Peyton Manning seems somewhat at peace with his departure from Indianapolis

And really, has anyone ever been upset about leaving that city? But since he seems OK with it (publicly, at least), it's time for America's sportswriters to be outraged on his behalf. Gene Wojciechowski, man holding the prestigious title of ESPN's "Senior National Columnist," you can begin spewing moronic invective whenever you're ready.

What if the Indianapolis Colts didn't have the first pick of the 2012 NFL draft, but the third?

Yeah, what if? Would that make them feel better about paying Manning a $30 million roster bonus so he could lead their clearly-not-going-to-contend-for-a-Super-Bowl team next year? I mean, that's what pro sports is all about: paying an ungodly sum of money to one 35 year old guy when even the stupidest superfan can tell it's time for the team to rebuild. (Note: sarcasm does not apply to the 2014-2016 Phillies and Ryan Howard)

What if Peyton Manning was recovering from knee surgery, not multiple neck procedures?

Yeah, that'd make them more comfortable with paying him all that cash for sure! Quarterbacks don't use their knees. Silly goose.

What if Colts owner Jim Irsay didn't talk out of both sides of his horseshoe?

"Both sides of his horseshoe?" (Insert picture of Hindenburg crash)

Think about it: Irsay would rather roll the bones on Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III than on Manning. Luck and RG3 have a combined zero NFL snaps. Manning has a Super Bowl ring and four league MVP awards and has thrown for more yards in NFL history than everyone except Brett Favre and Dan Marino.

Holy shit. Your understanding of how teams operate is like an infant's understanding of pretty much anything. You get an F-. You get a zero. You get whatever the worst imaginary grade I can give you is. If you're honestly writing this because you're outraged that the Colts would rather draft a 22 year old QB and pay him $25-$30 million over the course of the next 4 or 5 years (Scam Newton got $22 million over 4) than pay Manning whatever the hell they would have owed him to lead them to a couple wild card berths during that span, you're the stupidest sportswriter of all time. If instead you're writing this with full knowledge that cutting Manning was the right managerial move, but still think Manning needs someone to stand up for his honor, you're the biggest asshole sportswriter of all time. Or you could be both, who knows.

And never mind what caused this divorce

OK, sounds like you're going with "stupidest" rather than "biggest asshole." Probably a good decision, although keep in mind that you can change it if you see fit.

or where he'll end up next. How about we take a few moments and remember exactly what a legend looks like?

Mmmm. More platitudes, please.

Manning made Indianapolis forget that it was a football stepmother.

Manning transformed a horrible franchise into a perennial contender.

Fuck paying players for what you expect them to do over the course of the contract in the future- the real key to success is to pay players for what they've done in the past. (Insert picture of Ed Wade)

Manning killed it on "Saturday Night Live" ("I just thought about going out there for the second half, and a little bit of pee came out.")

Fuck paying Manning- is Jon Hamm available?

Manning reported to the Giants Stadium interview room wearing a suit and tie -- and no shoes or socks -- after a night-game win against his brother Eli. He did it (and I was there) because he knew the East Coast sports writers were on a crushing deadline.

Now shifting over from "stupidest" to "biggest asshole." HE WAS NICE TO ME AND THEREFORE HE DESERVES TO ALWAYS BE HAPPY AND NEVER BE INCONVENIENCED! Classic sportswriter assholery.

Manning led the Colts to a pair of Super Bowls and won one.

Mostly irrelevant.

Manning engineered a comeback for the ages: down 21 points at Tampa Bay with four minutes left, and won the game in OT!

Completely irrelevant.

Manning never made TMZ's greatest hits.

Almost completely irrelevant.

Manning prepared so thoroughly that he could have double-dipped as a coach.

I think the Colts already have one of those. They fired Jim Caldwell, yes? OK, then yeah, they presumably do.

Manning had 63 games with at least 300 passing yards.

How many of those does Andrew Luck have? THOUGHT SO.

Manning was proud of playing in Indianapolis.

I know, weird, right? I'm starting to doze off.

But this is about the business and commerce of the NFL, not loyalty.

And now I'm awake again. The fuck?

Plus, the necks of Luck and Griffin haven't felt a surgeon's scalpel. And the price tag for a rookie quarterback, even the No. 1 overall pick, is Happy Meal-cheap compared to what it would have cost Irsay to sign Manning. In 2012 alone, we're talking a $28 million bonus and $7.4 million in salary.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

There's the big "Larry B copies and pastes it multiple times" line from this article. Drink it up.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

That's great stuff. It's fantastic that you can be a Senior National Sportswriter for a major outlet and not understand that in a Venn diagram, "financial sense" is a small circle inside the larger "football sense" circle (a nipple on a boob, if you will).

If Manning is healthy -- and his arm strength certainly seems to be trending that way -- then Irsay just deprived the Colts of their best chance to win games.

Your editor took "in 2012 and maybe 2013" off the end of that sentence. Sorry about that.

Luck, the presumptive No. 1 choice, was a remarkable college quarterback. But show me the documentation that guarantees he'll be a remarkable NFL quarterback.

Prove to me that the guy scouts are calling the most polished college QB since Manning will be amazing in the NFL. You can't. ARGUMENT: OVER.

I'll go read -- and finish -- James Joyce's "Ulysses" as you try to find that paperwork.

KABOOM.

And had he stayed in Indianapolis, there's no way the Colts would go 2-14 again. Irsay could have kept Manning, then traded the overall No. 1 pick for at least two first-round picks as well as a third-rounder and a fifth-rounder. Think that would've helped the short- and long-term rebuilding process?

And in 2014 when, those draft choices started to blossom and Manning was ready to retire, THAT'S when keeping him around would REALLY pay off.

Irsay (and others) will insist that you get only so many opportunities to draft a quarterback the caliber of Luck. But you also get only so many opportunities to draft and keep a quarterback with Manning's first-ballot Hall of Fame credentials.

You only get so many chances to pay him $35 million a year while he's in the twilight of his career and the team is falling apart around him.

Ask yourself this question: Would the Colts win more games during the next one to three years with a healthy Luck or a healthy Manning?

That rhetorical question does not accomplish what you intend it to accomplish.

I'll give Irsay credit for making a difficult decision. But for all his talk during the past four months, when he sliced apart the Peyton-returns scenarios as though they were garlic cloves, it is obvious he didn't want to keep No. 18. If he did, Manning would still be a Colt.

Astute observation. What's the next lid you'll blow off? I DON'T WANT TO ALARM ANYONE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE REDSKINS MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN DRAFTING ROBERT GRIFFIN.

Maybe everyone lives happily ever after. Luck becomes Manning Lite. Manning finds success and contentment in another uniform. Irsay finds vindication.

But I doubt it.

Actually, that all seems about as likely as any other outcome.

Experience counts. Manning -- even a 90-percent-healthy version of him -- counts.

Oooh, thanks for listening when I asked for more platitudes. Manning counts, people. He counts.

Remember the story Manning told Sports Illustrated's Peter King years ago about the 1998 draft? Colts management was split over which quarterback to take with the No. 1 overall pick: Manning or Washington State's Ryan Leaf.

Manning requested a meeting with then-general manager Bill Polian and then-coach Jim Mora. He told them,

"I promise you I won't beat up any reporters or start dealing painkillers."

"I'd really like to come here if you want me. But if you don't, I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

Now Irsay and the Colts don't want him anymore. So Manning will adapt. He always does.

He'll kick their butt for the next three years.

JOKE'S ON YOU AT POINT, IRSAY. (Insert picture of any QB who started as a rookie, struggled for a couple years and then blossomed into a good player)

Dear Jeff Passan: You're a Diptard

The Rockies recently handed Troy Tulowitzki a hefty extension, and the baseball media's reaction was mostly negative. Rob Neyer was mildly unsupportive, Tangotiger sort didn't really mind it, and Keith Law hated it. No surprise there because Keith Law is a card-carrying asshole who (smugly) hates everything. The fact that Passan also hated it, then, isn't anything special. What's special are his reasons for hating it, which range from WRONG to terribly thought out to fucking ridiculous. The craziest part- he found a way to try to claim that the deal isn't just bad for the Rockies, but for Tulowitzki as well (something no other writer I stumbled across did).

What could’ve been, though. Oh, what could’ve been. On one hand, Tulowitzki played things safe. He was reasonable.

Agreeing to be paid $19MM per year 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years in the future for doing the same thing you do now is probably a reasonable thing to do, yes. LET'S PAT HIM ON THE BACK FOR IT BEFORE WE TEAR HIM TO PIECES.

And on the other, he lacked the fortitude to chase the greater glory that awaited him elsewhere. The money he could’ve gotten and the championships he could’ve won had he simply played out his current contract with the franchise that can’t help itself from taking a blade to its jugular.

Allow me to translate: gross! Who wants to try to win anywhere but Boston, New York, and MAYBE Philly or L.A.? What kind of an unreasonable stupid person is Tulo? Doesn't he know that all players should focus singularly on playing for one those teams? What a dummy this guy is! Trying to win a title with the team that drafted him. For shame.

By turning down the opportunity to hit free agency after 2014, Tulowitzki potentially left millions of dollars on the table.

Hard to say. Probably. He's still going to be paid for sure during those years, even if he decides to get fat and lazy and really sucks by then. So the security the deal offers was, you know, probably worth something to him.

He certainly left the opportunity to play for franchises that need not operate with tight margins because of one man’s deal.

This sounds like sour grapes from a Yankees/Red Sox fan, but The Google reveals that Passan doesn't seem to have any particular bias towards big payroll teams. In any case, it's shitty logic. More on why later. Let's move on to Passan's analysis of the Rockies' side of the deal, which is predictably dumb.

