What the fuck is this shit? Fuck you

OK, so, as promised, I'm going to get around to Bill's NBA trade value column.  I'm going to pretend like I didn't go to Grantland to pull its text earlier today and see that the front page story right now is a two-authored piece titled "Who is the Greatest Fictional Basketball Player of All Time?"  I'm just going to tell myself that this is not capital "c" Content that any reader in the world would ever want, and thus that a major sports website would never publish it.  I must have just imagined it.  Nothing to see here, move along to the trade value column.

Actually, that's not quite true.  I'm going to make one other quick stop (that definitely does not involve rhetorical questions about who would win a 1 on 1 showdown between Bugs Bunny in Space Jam and Jimmy from Hoosiers) on the way.  I received a tip about another non-Simmons Grantland NBA article last week, and boy, is it a load of garbage.

Maybe you have heard--in fact, if you pay attention to the NBA, you definitely have heard--that the 76ers are really bad again this year.  For the 2nd year in a row.  Wow, it's so zany that it has to be talked about by everyone.  Anyways, I suppose it's somewhat notable because even though teams are bad for two consecutive seasons all the time, the way the 76ers are doing it is a bit unorthodox.  First, they've now drafted (or traded for on draft day) two players in the last two years who they knew would not play a single minute in the then-upcoming season--Nerlens Noel in 2013 and of course Joel Embiid in 2014.  (And of course, the fact that they acquired Noel on draft day in 2013 is part of what put them in position to be bad enough to draft Embiid a year later.)  That's a move that screams "we are bad and we want to stay bad."  Second, they are shuffling their roster incessantly, stockpiling draft picks and moving various players and assets around without any evident desire for the current team to be anything but a placeholder.

Now, none of this should sound too crazy to you.  In fact, a very prominent "sports" "writer" named Bill Simmons is a big advocate of NBA teams getting shitty in order to get good later, rather than staying mediocre (as Philly was from 2010-2012).  But it does raise eyebrows, and make people say unfunny and unclever things like OMG THEY'RE TAKING A DUMP ON THEIR FANS.  And that outrage can lead to counteroutrage, from analyticsphiles who love the way the team is aggressively pursuing its goal in unorthdox ways.  And that counteroutrage can lead to some asshole Grantland writer trying to write a thinking man's response to the whole situation.  And that response can be, and is, absolutely horrible, trite, and full of WRONG all the way through, but I want to highlight probably the worst part of it, which also happens to be the guy's first point in support of his thesis.  The thesis is that while no one should be outraged about the situation--it's not "insulting" to the game of basketball or some bullshit like that (true)--it IS stupid.

The Sixers’ plan is stupid.

It’s not disgraceful. It’s not wrong. [...]

But it’s pretty stupid.

[...]

That’s my real problem with what the team is doing. It’s not the plan that’s been unbearable, it’s the cult of Sixers fans and media members who insist on mocking the skeptics while they marvel at Philly’s brilliance. 

He's referring to the counteroutrage, and to be sure, both those people as well as the regular outraged people who think tanking is disgraceful can all go eat a dump truck full of dicks.

The NBA system incentivizes losing, they say. Lose to win.  Here’s a GM who’s smart enough to exploit the system for as many chances as possible.

I get it. I really do. The only thing wrong with what Philly’s doing are the people who think it’s some profound approach to basketball philosophy. 

So the ONLY thing wrong is that some of the supporters of what Philly is doing are obnoxious about their support.  Got it.

Just because something is counterintuitive doesn’t make it more intuitive.

Oh, so you were bullshitting a sentence ago.  Really, there is another thing wrong with tanking.  Tell me all about it!

Start with the fundamental idea: lose to win.

And again, I'm not going to cover this whole article.  But I can't not cover his analysis of this first point.

Are We Sure Tanking Actually Works?

Well, yeah, it sure does.  And he'll start to establish right now, but fail to properly fully establish it by cutting off his own analysis well short of completion, because if he actually dug into the topic he'd realize how dumb it is to question whether tanking works.  In order to preserve his pre-determined conclusion he lies.  Allow me to help correct that lie, after he's done saying his bit.

There have been three triumphant NBA tanking efforts. 

And we start with a Simmons staple.  THREE AND ONLY THREE.  NO ONE DENIES THIS.

