I would get more worked up about how fucking stupid this is

But Bono was ranked #8 on the same list, so obviously it's meant to be a joke.  Well played, Fortune/CNN.

No hyperbole intended

but this might be the most breathtakingly stupid thing Bill Simmons has ever written. I'm serious, I really feel that way. I want to do a longer Simmons post about his whole NBA power rankings series that's out right now but it's been a rough week. So in anticipation of hopefully writing something over the weekend I give you this as an appetizer (re: Dwight Howard)

I can't give him my MVP vote for one simple reason: he leaves something on the table every night. Dwight Howard should be the league's most dominant player. Physically, there's nobody remotely like him. True story: I was watching SportsCenter the other night. My wife noticed Howard on TV and gasped, "Oh my God, who's that?" the same way you'd comment on the 12 year old in Little League who's six inches taller than everyone else and has the makings of a mustache already. When I told her it was Howard, she said, "Just looking at him, it seems like he should be the best player, right?" Exactly.

Wow. I just.... if you're like me, that leaves you speechless. That's indescribably horrendous. Hats of to you, Bill. Even though you only write four columns a year you still manage to bring the tardfuckery. In bulk.

More to come (I hope).

Wow, that's racist! Well not racist, but man, it's pretty fucking dumb

I subscribe to the NFL RedZone channel. It's amazing. Everything about it rules. No commercials. Only exciting plays. The opportunity to feel like I'm watching six games at once- sort of like being in a crowded sports bar on a Sunday afternoon, without all the douchetard Cowboys, Steelers, and Patriots fans there whooping it up and making everyone around them stupider by osmosis.

Another great part of it is host/quasi commentator Scott Hanson. Scott rules. He narrates, runs down some of the exciting stories from the day, occasionally does play-by-play for whatever game is on, often provides color commentary or fantasy football advice, and is always quick-witted and sharp. He talks for six hours straight which is pretty impressive in and of itself; the fact that he does it well is even more incredible. Which is why it really surprised me (as well as pissed me off) when he said this about a Peyton Hillis TD run last Sunday:

And there's Peyton Hillis, reminding us of Mike Alstott.

Here are the ways in which Hillis should remind us of Alstott: they're both white. Here are the ways in which Hillis should not remind us of Alstott: the position each played, their running styles, the situations in which their team used them, and just generally what they looked like while playing football (ON A FOOTBALL FIELD AS PART OF A FOOTBALL TEAM IN THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE).

Hanson is far from the only moron sportscaster making this kind of claim. It's just frustrating that he had to join their ranks since he's such a badass otherwise. But really, come on. Let's try to look past race and look at ability when comparing players who play (roughly) the same position. Does Seneca Wallace remind you of Byron Leftwich? Does Kirk Hinrich remind you of John Stockton? Does every Asian baseball player remind you of a young Ichiro? Then you're stupid. Go throw yourself out of a moving ferris wheel.

Just show some awareness, people. It's OK to admit that not every white guy who carries the ball is Mike Alstott, and not every white guy who catches passes is Brandon Stokley.

Keys to this Post: 1) Use a Computer 2) Type Something About the Sports Media

Presenting the [name of sponsor I forgot] keys to tonight's World Series game 5:

Yankees: Want a parade, not game 6

Now, this would be funny if the jackass producer/dumbshit intern who came up with it meant that the Yankees should actually focus on wanting a parade. Like, not on winning the game but on how much fun it would be to wave at cheering fans from a fire truck (whether they won the World Series or not). But I don't think that's what they meant. They meant that New York's "key to the game" is to want to win the game.

Phillies: Right guys have to hit

Who are the wrong guys to hit? Carlos Ruiz? Matt Stairs? Should they just give away at bats?

And yes, I know, a "keys to the game" segment is not exactly high-hanging fruit. Still, come on, FOX. At least pretend to try.

MVP = MCPP (Most Consummately Professional Player)

Amidst a lot of pretty inoffensive analysis in this Scott Miller MLB season's end column (Mauer and Pujols for MVP, Grienke and Lincecum for Cy, Coughlan and Andrus for Rookie of the Year, etc.) we have this, his No. 10 NL MVP vote. As in, the guy in the NL who Scott thinks is 10th most worthy of being voted Most Valuable Player.