If this deal is bad for Tulowitzki, it’s ill-conceived and unconscionable for a Rockies team that knows what long-term, big-money contracts do to franchises with middling budgets: cripple them. And even if Tulowitzki is the anti-Mike Hampton

Right, terrible contract. No one would argue otherwise.

and even if he can stay healthy like Todd Helton couldn’t,

This is where the WRONG starts. He mentions the Helton extension (a 9 year deal worth $141 MM signed after the 2002 season and running through 2011) multiple times, as if it were some spectacular failure. Here are the facts which you can keep in mind as Jeff keeps referencing this deal- in by far the three worst years of the deal, the most recent three, Helton appeared in 352 games, or about 118 per season. He missed a boatload of time in 2008 and quite a bit last year. During this stretch, he "only" accumulated about 5 WAR and OPS+ed 108. Slightly above average for a corner infielder. Now- was he worth what he was being paid at the time? Of course not. He made $50MM from 2008-2010, and if you use the somewhat-accepted conversion rate of $5MM per WAR on the open market, he made double what he should have. It's really 2008 and 2010 that were the problem- he had a great 2009 (4 WAR).

So in spite of the good will his presence generates among fans, and his leadership/grit/whatever other intangibles you want to throw in there, he's spent the last three seasons being a mild cash sink for the Rockies. But from 2003-2007? He accumulated 26 WAR and OPS+ed 145. He was worth what he was paid and then some. Using that same conversion rate for WAR on the open market I described before, he paid for roughly 80% of the cost of the contract in those five years alone. Combine his performance then with his 2008-2010, and it's batshit insane to say the contract was anything worse than a "fair deal" for the Rockies. It would be perfectly reasonable to call it a good deal, and if you're really into intangibles and all that crap, you could call it great. Would they have been better off signing him to a 5 year extension and avoiding his eventual decline? Sure, in most ways. But making a deal to keep him around for the rest of his career generated a lot of value for the franchise, as he was their first true homegrown superstar. Comparing this contract to Hampton's is lunacy. Implying that it was or is some kind of albatross around the franchise's neck is flat out WRONG.

and even if he is the do-everything, all-world, good-guy shortstop, heir to Derek Jeter,

Then that would be awesome, because Jeter was really really good until last season and Tulo was a better defender to begin with so in theory his defense will age better.

he still leaves the Rockies in a compromised position: with limited money to spend on the other pieces and parts that would comprise an annual contender.

To an extent, that's the whole point, isn't it? If you're not the Yankees or Red Sox, you have to spend money on certain guys and build around them. Of course you can't keep everyone- I'm sure Carlos Gonzalez will leave the Rockies when he's a free agent or on the brink of becoming one, as Matt Holliday did- but there are certain guys you keep and build around. And you pay them a lot of money so you can do that. You keep Joe Mauer. You pay shitloads of money to keep Miguel Cabrera if you acquire him. And you keep Tulowitzki. It's a very smart way to do things, and keeps fans interested. Being successful while operating your team like the Rays or A's do is nice in theory, but it's a dangerous game. Having a cornerstone that keeps ticket sales up and allows you to be absolutely sure about something that's six, seven, or eight years down the road is a preferable option if it's available. Don't be surprised if you hear rumors about the Rays approaching Evan Longoria about this kind of mega extension a few years from now. And at the same time, this is a really stupid point. Because by the time the extension's big money kicks in, the Rockies probably won't be dealing with much of a "limited money to throw around" situation at all.

The Rockies operate with a payroll of around $80 million. Last year, it was $5 million more, the year before $3 million less.

And in 2015, it's a very safe bet that it'll be around $100 million or more. Back in 2003/2004/2005, it was around $60-$65MM. See how that works? In fact, call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet that salaries all across MLB have gone up in the last 5ish years, and will go up again in the next 5ish years. Magic!

Tulowitzki’s contract extension adds six years and $119 million onto the end of his current deal, which, including a 2014 option, was to pay him $38.75 million. So, starting in 2015, when Tulowitzki will be 30, the Rockies will give him nearly $20 million a year.

“If there’s a guy to spend a quarter of your payroll on, he’s it,” said a GM of a low-revenue team, “but you just don’t spend a quarter of your payroll on anyone. Period.”

Which is why it's a good thing they won't be doing that with Tulo unless some crazy and unforeseen financial catastrophe hits baseball or their team.

The Rockies ignored that rule again,

They didn't. This line of logic is kind of similar to saying "Why would you take an entry level job coming out of college that only pays you $40K a year? You'll never be able to buy a house and put three kids through college with that salary!"

And yet Rockies executives admit that attaining such success with Helton’s albatross nine-year, $141.5 million deal took an incredible confluence of timing and luck.

See above.

Locking up any other players of significance became an impossibility.

They didn't have any to lock up other than Holliday and MAYBE Jason Jennings. They traded both for packages of players who provided better value in the short and the long run. The Rockies' problem in 2003-2006 wasn't that Helton's contract (and Hampton's "dead money" contract, left over for five years even after he was traded) were holding them back. Their problem was that they didn't have enough homegrown talent to make it worthwhile to compliment that talent with extra free agent pieces.

With attendance unlikely to return to the halcyon late ’90s, new revenue streams to support such deals are almost impossible to come by. The jump to a $100 million payroll isn’t happening.

It almost certainly is, and probably by 2015. They're going to be at about $85MM this year.

So as the Rockies celebrate Tulowitzki’s new deal, they do so knowing that Ubaldo Jimenez is now likely to leave after the 2014 season.

Depends. No way to tell this far out, and stupid to make assumptions about a pitcher's ability to sustain success without having his arm explode.

And that Carlos Gonzalez, a Scott Boras client, is certain to do so.

Sure. He was probably going to whether they signed Tulowitzki or not.

And that rather than waiting until 2014 to figure out where to spend their money, the team went all-in on a player who has missed significant time in two of his four seasons because of injuries.

In 2008 he missed time for one injury that won't be repeated (hurt himself slamming a bat in the dugout) and one that was a legitimate on field "wear and tear" injury (quad/groin pull). In 2010 he missed about 30 games because some asshole Twins relief pitcher hit him in the wrist with a pitch. Jeff is only the 50th columnist in the last two weeks to overstate Tulowitzki's injury issues.

This is a marriage of convenience, though, a rarity in sports with good reason: rarely do they turn out well. Even the model for great long-term deals, Jeter’s 10-year, $189 million contract with the Yankees, comes with a warning label. Over the life of the deal, even after splurging on $1.6 billion worth of contracts on top of Jeter’s deal, the Yankees won only one World Series.

The Yankees signed Derek Jeter to a long contract, during the majority of which he was an awesome player and worth much more than what they paid him. But because of the way baseball's postseason works they only won one WS (and two other pennants, while appearing in the playoffs nine times) while he was under that contract. Therefore... don't sign awesome players to long contracts?

One of the stupidest things I've ever read.

The Rockies may spend half that, and even though general manager Dan O’Dowd and his lieutenants Bill Schmidt and Bill Geivett do a commendable job finding cheap talent and securing it to reasonable contracts, sustaining that for a decade is Sisyphean. It took O’Dowd, after all, nearly a decade to turn the Rockies from perpetual losers into a franchise worth emulating.

You know what they say: the easy part is finding a sustainable model for success in a mid-sized market where 9 out of 10 people prefer football to baseball. The hard part is keeping it going once you have a talented and young MLB team, a fairly stacked farm system, and supportive ownership willing to spend in certain situations. That's where you really see problems.

And what mummified the team for all those years? The contracts of Hampton and Helton, of course.

From 2003 until 2010, the Rockies paid Todd Helton about $120 MM to accumulate 31.7 WAR, play a starring role on two playoff teams, and be the face of the franchise. From 2003 until 2008, the Rockies paid Mike Hampton about $60 MM to pitch for other teams. Putting those two deals in the same sentence suggests how utterly unqualified you are to write about this subject. Cautioning the Rockies that there's a chance that the deal "only" works out as well as the 2001-2010 Jeter deal verifies it. You, sir, are a diptard.

TNTMQR: Oh God Now I'm More Than a Week Behind

So yeah, this is the TMQ from Tuesday 10/26. I'm stubborn as hell and refuse to skip one so I'm still playing catchup.

College hoops tip soon, too. Hope you didn't miss this important article on college basketball, showing cheating coaches prosper while the only coaching flaw that's punished is losing. This syncs with TMQ's contention that the structural problem of major college athletics is that coaches are lavishly rewarded with money if their teams win but not penalized if their players don't graduate.

What a novel, crazy, unique contention this man makes. Can anyone else confirm this nasty rumor? Why would coaches be rewarded for winning but not penalized for failing to get diplomas for their players? Is there a bunch of money in college sports or something?

Suppose this simple rule were added to college football and men's basketball: Unless at least 80 percent of a team's players graduate, the coach is suspended for one year. That would add what's missing -- an incentive for coaches to care about education.

Yeah, I can really see the money-grubbing NCAA and money-grubbing universities going along with that one. Surely they'll vote for something that couldn't be more against their own financial interests. Alternately, let's say the NCAA mysteriously stopped being the big gaggle of assholes they are and actually did create/pass/enforce this rule. Boy, you think schools might just go out of their way to make sure athletes got all the "help" they needed in order to graduate? What a great idea. The problem with college sports is systemic- it's the money- and it's never going away. Deal with it. It's an unsolvable problem.

Stat of the Week No. 1: Stretching back to last season, 2009 non-playoff teams Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Tennessee are on a combined 24-6 streak.