The first involved the Spurs. When David Robinson broke his foot at the end of 1996, their season crumbled, and San Antonio decided to keep Robinson on the sideline and bottom out. Spurs fans will deny this happened, and I guess you can’t prove it one way or another. But San Antonio landed the no. 1 pick at the end of Robinson’s prime, drafted Tim Duncan, and won five titles over the next 17 years.

This is true.  This is all true.  Good for them.  Fucking Spurs.

The Celtics also tanked in 1996-97. They went all in to get Duncan and came away with Ron Mercer and Chauncey Billups. They didn’t make the playoffs for another five years.

Did they go all in?  Did they?  (No.)  In 1995-96 they were a bad but not horrible team that won 33 games.  Their whole nucleus was under the age of 30.  In the 1996 offseason, their only meaningful move was on draft day, when they swapped first round picks with Dallas (which netted them Antoine Walker) and in that same trade sent off Eric Montross (not a significant contributor to the 1995-96 team; 7 PPG, 6 RPG) while receiving Dallas's 1997 first rounder, which would end up being 6th overall (nice!) and was used to select Mercer (damn).  That was a good trade that definitely can't be interpreted as a tanking move.  That was one of only two trades they made that year, and the other was pretty insignificant.  

In 1996-97 they brought back almost the same roster.  The season end player stat breakdown is very similar to the previous season, with the following changes: 

1) The addition of Walker, who had a great rookie season, going for 18 and 9.

2) 1995-96 top scorer and rebounder Dino Radja (HEY REMEMBER HIM???? JEFF PEARLMAN PROBABLY DOES!!!!) was sidelined for the rest of the 1996-97 season after a knee injury just 25 games in.  The only way this was a tanking move is if the Celtics hired someone to take his knee out telekinetically.  Radja would never play in the NBA again, despite being a 20 and 10 guy the previous season (at age 28), which pretty much tells you whether or not this was a "They held him out in order to tank!" move like Robinson's is alleged to be.

3) 1995-96 sixth man Dana Barros was also limited to only 24 games, presumably due to injury; his Wikipedia page isn't nearly as awesome as Radja's so I'm lacking detail here.

That's really it.  Two important rotation guys got hurt, and a promising rookie stepped in to kind of fill the shoes of one of the departed guys.  The Celtics literally didn't make a single trade during the season.  And that's it?  That's "going all in" to get Duncan?  Fucking hardly.  Add to that the fact that while Mercer was a bit of a dud, they did get Billups, who ended up being a five time All-Star and a possible Hall of Famer.  The fact that he didn't even get to play a full season for Boston before being traded has nothing to do with the argument that THE CELTICS TRIED TO TANK AND FAIL.  First, they barely (if at all) tried to tank, and second, they got a really awesome player anyways.  So even though I hate the Celtics and hate researching their pointless mid-90s transaction histories, you can see why I'm writing this post.  This author (I'm not even going to identify him by name--fuck him) is writing shit.  And I like writing responses to shit.

Boston’s tanking success didn’t come until 10 years later. With a roster built around Paul Pierce and younger players like Al Jefferson and Rajon Rondo, the team was going nowhere. So when Pierce went down with a vague “stress injury,” Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge held him out for most of the second half of the 2006-07 season. A starting lineup that featured Ryan Gomes and Allan Ray 

Can't believe this dingbat passed up a chance to make a "from Allan Ray to Ray Allen!!!!" joke anywhere in here.

finished out the year at the bottom of the league. That spring, they got screwed in the lottery 

Bill, your tears are so delicious!  Too bad they won a fucking title anyways.

and wound up with the fifth pick. Then they got lucky. They turned that fifth pick into Ray Allen, and then Kevin Garnett wanted out of Minnesota, and Ubuntu was born. Boston won a title 10 months later.

Yep.  I'd say that tank job worked, if unconventionally.

The other side of that Ray Allen Celtics deal is what the Sixers are chasing. Seattle stripped its roster in 2007, in part to rebuild around Kevin Durant and (maybe, possibly) in part because the owners were gearing up to move the team to Oklahoma City. 

I'd like to reiterate my intent to kick in the nuts any Seattle fan who is still bitching about this, should I get the chance.  They've been warned.

They traded Allen and Rashard Lewis, and while Washington state was stalling on stadium proposals, attendance suffered — it certainly didn’t hurt that the basketball product became borderline unwatchable (even with Durant). Over the next two years, all the losing birthed a title-contending nucleus that also featured James Harden, Serge Ibaka, and Russell Westbrook. It’s just that they played in Oklahoma City.