10. Juan Pierre, Dodgers. I know there are several others who could have slotted in here (see next paragraph), but this guy deserves an MVP vote for two reasons: 1. He was lights out during Manny Ramirez's suspension and the Dodgers would not have kept rolling without him. 2. He was the consummate pro in handling things as a fourth outfielder this year, adding to the Dodgers' overall picture instead of subtracting from it.

Oh wow. Holy moley. Scott Miller, you are a fucking stump. First, let me make sure I get this straight. The two measurements of MVPness Scott uses here are: 1) being "lights out" (read: OPSing .781) for a 50 game stretch and 2) being a "consummate[ly] pro[fessional]" 4th outfielder. That's awesome. Hey, let's just go ahead and hand anyone who plays kind of well for a couple of months and isn't an asshole about playing time an MVP. Under that standard, only one guy in the league doesn't get a vote: Gary Matthews Jr. Sounds great.

Also, let's look at the names included in the next paragraph Scott references, who didn't make his top ten and are ostensibly less worthy of MVP consideration than Juan "accepts the role his manager gives him and doesn't kill his team in the process" Pierre:

Matt Kemp
Mark Reynolds
Derek Lee
Adrian Gonzalez
Ryan Braun
Jayson Werth
Todd Helton

Each of these players was roughly 10,000 times more valuable in 2009 than Pierre was. Matt Kemp is like a version of Pierre who doesn't throw like a toddler and can hit for power. Mark Reynolds is a "three true outcomes" guy- Pierre is a two true outcomes (infield hit, out) guy. And so and so forth, with a joke crafted to each of these players. They were all better than Pierre this season. Lots better. Way, way, way better. Some of them like Helton and Lee are even known for their consummate professionalism! Look, I'm willing to bet each might have been more valuable than Pierre if you put their worst 50 game stretch up against Juan's Ruthian 50 game Manny replacement phase (He had 17 extra base hits!). Words cannot describe how fucking indefensible this is. Fuck you, Scott Miller. Fuck you and the Bill Plaschke-esque idea you rode in on.

Enough of This Favre Nonsense... Let's Get Back to the REAL Stories

And by "the real stories," FoxSports.com's Michael Rosenberg means a bunch of other stories that are just as overplayed and annoying as Favre's (along with a handful of bad jokes). Out of the frying pan and into the fire we go.

American adults can only use so much brain matter on pro football, and lately, all of it has been occupied by Brett Favre. And in the meantime, we're missing out on some more interesting training camp stories. Here are seven:

Brace yourself for some fresh angles.

1. The Patriots huddle and discuss: "What the hell do we now?"

The who? The Patriots? What? Damn you, Brett Favre. You're keeping us away from stuff we need to hear about. Like stories that haven't been mercilessly run into the ground for months on end.

This team was basically one helmet-catch away from the greatest season in NFL history.

I must've missed that. I'd better Google it or something. Anyone want to link me to a story about that?

If the Pats had won the Super Bowl, this summer would be filled with speculation about when they might actually lose a game.

Oh, if only.

Instead ... well, we bring you back to the question at the top: What do they do now? They were clearly determined to run the table last year, more than any team in modern NFL history. Can they bring that kind of focus again? Is that even possible?

I don't know, but I'd sure love to read about it for another 6 months. Let's get that train rolling.

The suspicion here is that the Patriots follow the example of the Steelers, Colts, Miami Heat and St. Louis Cardinals in recent years. Those teams all followed dynamic regular seasons with disappointing postseasons, then won the championship the following year.

Please, no.

If you're a Patriot, how can September dominance seem so important again?

I don't know, but I'm sure the sports media will be there to fill us in every step of the way as they try to handle that challenge.

2. The Saints try to save several careers

Not sure this one would be getting too much press regardless of what Favre was up to. But let's see Rosenberg's angle.

