wrote (with a little editing) in an email to Messr. Elkon of Braves & Birds fame in reference to this column on who "deserves" the top picks in the draft.

As for Simmons' karma column... well, anyone can shoehorn what you want into a formula that's got completely subjective criteria. Really, the Hawks have less history than the Hornets or T-Wolves? Also, see how team history and traditions fits right into "Loyalty/History" and "Rigging Potential". Why not just have a category on its own of "titles won before anyone who watches basketball was born", give the Celtics a bunch of points and be done with it. I have no idea how he sees Milwaukee as having any worse luck than Atlanta (or more front office competence or better loyalty/history for that matter). But most of all, I love that Simmons' list of bad luck for the Celtics is this:

• Len Bias - died before most of the guys to be drafted were born. Irrelevant to today's team (of course it was a tragedy, but it was 21 years ago).
  
• Reggie Lewis - died 14 years ago. Would be 42 years old today and not playing basketball. Irrelevant to today's team.
  
  
• Demolition of the Boston Garden - not sure how that's bad luck. They moved into a bigger arena with luxury boxes, allowing them to compete with other franchises on a level playing field. If the Celtics were still playing in the Garden, there's no doubt in my mind that Simmons would call it bad luck or unfair and that the Celtics aren't able to draw free agents or pay them enough because of the lack of revenue from the arena. Also, they moved out of the Garden 12 years ago. Irrelevant to today's team.
• ML Carr era - OK, is this bad luck or is it front office incompetence? You can't get positive points for bad luck and negative points for management for the same exact guy, can you?
  
• The Duncan Lottery - OK. Bad luck. You've got one.
• The Pitino Era - See ML Carr above. Front office mismanagement is not bad luck.
• The Paul Pierce Stabbing - This happened in 2000, and Pierce did not miss a single game because of the stabbing. In the 2000-2001 season Pierce set personal (at the time) career highs for points, assists, rebounds, minutes, 3 pointers, blocks, and FG%. Yes, it is terrible that he got stabbed. But by all reasonable accounts, the stabbing had little or no effect on his playing ability or the team's strength.
• The Vin Baker trade - Front office mismanagement, not bad luck. Also, the guys they traded to get Baker (Kenny Anderson, Vitaly Potapenko, Joe Forte) amounted to virtually nothing from there on out. Baker ended up being a bum, but so did the guys they gave up.
  
• Red Auerbach's death - When an 89-year old man who smoked cigars his entire life dies, that is not bad luck. Arguably, Auerbach's long life and accomplishments with the Celtics was extremely good luck
• Doc Rivers' second life - front office mismanagement, not bad luck.

So basically Simmons idea of "bad luck" are a bunch of things that are so outdated as to be irrelevant to the team today or were the sole result of poor front office management. The only item that is bad luck was Duncan going to the Spurs via the lottery.

Compare to the Hawks: Jason Collier dies 2 years ago (and would probably still be involved on the team). In each of the last two years (and 3 times since 2000) a team with a better record has jumped them in the Lottery. And their Bostonian Celtics fan co-owner forced onto the team forces ownership into extensive litigation, handstrings front office from signing players to extended deals.

That's far more bad luck in recent years than Boston can claim. Also, the Celtics lost the Lottery in Duncan's year. That sucks. But this "bad luck" is only amplified because they had the most ping pong balls in a year with a good draft (which is luck). The Hawks had the most balls in a year when the best player in the draft was only Bogut (and still lost it). Objectively the bad luck (not getting the #1 pick when you had the most balls) is the same.

Every team in the lottery has had some bad luck, but lots more bad management. Boston is no better or worse than loads of other teams. The Celtics were no more deserving than Atlanta, Seattle, Portland or anyone else in the lottery.


Of course, now we'll get to see bimonthly columns on how unlucky the Celtics were in this lottery for 12 months.

Read More...

Summary only...

Flick the Button

Massive backlog. Probably will require an update.

Mindhunters: I had to write this one first because I was sure I'd forget I saw it. Ridiculous, overacted, goofy. Had the courtesy to be short. I'm not sure why I TiVoed this in the first place. You're Fired.

Blades of Glory: Not in the same category as Anchorman or Talladega Nights, but definitely has its moments. I appreciate the way this movie never turned saccharine (and the opportunity presented itself via the Heder-adopted child bit). But for a movie that is 100% dick and fart jokes (which I have no problem with), it kind of pulled too many punches. Will Arnett needed a lot lot more screen time. Positive: the costumes are Oscar-deserving. I bet I'll see this a few more times, so it can't be that bad. Steak Knives (though probably a dull set).

Poseidon: Yeah, I've forgotten I saw this already. Pales in comparison to the original. Not intense, not exciting, contrived. For a movie where your interest in watching it is driven by "who is going to die and who is going to live", it's not a good thing when the viewer is rooting for everyone to die by about the 10th minute. You're Fired.

Nacho Libre: I like that there is a place in this world for physical, gross-out comedy that doesn't mind being sweet, but also isn't overly maudlin. Nacho Libre walked the line, but ended up on the right side of it. It's a simple story, and funny, though not groundbreaking. Steak Knives.

Children of Men: Technically speaking, this is one of the better pictures I've seen. The sound, sets, and cinematography were excellent. The screenplay, however, I didn't think was as great. I kept feeling like I missed something in the first half hour. I didn't understand why Owen's character would risk so much without knowing what he was doing. The refugee camp scenes are indelible, but the soul of the movie was a bit hollow. Perhaps I was oversold on this by hype. Perhaps I need to see this again. Steak Knives.

Idiocracy: I was definitely oversold on this by hype. What was filmed is a great first draft of a screenplay that needed 10 rewrites. Of course, there are a few great moments, but I have a feeling that with the framework of this, they could've had dozens more. As I wrote above, I am a big fan of dick and fart jokes. This movie was loaded with them, but half of them didn't make any sense. Add the fact that the acting was middle-school-play good, and that the special effects looked worse than Sci-Fi network TV movies, and this movie was just not very good. And worst, the premise was fantastic. Unmet potential. You're Fired.

Rocky Balboa: I liked this a lot, actually. It trades on the best parts of the series, but left me feeling happy. Just a nice way to wrap things up, go out the way he wanted. I have a soft spot for a family friendly film that keeps my interest and doesn't go cheap or easy. Here's what I liked best: that the frequent mentions in the film about how boxing has fallen hard because the fans have been disrespected by poor matches, moneygrubbing promoters, and fighters who care more about the next payday than showing their guts and heart in the ring. It's not a huge jump to see this as an allegory to Stallone's own career. He's apologizing for the shit he's thrown at us. I accept the apology. Until John Rambo ruins everything. Sharp Steak Knives.