OK, given OKC's whole one Finals appearance and zero titles with that nucleus so far, I wouldn't call that tank job "triumphant" (and sticking to that insane standard is really the only way he can get 25% of the way to justifying his point, so it's kind of funny to watch him tacitly abandon it here).  But it was certainly successful.  Now, I expect he'll start listing any of the other many, many teams that have gone from bad to good thanks to emptying their team of good players and gunning for a great lottery pick.

In other words, the only recent examples of tanking to a title come from two teams that already had franchise players and used one bad season to rebuild on the fly. 

Oh?  That's it, is it?  I almost forgot--THREE AND ONLY THREE.  First of all, as I just mentioned in that excessively lengthy parenthetical in my last paragraph, the Thunder don't have a title, no matter how much HOOP NERDS who NERDGASM all over the place when RUSSELL WESTBROOK dunks GOSH YOU HEATHENS DON'T PROPERLY APPRECIATE RUSSELL ONLY HOOP NERDS LIKE US DO want to award them with a title.  Second of all, holy shit, are you serious?  THAT'S your standard for figuring out if tanking works or not?

The Cavaliers tanked like dogs to get LeBron in 2003, sending away their top three scorers from 2001-02 (Andre Miller, Wesley Person, Lamond Murray) for peanuts during the 2002 offseason.  In his first seven year run with them, the team would make five straight playoff appearances, losing once in the conference finals and once in the Finals.  That's not "triumphant," I suppose, but fuck, what was their other option?  Build around Miller, Person, Murray, and 2002 draftee Carlos Boozer, and try to compete with the Lakers/Spurs that way?  Fuck you.  Give them a chance to do that sequence over again and they'd tank like they did 100 out of 100 times.  

The Nuggets also tanked (I'm not going to get into the details, but believe me, they tanked) throughout 2001 and 2002 to land Carmelo in that 2003 draft.  They then made the playoffs for ten consecutive seasons (after going to the playoffs twice in the previous twelve seasons) and came thiiiiis close to a Finals appearance against a mediocre Magic team in 2009.  Same story--not triumphant, but fuck, they wouldn't change anything about 2001-2002 in hindsight.

So, no titles for either of them.  Hey, how about this?  The Bulls were a playoff team in 1980-81, and a bad but not horrible 34 win team in 1981-82 (which went through three coaches, and then switched again during the 1982 offseason).  Then during the 1982-83 season they trade HOFer Artis Gilmore, still in his late prime, for nothing (yes, Dave Corzine is nothing), along with several other player-for-pick trades.  Then, during the 1983-84 season, ANOTHER new head coach (their sixth in four seasons... sounds a bit tanky to me) decided that Reggie Theus, who had scored 23.5 per game the previous season, should come off the bench.  He would be traded for nothing that February.  The Bulls still somehow managed 27 wins, but had the 3rd overall pick, and then took Michael Jordan.  Now in this case, shit, they actually DID have a good alternative--I'm not going to research it, but I bet a lot of fans were pissed that they traded Gilmore and Theus for peanuts in back to back offseasons.  Trying to win a championship with those two guys isn't exactly the worst idea.  But given how things worked out, again, I think the Bulls were happy with their choice.

I'm not going to go on like this for every single great player who was drafted by a team that obviously tanked to at least some level of significance.  (More than the 1996-97 Celtics tanked anyways.)  But you get the point.  This writer is an asshole who is annoyed by people on the internet and his preferred method for dealing with them is deciding that because they are annoying they must be wrong.  Well, trust me: I am both annoying and right all the time.  It's not that hard to do.  Where were we?  Oh yeah, back to the end of this little F-minus explanation as to why tanking is stupid.

That’s why it always made the most sense for a team like the Knicks to sit Carmelo and lose as much as possible this year. You never know what can happen. For everyone else, there’s a chance you could be the ’97 Spurs, but there’s a much better chance you will be the ’97 Celtics. 

"Be careful, everyone!  If you tank, you might only end up with a top 25-ever point guard!"  Now, terrible syntax in that sentence aside, I will grant this point: tanking does not guarantee that you will draft the greatest power forward ever the following June.  But it's sure as hell a lot smarter than NOT tanking.

The only recent example of a full-scale, multiyear tanking success story comes from a team that quite possibly used that strategy to kill basketball in its own home city. That’s the dream.

Yeah, good logical implication, fuckhead--if your team tanks, they'll probably end up leaving town.  Totally.