What do you mean stretching back to last season? Since July 2nd, 2006...

Cheerleader of the Week: Bryan Law of Independence, Ohio, nominates Christina of the Broncos, who, according to her team bio, works for the Department of Justice as a paralegal in the Environment and Natural Resources Division. This means you could file a Freedom of Information Act request for her swimsuit photo.

Jesus Christ. You are the nerdiest nerd who ever nerded up the internet with your nerd comments about attractive women.

Leading 17-14, Minnesota had first-and-20 on its 24 with 35 seconds remaining in the first half, holding two timeouts, and simply let the clock expire. Huh?

A team wanted to take a lead into halftime rather than taking a relative long shot on getting into field goal range (needed 45 yards or so) by letting the guy who's thrown more interceptions than anyone else in NFL history chuck the ball downfield. Into 4 deep coverage. Does that unstump you?

Turner sent out the field goal team for a 45-yard attempt; San Diego jumped offside, making it a 50-yard attempt; Brown missed. A 50-yard field goal attempt is a 50/50 proposition, and going to overtime is itself a 50/50 proposition -- so as the kick boomed, Turner was essentially putting his chips on a 1-in-4 chance of victory, as opposed to going for it on fourth-and-2 with the league's top-ranked offense.

Love this argument. LOVE IT. First, you have the super basic problem with his math. The odds at the time of the 50 yard attempt were probably around 25%, but what are the odds of converting a 4th and 7? That was the alternative at that point, not a 4th and 2. The odds at the time of the 4th and 2 were higher than 25% because the odds of converting a 45 yard field goal are higher than those of a 50 yard field goal. But I'm just getting started.

Even if you accept his logic that they shouldn't have bothered to line up to kick because the odds of winning at that moment were pretty low, then you get the amazing false alternative that surely, going for it on 4th was a much better idea. What are the odds of converting that 4th down? The league average on 4th downs is about 49% (source: NFL.com- Google it if you don't believe me), and you figure most of those were of the 4th and short variety. Some were on 4th and 5 or 6 or more, but many were on 4th and inches or 4th and 1. Let's be generous and say they had a 60% chance of getting the 4th and 2. So then that leaves them... on them... somewhere around the 20 or 25, with a running clock, still down 3. What are their odds of getting a touchdown before the clock expires? How much higher are their FG odds from 40/35/30 yards? Enough to compensate for the fact that (randomly estimated) 40% of the time, you go for the 4th and 2 and miss and the game ends right there? NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND.

But just ask TMQ- going for it on 4th down is always the right decision, always and forever, and if you don't think so you're a simpleton idiot who doesn't understand football and probably likes to go Christmas shopping in November. Creep alert!

For New England, Turner's ultra-conservative decision was sweet. For San Diego, it was sour, sour, sour.

I LOVE 4TH DOWN ATTEMPTS SO MUCH I JUST WANT TO BE WITH THEM FOREVER.

Unified Field Theory of Creep: Justin Martineau of New Orleans reports, "Starting in January, license plates for the bicentennial of the statehood of Louisiana will become the state's standard. The date of ascension is April 30, 1812. These plates are 16 months early."

Lame.

Robert Drago of Washington, D.C., writes, "Tonight I downloaded the latest Norton security update, and it was advertised as Norton 2011. Is Norton taking a holiday for the rest of 2010?"

Lame.

Joost Smets of Uffelte, Netherlands, writes, "Recently, I noticed an advertisement in my newspaper for the joint Dutch/Belgian bid for the 2018 and 2022 soccer World Cup. Not only does 2018 sounds like distant future to me, the Netherlands have never organized a World Cup, and already we're looking forward to host the tournament for the second time."

Very lame.

Dwight Peck of Phoenix reports, "On October 15, I received the spring 2011 catalog from Eddie Bauer."

OK, see, now THAT'S actual creep. The rest of you emailers can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

The Steelers kicked for a 23-22 lead and a moment later stopped South Florida's fourth-and-6 pass attempt when tackle Vernon Carey, a first-round draft pick, failed to stay with his man despite the Dolphins having five blockers for three Pittsburgh rushers.

We all know Gregg hates first round picks (except Peyton Manning, because what media member doesn't want to blow Peyton Manning?), but this is an unusually flippant shot at one of them. It was one damn play. If a guy with a big ego and a big contract who was drafted in the first round has a bad game, a bad season, a career that never gets off the ground- sure, have at him. But sheesh. This guy had a bad play. You think Jonathan Ogden or Frank Matthews ever had a bad play? This is like some random flippant racist comment, like "Oh I got cut off on the highway the other day by this guy who was talking on his cell phone, and wouldn't you know it, of course he was a _______ to boot." It's so irrelevant what round a guy who has one bad play was drafted in that I can barely express it.

If Richmond, UC Santa Barbara and Wofford also had reached the Sweet 16, that would have brought in the Gauchos, Spiders and Terriers. TMQ thinks fans of the Wofford Terriers should chant, "Here boy! Here boy!"

Crickets. Who is he writing for? Who is his perceived audience? Four year olds? Family Circus fans?

Until such time as there might be an age-21 minimum for the NBA, Adande contends, teams should ignore the draft, concentrating on preserving cap space to sign players drafted and developed by someone else. Teams seem to be taking Adande's advice, if perhaps unintentionally -- there's a clear trend of NBA clubs simply discarding high choices.

Sure, that's somewhat true. And then we see this hilariously bad string of examples used to try to prove that fairly legitimate point.

Miami used the second choice of the 2008 draft on Michael Beasley and in July traded him to Minnesota for essentially nothing, just to get rid of him.

Because he was an asshole. They tried like hell to get him to play well for two seasons before then.

Washington traded the fifth choice of the 2009 draft for Mike Miller and Randy Foye, then a year later waved goodbye to both, netting nothing.

That one's pretty fair.

Minnesota used the sixth choice of the 2009 draft on Ricky Rubio, who won't play in the NBA until 2011, if he ever does.

They desperately wanted Rubio to come and play for them. Rubio is an asshole who doesn't want to play in Minnesota, so he held out. This might be their fault for not doing their homework on him but it's not them "discarding" a draft choice either.

Memphis used the second choice of the 2009 draft on Hasheem Thabeet, who ended up with the Dakota Wizards of the D-League.

Same story as Beasley.

Why not simply open the window and throw first-round draft choices out?

Because teams often use them to take awesome players, such as dozens and dozens of awesome current NBA players who were taken in first round (Or gasp- sometimes in the lottery!).

Banning teens -- isn't there a "right" to play in the NBA at age 19? There's no right to be a 19-year-old airline pilot. Courts have ruled that professions may impose "bona fide" occupational requirements. Requiring NBA players to be at least 21 years of age would pass the test of bona fide, since that would improve the league's quality of play.

Most oversimplified legal argument ever, and one that would take months or years of litigation to settle if the NBA actually made the restriction. It's amazing that this guy's brother is a famous federal judge.

LeBron James was an exception; as a group, basketball players in their early 20s are much better performers than basketball players in their teens. The WNBA requires players to be either college graduates or 22 years of age, and there have been no legal problems with this.

Probably because there is no money involved with the WNBA whatsoever.

A similar example is Shaun Livingston, who jumped from high school to the NBA as the fourth choice of the 2004 draft. He's bounced around to six teams, including the Tulsa 66ers, and never been close to what he might have become with a few years in college.

Shaun Livingston was quickly developing into a pretty badass player with the Clippers when, in 2007, he suffered more or less the most grotesque sports-related injury you will ever see. Youtube it if you want- it's not for the faint of heart. That season, at the ripe old age of 21, he was averaging 9 points, 5 assists, and 3.5 rebounds in about 30 minutes per game. He was well on his way to being a solid starter, if not a star. The injury (to his knee) was so devastating he essentially missed two full seasons recovering. He's still not back and may never be, but before the injury, he was great ammunition for the advocates of letting high schoolers into the NBA.

Worst. Example. Ever.

Last spring Livingston declined a contract offer from the Wizards, saying he didn't want to share the spotlight with Gilbert Arenas and John Wall -- so in six years of bouncing around, he hasn't learned anything.

Translation: he wanted to get more than 7 minutes of playing time a night, so he told the Wizards he'd look elsewhere to revive his spiraling career. WHAT A SELFISH SALLY!

See you again next week, where I'll comment on today's TMQ. Man, I am pathetic.

By Far Bill's Worst Baseball Article Ever, Part 1

I couldn't get all the dumbassery from last week's article into one post. Just couldn't do it. In any case, I know the title of the post sounds hyperbolic (not that we use that kind of style around here, not at all, ever) but I stand by it. It's terrible in so many ways; covers so many facets of godfuckingawful; contains so much garbage that it's hard to get my mind around it. You'll see what I mean.

Before we begin, I'd just like to remind everyone what Bill taught us last post: that the MLS is less popular than AAA baseball. Sure, MLS is on TV infinity times more often, but if you want the whole story you have to look at the attendance numbers. Oh. Damn, nevermind. (If you don't want to do the division for the AAA numbers, or click on the links, the long and short of it is that MLS teams on average draw more than twice as many fans as AAA teams.)

ANYWAYS

The most prominent (and pretty much the most hilarious) way in which this article is fucking terrible is in Bill's perfect embodiment of the frontrunnerness of RED SOX NATION. The last third of the article, which I hopefully get around to before the weekend, is about how baseball games are too long. There are all kinds of ways to put fire to his analysis there and watch it burn, but it's not really homerish. Well it is and it isn't. You'll see what I mean. But most of the first two thirds of the article, covered here, consists of reasons why Bill thinks the Red Sox are "boring" this year. The real reason NESN and Boston radio ratings are down, of course, is because the Sox are buried in third place and probably won't make the playoffs. But watching Bill spend 5000 words dancing around that and instead blaming a bunch of other shit (some of which actually isn't other shit, just a half admission that he's a frontrunner) is fascinating. OK, I think the intro is sufficiently long.