Clerks II: OK, not family friendly fun, but this is actually pretty similar to Rocky Balboa. Smith, I think, wanted to get back in touch with what worked, way back when. And it works because he makes it sweet, among the good dick and fart jokes and fanboy reference humor. I liked this because it was actually funny (though hit or miss), and it made me reminisce fondly on the original. Sure, nobody actually talks like the characters in this. But the people in Clerks did. Steak Knives.

Beerfest: I need to see this again, but drunk. A good idea, but it seemed, like Idiocracy, that the screenplay needed some editing (Landfill's death needed a reworking). But at the same time, can a movie be bad if it has several funny scenes, is all about getting drunk, has gratuitous T&A, and Jurgen Prochnow. This movie wasn't objectively good viewing while sober, but I'm willing to believe that it can be better. And further, this was a sign, to me, that Broken Lizard has another funny movie in them and that Super Troopers wasn't a one-off. You're Fired sober, will re-rate another time when in the appropriate state of mind.

Night at the Museum: I see why this was a massive hit with the family set. It's not entirely stupid, and the production values and effects were better than I expected. It could've been better, but it wasn't horrible either. Huge positive: Robin Williams wasn't horrendously annoying. This was OK, not a classic, but few live action family films these days are. Dull Steak knives.

The Good Shepherd: Hmm... This probably works better as a book. And it had the feeling of an HBO orginal movie with higher paid actors. But at the same time, it'd be a book I'd want to read, or an HBO original movie I'd like to watch. It'd be a better movie if it were 30-45 minutes shorter, but I'm not sure where I'd cut things. One memorable thing: the son in the movie looked like one of those Conan O'Brien "If They Mated" composites for Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon. And that's awesome. Steak Knives.

The Rules of the Game: For its time, I can see why this was so groundbreaking. The morals of the characters were surprisingly ribald for a movie made today, and I appreciate the subtle class-criticism. But I wouldn't say it was the most memorable film either. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind to analyze this on a high level. My loss. Steak Knives (and I'm probably giving too many that rating this time around).

Casino Royale(2006): Probably my favorite Bond movie of all time, honestly. Far more intelligent, exciting and sexy than any of the recent ones (only GoldenEye comes remotely close). Right script, right cast, right settings, right plot. Craig is fantastic and I can't wait for the next one. The best movie of this lot, and one of my favorite movies that came out last year. Cadillac.

Stranger Than Fiction: Watered down Charlie Kauffman, and not as clever, funny or sweet. The cast is OK, but direction restrained - nobody seems to be having enough fun. Took itself too serious. You're Fired.

The Prestige: I figured it out pretty early on, but that didn't make it less fun waiting to see that I was right. I liked the direction, acting and twists. My expectations were really damn high, and it probably hit 70% of the expected. That's good enough for a set of Steak Knives.

For Your Consideration: The worst Christopher Guest movie. The worst movie of this group. Whenever Guest decided to hire an editor and employ quick cuts in the middle of dialogue instead of panning the camera, he screwed up big time. The result is somewhere between mockumentary and traditional set piece comedy - and it was terrible. Worse, it's not funny. Well, Fred Willard's hair was funny. But everything else about this wasn't. I think the plot is an elaborate performance art joke on Hollywood - basically THIS movie is everything that "Home for Purim" was (an empty reel), and the Hollywood press similarly promoted Catherine O'Hara for awards (when she wasn't that fantastic) just as her character. You're Fired.

Blood Diamond: Too long by 45 minutes, and it didn't know whether to be a serious drama (a la the far superior The Constant Gardener) or an exciting action movie, and the result was wishy washy drivel. DiCaprio was OK, though. Connelly didn't need to be in the movie at all, and she wasn't very good. You're Fired.

Stick It: OK, you know how to pull some camera tricks and the dialogue is filled with teenspeak. Unfortunately, you've made a weak movie. And the way many of the ages of the gymnasts weren't mentioned made it seriously creepy in parts. Jeff Lebowski, you're better than this. You're Fired.

Happy Feet: Singing and dancing = fun and cute. Everything else, especially the shoehorned plot = lame. The entire movie should've been the musical sequences and it should've been 80 minutes long and everyone would've gone home happy. Instead it pushes 2 hours and I nearly turned it off 5 times. And they couldn't have hired a Southerner to do Memphis's voice? You're Fired.

Update:

The DaVinci Code: Finally a film based upon a popular novel that is a faithful representation of the book. This movie has it all! And by "it all" I mean the arrogance, dreadful dialogue, and disrespect for the audience. The film perfectly captured and reminded me of everything I absolutely loathed about the book. From a technical standpoint, I'll say that this had a large budget and Ron Howard is basically a good (not great) director. From an actual standpoint, the film is only as good as the source material. So this was atrocious. You're Fired.

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's talk about television for a minute

TV isn't something I frequently blog about, but recently I've seen a more than my fair share due to circumstance. So some cheers and jeers...

CHEERS to Human Giant. It's hit or miss, as all sketch comedy shows are. But when it hits, it's very funny, and when it misses, it's never as cringeworthy as most SNL sketches. Best of all, I just know they've got some classic sketches in them. Escalating Interview is right there.