I’m not saying losing deliberately is a horrible idea, 

You kind of are though!

but it’s OK to look at the history before we call it brilliant. 

Cool, just did.  It's not "brilliant" per se, it's just smarter than NOT tanking, and the way it is done may or may not turn out to have been brilliant post hoc.  Maybe what the Sixers are doing is a brilliant tank job, or maybe it's just an average tank job.  But just because HOOPS NERDS who care about the Sixers or are otherwise complimentary of what the team is doing are shitheads doesn't mean you can just ignore history.  

If the Sixers are going DEFCON: TANK for several seasons in a devious play to maximize the probability of landing a title nucleus … shouldn’t it matter that this only really worked three times in 20 years? 

I like the 20 year cutoff thing.  Helps you avoid that whole Jordan issue.  Also, if tanking "didn't work" for the Cavs or Nuggets, I'd hate to see what results they would have come up with during the 2000s had they tried something else.

Is this plan really that devious?

It's not devious, it's just a good, solid plan.  And the rest of this article is just as bad.  Fuck yourself, Grantland staff writer guy.  Grantland is the worst.

Trade value column forthcoming.  No, seriously.

WMTMQR: With a Special Guest Appearance by Jarrett!

Just to clarify, this is about Gregg's column from allll the way back on Tuesday the 19th. Yeah. Two TMQs ago. So he's talking about games that happened during week 6 of the NFL season. Yup, I'm posting this that late. Fortunately I can get away with it because I'm so handsome. Kind of like how I cut in lines outside of exclusive clubs and never have to wait at the emergency room.

First, a special celebrity guest appearance by onetime semi-quasi-sorta-regular FireJay blogger Jarrett, who has a bone to pick:

As a Lindenwood University alum, imagine my surprise when my brother told me a national columnist had taken my alma mater to task.

Lindenwood 90, Culver-Stockton 19. Lindenwood gained 721 yards on offense and scored 13 touchdowns against winless Culver-Stockton, which has previous losses of 70-0 and 63-10.

A track record of futility against other teams from the NAIA that go unnamed because it would be too difficult to list schools like "Missouri Valley" (70-0) or "Baker" (63-10). I Googled the same thing that Gregg did, but maybe he just had to keep his word count down.

Apparently sportsmanship is not on the curriculum at Lindenwood University which, leading 48-3 at the half, came out passing in the third quarter, then kept starters on the field until the margin was 62-10.

Sportsmanship is surprisingly absent from the curriculum at Lindenwood University, because they dispense diplomas and not anecdotes. Sure, my diploma is crooked, but at least my name is spelled right. But let's move on to the Holier Than Thou segment of the paragraph.

Coach Patrick Ross, does bullying a weak opponent make you feel like a man?

What is this? Is this a joke? Gregg, does bullying a coach of an NAIA football team make you feel like a man? He's coaching in the NAIA in Saint Charles, Missouri. You know what else St. Charles is known for? Antiques. A casino. It's not like he's looking to get that dream job in the NFL with this gig.

Lindenwood president James Evans, your school owes collegiate athletics an apology.

Amazingly, it looks like Gregg made it back to www.lindenwood.edu after his brief stop at the athletics page. Gregg, nobody cares. Not a soul. Dear collegiate athletics, sorry you were brought in on this soap box, but this guy is a total dunderhead. XOXO, Lindenwood University. P.S. - Can we have money?

Located in Canton, Mo., Culver-Stockton College forbids incense in its dorms.

A school forbidding flammable items from dorms? How quaint! Forbidden from Lindenwood Dorms: Alcohol, microwaves, hot plates, and members of the opposite sex. I lived in a house owned by the University for three semesters and girls were forbidden from being on my lawn. So if you're looking for a University that accepts out of state students based on a slightly-above-average ACT scores, come to Lindenwood University, home of Bullying Athletic Programs!

Give him a hand(job?) folks. Moving on to the rest of the column: Gregg, like every single other fucking journalist on the planet, thinks he has some novel and original thoughts about the recent outbreak of concussions in the NFL.

The sports media need to change, too. Most football announcers either avoid discussion of neurological danger, laugh it off as getting "jacked up,"

That was the best ESPN bit ever. It gave Michael Irvin something to do that he didn't suck at.

or pretend not to see what's directly in front of their eyes.