There are a lot of exciting players in the NFL. There are only a few that make you say "Wow, I don't know if I've ever seen anybody quite like this guy."

Jeremy Shockey burst onto the scene as one of those guys. If Shockey is the player he thinks he is, New Orleans can be a Super Bowl threat.

Jeremy who? I hate to re-use my "fake ignorance" joke, but fucking seriously. Is this clown (Rosenberg, not Shockey) really trying to say that we need less Favre because he's getting in the way of the Patriots and Jeremy Fucking Shockey? Really?

Reggie Bush is one of those guys, too.

Never heard of him.

Nobody puts together a highlight like Bush.

An NCAA highlight, maybe. Not sure I'm willing to give him that stamp for his body of work in the NFL.

Bush was supposed to revolutionize the running-back position, but so far, the position has transformed him. We'll find out soon if he is truly an NFL star, or another electrifying college player whose skills don't quite translate to the pros.

We've been hearing about this issue since week 3 in 2006. This Favre-induced break from that topic is welcome in my book.

3. The Cowboys are throwing Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, The Artist Formerly Known as Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, Zach Thomas, Roy Williams, a coach who is rumored to be a lame duck (Wade Phillips) and a coordinator who could take over for said duck (Jason Garrett) all into one pot.

So far, our list of topics that are being ignored because of Farvefest 2008:
1. The Patriots
2. Jeremy Shockey and Reggie Bush
3. The Cowboys

I'm beside myself with rage. Is this article being written ironically? Is Rosenberg spoofing one overplayed story to make a broader point about the sports media's tendency to consistently ram other stories down consumers' throats? Or is he just simply fucking clueless? You decide. (I for one already have; I'll bet you can guess which conclusion I came to.)

The result could be a Super Bowl champion. Fascinating.

Two years ago? Mildly interesting. Now? Completely and totally unfascinating. (sic)

4. The Giants try to do things in reverse order.

Lose your highest-profile player, then win the Super Bowl, then win your division. It's a twist, you gotta admit.

Very confusing. First, more talk about Shockey, which is pretty much nauseating. Then, an implication that the Giants are more concerned with winning their division than repeating as Super Bowl champs. All this framed by the idea that the usual order of goals for any given team is to win their division, then win the Super Bowl, then lose their highest-profile player.

5. Will the Detroit Lions finally be good?

No.

As infuriating as it was at the time, now that we're at this point I kind of liked it better when he was talking about the Patriots and Cowboys.

6. The Norv Turner Show!

(I don't know if there is, or ever has been, something called The Norv Turner Show. I assume there has. But I can't imagine why anybody would watch it.)

Then don't try to write a joke about it, dummy.

The San Diego Chargers are threatening to be one of those teams that seems like it should win the Super Bowl five years in a row but never even makes it. At some point, LaDainian Tomlinson will start to decline. At some point, so will the Chargers. The NFL is cyclical.

Will this be the year San Diego comes through?

You know what? I'll give credit here. This story (particularly the Turner angle) isn't exactly underappreciated, but at least it's not the Cowboys or Patriots.

7. Green Bay makes a bold decision to ... keep its team.

Am I the only one here who is more interested in watching Aaron Rodgers this season than Brett Favre? (Put your hand down, coach McCarthy.)

Rodgers is an unknown. In his one extended stretch under center, against the Cowboys last year, he was terrific. And the fact that the Packers are willing to end Favre's ironman streak, or trade him, and risk the public backlash, just to see what Rodgers can do ... well, that's enough to get me to watch the guy.

Don't worry, you'll be hearing about it. In fact, if you were paying attention, you'd know that you're already hearing about it three-quarters as much as you're hearing about Favre himself. This is the perfect wrap-up to the article, really. Michael Rosenberg: utterly and completely clueless.

Who Is Joba Chamberlain and Why Is He the Most Newsworthy Athlete of All Time?

Currently on ESPN- a front page link to this article, which contains discussion about a topic that is only slightly more relevant than what the average NFL punter ate for breakfast yesterday. The article's corresponding poll, meanwhile, wants to know what you think of Chamberlain's so-called antics. I was unable to answer, because "Who gives a kiddie pool-sized pile of shit?" was not one of the options.