On Tuesday night in Anaheim, with a teetering Red Sox season threatening to crumble, J.D. Drew saved Boston fans from another episode of "Papelbon, P.U."

/rimshot followed by 1950s style laughtrack

by walloping a timely double. The ball bounced off the right-field wall toward Bobby Abreu, who reacted to the carom like a ghost was clubbing him from behind with a two-by-four. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (Didn't we create the DH position for guys like Abreu? I'm almost positive we did.) Two runs scored, Boston's eighth-inning lead expanded to three and when the TV crew cut to the obligatory shot of Drew pumping his fist at second base ...

Oh, wait ...

I forgot. J.D. Drew never does things like that.

HOW DARE HE? Doesn't he know how to "own" a moment? Doesn't he know what the legendary Beantown faithful deserve? Clutch doubles only mean something if you celebrate afterwards.

He stood there impassively, handsome as always, looking the same way he always does, like the guy whose at-bat music should be Lady Gaga's "Poker Face." If NESN launched a game show called "Guess What J.D. Just Did?" in which contestants guessed based off his expressions -- did Drew just hit a game-saving double, take a called third strike, hit into a double play, win the lottery or find out he was going to jail? -- nobody would ever win. Really, he's the perfect player for the post-2007 Red Sox regime: someone who plays hard, looks good statistically, does everything either "pretty well" or better and leaves you cold. He used to have me screaming obscenities every time he took a called third strike in a big moment. Now I get him. There are no big moments for Drew. He approaches every game, every inning and every at-bat exactly the same. Expecting him to own that Anaheim moment just wasn't realistic.

We're off to a good start. Who the fuck cares how a player "owns" moments? Sign #1 that you're a frontrunner: your team is 15 games over .500 in early August, but you're bored by them because they don't pump fists and shout at the sky enough. You know who owns moments? That fuckstick Papelbon. And Joba Chamberlain! Now there's a guy you can get excited about.

Quite simply, he's a boring player on a boring team during a fairly boring season.

Fffffffffffffffffrontrunner.

It's the first Red Sox team without a truly compelling player since 1993 -- when we went 80-82 -- and even then, we had a young Mo Vaughn (29 homers, .915 OPS) and Roger Clemens launching his loathsome "I just got paid, I'm gonna start puttin' on weight,

I cut this joke short. You didn't miss anything.

Really, you have to go back to 1981 (pre-Wade Boggs, post-Fred Lynn, post-Carlton Fisk) for a Red Sox team with less pizzazz than the 2010 crew.

Significant losses for the Red Sox from 2009 to 2010: Jason Bay, Nick Green (significant in that he had a lot of ABs, not that he's good), and Takashi Saito. 2009 Red Sox on August 1: a half game back of the Yankees for the division crown, 2.5 games up in the Wild Card. 2010 Red Sox on August 1: 6.5 games back in the division, 5.5 games back in the Wild Card. So you do the math: either Jason Bay is the most magnificently exciting player of all time, or Bill is a complete and total fucking fffffrrrrrrrrrrrrontrunner. Oh, and as he explains later, they've also been missing Jacoby Ellsbury basically all season. But if Ellsbury and Bay are the difference between this article being written and not being written... Bill can go eat a box of taints. JD DREW WHY DON'T YOU DO A DANCE AND SHOOT OFF FIREWORKS WHEN YOU MAKE A GOOD PLAY?

On Wednesday, both Boston papers carried front-page stories about Sports Business Journal's report that NESN's Red Sox ratings had plummeted 36 percent. (The Boston Globe also reported that WEEI's ratings were down 16.5 percent, and that male listeners between the ages of 25 and 54 had dwindled by 28 percent.) One morning earlier, my father and I had been on the phone trying to make sense of SBJ's story. Neither of us was surprised, more curious. What caused it? Was there a single reason? Five reasons? Ten reasons? Was it a fluke or a sign of something more substantial?

There a single primary reason. I've already brought it up a few times. Finish it for me: you're all a bunch of ffffffffffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

/Larry B makes direct eye contact with you, encouraging you to say the word out loud

Let's say we assigned a percentage pie of blame for dwindling Red Sox interest in 2010. My pie would look like this:

Needs more pop culture references. Pie charts are boring. Let's get Jersey Shore or The Bachelorette worked in here somehow.

INJURIES: 10 PERCENT

[Newly acquired CF Mike] Cameron also can't hit. And he's one of those guys who looks old -- like, when you're watching him stand on second base, you make jokes like, "I wonder whether he still keeps in touch with old teammate Satchel Paige's family" and "I forget; did Cameron integrate the American League in the early '50s, or was that Larry Doby?"

And here's your obligatory mention of the fact that the Red Sox were the last team to integrate, 12 years after Jackie Robinson debuted for the Dodgers. Twelve fucking years. That's crazy. That's like if integration started the same year the McGwire/Sosa HR chase happened, and some team was just getting around to taking care of that this year.

As for Bill's substantive analysis, Ellsbury has been down all year. Pedrioa and Victor Martinez have been hurt too. On the other (sensible) hand, the Sox still have Kevin Youkilis (I always laugh when Sox fans claim he's underrated, although he isn't as overrated as you'd expect a white Red Sox player to be), David Ortiz (somehow OPSing over .900 after starting the season like 4 for 100), Clay Buchholz, and Jon Lester. Those four guys alone would be enough to excite any rational non-frontrunning fanbase. Add in Pedroia's substantial contribution (342 PA so far) and there's really no leg for Bill to stand on here.

FRONT-OFFICE PARALYSIS/INADEQUACIES: 5 PERCENT

A few days ago, the following rant appeared on the Boston Dirt Dogs site:

" ... can't believe the front office just fiddled this summer while Rome burned and we flushed an entire season and $150M down the toilet by thinking we could tread water with Bill Hall playing second and Kevin Cash catching and David Ortiz batting third against lefties and J.D. Drew playing every day against lefties and Eric Patterson and Daniel Nava and Dusty Brown, et al. It was so [expletive] obvious when the Laser Show and V-Mart got hurt that we had to go get a real bat, Jason Werth level, who would still start when we got healthy, but instead we did [expletive] nothing and buried ourselves. It was like we had no front office, the Jack Hannahan blockbuster notwithstanding." -- An understandably apoplectic Kevin H. on the lost season

Awwwww. Poor guy. His team didn't go pick up an all-star caliber hitter at the trade deadline when the few that were available would have cost way more than their value. THEO YOU BUM YOU LET US DOWN WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU UNLESS WE MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AGAIN THIS YEAR FOR THE 7TH TIME IN THE LAST 8 SEASONS

My friend Daniel recognized the venom immediately: It sounded just like our crazy friend Hench, who had been griping about Theo Epstein in our e-mail circle for the past few weeks. Daniel e-mailed us the rant with the subject heading "Hench, is this you?"

Yup. It was Hench.

Who. Gives. A. Fuck.

I couldn't disagree. Team Theo's lack of urgency as the injuries mounted was appalling -- on July 3, after the Pedroia/Martinez double whammy, we were still a half-game behind New York and 1½ games ahead of Tampa

And we had an exciting team! Now that we're 5+ games back, they're just not exciting anymore. You know what's exciting though- playing with the ESPN NBA trade machine. Hoooo boy. THE NETS SHOULD SWAP THEIR ENTIRE ROSTER WITH THE CLIPPERS. WHO SAYS NO? WHICH GM HANGS UP THE PHONE FIRST?

At the same time, you can blame Epstein (and Boston's owners) for ignoring a simple law of entertainment these past two seasons: Just like you can't open a blockbuster movie without a star, you can't expect a nine-figure baseball team to capture the daily imagination of a big market without a player who passes the Remote Control Test (when you don't flip channels because you know Player X is coming up) or the We Can't Go Get Food Yet Test (when you don't make a food/drink run at a game because Player X is coming up) or even the Every Five Nights, I Know What I'm Doing Test (when you have a transcendent pitcher who keeps you in front of the television every five days).

I like Pedroia. I like Kevin Youkilis. Clay Buchholz has been a revelation this year. I really, really like Lester, my favorite current player (and someone quietly enjoying a monster season) mainly for everything he's been through. But none of them passes the above tests. I went to a Philly-Boston game in June in which we shelled Jamie Moyer for something like 30 runs in the first two innings. Philly pulled Ryan Howard in the third. We were crushed. Dammit! We only got to see Howard hit once! The 2010 Red Sox don't have a pitcher or hitter who generates that reaction. It's true.

So I guess either Bay, Ellsbury, or some combination of them passes all those tests. And geez, I had forgotten that the Red Sox and Phillies played a series against each other in Philadelphia. How much asshole can you cram into one stadium at one time? I'd hate to have been a security guard at Citizens Bank Park for that one. Oof.

THE HANGOVER: 15 PERCENT

It's been the elephant in the room for three years. Do I care as much as I did? I think about this question constantly. The short answer? No. It can't mean as much. It will never mean as much.

I'm fine with this. It's OK to say that your team's first championship in nearly 100 years was super special and meant more than any other one in the future could.

Before 2004, rooting for the Red Sox wasn't about just sports. It was about mortality. It was about a ticking clock that only we could hear. It was about exchanges like this:

"Jimmy's dad died last weekend."
"That's terrible! How old was he?"
"Sixty-five."