It's not like a big hit is obvious neurological damage right in front of your eyes unless the person who got hit ends up lying motionless in an awkward position. If they're moving at all, and especially if they walk off the field under their own power (which often happens after a nasty helmet-to-helmet hit), celebrating the hit isn't exactly an insensitive showing of total ignorance.

When Cribbs was hit in the head by Harrison, Kevin Harlan of CBS, calling the game, said, "Wow what a hard-hitting rivalry the Steelers and Browns have," not mentioning head trauma.

The reason that's a dumb comment isn't that it was a bad thing to say from a concussion awareness standpoint; it's because the Steelers and Browns don't have much of a rivalry. I think the Browns have won like 3 of the past 30 meetings or something.

When Massaquoi was hit in the head later in the same game, Harlan said with enthusiasm, "He was drilled, Harrison was really laying the wood!" To young viewers -- and the 95 percent of football players who are high school boys -- this kind of commentary makes helmet-to-helmet hits sound cool.

I'm pretty sure watching the hit happen is about 100 times "cooler" and more influential in the minds of kids than what Kevin fucking Harlan has to say about it. Complaining about how a hit was called by the announcers is like complaining about the way an actor smoking in a movie was blowing his smoke rings.

Making helmet hits sound cool to the young is doubly worrisome because while most orthopedic injuries heal, some neurological injuries cannot be treated.

Again, watching the hits happen: responsible for 99% of how impressionable youngsters react to them. Hearing Kevin Harlan say it was a big hit: responsible for 1%.

After Joseph Addai took two deliberate blows to his helmet -- first a helmet-to-helmet hit from Kedric Golston, then a forearm-to-helmet hit from London Fletcher -- and collapsed in the Indianapolis-at-Washington game, Cris Collinsworth of NBC said, "That is a perfectly clean hit, blows to the head are allowed on running plays."

Really -- it's "perfectly clean" to slam your forearm into another player's helmet?

Yes. I can't tell if the question is worded this way because Gregg thinks Collinsworth was wrong, or because he can't believe Collinsworth was right- I hope it's the latter. Because Collinsworth was right.

Existing rule 12, 2, 7g bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," and also states, "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent." Any opponent, including the ballcarrier. So it's not legal to ram your helmet into the ballcarrier's helmet. But many in the football world think it is -- a reason the rules must become clearer.

Collinsworth (MORE LIKE COLLINSWORTHLESS AM I RIGHT. Actually he's pretty decent in the booth) didn't say that helmet to helmet hits were legal. That straw man is in pieces on the ground, though. Good for Gregg.

ESPN deserves blame, too, for poor coverage of neurological harm. On Monday, the noon Eastern edition of "SportsCenter" showed both the vicious hits in the Pittsburgh-at-Cleveland game as highlights, without context about helmet-as-a-weapon fouls or concussions. "That James Harrison is a dangerous player, you better account for him," Merril Hoge said, as if young players should emulate dangerous tactics.

I actually think kids somehow probably care less about what Merril Hoge says than what Kevin Harlan says. Hard to imagine but I bet it's true. Really, if ESPN were being responsible in the way Gregg expects them to be, it wouldn't show any clips of these hits or discuss them at all. Mmmmmm hmmmm. I'm holding my breath too.

Most important, Rodney Harrison said on NBC that players guilty of deliberate helmet-as-a-weapon hits should not just be ejected but suspended.

Ah, Rodney HGHarrison- champion of all that is good and wholesome in professional sports. Now THERE'S a role model kids can look up to, and who can steer them away from making decisions that affect their long term health.

This week is a critical moment for football as a sport, and as a business. If the league really does crack down in a meaningful way -- and if sportscasters, including on ESPN, start being honest about the risks and downsides of football -- then the game will become safer, and a good example will be set for high school players. If the league is just blowing smoke, or the sports media return to boosterism,

Or trying to make money, the business they've been in since they came into existence.

then Congress should step in and regulate the playing standards of professional sports.

Jesus H. Christ, Gregg. No. Congress has about 500 more important problems to tackle (PUN INTENDED) and they're lucky if they get through ten or so in any given year.

Stat of the Week No. 1: Tom Brady has won 26 of his past 27 starts at Gillette Field, including playoffs.

He's also lost 7 of his last 11 road starts. The one home loss was also in a playoff game in which he threw three picks and averaged 3.7 yards per attempt.