JEERS to Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, for the same reason. Both of these shows have spent the last 6 months trying their damnedest to insult the viewers with moronic plot twists, when the soul of the show has completely disappeared. Remember when Desperate Housewives used to have a running mystery? First season, it was "why did Mary Alice kill herself?", second season was the Applewhites and the man in the basement and the disappearance of Zach Young. This season it was the Orson/ex-wife/crazy mother plot, but has anyone noticed that since Marcia Cross left for maternity leave, there isn't a mystery going on at all? There was a single episode where the lady had the body in the freezer. But that was a single episode. For the last 8 episodes, it's been love triangles and sleeping around. All soap opera. There used to be a cheekiness, sneakiness, creepiness about the show. Now, there's none of that. Just self-absorbed, terribly selfish women who care nothing about anyone but themselves. Watch the show through this prism: every motivation of every single character is due to selfish motives - and the plots of particular episodes and story arcs are driven solely by those selfish motivations. Grey's Anatomy is even worse in this regard. That show has never been about anything but selfishness. There isn't a single character on the show without this flaw. In every scene, in every episode, every bit of dialogue includes one or more of the characters acting like spoiled children. Yesterday's season finale was the epitome of this. In a scene that surely will be shown at next year's Emmy's, Sandra Oh's character breaks down after jilting her fiancee with an overwrought "I'm free!" In a season where her character encouraged, aided and abetted her fiancee's reckless endangerment of hundreds of patients' lives, ratted him out, caused him to lose a promotion, engaged in flirting with a former flame in front of said fiancee, and stood him up at the altar, we're supposed to feel any sort of empathy for her character? Really? And stunningly enough, that wasn't even the most selfish act of a character in the episode. The shit-or-get-off-the-pot dialogue between Dr. Shepard and Meredith Grey immediately before a wedding they were both in was a stunning piece of television. On one hand, we had McDreamy's passive aggressiveness (begun with his bragging about flirting in a bar with another woman) about how it's not his fault their relationship isn't working, and on the other hand we have Grey's incoherence - an inability to commit at all against her own shock and horror that McDreamy would look elsewhere - matched with incredulity that she might actually be at fault. Two characters that truly cared about him or herself, and didn't mind intentionally hurting the person they supposedly love in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. It was a shocking, horrifying scene to me. Simply because the selfishness was so palpable, so loathsome. It shocks me that so many people like that show. I find the morality of the characters on this show to be abhorrent.

on the other hand... CHEERS to Entourage, for the exact opposite reasons. Entourage's short season hasn't been spectacular, but it's been adequate, and when I compare Entourage to other shows that get buzz for people in my age group, I think it's very good. Compare Entourage to Grey's Anatomy or Sex & the City, as many are wont to. There's the natural tendency to look at the primary casts and think Entourage is a male show while the others are female, but I think the sensibilities of the various shows go far beyond that. As said above in regard to Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, and Sex & the City was, without a doubt, the single worst offender of the selfishness as plot device, the individual characters in all of those shows are interested only in themselves. Entourage is precisely the opposite. Not an episode goes by where one of the 4 main characters doesn't sacrifice or go out of his way to help out one of the others. Whether it's fixing up Drama's old Lincoln, or helping Turtle get a rare pair of shoes, or putting up every cent E has to help Vince buy the Medellin script, or Ari causing tremendous trouble with his wife by helping out Vince (who isn't his client) on Yom Kippur, everyone on the show is constantly doing things for others. It's a completely different sensibility. In the supposed "female" shows, the main characters drive the story by asking "what's in it for me", but in the "male" show, everyone is on the same team, and the plot is driven by how they work together in order to make all of their lives better (no matter how shallow their group desires might be, the key is that their "group" desires). And you know what, the characters on Entourage lead incredibly happy lives, while the characters in all the others lead miserable, self-involved, nothing's ever good enough lives. Working with others, and putting others' needs ahead of one's own, leads to good things for everyone. That's a theme I can get behind.

which brings me to... CHEERS to Lost. If I haven't written it before, I'll say it unequivocally here. Lost is the best show on television, by far. No other show has the depth, the detail, and the production quality of Lost. But more than any of that, the morality of Lost makes it the best on television. Lost, unlike other shows, rewards selfless, moral and ethical behavior, and severely punishes selfish, immoral and unethical behavior. Lost is a fantasy, but the societal laws that operate in reality apply on the crazy island far more realistically than on dozens of television shows that are set in supposedly realistic settings. Throughout the series, the one theme (among dozens) that continues to resonate the most with me is the idea of community vs. individual information as a resource. When characters keep information from one another, nobody benefits (and indeed, it costs them all). When characters share information with one another, solutions appear (even if new problems arise, the existing ones are solved). I used to look at the series as an allegory to technological advancement. Open source technologies available to many provide countless more opportunities for advancement (because multiple users bring specialized expertise and experiences that offer new uses for such technologies). Closely held technologies limit potential uses and advancements. On Lost, the show presents to us a world where we're all connected somehow - we just don't know it. If we'd communicate and work with one another, our connections might help us solve the problems we face. It's this idea that makes the show so powerful, yet so frustrating to many. It's intentionally frustrating. When particular characters conceal information from other characters, and the effect is that something bad happens, it is maddening to watch at times. But that's the point! When a particular character's insecurities or fears or shame causes him or her to hide something, that's selfishness, or at least weakness - and the show punishes the character for it. It's frustrating to watch someone punished for selfish behavior because on television we're so used to selfishness getting rewarded - Meredith Grey gets McDreamy, Carrie Bradshaw ends up with Big. But the point of Lost is that the punishment is appropriate - our frustration isn't with the punishment, it's the selfishness that is the underlying cause that we're frustrated with. The fearlessness of Lost to discipline its characters, when so many other shows let the characters act like spoiled brats, is what makes it morally and ethically powerful television.

And finally, CHEERS to Homer Simpson for his recent charity work, but JEERS to this rusty tailgate.

Read More...

Summary only...

So pissed off about that...

Paul Oliver's suspension blows. Easily the best player on the defense.

Will someone proffer a first rounder in the supplemental draft for him? I think he'd be worth it. In fact, were I the Falcons, I'd consider it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Conspiracy!

Can a major sport publicly suspend a major superstar for transgressions discovered within (aka, not publicly exposed by a muckraker)?

There were always rumors of David Stern suspending Michael Jordan for the years when he tried playing baseball. Barry Bonds' 2005 season was filled with somewhat murky injuries and setbacks - he only played in 14 games - and that just so happened to coincide with the outbreak of the steroid use controversy.

What about Roger Clemens?

The rumors of his use are out there. There's circumstantial evidence that says he's used.

Could it be possible that Roger Clemens failed a drug test, perhaps multiple tests? If so, and only MLB knew about it, would they make it public? Or would they tell him to retire or face a 50 game suspension?

Here's why I ask: I've seen stories out there right now that say, if all goes well, Clemens' first start for the Yankees this year would be May 28th or 29th against Toronto. Note that date. The 29th is the Yankees' 50th game of the season. Exactly the number of games a player gets suspended for a first positive test for steroids. So if there are any setbacks, or if the rotation doesn't work right or something, they might push his first start back a game. No big deal, right? The timing seems very odd to me.

Naturally, it's hard to keep secrets like this. There's no reason why MLB would cover solely for Clemens (he's a star, but is he "beloved" any more than Bonds?). New York is probably the worst city to keep a secret from journalists. So, yeah, this is all drivel.

But if he starts game #51 for the Yankees, May 30th, tell me you wouldn't think that's a little interesting?

Of course, if he starts game #52 for the Yanks, he'll make his debut, which will already be hyped ridiculously, IN FENWAY PARK. In that case, ESPN will make sure all of us think that game is interesting, even though it really isn't.