... and how you'd immediately add 1918 plus 65 and realize, "Crap."

I'm not fine with this. If you or anyone you know did/does this, you are an asshole. Stop watching sports immediately and go throw yourself off a building.

With that said ... it's not life or death. Which opens the door for fickle TV ratings and everything else.

Fffffffffffffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

This reminds me of the time Bill claimed that Celtics fans (pre-2008 championship) were suffering more than Clippers fans, because it's harder to be a fan of a team with a great history of winning that's in a slump than be a fan of a team with no history of winning at all. You hear that, Browns fans? YOUR FANDOM IS LESS TORTURED THAN COWBOYS FANDOM.

(Interesting side note: In just the past decade, five franchises lost life-or-death status.

Interesting fact: Bill makes up categories like this and presents them as universally agreed upon six times per column.

Boston in 2004. The White Sox in 2005. St. Louis in 2006.

That's fucking ridiculous. Their last win before 2006 was 24 years earlier.

Philly in 2008.

And 28 years. Let's throw the Marlins in 2003 on here, why not.

And really, the Yankees in 2009 -- since every Yankees fan was secretly having a heart attack about the fact that they were 0-for-the-century, the Red Sox/Yankees dynamic had flipped and A-Rod had become the Reverse Curse of the Bambino, so we have to count them.

You're the stupidest person ever born.

That leaves San Francisco and the Cubs as the last remaining big-market, life-or-death teams with that "Jimmy's dad" factor, although you certainly can count Cleveland, Houston and Milwaukee as well, and maybe even Seattle, San Diego and Texas if you're feeling magnanimous.)

A World Series win by any of those teams would mean 50 times as much to their fans than Philly's 2008 win or Saint Louis's 2006 win did. It would mean 500 times as much to their fans as New York's 2009 win. FIVE OF THE EIGHT TEAMS YOU JUST NAMED HAVE NEVER WON THE WORLD SERIES. ANOTHER IS ON A 102 YEAR DROUGHT.

THE BANDWAGON EFFECT: 5 PERCENT

Look, I don't want to be Grumpy Old Man. I really don't. But I probably attended 100 Fenway games just from 1998 to 2002; the level of baseball sophistication in the stands was unparalleled.

Unparalleled relative to Bill's experiences in other ballparks, which probably adds up to a handful of games in Yankee Stadium and this one time he went to Philly and saw the Sox beat the hell out of Jamie Moyer. Hilarity always ensues when he starts talking about Boston crowds. Always.

We worked with Pedro like Frick and Frack. He did his job (rolling through lineups); we did ours (standing every time he got two strikes on someone, doing the steady clap to get him fired up, cheering him like a Roman gladiator). That's gone now.

WE CLAP FOR OUR PLAYERS! IN RHYTHM WITH ONE ANOTHER! LET'S SEE YOU PULL THAT OFF!

THE STEROID ERA HANGOVER: 5 PERCENT

Gag me.

The best thing about baseball? How 120 years and six generations intersected. Now our little statistical compass has been shattered like a beer bottle. For the past week, every media outlet has tried to talk us into A-Rod's 600th homer -- as if the moment means something, because, after all, just six other people have done it! -- only the nation's collective indifference was telling.

As I've perceived it, people are no less excited for it than they were for Ken Griffey Junior's 600th in 2008. And he's insulated from steroids in the minds of most. So really, what this point amounts to is Bill admitting that he's not really that into baseball this year. Probably because the Red Sox are buried in third and he's a ffffffffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(I tweeted sarcastically Friday, "I'm on pins and steroid needles!")

Congratulations! You turned a phrase!

THE DECLINE OF BASEBALL IN GENERAL: 5 PERCENT

This is where it gets really, really, really, really stupid. And it's also where I go to bed. Join me next time, as Bill comes to the conclusion that the state of the economy overall has no bearing on baseball ticket sales! And that when a team starts sucking ass on the field ten years after opening a new stadium, and then their attendance drops, that's because fans got bored with the stadium!

Bill Simmons Has No Idea How Stuff Works

Bill loves him some Bill. He especially loves him some Bill in situations which call for what he perceives to be common sense. Thus his long standing proposal that NBA teams hire vice presidents of such, who would presumably just sit around, looking smug, telling stories about their kids/dad/friend BugHouse, and asking their team's general manager "Hey... is that REALLY a good idea?" whenever the GM decided to make a move. It's such a good idea, it couldn't possibly not fail to not work. And it's very indicative of Bill's attitude towards teams/leagues involved in pro sports: they are dumb, and he is not.

Which brings us to his recent treatise regarding the NBA's current revenue problems. Here's the good part, for him: he's pretty much correct with his overall premise. The NBA is (and many of its teams are) poorly run. Here's the good part, for the rest of us: pretty much everything he says to build on that basic premise and add detail to it is dripping with retardery.

When the Writers Guild of America went on strike in 2007, something fascinating happened: The networks, production companies and movie studios slowly realized their infrastructure made no real sense. They had been handing out too many developmental deals, green-lighting too many pilots and overpaying for too many movies for far too long.

And even then, you couldn't get a project going, That's why you moved out there, right? Don't pretend like you just did it to write for Jimmy Kimmel. We both know you had (and probably still have) a bigger plan that failed (or is still failing) in spectacular fashion.

It was a broken model. Only when that massive overhead was removed for a few months and Hollywood didn't collapse did everyone realize, "Wait a second, were we doing this the right way?"

We can only dream of FOX doing the same with Joe Buck.

The answer, clearly, was no. The old way was like watching two people battle over entrée choices for dinner, then playing it safe by ordering everything on the menu. When the strike ended right as the economy was turning, new Hollywood tightened its belt, stopped overdeveloping and aimed for a higher batting average.

Which explains "Valentine's Day," I suppose.

In the NBA, the owners are headed for a similar, "Wait a second, were we doing this the right away?" realization, if it hasn't happened already. They arrived at this specific point after salaries ballooned over the past 15 years -- not for superstars, but for complementary players who don't sell tickets, can't carry a franchise, and, in a worst-case scenario, operate as a sunk cost. These players get overpaid for one reason: Most teams throw money around like drunken sailors at a strip joint.

And we're already in "Bill knows best" territory- a scary place to be. Look, many teams misspend and have been doing so for a while. But you can put a little more effort into explaining why. For a while, it was because they had the money and the marginal gain was worth the marginal cost. Sure- guys were getting contracts they didn't deserve. But the books were still balancing, and maybe that overpaid 7th man would end up being the difference between making or missing the playoffs. Plus, most dopey fans (by which I mean most fans are dopey) like it when their team makes moves. It drums up interest in the team, increases ticket sales, increases jersey sales, increases hype, increases revenue. I guess if you didn't know who wrote this article, you could say these explanations are really just sub-explanations underneath the "drunken sailor" theory. But since it's Bill, you'd have to be fucking crazy to think he meant anything other than "NO ONE RUNNING AN NBA TEAM HAS ANY SENSE OR SMARTS AT ALL! HELLO? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ADDRESSED? WATCH ME COMPARE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LEAGUE TO THE JERSEY SHORE!"

This isn't about improving the revenue split between players and owners. It's about Andre Iguodala, Emeka Okafor, Elton Brand, Andrei Kirilenko, Tyson Chandler, Larry Hughes, Michael Redd, Corey Maggette and Luol Deng making eight figures a year but being unable to sell tickets, create local buzz or lead a team to anything better than 35 wins.

Right, it's arguable that most of those guys are overpaid. Some (Hughes, Brand) to a much greater extent than others (Iguodala, Deng). But again, most of those deals made decent sense at the time they were signed. NBA teams are in the business of winning. This isn't MLB, where the Pirates and Marlins owners are singularly focused on trimming payroll and cashing their revenue sharing check every winter. With the NBA's salary cap and revenue structure, it's a much more results-oriented league. No one is out there signing questionable players to big contracts because they're dumb. They're doing it because in their minds, it's a risk worth taking. You can pick on the list of players above, but you should also take the time to make a list of non-superstars signed to big deals who are worth every penny (or perhaps more) like Chauncey Billups or Manu Ginobili. Pretty much every team in every sport has some guys making a ton of money. Not all of them are going to be worth what they're paid. Yes, there are some abysmal contracts out there. But that happens in every sport. It doesn't mean every owner/GM is a complete moron who couldn't run a hot dog stand, much less an NBA franchise.

Like I said at the beginning of this post- Bill's right, the league has problems. And at the same time- Bill's a moron, because he's doing a horrible job of explaining them.

It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.

Right, because Jermaine O'Neal is a veteran who signed a huge deal when he was a perennial all star, and most of those guys have been in the league less than four years so they're not eligible for a big payday yet. CAN YOU BELIEVE CARLOS ZAMBRANO IS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN TIM LINCECUM AND ZACH GRIENKE COMBINED THIS YEAR? (That's true, right? I didn't look it up. Substitute someone else just as washed up as Zambrano if necessary.)

It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.

Yeah, I mean, again- that was a contract signed back when McGrady was one of the 10 best players in the league. He's overpaid at the end of it; which is what happens at the end of most contracts superstars in any league sign. And maybe McGrady is a mopey asshole. But this isn't the problem except to the extent that players signing deals that are too long are the problem. The right explanation here is "no team should sign a swingman in his mid 20s to a seven or eight year deal." Not "OMG TRACY MCGRADY IS OVERPAID THIS YEAR."

It's about Gilbert Arenas hogging one-third of Washington's salary cap next season even though he brought guns into the Wizards locker room and had to plead no contest to a felony.