Cheerleader of the Week: Liam Carter of Fort Collins, Colo., nominates Jocey of the Tennessee Titans who, according to her team bio, is a lawyer who works as a public defender. If you had an NFL cheerleader as your criminal defense counsel, here is the closing argument the jury might get:

Two, four, six, eight Whom should we exonerate? My client! My client! Aaaaaaaa-CQUIT!

Yep. He's still trying to do this kind of bit. I think he tries it about twice a year. Sad.

Sweet Play of the Week: New England ran a "flip" reverse -- a risky action in which a tailback chucks the ball into the air -- to Brandon Tate for a 22-yard gain, setting up the Patriots' first touchdown in what would become an overtime win. But the sweetest play of the game, if not of Week 6, was 5-foot-9 undrafted free agent Danny Woodhead, out of Division II Chadron State, picking up Ray Lewis on a blitz block.

The sweetest play. Of the week. Was a small white guy making a relatively inconsequential block. Maybe Gregg has a little more Patriots fan in him than he'd like to admit. DANNY FACKIN' WOODHEAD! I NEED HIS JAHHHH-SEY!

Sour Sets of Plays: With Detroit trailing 21-10 at Jersey/A in the fourth quarter, Calvin Johnson caught a go route and both defensive backs on his side fell, leaving nothing but green for an 87-yard touchdown. Johnson began waving the ball in the air at the Giants' 45!

And would go on to score a touchdown just a few seconds later!

Not only did Johnson risk blowing the touchdown with a self-inflicted fumble,

That's a risk in the same sense that it's a risk to take a commercial flight because the plane might crash and kill you. Calvin Johnson can probably palm two basketballs simultaneously with the same hand.

not only did he show poor sportsmanship by mocking the home team,

It's really more of a celebration of your accomplishment than a mocking gesture. Going out to their logo at the 50 and slamming the ball down, a la T.O.? That's mocking the home team.

not only was Detroit riding a streak of 23 consecutive road losses --

Completely irrelevant.

which isn't really that much to strut about -- but after the touchdown, the Lions were still behind.

I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this presumption on the part of Gregg and other stuffy commentators that all celebrations are automatically tacky/classless/horrible/WORSE THAN GENOCIDE. Look- in some circumstances they are the first three of those things. Like if they result in a fumble and reversal of the course of an ongoing play, draw a penalty in a close game, come after a really inconsequential play (see: the defensive linemen who pose for the camera after a 2 yard sack on 1st and 10) or aggressively and personally insult someone on the other team. Everything else is fucking fair game as far as I'm concerned. If you hot dog it on your way into the end zone and there are no consequences (besides the ever-unquantifiable “Oh he totally fired the other team up!!!!”), I say go nuts. The players might as well have fun- last I checked we were all watching sports for a little escapism.

Houston got sour payback when, with 36 seconds remaining, the Chiefs allowed Andre Johnson -- one of the league's best players -- to get open in the end zone for the winning touchdown. On the play, Kansas City had seven defenders dropping back to cover four receivers -- yet one of the league's best players got open.

And maybe, just maybe, the fact that he got open in that situation has something to do with the fact that he's one of the league's best players. It's so crazy- teams continue to let Albert Pujols hit game winning home runs, even though he's one of the best players in the league!

Creep alert! It was a particularly lame week for that item.

Tam Tran of Kansas City reports, "On a business trip to New Orleans, I read a newspaper story about the Gulf oil spill and how it might affect the restaurant business of the 'quickly approaching' Lent season. Lent begins March 9, 2011."

And maybe, just maybe, the Gulf ecosystem won't yet be back to fully healthy at that point.

Jon Frosch of New Orleans reports, "Walking to school at the University of New Orleans, I spotted a car in the parking lot of Ben Franklin High School, which shares the same campus, that had written in the windows, 'Congrats, Class of 2011.' New Orleans Public Schools do not graduate for another eight months."

Pretty much every high school has cars painted with windows celebrating the current senior class at all points during any school year. This is the least creeping instance of creep ever.

Thomas Bender of Chicago writes, "I just received an e-mail for the U2 concert in Chicago at Soldier Field -- on July 11, 2011. Tickets on sale now."

What? They want to sell out the event as far in advance as possible to get paid as soon as possible? (Something snarky about the time value of money)? MADNESS.