Read More...

Summary only...

Being Up At Weird Hours Means I Pay Attention to the NBA

Dilettante, Peter King style...

1) As someone who wasted an early second round fantasy NBA pick on him, let me just give a big "Po'shyol 'na hui" to Andrei Kirilenko. Dude tanks the entire year. In the Conference semis, his PPG has been double the regular season ppg. RPG up 30%. Nearly a full assist and a full block per game more. Hope your debts to the Russian mafia have been paid off, Mr. Face-looks-like-an-Easter-Island-Statue.

2) I find it a little odd how the Golden State fans received so much praise by big media (sort of deserved, compared to the other fans in other arenas), but it was rare that they were compared to fans in college arenas. Golden State's fans were loud at the right time, fed off the energy on the court, basically did all the right things. But that's a pretty normal occurrence for a regular season conference matchup at about 40-50 gyms on college campuses. Exceptionally great NBA crowd = relatively decent college basketball program crowd.

3) NBA referees make SEC football refs look like honest professionals.

4) Race seems to come up in the NBA more than in other sports. It's come up a bunch in reference to the suspensions in the Suns-Spurs series. Simmons always phrases it in terms of the difficulty in marketing a "black" league to a "white" league - and things like the dress code or harsh suspensions for fighting play into that. Here's something else that I was wondering about that kind of fits into that paradigm: Utah. Utah is one of the whitest states in the country. Arguably, no fan base in the NBA is "whiter" than fans in SLC. So the question I have is whether it's intentional that Utah's best 5 players are a white Russian (Kirilenko), a white Turk (Okur), a white American (Harpring), and two very light skinned African Americans (Williams and Boozer). Utah's a good team, and I don't think it's the situation where the Jazz chose a "whiter" looking team when they could've put together a better, but "blacker" team. But if all things are equal between two possible players for the Jazz to sign/draft, and one might seem "white" and the other not-as-much, would it be in the Jazz's financial interest to choose the player with whom the fans might identify better?

Needless to say, I don't want anyone to think I think there's anything better about "white" players as opposed to "black" players. I think such stereotypes and the coded language are often completely wrong as a descriptive matter, but always wrong from a moral perspective. That said, it's foolish to act as if such stereotypes don't exist, and since they do, I believe that team owners, from a business perspective, would be foolish not to consider stereotypes. I think they do take these things into consideration, though normally under the auspices of "fan relations" or media-training or something like that. The question is whether overt race-based decisionmaking should be allowed, even if it isn't the racism of the particular team (and let me be clear, I don't think Utah does use race-based decisionmaking - but I wonder if it is even considered and set aside) but racism/race-based considerations of consumers or fans. I think this is an interesting issue, and it's been rattling around in my head a lot recently. There's a flip side to it too, that maybe I'll delve into later, regarding the Atlanta Falcons.

5) I think Cleveland will win the East. And they, along with atrocious officiating putting LeBron on the line 20 times a game, might give the Spurs trouble.

Read More...

Summary only...

Starting 3B for the Texas Rangers: Marilyn Manson

I know I'm a disturbed human being, but what's the first thing you thought when you read this headline?

I know I'm not the only one.

Read More...

Summary only...

Here come a bunch of quick posts.

Just warning y'all...

Read More...

Summary only...

One Week Can Change Your Life

Exactly one week ago, 6:54 PM, Friday May 11, the Countess arrived. She's healthy, growing and undeniably adorable.

The last few months preparing for her arrival have been a bit of a haul, but it was more than worth it.

Posting will continue to be intermittent, but probably a little more frequent than it has been for the last few months.

Read More...

Summary only...

And don't get me started on that "baskets" ball...

A fine blog entry at the Guardian is worth your attention. The gist: Regent's Park ain't big enough for soccer and baseball, and those damned colonists think they own the place!

A few points on this...

1) A friend of the blog is an American ex-pat in London and actually plays in one of the softball leagues in Regent's Park. He said he's never noticed tension between the footballers and the drunken lout softball players. That doesn't mean that those witty Englishmen weren't slamming him with superfluous-U laden humour so dry it is missed.

2) First comment worth noting: "Quality article mind. Though not enough stress was placed on just how harmful Budweiser is ... i.e. it's drunk by white shirt crap tie morons with no soul and it bears a resembalance in taste and consistency as to what one might suppose oxygenated piss tastes like." I'm unsure if I want to applaud and go pound 15 Boddingtons or if I want to dump 1,000 cases of Bass into Boston Harbor (making both taste better!) in protest. OK, the former.

3) Second comment worth noting: "Maybe the hurlers and camogie players should take over this park, I'm sure both softball and football players would think twice before confronting a bunch of stick wielding crazed Irishmen." +1.

4) Another notable effect in the comments: how some of the commenters discuss "frisbee tossers", but where "tosser" does not mean the act of throwing the frisbee, but rather the delightful English slur.

5) Were I to take the column seriously, I'd wonder if this is a reaction to the (however downplayed) success of Americans in the Premiership, whilst Englishmen appear nowhere in American sports, for the most part. Marcus Hahnemann has been among the top keepers in England all year (he'd topped the Actim stats for several months until Van Der Sar passed him last week). Several others have made names for themselves (Convey, Spector, McBride, Bocanegra, DeMerit, Friedel, Howard, Gibbs, with Dempsey, Onyewu and Beasley to come). And who is the only Englishman who has made any sporting news in America? John Amaechi. Seems to me that the English have a right to be a little sensitive about their sporting prowess.

Read More...

Summary only...

Because I need more recurring features...

This week's most-cringeworthy Peter King statement...

Miss Congeniality:

"I think too many teams are underrating Troy Smith, and he will make them pay."

He will make them pay... with unnecessary sacks and deflected passes off the clavicles of linemen.

Runner-Up:

"IPod download of the week: Annie Lennox is underrated. Great voice. Just put two of her albums on the 'Pod."

I dare you all to get the image of Peter King belting out "No More I Love Yous" in the shower out of your head. You're welcome.

And your winner!!!!:

I need someone to tell me why a great actress like Hilary Swank makes a Texas Chainsaw Massacre-like movie like The Reaping. Why lower yourself, Hilary?

I mean, totally! I thought she got that out of her system with The Next Karate Kid, The Core and Freedom Writers. Who would've expected this kind of shit from the star of the single greatest bit of entertainment in history, the sorority-hazing-murder-Mark Paul Gosselaar-TV Movie, Dying to Belong? Really, why lower yourself? Just keep doing the same redneck-girl-with-a-dick bit that makes people wet themselves with glee and we'll all be happy.