Captain hindsight strikes again! How did Washington not see this coming? After all, Arenas had a rap sheet miles long before this weird gun incident! And it's not like he was an enormous fan favorite who was capable of singlehandedly carrying a team into the playoffs or anything.

It's about Brian Cardinal, Darko Milicic, Bobby Simmons, Eddy Curry, Kenny Thomas, T.J. Ford, Mark Blount, Etan Thomas, Andres Nocioni, Tony Battie, Adam Morrison, Marcus Banks, Marko Jaric, Matt Carroll, Jerome James, Mike James, Jason Kapono, DeSagana Diop and Dan Gadzuric making more than $120 million combined this season to dole out high-fives.

Nice job italicizing combined there. As if that makes this even more staggering. Personally I would be more shocked if those guys were making $120 million each this season to dole out high-fives. Can you believe that the US, China, India, the UK, and Japan have GDPs which add up to over a gazillion dollars combined?

This is how the NBA's situation differs from Hollywood three years ago. Hollywood stumbled by accident into the realization that things were broken. But the NBA already knows. The league wants a system more beneficial to owners that features a hard salary cap, no long-term deals (only three or four years guaranteed at most)

See, there we go. That was all you had to say.

and no luxury tax. The players will dig their feet in and fight. We will have a lockout or a strike. It will last for months. And months. And months. Start preparing yourself mentally now. It's going to happen.

It could happen. It happened in 1998- for a few months. I'm not buying this "it's going to happen" shit just yet. About a year ago, Simmons put out a similarly doomsdayish column proclaiming that something like eight NBA teams were going to fold/shut down in the next couple of years. START PREPARING YOURSELF. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. EXCEPT THAT THE LEAGUE WOULD NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN, EVER.

OK, now that we're past that part, let's get to the "Bill is an entitled little shit" part.

And really, I would be fine with this. I would.

Just one problem ...

No one will hire you as a VP of Common Sense if there's a lockout?

Let's say the owners get their way and the new system is better than the old one. Great. Awesome. Answer these questions for me:

1. Why should I care?

Because you're an NBA fan?

2. Why should you care?

Because I'm an NBA fan.

3. Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?

I don't care about the intricacies of what happens between the owners and the players. I care that the league continues to operate so I can watch games on TV and have something besides hockey (not my thing) and college basketball (lame, too corrupt and exploitative to enjoy) to distract me during the winter from the miserable life I lead. Look, I don't have strong feelings either way on the labor disagreement. The players could end up better off after the new CBA. The owners could end up better off. They could both end up significantly worse off. I don't give a shit. I just want to watch basketball and talk about it with other people who like to watch basketball. Stop acting like you're a fucking shareholder, Bill. You have no financial stake in the league other than the Clippers season tickets you keep buying because you're a dumbass (more on that later). Playing this "I don't care what happens! I'm too upset about how they got here!" card just absolutely stinks of dickheaded entitlement. PRO SPORTS TEAMS/LEAGUES DON'T OWE YOU SHIT. HANDLE YOURSELF.

Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.

So? You'll keep buying them. So will lots of other people. The tickets will presumably continue to be priced at or very near the point at which they maximize revenue and profits for the teams. If you can't deal with the invisible hand and its effect on a multi-billion dollar industry, go watch high school games in person. I only go to one or two NBA games per season, but I can usually find tickets in the nosebleeds for around $15-$20. I think that's pretty reasonable. The more important question here, though, is would a new CBA (of any kind) mean that games will continue to appear four or five nights a week on basic cable? Well how do you like that, it does! Works just fine for me.

Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.

Yeah, it totally blows for the city of Seattle and all that, but it's business. Cities in all sports lose teams from time to time. I'll shed a few tears for Winnipeg and Quebec City before I spend too much time worrying about Seattle. Just like Minneapolis and Cleveland, I'm sure they'll get a new team sometime in the near future anyways. But why are we even discussing this- HOW DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY REASONS FOR CARING ABOUT THE LEAGUE AND THE PLAYERS HAMMERING OUT A NEW LABOR AGREEMENT?

Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.

Again- happens in every professional sport. Every one of them. At least it's not the NFL, where teams can cut some of their best players for zero cents on the dollar to save a few bucks. And one last time- I care about these problems because...

So I ask you again ... why should we care?

No wait, I was asking you that. My answer is that I care about avoiding a lockout because I like watching and talking about the NBA. If the new agreement makes things a little more financially stable, hey! I'm down with that. And if it doesn't? Hey! I'll still watch. On the other hand, why the fuck should I care about whether or not teams with shitty arenas and cuntbrained owners can move teams, or whether or not ticket prices go down?

For instance, let's say you root for the Wizards like my buddy House. Over the last two years, House watched his team overpay Arenas ($111 million; nobody else could have offered more than $85 million at the time)

They wanted to make him happy so he wouldn't feel insulted by a strategic lowball offer. It just so happened that no one had the cap space to offer more than $85 MM, but if that version of Arenas (pre felony, obviously) were a free agent this summer, there's no question at least one team would throw a max deal (which is $121 MM, I believe) at him. So in that sense, he was worth what they paid him. Was it dumb to not try to save that money, since, after all, he couldn't get a max deal anywhere else? Probably. But it's far from indefensible.

and Antawn Jamison (a $41 million extension for someone about to reach his mid-30s)

It was a four year deal, probably below market value in terms of cost per year, for a 32 year old who consistently puts up 20 and 9. It's further from indefensible than the Arenas signing. It's probably closer to smart than indefensible.

in a bizarre attempt to keep together the nucleus of a noncontender.

They made the playoffs each of the four seasons prior to those signings. They hadn't really gone anywhere, but were they a noncontender? Hardly. They were the #5 seed in the east in 2005, 2006, and 2008. In 2005 they won their first round matchup. They weren't on the verge of winning a title, but they were only a piece or two away from being serious contenders. Bill, at that point, would rather blow things up and start all over (a slight variation on the exact practice he just decried).

Those contracts forced the Wiz to package the No. 5 pick in the 2009 draft, along with a couple of lousy contracts, for immediate help (Randy Foye and Mike Miller).

Foye arrived a year or so late- he's now a major contributor who will be a starter in the league for a long time. So... yeah, they got some almost immediate help. If Arenas doesn't go schizo they might be in the running for a top 4 seed this year. And again- WHO DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING? It was so obvious that this guy who was very active in the community and widely regarded as a good (if eccentric) guy, with no prior criminal history, would go and get himself suspended for the season!

When that move backfired and Arenas went child actor on us, the team called an audible and dealt three of its four best players (Jamison, Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood) for expiring contracts and the No. 30 pick in the 2010 draft.

And it would have been so much smarter and less damaging to the fan base to just let Arenas and Jamison walk during the summer of 2008! Yeah, the Wizards got themselves into trouble. It happens. That's sports. One more time- this happens in every sport. Even the very owner-friendly NFL with its non-guaranteed contracts. Using this as your prime example is like saying that MLB is completely out of control, and then only breaking down the 2009/2010 Tigers.

Second, the Wizards will have a ton of cap space this summer, only this summer's top free agents won't be saying, "Man, I'd love to play on a young team that's built around Gilbert Arenas."

The VP of common sense knows this. I mean, it may well be true, but it's a fucking useless point. From a player personnel perspective, why would they want to go to the Knicks, the team that's been planning for this summer since 2007? So they can play on a team built around David Lee and Wilson Chandler? Money is money. Teams are good at making sales pitches to players who want it. I can't tell if Bill's angle is "the Wizards have no one besides Arenas" or "the Wizards have Arenas and that's bad because he's already a highly paid superstar so no one will play with him." Either way, it's dumb. Money is money and cap space is cap space. It may not work out for Washington, but it's not a flawed plan coming out of the game.

So it's a flawed business plan coming out of the gate.

No it's not.

The Wizards shouldn't even mention the words "cap space" to their fans again. It's like promising your kids an ice cream at the end of a long drive when you know there's nothing in the fridge.

Oh! More Simmons' daughter anecdotes, please! THERE IS NO WAY SHE'S GOING ON A DATE BEFORE AGE EIGHTEEN. DADDY BILL WON'T ALLOW IT. Bill Simmons- probably the least intimidating father figure I can imagine.

Third, they actually tried to sell their fans that one benefit of the Jamison trade was dipping the Wizards under the luxury tax threshold. As House hissed afterward, "What the [bleep] do I care if the Wiz aren't paying the tax? How does that affect me? Does that mean they're lowering ticket prices for the rest of the year then?"

No, and that's probably an irrelevant angle to sell fans on, but it may establish to them that you're less likely to take further cost cutting measures in the coming years. A cold comfort to be sure, and I'm not sure why (or to what extent) the team "sold" the angle to fans (rather than just using it as an explanation when asked), but it's not like it's irrelevant. Also- House- ticket prices. Economics. Priced in a way that benefits teams the most. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

Nope. Over the past five years, half the league's franchises crapped on their season-ticket holders at least once with mismanagement, salary dumping and/or tanking for lottery picks.

OH, THOSE POOR SEASON TICKET HOLDERS! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PEOPLE WITH PLENTY OF DISPOSABLE INCOME?!?!?! This makes me sick. First of all, you fucking hypocrite, you're the one who keeps buying Clippers season tickets. If you hate they way they operate so much (again, more on this later), stop being a fucking pussy and do something about it. Second of all, I'll turn the implicit question around on you again: why should I care that season ticket holders are being "crapped on?" If I'm not one of them, as is the case with 99.99% of NBA fans, then I don't give a rotten flying pile of fuck what happens to them. Fuck 'em. Let them keep subsidizing my interest. Unless there's some kind of mass revolt, which there never will be because most season ticket holders are as waterheaded as Bill, they're really not a part of this discussion.