Erik Kneebone of Genoa, Ill., writes, "Henry Kravis just donated $100 million to Columbia to expand its business school. Not only is Columbia Business School's main contribution to society the Wall Street sharks who caused the 2008 financial meltdown --

Yeah let's go ahead and single them out. Good plan. Harvard/Stanford/Chicago/Every Other Business School grads, you're off the hook! Also- no Columbia Business School grads have ever done anything good for society with their degrees. (Note: I have no affiliation with Columbia or Columbia Business School and I think NYC is a hole.)

Washington countered with the Times Square defense -- the front seven milling around at random, like tourists in Times Square.

Ohhhhhhh. IIIIIIII get it.

Manning couldn't predict where the front seven would be because the defenders themselves didn't know; they were instructed to move randomly. Manning wasn't fazed, burning this defense for 469 yards.

But let's just remember that Manning went to Division I Tennessee, was drafted first overall, was never cut, and has an enormous contract and a pretty sizable ego. Gregg conveniently doesn't mention these things when a player like Manning succeeds, but OH MY GAWD DID YOU SEE DANNY WOODHEAD ON THAT 3RD DOWN BLITZ PICKUP IT WAS THE CAT'S MEOW

Eternity with Rachael Ray -- the Third Circle of Hell: The autumn edition of the Rachael Ray promotional vehicle "Everyday with Rachael Ray" declares in its main headline "Recipes you'll keep forever!" Like 'til the end of time?

Taking things literally makes them easy to pick on! (I try to only pick on people who do this when they actually say literally, like "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse.")

GOD: I command that the temporal world cease.

THE LAST MAN: Wait a sec while I grab my Rachael Ray recipes.

Ooooooooooof.

Last week's column proposed that giving players in Division I football and men's basketball (the only college sports that don't lose money) stipends of a few thousand dollars per year would remove the temptation to take cash from agents while treating players no differently from college newspaper editors, stage crew and graduate teaching assistants, who also receive small stipends.

It's a novel idea, and I hate the NCAA and its retarded rules, but I don't think a few grand a year is going to remove much temptation. Not that I'm saying a football player's contribution to his university is 10 times that of a newspaper editor- I'm just saying that monthly $300 checks aren't really going to stop the agent-to-player cashflow.

Back to Saban. He proposed that any agent who causes a college player to lose a year of eligibility should lose his agent's license for an equal period.

Nick Saban is a legendary asshole who has exactly zero room to talk about who's exploiting who when it comes to college football.

This is a fine suggestion. The agent can't claim not to know eligibility rules; it is his business to know. Saban is correct to say that agent behavior will not change until agents receive the same punishments as NCAA athletes.

Yeah, I'm fine with the suggestion, as long as we also have a policy that coaches who graduate like three players a year are suspended without pay for the next decade.

If Alabama football, or any similar big-deal program, were pure and academics-focused, Saban would be justified in saying the agents and NFL scouts should stay away from his student-athletes. But Saban himself, and many other football-factory coaches, takes advantage of his players by pressuring them to concentrate on football above classroom work. Saban knows he will be rewarded with money for wins but never penalized if players don't get an education.

I hate agreeing with TMQ. I HATE IT. But at least he's vindicated himself here somewhat.

Many college football athletes enjoy a four- or five-year dreamworld of going on to the NFL and cut classes with the coaching staff's tacit or even active approval. When their college days end and the NFL doesn't call, and they haven't earned a diploma, they are shafted. Don't blame agents and scouts for this. Blame colleges and coaches.

Hooray! This could have been presented without giving Saban any credit for anything, as he deserves none (except for exploiting NCAA recruiting/discipline rules and putting solid FOOTBALL teams on the FOOTBALL field on a yearly basis). (Note: I am in no way affiliated with LSU, Auburn, or any other SEC school and have no team-based bias against Alabama or Saban. He's just a cunt.)

As for Saban's pimp analogy, he said of agents who hand out money, "How are they any better than a pimp? I have no respect for people who do that to young people. How would you feel if they did it to your child?" This from a coach whose football program graduates only 55 percent of its players. (Look up any Division I graduation rate here.) Saban uses up young people's college years to win games and big paydays for himself -- then graduates barely more than half of them. To use his own words, how is he any better than a pimp?

Look at Gregg, bringing the noise. Well alright then.

Cowboys' Low Football IQ: You're trailing with less than three minutes remaining -- Why are you punting? That's what Dallas did, if for no other reason than to shift the blame away from Wade Phillips, who would have been denounced if a fourth-down try had failed, and onto his defensive players.

And then he had to go and say something like this.