I totally need a triple skim latte to wash down that column.

Read More...

Summary only...

And your America's Cup Update follows!

Thought cricket would be the only esoteric semi-sport I'd spend my words on? Wrong, bitch.

Like last year, this place was World Cup central in June. This year, my attention will be trained on Valencia.

First, let me take you back... Personally, I feel a close connection to the America's Cup. When I was a mere 3 months old, my mother and father took me in a 22-foot Catalina with a yellow hull to Newport, Rhode Island, where I was the youngest member of the spectator fleet, in the smallest boat in the spectator fleet. That year, Ted Turner skippered Courageous to a win (and some 22 years later, Ted Turner was the commencement speaker at my college graduation - kizmet). In 1995, I spent Spring Break traveling to a family wedding, but we took a side trip to San Diego to see some of the preliminary races. I think we saw the women's boat, Mighty Mary, get whipped by someone else. That May, on a rather memorable night, I watched team New Zealand become only the second boat not under an American flag to win the cup. For the first time, I shared a beer with my Dad - purchased earlier in expectation of the clinching Kiwi victory, it was a Steinlager. I've actually got a lot of good memories following America's Cup yachting.

But that's all lame backstory. The main thing is that, as a sport, it's incredibly interesting to me. Once you have some rudimentary knowledge of strategy, I think yachting is fascinating to watch. And for someone who has the sea in his bloodline but lives in a landlocked city, the scenery is nice too.

Today was supposed to be the first day of the first round robin of the Louis Vuitton Cup. For the uninitiated, the Louis Vuitton Cup is the format by which the challenger nations determine which one of the various challenging syndicates will face Alinghi, the Swiss boat that defeated New Zealand in 2003. There are 11 challenger syndicates from 9 nations (3 are Italian). (Aside: as a formal matter, only the sponsoring yacht club is particularly from that certain nation; boats are manufactured with parts from all over the world, and crews and afterguards are typically international - for example, the American syndicate, BMW Oracle Racing, has a skipper from New Zealand (Chris Dickson), while the defender of the Cup, Alinghi, has a New Zealander skipper (Brad Butterworth) who frequently gives the helm to an American (Ed Baird).

From what I've been able to see, Valencia has set things up quite well to host the Cup. The port and canal where the syndicates are set up seems state-of-the-art and incredibly fan-friendly. The backdrop for racing is beautiful as well, with distant hills beyond the city. That said, I'm pulling big time for this to be a one-time setting. I honestly think that the best thing for yachting in general is for the USA to win back the cup and bring it to San Francisco, the home yacht club of BMW Oracle Racing. Potentially, the America's Cup could be staged in San Francisco Bay - basically a stadium setting. San Francisco would be the perfect spot for the event. And I would be there.

But about the current one...

So far there have been preliminary acts, plenty of fleet races that were pretty much jockeying for position and some bonus points that can help out in the current round. Alinghi had been involved in these races, but now they're off on their own, speed testing against themselves.

The 13th Act, which ended last week, was the last time before the America's Cup finals that we'll see Alinghi against the challengers. Alinghi dominated in these fleet races, and some think that none of the challengers has much of a chance of wrenching away the Cup. I'm not so sure. The point system of the Louis Vuitton Cup made it so that there was a limited benefit for beating Alinghi, but a significant drawback for losing to other challenger boats in each fleet race (basically, Alinghi's points are taken out of the equation). The effect of the points system was that every boat had little incentive to cover Alinghi, if they ever had a choice of two opponents to cover. Alinghi had free space and freedom to chase wind shifts without a shadow - which can be a huge advantage. In a match race setting, I don't know if it's assured that Alinghi is definitely faster than any of the challengers. For example, in a couple of the races BMW looked every bit as fast as Alinghi (race 1 and race 3 until the broken spinnaker pole), and Desafio Espanol in race 6 ran away from Alinghi on the last run. Alinghi might be the fastest (and they have a brand new boat too), but I'm still optimistic.

So now, for the next few weeks, the challengers are facing off head-to-head. I'll be watching and keeping tabs. For all America's Cup info, use the link on the right.

Read More...

Summary only...

By Popular Demand...

I give you an update of the Cricket World Cup, which I have been following, sort of. It is incredibly odd reading commentary and recaps when I have no idea what they're talking about 90% of the time. I do, however, feel a strange/embarrassing sense of pride now that I recognize names and can anticipate things. So, in dilettante, quick hit fashion...

• Australia is really really good. They seem to be just toying with teams.
• Ireland is probably the story of the tournament, having beaten Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are both Test Nations (test nations are the best cricketing nations, kind of separated and accredited by the ICC). If they don't finish last in the tournament (it'll come down to Run Rate differential), it's a massive shock.
• Do not count out Sri Lanka. Today's waxing by the Aussies looked bad, but Sri Lanka didn't play some of their best bowlers, including the Wisden player of the year, Malinga. It was pretty shady gamesmanship by Sri Lanka. They think they'll see Australia in either the semifinals or finals and they want the Aussies not to see the best guys coming at them. I love the Aussies' confidence though.
• Tomorrow's match between South Africa and England is effectively an elimination game, with the winner probably getting into the semifinals, along with New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Australia.
  

I can't really explain why I find this tournament compelling. I think it's the math, and the whole trying to figure out a foreign language. Also, I have no idea why the USA is not at least bad at cricket. I'd guess there's a sizable enough subcontinent immigrant population in the US to at least put together a team as competitive as Bermuda. I mean, there are only 65,000 people total in Bermuda! There has to be at least 20 times that many people of Subcontinental descent in the US. I have to think the US can put together a team that might not compete at the highest level, but at least can make some of the international tournaments. The One-Day International format is a lot more user-friendly for American n00bs like me. Of course, I've thought the same thing about soccer and rugby, and the US isn't exactly competitive on the right level in either of those sports, er... either.

Read More...

Summary only...

Makin' an Effort

So, I've been away for a while, and totally satiated with piss and vinegar.

Going to try to post a lot more often. And shorter posts too. And if I don't, just use the roll to the left and read people who actually follow through.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hide the Children

Read More...

Summary only...

Half Volleys

Time is not on my side, so here are thoughts in short form...