Guess what happens when you get continually crapped on? It kinda makes you not want to support your team anymore. You know, because you have a big pile of crap on your head. Teams don't seem to understand this; apparently, neither does the league.

And yet- even though the league is losing money and certainly has some financial problems to deal with- this same system is still in place, and probably will face no revisions (specifically to ticket price) at all once the new CBA is established and its effects trickle down through the business.

For instance, I have Clippers season tickets. At last week's deadline, the Clippers dumped Marcus Camby, the league's second-leading rebounder and their best defensive player,

This is my favorite part of the article, because it's where he stops being an idiot about everything else, and does what he does best- be an idiot about sports. Marcus Camby is the best defensive player of no team. He probably wouldn't be the best defensive player on most D-I college teams. He's a great help shot blocker- AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE. He cannot defend anyone in the post, he's too light. He's horrible on pick and rolls. And he goes for too many help blocks, leaving his man wide open for offensive rebounds and tips. I say this without hyperbole- he is certainly the most overrated defensive player in the NBA in the last decade; and he's probably in the running for most overrated defensive player of all time. No hyperbole. Look at what happened to Denver after he left- they went from worst defensive team in the league to something at least a little bit better than that. Every dipshit pundit raked the Nuggets over the coals for that move, because like Bill, they all think Marcus Camby is a great defensive player. He's not. He blocks a lot of shots, and does nothing else at even a mediocre level. The end. Man I am furious about this.

for two expiring contracts and $1.5 million in cash. I had tickets last Wednesday to watch Atlanta kick the butts of the suddenly depleted/lousy/rebuilding Clips. Did the price of those tickets change? Of course not. Hey Mr. Billionaire Housing Discriminator Who Owns The Clippers, I'm glad you pocketed that extra $1.5 million. Really, I am. But what did that do for me? Why didn't you use that savings to discount my last two months of tickets?

Kill yourself. Immediately.

And what about the other "customers" who bought season tickets because you promised a good product and didn't deliver for the 17th time in the last 18 years?

They're all welcome to do the same. Actually- wait! No! It's idiots like those people (well, I mean, they're idiots if like Bill they think that every time the team saves some money they're entitled to a cut of it) who help subsidize my fandom. And again, the fandom of 99.99% of the rest of us out here.

Also, Bill, I don't have an MBA, but let me explain something to you. When you own a business, and it's losing money, and then you cut costs to try to get out of the red, you know what you don't do? Immediately add a new cost to balance out the old one you got rid of. Does that make sense? Let's say you own an ice cream shop (the kind you can lie to your kids about during a long drive!) and it's losing money. So you fire a couple workers and operate with a leaner staff to save money. What's your next move? Start giving away ice cream for free because you just saved some cash? Better hire a VP of Common Sense if you really think that's how it works. You entitled bag of shit.

Now, here's where you say, "Simmons, you're an idiot for buying tickets for that septic tank of a franchise in the first place." Great point. I still own Clips tickets for two reasons: I like seeing the other teams, and there's a puncher's chance that someone like LeBron or Wade might be dumb enough to sign here. Stupid, I know. I'm delusional.

Ah. It's so nice, I think I'll read it again.

Now, here's where you say, "Simmons, you're an idiot for buying tickets for that septic tank of a franchise in the first place." Great point. I still own Clips tickets for two reasons: I like seeing the other teams, and there's a puncher's chance that someone like LeBron or Wade might be dumb enough to sign here. Stupid, I know. I'm delusional.

Oh, and I just realized, this is also an answer to his question about why ticket prices don't go down when the team saves money. Because he likes seeing other teams, wants to stay on board in case a superstar signs there via free agency (WHAT WILL THOSE FREE AGENTS SAY- "HEY, I WANT TO GO PLAY ON A TEAM BUILT AROUND BARON DAVIS AND CHRIS KAMAN?" SO IT'S A FLAWED BUSINESS PLAN FROM THE START!!!!). That's why.

But I have owned Clips seats for the past six years; in five of them, the season was over in mid-February.

Does the NBA care that I feel like an idiot for continuing to renew these seats? I don't know.

Sheesh, I hope not. That's really no way to run a successful business.

Does the NBA care about all the loyal customers in every failing city who feel like idiots for continuing to renew their seats? I don't know.

Why would they?

Shouldn't I know?

No. You should shut up and do one of two things: 1) put your money where your mouth is and bail on the tickets if they're not worth it to you, or 2) sit back, enjoy watching the other teams who play against the Clippers, and dream about Lebron and Wade signing there this summer. Oh, and regardless of which option you pick, you should definitely stop acting like the NBA and the Clippers owe you anything more than to hold games on the nights they're scheduled and make sure no one else is sitting in your seat. You entitled cunt.

Here's what we do know ...

Teams survive on TV money, season-ticket revenue and luxury suites. They don't care about the upper decks. They care about getting fat checks in March and April for the following season, then banking that money for a few months and collecting interest on it. They care about getting us to pay for a spring's worth of playoff tickets up front even though our team might survive only eight days in the postseason.

And although revenue is down right now (in a terrible economy), apparently that model has been working pretty well for some time!

A noncontender needs to convince its fans every spring, You better lock down another year of your seats, because if you don't, you're gonna miss out when we kick ass and make the playoffs and it's going to be impossible to get good seats and you'll be jealous! Hell, look at me. I want to break up with the Clippers ... but what if they get LeBron and I miss out? I would regret it. Every minute. Every day.

And that's why the Clippers don't have to lower season ticket prices.

Sure, they have about as much of a chance of getting LeBron as I have of becoming the WNBA commissioner. Doesn't matter. I can't miss even the 3 percent chance that it might happen. Which leads me to this moment in April ...

"Here's another check, Mr. Billionaire Housing Discriminator Who Owns The Clippers. I'll keep my fingers crossed for another year. I hate you."

It's not like it's a big deal or anything, but I hate you.

I do it every spring. I have no protection. Neither do any of the other season-ticket holders for any of the other screwed-up franchises.

They do, actually. It's called running your life in the way you see fit.

In Cleveland, the Cavs asked for 2010-11 renewals last month under the guise of an "Early Bird Special." Cavs season-ticket holders will have to decide before the 2010 playoffs start, "Am I keeping my tickets next year? Am I rolling the dice that LeBron comes back?" If they keep them, and LeBron doesn't come back, it's going to feel like getting tipped over in a port-o-john. And yes, the Cavs would be doing the tipping.

And all the people in that metaphorical port-o-john (shouldn't that be capitalized?) will have been in there because they chose to be in there.

So why don't fans have protection? As a failing business -- and, really, a league that loses $400 million in a single year has to qualify as "failing" -- doesn't the NBA have an obligation to win customers back?

HOLY SHIT. YOU ARE A FUCKING DUNCE. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DUNCE TO EVER WRITE FOR ESPN.COM, WHICH OF COURSE IS REALLY SAYING SOMETHING. THE NBA DOES NOT OWE YOU HAPPINESS AND RAINBOWS AND A PAT ON THE BACK AND A DETAILED APOLOGY. THE NBA OWES TO YOU A SEASON'S WORTH OF BASKETBALL GAMES THAT YOU GET TO WATCH FROM THE SEAT YOU PURCHASED. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. You have money to spend on season tickets. Congratulations! I wish I did. If I did somehow come across that kind of money, and then decided that the team in my hometown wasn't good/entertaining enough, or if they said "hey, actually we're only going to play seven home games this year" or "hey, you're going to have to cagefight someone for your seat- we're selling doubles of every ticket this year," then I probably wouldn't but those tickets! I'd spend my money on something else! Or save it. You can't go wrong with saving money. See how that works?

If I were running the NBA, eliminating the illusion of regret would be my biggest initiative.

If you were running the NBA, the sport of basketball in the USA would be dead within five years. Hey, at that point, maybe the MLS would step up and take over or something. That'd be kind of cool. I like soccer. There, I said it.

And sure, like with the Hollywood strike, an NBA lockout will end up working in favor of the owners. It will lower operating costs, protect teams from overspending and create a system in which A-listers get rewarded (the LeBrons and Wades) and the working class (the Goodens and Farmars) gets screwed. Costs will drop, franchise values will increase, and the owners will believe all the acrimony was worth it. The ship will have been righted. Or so they will say.

Will the games still be on TV? Can I go see a few games a year for around $20 a pop? Will the best basketball players in the world still want to play in the league? Well alright then. Sounds good.

I hope they're right.

I still don't know how it benefits you and me.

Your perspective boggles my mind to an extent I can't describe. You are an ass. You are a walking, talking, typing, eight-podcasts-and-one-print-article-which-is-usually-a-shitty-mailbag-per-month ass. The premise of this article was totally acceptable. Your attempt to build a column around that premise is one of the biggest failures in journalism I've seen in almost three years of living in my parents' basement and operating this blog. How you have acquired a nation wide fanbase of sycophants is beyond me. You. Are. An. Ass.

I hope the Clippers sign Rudy Gay to a max deal this summer, then proceed to go 18-64 next season. And I hope you renew your tickets for 2011-2012 anyways.

I Hate to Bury My Last Post

Given the pretty coherent and entertaining commenting going on, but I didn't want to wait too long to let you know what ESPN's Olympic blog had to say about what you should have been watching yesterday:

Speedskating: Men's 500M
It seems long distances belong to Dutchman Sven Kramer, middle distances to American Shani Davis. But there is no clear favorite for Monday night's sprint at the Richmond Olympic Oval. The hometown crowd will try to will Jeremy Wotherspoon, of Humboldt, Saskatchewan, to gold in his last Olympic hoorah.