When will I post about this week's TMQ? (The one that came out today.) Honestly, who knows or cares.

The Grinding of Axes: One Man's Defense of Jeter

Foxsports.com's Adam Kriegel offers his commentary on why the fans were right to vote 4.5 million times for Derek Jeter. I actually agree with the basic premise of this article (Derek Jeter is good) but this article commits several cardinal sins. Read:

At 35, Derek Jeter is considered well past his prime as an everyday shortstop. Don't take my word for it. Baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have long since rendered their final analysis on the subject.

Actually, baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have offered a meager resistance to the Jeter-love that exists throughout the sports universe, suggesting that perhaps the guy isn't the superhero everyone thinks he is.

And considering that his 2008 numbers were significantly lower than his career numbers in pretty much every category, the mathematicians didn't have to look far to analyze this downturn.

No surprise, either. By their mid-thirties, even the best ballplayers give up the position for less demanding assignments. At 36, Cal Ripken was a full-time third baseman. The logic is inexorable. Age and range are inversely proportional. Hence, Jeter's days are numbered.

It's like he's an old nag, shuffling off to the glue factory. Like Barbaro!

Still, when it came time to select a starting shortstop for the All-Star Game, Jeter received an astounding 4,851,889 votes, more than anyone in the American League, more than anyone not named Albert Pujols and Chase Utley.

Any sensible fan might note that Jeter was facing one of the least competitive positions on the ballot. Who's a good AL shortstop this year? Jason Bartlett?

Whereas Pujols was up against perhaps the most stacked position on the ballot.

He's now the oldest shortstop to start an All-Star Game since 37-year-old Luis Aparacio in 1971.

You are wrong. Ozzie Smith started the 1994 ASG at the ripe old age of 39. Even the MLB.com article correctly states that Jeter is the oldest American League starting shortstop since Aparicio.

Pure laziness on the part of Mr. Kriegel here. Or just a lack of baseball knowledge - since the mid-90s were full of completely unnecessary elections of Ozzie Smith when he was old enough to be like dead and played like eighty games a season.

So here's to the fans. For once, at least, you guys got it right.

Way to go, fans. You managed not to screw up a really easy choice, since Derek Jeter is really having a pretty darn good season this year.

I covered Jeter from '96 — when the burning question in New York revolved around whether he would be the equal of the Mets' defensive wizard Rey Ordonez — to 2001.

Really? That was the question? News to me.

And in all that time, through four Yankee championships, I don't think I ever fully appreciated the guy.

That makes you just about the only writer in America who didn't.

While his dating résumé, now as then, remains exemplary, I considered him too assiduously non-controversial, which is to say, boring.

Has anyone ever thought Jeter was boring just because he isn't an idiot?

In retrospect, it was a reaction to the gratuitously controversial regime that preceded his tenure in the Bronx. Jeter was the perfect consigliere for Joe Torre, a layer of heavy insulation against the irrational ravings of the principal owner. Still, his "Mr. Steinbrenner" act wore thin.

Huh?

But here it is, 2009, and Jeter has more hits than Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. In the next couple of seasons, he'll pass the original iron man, Lou Gehrig, and Babe Ruth. In fact, he's a good bet to end up with 3,600 hits. And in his steady progression toward that number, he's beaten more than the odds.

It would be kind of nice to cite his 2009 statistics, which would be most relevant to this discussion, and clearly support your position, Mr. Kriegel. Yet you pointlessly cite his career hits, which is pretty much all anyone ever discusses when they discuss Jeter.

I think when Jeter gets voted into the Hall of More Than Very Good, he will have the emptiest plaque in Cooperstown. All it will list is his name and however many hits he ends up with. Has he ever even hit a double?

And though the baseball nerds insist he can't field his position, I'll remember with affection the same plays everyone else does: the glove-handed shovel pass that caught Jeremy Giambi at the plate in the 2001 ALDS, and Trot Nixon's foul ball he caught three rows deep in the left-field stands at the old Stadium.

It's too bad the baseball nerds' stats noticed all the times he didn't make those plays. That's almost unfair of them!

Are football and basketball and hockey nerds doing everything they can to actively ruin their respective sports? Or is it just baseball nerds?

Kriegel then goes on to say how great Jeter is, and compares him to a bunch of average shortstops. The conclusion, as I said, is true: Jeter is the best shortstop in the AL right now, and is certainly one of the top in the last 20 years.

But this article still sucks.