1) Matt Schaub trade: not as good a deal as the Falcons could probably have gotten a year ago, but also far better than paying that much for a backup who can walk for nothing in 10 months. The two spot move this year means the Falcons will get one of the following players, each of whom would make a serious impact: Gaines Adams, Jamaal Anderson, Levi Brown, Joe Thomas, LaRon Landry. Here's hoping one of the tackles drops to 8. The #39 pick will not be a bad pick either. There will be first round talent at that spot (Winston Justice last year went 39; Lofa Tatupu went around there in '05; Bob Sanders went around there in '04). Another option would be to flip that extra second rounder and another pick to move into the late first round - and maybe steal a guy like Reggie Nelson. Another second rounder next year makes the deal even better. This trade was a decent play. A better play probably would've been to sell Schaub a little higher a year ago, but as of right now, I don't know if the Falcons could've gotten a better deal (nobody was signing Schaub and giving the 1 and 3).

2) Like, a third of the world's population only cares about one thing right now: the Cricket World Cup. As a nonconformist and internationalist, I've tried to follow it a little. A bit of background: a decade ago I spent the summer in England, and tried for 6 weeks to teach myself how the rules of cricket operate via county cricket in pubs and box scores in the Guardian. Needless to say, I don't think I did a good job at it. The World Cup is a bit simpler to understand, since it's one-day internationals and the rules seem a little simpler, to me at least. Anyway, there's a host of odd storylines coming out of the Cup. Namely, major upsets. Pakistan and India are two of the better teams, and both have lost to teams with weaker reputations. Despite an upset loss to youthful Bangladesh, India still have a chance to advance to the knockout next round with a win over Sri Lanka (thanks, mainly, to a rout of Bermuda). A loss to Sri Lanka probably means India are heading back to the subcontinent. But at least they still have hope. India's neighbors to the west, Pakistan, are already heading home. The big story has been the death of manager Bob Woolmer under suspicious circumstances. But that was all after Pakistan had already been eliminated by the Irish on St. Patrick's day. We Americans might not know better, but Ireland isn't exactly a huge hotspot for cricket. The Republic kind of doesn't like to act like a good colony. So the win over Pakistan was a massive, massive upset. And with Pakistan's win over Zimbabwe today, the Irish have clinched advancement to the knockout next round before their match against the Windies. The bad news is that Ireland will face either England or New Zealand in the next round be likely the worst team left in the tournament and will face all the other good teams - meaning probable elimination before the final four. Still it's been a great cup for Ireland, and a total disaster for Pakistan. And that'll probably be the last I mention cricket on here. But it does give something to follow along during the day for the next few weeks.

[I edited this because I realized it was messed up.]

3) Part One of LD's theories without statistical support or serious research backing it up...

An idea I noticed last year and maybe the previous year in the NCAA basketball tournament hasn't come up again this year, until this weekend. Domes and their effect on games. I've been to watch games in the Georgia Dome, and I honestly believe it has an effect on the game. There is a difference between the background players shoot against in domes from that background in a smaller NBA-type building. Teams that rely on three point shooting for their offense might have problems when they start playing in domes. Teams that rely on frontcourt power, rebounding and high-percentage shots are less susceptible to that kind of effect. I noticed it last year in the regionals. Last year two regionals and the Final Four were held in domes. In the two regionals held in domes (Atlanta and Minneapolis), the highest rated seeds had major strengths in the perimeter (Duke and Villanova). Both those teams eventually lost to teams with far stronger emphasis on frontcourt play (LSU and Florida). Duke in particular seemed to struggle with shooting in the dome - J.J. Redick went 3 for 18!

Now, this year there haven't been any games played in domes so far, but they start doing so tomorrow, in the Alamodome and the Edward James Dome in St. Louis.

In St. Louis, my guess is that the dome helps Florida, who has probably the strongest frontcourt out of Butler, UNLV and Oregon. Butler in particular appears susceptible to dome-related poor shooting - their best two players are guards, and Graves, their best player is particularly reliant on 3-pt shooting. Oregon is one of the most frequent shooting teams from behind the arc. Many pundits have said that Florida has an easy path in terms of the other teams in the region, but with the effect of the dome on outside shooting (which I have little concrete evidence to back up my assertion), Florida might have an even better chance at defending their title.

In San Antonio, the dome is a little smaller, and it's an NBA arena already it was an NBA arena for a decade or so, so the depth and angles might not be a perfect fit for my theory. Regardless, Ohio State probably has some advantage, even though they have strong guard play. Oden upfront provides a better option than just about anyone in the nation in the middle. Their first opponent, Tennessee, features an offense that takes a ton of threes and whose best players rely on outside jumpers. Memphis plays uptempo, and is pretty balanced. Texas A&M runs a lot of high screens for 3-pt shots. The Aggies have good shooters - but if they went cold the offense could suffer.

Basically, I'd guess Florida and Ohio State have some advantage because their regions are played in domes. Then the next week in the Georgia Dome, who knows how it'll be, depending on the other teams that advance. Perhaps I'll actually have to update my blog again this month.

4) Part Two of LD's theories without statistical support or serious research backing it up...

The University of South Carolina wants to ruin international soccer, or at least cause headaches for lots of players involved in it.

First, a few weeks ago some college football dudes noticed the trials and tribulations of the hair-apparent (booo...) to Steve Taneyhill's legacy for the Cocks, Stephen Garcia. Dude was arrested (the first time, not the keying) for public drunkeness and not responding to a cop. How was it that Garcia got so drunk? He was pounding away at a birthday party at Columbia's Knock Knock Club for West Ham United defender Anton Ferdinand. Anton, the not as talented but equally as obnoxious brother of England and Man U international Rio Ferdinand, for some reason wanted to celebrate his 22nd birthday with some of his friends who play for the Cocks' soccer team in Columbia, rather than, on his own continent, during the season, etc. In fact, the story is that Anton lied to the club about his whereabouts. He said he was visiting a sick grandmother or something, not going to Columbia to get drunk. I gotta tell ya... I find this whole story weird. Stephen Garcia and Anton Ferdinand in the same news item? Odd.

Then this week there was a bigger name involved in a fracas concerning someone related to the USC athletic department. This week Inter Milan and Brazil stud Adriano got into a bar fight with Rolando Howell, a basketball player for Varese who played his college ball at, yep, South Carolina. Howell's a 6'9" Center in the Italian league. Evidently the fight was over a woman, some Italian celebrity.

So in a span of a few weeks, not one, but two international soccer players have incidents with legal implications, and both are somehow connected with the University of South Carolina. Coincidence? How could this be a coincidence. Clearly USC has it in for the entire international sporting community.

Read More...

Summary only...

Announcement!