His last hurrah? Too bad.

Wotherspoon won a silver medal in Nagano, his first Olympics, but has crashed and burned -- sometimes literally -- in each Olympics since.

Oh my! You'd think eventually he'd stop catching fire at some point, even if he did keep crashing- it just seems so unlikely in a speed skating competition.

DEAR EVERYONE WHOSE WRITING WILL BE PUBLISHED ON A MAJOR SPORTS WEBSITE: PLEASE LEARN HOW TO USE "LITERALLY" PROPERLY. THANKS A BUNDLE IN ADVANCE.

MMTMQR: Gregg Gets Self-Critical

Remember a couple weeks ago, when he started taking pot shots at the media? YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT PLAY AS WELL AS YOU COULD HAVE, MIKE TIRICO. SHAME ON YOU. Well last week he took things even further. It's more confusing than anything, but basically, he makes an ass out of himself. Again. But in an entirely new way. Sit back and enjoy.

Changing the playcaller sure helped the Redskins!

Brutal sarcasm!

In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: "If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run." Other commentary boils down to: "If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call," though the call is only one of many factors in a football play.

Yes. Yes, that's entirely correct. You know why I have to agree with what Gregg just said? BECAUSE HE SPENDS HALF OF HIS FUCKING COLUMN DOING THESE EXACT THINGS. Passing on third and short is bad... if you don't get the first down! If you lose on a last second field goal, you should have run up the middle on a play with 12 minutes left in the fourth quarter! Then the clock would have run out! Etc., etc., etc. And beyond that, Gregg is the motherfucking czar of "If it worked, it was a good call- if it failed, it was a bad call." Incredible. Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Good calls are better than bad calls -- this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference.

Ah. OK. So you do understand that. So basically this is like saying "I hate liars. Of course, I often lie. But still."

But it's nonsensical to think that replacing a guy who calls a lot of runs to the left with a guy who calls a lot of runs to the right will transform a team.

I don't think anyone associated with the Redskins, even batshit crazy and mildly retarded Dan Snyder, thought their team would be "transformed" by their new play caller.

My take on Sherman Lewis' play calling Monday night? When he ran, he should have passed -- when he passed, he should have run. Here was an actual Lewis call overheard: "B-14, N-7, I-2, G-6. On set!"

Because Lewis has been calling bingo recently, don't you see.

Crickets.

In the Redskins' case, there is an added dimension -- the rumor is Chainsaw Dan took away coach Jim Zorn's play-calling authority hoping that Zorn would blow a gasket and quit.

Yes. Correct. Again, no one was seriously expecting a "transformation."

If Zorn quits, he gets nothing; if he's fired, he receives the balance due on his contract. No doubt to Chainsaw Dan's dismay, Zorn held his ground. Here are other things Snyder might try to prompt Zorn to quit:

Who's ready for some more GreggJokes?

Take away his authority to shout, "Clap it up, clap it up."

Is this Zorn's catchphrase or something? I hope not.

Bring in a coin-toss consultant.

That'd frost that Zorn, wouldn't it?!?

Place a large concrete planter in Zorn's parking space at team headquarters.

Boy, that would just be flat out mean.

Require Zorn to return the phone calls of Washington Post sportswriters.

LOL COACHES HATE ANGRY MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA

Have everyone in Redskins management get exactly the same buzz cut.

What?

When Michael Crabtree finally signed with the 49ers, TMQ warned of a Crabtree Curse -- Mike Singletary had spent a year in San Francisco instilling the message that nobody is bigger than the team, and suddenly it seemed you could jerk the 49ers around all you wanted and get $17 million guaranteed as your reward.

JESUS CHRIST. YOU ARE A FUCKING STUMP. THAT WAS THE EXACT CONTRACT THEY ORIGINALLY OFFERED HIM AFTER THE DRAFT. CRABTREE GAVE IN. HE PRETTY MUCH CAVED. THE 49ERS GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED- AN AWESOME PLAYER, FOR A PRICE IN LINE WITH THE DRAFT SLOT AT WHICH HE WAS PICKED. THERE IS NO CRABTREE CURSE. SHUT UP. And you know what's great? The 49ers lost again today (at Indy... where visiting teams always win!) so we're going to read about this again tomorrow. Awesome.

Before the signing, the 49ers were 3-1; since the signing, they are 0-2, and have been outscored 69-31. Beware the Crabtree Curse!

Go give yourself a swirly.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: With New England leading 21-7, the Patriots lined up four-wide, then sent tight end Ben Watson in motion almost to the sideline; he ran a fly pattern and caught a 35-yard touchdown pass. That was sweet. He was covered deep by a linebacker because, though New England faced first-and-20, Tampa did not have a dime package on the field. That was sour.

If it worked, it's a good call! If it didn't, it was a bad call! This goes for both teams, of course- if New England had tried to run out of the 4 wide, and then the linebacker who was on Watson made a great tackle and forced a fumble, it would be kudos to the Bucs for having the right personnel on the field.

Clang! Clang! Clang! New Orleans scored just 17 baskets in losing to Denver 121-63 in the playoffs.

Clang! Clang! Clang! In the first two games of the NBA Finals, Orlando missed 100 shots from the field -- nearly one miss per minute! (One of the games went into OT.) Just to prove it was no fluke, in these games Orlando also missed 15 free throw attempts.

You know, it's great that he wants to diversify his material. But if we're going to talk about the NBA, maybe we shouldn't do so by just listing facts from games that happened 5 months ago.

In Praise of Unknowns: Miles Austin, undrafted out of Monmouth, has an incredible 421 yards receiving in his first two pro starts. Pierre Garcon of Indianapolis, low-drafted out of Division III Mount Union, and low-drafted unknown Julian Edelman of New England, are also playing well at wide receiver, while numerous high-drafted big-bucks receivers perform poorly. My guess is that Austin, Garcon and Edelman don't have ego problems. They are happy to be in the NFL, work tirelessly, and don't whine if everything is not exactly precisely what they wanted.

Nice guess. Here's mine- Austin plays for a decent team (or is that a decent Cowboys FOOTBALL team with a DYNAMIC offense?) with a legitimate QB. Garcon and Edelman play for awesome teams, each of which has a QB who is probably in the all-time top 25. Darius Heyward-Bey, for all his overratedness, is playing for a joke of an organization with a 350 pound idiot at QB. Meanwhile, highly drafted Jeremy Maclin and Hakeem Nicks are having good seasons. And there are dozens of low-drafted/undrafted WRs who aren't doing shit right now. Why not? Because they suck at football. But go ahead and use the exception to prove the rule anytime you want, shithead.

And what two running backs are getting most of the carries for the league's top offense? Undrafted Pierre Thomas and undrafted Mike Bell.

That Saints power rushing attack- known throughout the league for being the key to New Orleans' success! Thank goodness Drew Brees has those two studs carrying him- where would he be without them?

Carolina -- Run the Ball!: Carolina managed to lose to Buffalo despite a 425-167 edge in offensive yards; three Jake Delhomme interceptions doomed the home team. TMQ has been asking all season and asks again, with Delhomme playing poorly and the Panthers' rush offense strong, why do Carolina coaches continue calling so many passes?

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Reaching first-and-goal on the Pittsburgh 1 in the third quarter, Minnesota, aided by a penalty, ran four snaps and did not advance, then settled for a field goal from the 1. Spectacular Steelers defense, though one wonders why two of the four plays were incompletions: It's hard to believe even Pittsburgh could have stopped Adrian Peterson four straight times when only a yard was needed.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

NBA Officials Check Passports Before Calling Traveling: TMQ has long contended that football rules are too complex; also, the NFL refuses to reveal its officiating manual, which explains such things as how a zebra determines what counts as pass interference. The NBA by contrast recently put its rulebook online, complete with multimedia examples of what is and isn't legal. Great idea -- do the same, NFL. In the new rulebook, I did find this interesting definition:

More GreggJokes! GreggJokes for all! GreggJokes all around!

TRAVELING. If the player with the ball walks off the court and out of the arena, hails a cab, goes to the airport, and buys an airline ticket, at the point that he boards the plane, he shall be whistled for "traveling."

See, that's just kind of ridiculous. That's a situation I just can't see happening during-

Ohhhhhhh.

I hope you see what he did there!

The Football Gods Promised an Investigation: The Steelers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-3; the Packers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-goal from the Cleveland 2.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Running Up the Score Watch: Possession results for Nebraska versus Iowa State: fumble, punt, touchdown, interception, punt, fumble, punt, fumble, fumble, fumble, punt, interception, interception (noted by reader Andrew Miller of Arlington, Va.). Can it be coincidence that Nebraska is 1-2, with a disastrous eight turnovers Saturday, since the day the Cornhuskers ran up the score to 55-0 against hapless cupcake Louisiana-Lafayette?

Nope! It's not. It's actually a function of real life variables which are affecting the outcome of their games. Nebraska is playing teams with actual talent now, like Virginia Tech. Granted, that's an awful performance against an Iowa State team (Iowa State FOOTBALL team that plays hard on the FOOTBALL field) which Nebraska should beat. But I'm sure Iowa State has a shit ton more talent that UL-Lafayette. In any case, I suppose you can make the argument that the football gods are indirectly responsible for scheduling. So if you accept that ridiculous and nonsensical premise.... maybe Nebraska's recent struggles really are a function of a crazy and vengeful group of imaginary spirits in the sky! Sort of.