A while ago I teased that there was something else I liked that deserved its own post. I've also hinted at other reasons why I haven't been posting as much as I used to. Not to put this all on one reason, especially one that can't exactly defend herself, but well, here goes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Lord and Lady Douchebag present to you...

The Countess:












No matter what I write on here, or do in real life, this is the best thing I've ever created.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blogroll Updated

I added and moved around a whole bunch of links. Lots more reference sites, and a host of sports blogs added.

I deleted some blogs as well. Some have been inactive for a while, others I know have moved on to SB Nation or AOL Fanhouse sites. If I deleted your link and you want it back, email me at the address in the upper right corner and I'll add it back.

As always, the fact that I link to other sites on the blogroll does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that's written on that site.

The blogroll's purpose is first and foremost for my ease of navigating to sources I seek out frequently. A secondary purpose is to direct readers there.

If you want me to add you as a link, feel free to email me the address and I'll have a look at it. Fair warning: I won't be linking to sites simply as advertisement or to gambling sites.

Read More...

Summary only...

Live from Peshawar!!!

So last night I tried calling in to EDSBS radio... Unfortunately, when they called me back, I was rolling along in the single worst spot in the metropolitan area of Atlanta for my celly to receive reception (there's a hole in coverage at the confluence of Ponce and Scott Blvd. right under the railroad track bridge). I tried calling back again, but I totally understand only getting one bite at the apple.

I did have some answers to the 4 questions...

1) What I know about my team... I was planning on taking this a different route. My team is Georgia, but there are far better bloggers that track the Dawgs much better than I do. So I was planning on instead talking about the "team" I probably write the most about in the Fall - the on-camera crew of pundits on College Gameday. And here's what I know about my team: Nothing is going to change. Sure, there might be a few new quirks or sponsored bits (like a field goal kick for scholarship money or something). But for the most part, there'll be nothing different. Expect the same lack of analysis, baseless predictions, biases worn on sleeves, and, of course, loads and loads and loads of cross-promotion.

2) What I don't know about my team... Well, this is also only tangentially about that. What I don't know, and really don't understand is why no other television network creates a competitor for College Gameday. Last year it was plainly evident that ESPN had taken a pro-cross-promotion view towards the show. Chris Fowler admitted as much in a column and on-air. If you are a television executive at CBS or Fox Sports Net (or even TBS), you had to hear loud and clear that ESPN will no longer be covering your products as well as they used to. Basically, ESPN was begging someone to create their own show. But so far, nobody has stepped up. And the main thing is that College Gameday isn't that good! Yes, it set the bar, but others can definitely go above it. A competing show can focus on things lots of fans care about - like actual analysis, weather reports, injury reports - things gamblers want to know about. Things that NFL pregame shows do a pretty good job of. If CBS put on a serious minded show, with good production values and relied on news and analysis rather than personalities, I honestly think they'd draw a sizable audience.

3) Offseason coping mechanism... I'm polygamous when it comes to sports, so I don't get bothered by March Madness, baseball, etc. I actually like them. Also, I dig on foreign sports, so I follow the premiership and international soccer. This summer I'll be following the America's Cup hard core too. Oh yeah... I sometimes even talk to my wife.

4) Badass death... I had two, but both are kind of long. If I had to cut it short, I would've just said the way Lt. Frank Drebin wanted to go: having your nuts chewed off by a Lapplander. The other options:

(A) The setting: smoky, black and white Texas heat of an old Jim Thompson novel. I've fallen in with a woman. A dark, mysterious, sultry woman. The kind who would let the pork chops burn while she was building your appetite. The kind of dame whose powers of persuasion were unsurpassed. She might've led me on, but what's a schlub accountant in a town like this supposed to do? Anyway, I did her taxes, she did her part. It was a mutually beneficial relationship until her ex husband rolled into town. She needed something to happen, and when she needed something, my own needs didn't get met. We worked together on a plan. A dark plan. A twisty plan. But when push came to shove, I was the one who had to pull the trigger, and the one who had to mix the metaphors. My accounting skills moved the cuckhold's cash into the right nooks and crannies, and the dame made sure I was in the right spot to hook the noose around the ex's neck. But surprisingly enough, when the noose tightened around his neck, I felt a choke myself. Turns out that the angles played by this angel weren't just in my favor. The big brute of a sheriff rolls in at the right time, just after one final roll in the hay with the dame. Finally I realized where the cash was flowing, and who exactly was benefitting. They pulled a pound and a half of lead from my gut, placed there from the biggest barrel on a sidearm any lawman in Texas is allowed to carry. I can't say it wasn't worth it though. She was the kind of woman you knew was too good for you, but how can you say no? The scam worked perfectly, just the mark wasn't who I thought it was. Course, that sheriff's kid ain't who he think he is either. [Fade out from bleeding dude half naked on bed.]

(B) Glastonbury. Darkness. 800,000 in the crowd. Storm clouds gather in the distance. The original lineups, all reunited. GnR, Crue, Van Halen (not Van Hagar), and Metallica featuring the reanimated corpse of Cliff Burton. Naturally, they invite me on stage to take over on the skins. After a face melting, boner inducing 24 minute drum solo (during which Tommy Lee announced his retirement from drumming and Lars Ullrich hanged himself out of pure exasperation in knowing that they'll never rule as hard), the storm grows closer and more violent. 800,000 arms in the air, having been rocked so hard they've gotten sober, drunk again, and had their eardrums explode. Finally, I build to a climax on the solo. Hitting it so hard people are losing their minds. I build to the back of the set, with the sticks trained on the massive, double gong on what used to be Tommy Lee's set. At the exact instant I strike both gongs, sending a massive pulse through the crowd that instantly causes 800,000 people to quiver in ecstasy at once, 13 strikes of lightning slam into the stage at once. Luckily, the sheer force of the gong strikes draws all lightning away from the other people on stage, who have either passed out in rapture or are unable to move because they are stultified by my awesomeness. 13 strikes of lightning and thousands of volts of electricity instantly congregate on the gong I am currently banging. The confluence of electricity explodes at my last strike - and the full amount of force channels into my bones. Since the strikes knocked out the power on stage, the lightning is the only light seen by the crowd. The current travels into me, lighting up my bones like a fluorescent skeleton. For 3 minutes, I continue the drum solo as an electric skeleton on the dark stage, again building to the gongs, for the finale, I strike both gongs at once. This channels all of the electricity back into the gongs, and the sound waves send the electricity back to where it came from. The lights come back on, the transfixed crowd comes out of their trance. I lie on the ground slumped over. A casualty of rock.

Apologies for not coming through in the clutch and for making the show less good with my terrible phone and all.

Read More...

Summary only...

Wow. How embarrassing for him and CBS

Last year on Selection Sunday Billy Packer's performance was horrible. His personal ties to power broker coaches in major conferences were on display for everyone to see, and a perfect case study for anyone wanting to discuss ethics and conflicts of interest for pundits in the media. His rants about how undeserved the at-large berth for George Mason proved to be an extremely poetic finish when the green and gold advanced to the final four. One would think that his performance last year couldn't be topped.

It was today.

With 14.5 seconds left in the UNC-Duke game, with a 12 point lead for the Tar Heels, Tyler Hansbrough took the ball to the rim, was fouled by two Blue Devils, had the ball knocked away after a foul, and was clearly, unambiguously clocked with a forearm to the face by Duke's Gerald Henderson. The foul was among the most vicious that I've ever seen. It could be considered a punch (though I'm not exactly sure - see update below). It could be considered an elbow. Henderson led with the forearm and the target was Hansbrough's face. The ball, long since cast aside, was nowhere near the direction of Henderson's thrust.

I don't typically like to presume to read the minds of others. I'll make an exception this time.

Gerald Henderson's forearm/elbow/punch to Hansbrough was 100% intentional. The facts and circumstances regarding the foul make this a clear inference. Henderson's left arm is by his side, not in the air, trying to block a shot. His right arm is cocked back and follows through after he strikes Hansbrough. His reaction after the strike is not one of "my bad, it was an accident."

Consider these facts: Duke-North Carolina is the most tense rivalry in college basketball, if not all of American sport. Duke was in the midst of suffering its worse loss of the season. The result of this game affected seeding in the ACC tournament (and NCAA seeding). Hansbrough dominated the game. 26 points, 18 rebounds.

Everything about the punch/elbow/forearm leads to one interpretation: that Henderson was frustrated with his team's performance and the result, and in order to protect whatever sense of self worth, he had to do something violent and outside the bounds of the rules of the game. This was a vicious, violent assault.

This was a more-violent attack than what began the brawl in the garden between the Knicks and Nuggets last December, but it came from the same thing. One team feels disrespected, gets mad that guys who punked him are still on the court, and they want to send a message physically. It's an embarrassment and not what basketball's about.

But this post isn't really about that. It's about Billy Packer.

Packer's coverage of this moment was so inappropriate and wrong that I cannot believe he is allowed to describe basketball.

For the first few minutes after the brutal, flagrant punch/elbow/forearm, Packer assured the viewers that it was clearly "an accident" and that Henderson was just "going for the ball". While Packer was narrating the replays, he disregarded the left hand of Henderson (at his side). He pretended not to notice how Henderson's arm was cocked back. He told us (at least three times) that Henderson was going for the ball even though the ball had been knocked away and wasn't even in the frame. Packer ignores that Henderson's eyes remained trained on one thing - the path his fist/arm/elbow would travel to strike Hansbrough.

He assured us again and again that Henderson didn't mean it and it was just bad luck that Hansbrough's face got in the way. Everything about the play and the circumstances regarding the finish of the game told us that this was a frustration/intimidation/classless foul. But in Packer's alternate universe, Henderson was blameless.

At one point Packer told us Henderson shouldn't even have been whistled for ANY foul, since Hansbrough had been fouled by other Devils already.

After Hansbrough had bled all over the floor, with definitely a broken nose and possibly lost teeth, Packer carried water for Henderson. A sad, small man does this.

But he then goes further!

For the next few minutes (it took a while for the officiating crew to sort it out), Packer spent his time telling us how it would be terrible for Henderson (a) to get whistled for a foul, (b) to get a flagrant foul, (c) to get ejected because of the effect on Duke in the upcoming ACC tournament. Direct quote: "This is a tough one for Duke".

Let's make this clear: Tyler Hansbrough, the best player on UNC and one of the best players in the conference, and clearly one of the most valuable players on ANY team in the nation gets clocked in the face, may have a broken nose, might have been hit in the eyes, might have been put out for the season (he didn't know anything about Hansbrough's status). But the victim of this sickeningly flagrant assault isn't the one getting discussed. No. It's a "tough one" because of the guy who did the assaulting might be punished appropriately!

How warped of a mind must you have to think this way?

When the officiating staff got the call correct and ejected Henderson, Packer grumbled about how bad a call it was. Mind-blowing.

Then he repeated the "this is a tough one for Duke" bit. Concern for the victim? None. Concern for the transgressor? Total.

Here's the only tough thing for Duke: Should they kick Henderson off the team permanently or just suspend him for the rest of the season. Because anything less is a complete sanction of the kind of cheap-shot that Henderson threw.

This was simply an embarrassing performance by CBS's #1 color commentator.

Here's the thing about Packer. Everyone around the country knows he's biased toward the ACC, and his personal conflicts are worn on his sleeve. This is only sort of true. Yes, Packer loves the ACC. But he really loves certain personalities in the sport. He's a water carrier for the coaches and programs he's closest too. He's close to certain personalities and his punditry is shaped by that. That's why he said such misinformed large-conference snobbery last year. And it has something to do with what he was talking about today. He was carrying water for Coach K. He knows the effect of today's loss and an early round ACC tourney loss would have on Duke's seeding in the NCAA tournament. He knows the effect of a (deserved) lengthy suspension for Henderson upon Duke.

He's shameless. He's a water carrier. He's a jabbering conflict of interest. He's not correct very often.

Billy Packer is an embarrassment. And when CBS lets him spout his slanted opinions, they share in his embarrassment.

Update: See comments for some clarification. I've edited the post a little bit to show that I'm a little wishy washy about terming Henderson's act as strictly a punch (though I think it can be interpreted in that way a little). I think there was intentional hard contact, and I've tried to state it as some form of elbow/forearm/punch or some generic term like "clocked". Main thing I think is about Packer's response, not the act itself - and his response was shameful regardless of how you describe the act because (a) Packer didn't know Henderson's intent but assumed the best (despite facts and circumstances) and (b) Packer's concern was all for Duke, rather than the guy who actually got hit.

Second Update: In regard to the foul itself, I think Pat Forde's article is pretty good, though I think he's a little too unequivocal about the foul being unintentional.

Yet another Update: Welcome Deadspin readers! If you got here from somewhere else, you can see the footage of Packer's comments at Deadspin here and at Loser With Socks (which I've been meaning to add to the blogroll for about a year it seems) here.

Read More...

Summary only...