Bert Blyleven: Great Pitcher, Awful Analyst

He's been writing pieces for MSNBC.com, and I'm finally ready to call him out.

Here, he ranks the top aces in baseball

Here are his AL choices.

1) Roy Halladay, Blue Jays.

OK sure. I don't agree, but you're welcome to that opinion.

2) Josh Beckett, Red Sox

Yeah, yeah...

3) Erik Bedard, Mariners

He's filthy, and might be my #1. Totally deserves mention in this list.

4) Justin Verlander, Tigers

Good, good, nice choice.

5) C.C. Sabathia, Indians

Also an outstanding young pitcher.

6) John Lackey, Angels

Great work, you're on a roll!

7) Jon Garland, Angels

STOP!

Garland has a 105 ERA+. He's perfectly "above average". He is not an "ace". You already have John Lackey on this list, so why did you choose another Angels pitcher, unless you're really trying to rank the best overall starters in the AL?

Where's Kazmir? Vazquez? Wang? Greinke? Possibly the biggest sin of all, where's Fausto Carmona? And hell, why not rattle off Burnett, Buchholz, and Blanton? Felix Hernandez? James Shields? Healthy Rich Harden? There's guaranteed a few more to name, but where the FUCK did you get the idea that Jon Garland was the 7th best starter in the AL? Jon Garland?????

Wait, there's more, he tries to justify this crap.

After winning 18 games in 2005 and 2006

Hi Bert. Wins are not good for evaluation, Bert. Matt Cain was 7-16 last year, Bert. The White Sox crushed the ball on offense in 2006, Bert.

the right-hander posted just 10 victories last season and had a losing record (10-13).

But he pitched better in 2007 than 2006, Bert.

But the White Sox experienced a tough 2007 and for 2008 Garland has changed uniforms, traded last November to the Angels, where he should flourish with increased run support.

Bert, the offense scoring more runs does not make Garland a better Bert. I mean pitcher, Bert. It just means he'll accumulate more of an outdated pitching statistic intensely correlated with run support, Bert.

Bert.

Garland induces a lot of groundballs

But his GB% has alarmingly declined from 48% to 43% to 41% over the last three years, Bert.

and he does not give up a lot of home runs.

You win, Bert.

He will battle hitters hard and can handle throwing a lot of innings (he’s pitched over 200 the last four seasons).

Jason Marquis has averaged something like 200 over the past 4 seasons, Bert. Jon Garland is like Jason Marquis with less homers, Bert.

He has an aggressive approach aimed at getting ahead of hitters

Which contrasts to Fausto Carmona, who tries to get behind hitters in the count, Bert?

He stays around the plate and doesn't give up many walks.

But he also doesn't strike out guys, Bert! Is striking people out important, Bert? Is the combination of 4.5 K/9 and a decreasing ground ball rate a good sign, Bert?


Garland grew up in Southern California and with him going home a big year might well be in the cards, maybe in the range of 18 to 21 wins.

Please send me a historical report showing statistical data that pitchers pitch better in their home states, Bert. Do you even know who James Shields is, Bert?

For Garland the positives with the Angels are not only on offense

None of the positives for Jon Garland are on offense, Bert. Jon Garland doesn't hit in the vast majority of his baseball games, Bert. If Casey Kotchman decides to break out and club 67 homers, this does not make Jon Garland a better pitcher, Bert.

but also on defense where he can expect solid fielding behind him all season long.

That also does not make Jon Garland a better pitcher, Bert. It makes Jon Garland look like a better pitcher, Bert. That's why we have things like Defense Independent Pitching Statistics and Defense-Adjusted ERA, Bert.

I can't believe I just had to convince Bert Blyleven that Jon Garland is not a top 7 pitcher in the American League. I'm literally kicking myself for bringing that "Circle me, Bert!" sign to the last baseball game I saw in the Metrodome.

Just kidding, I've never been to the Metrodome. I actually want to be the one who gets to push down the trigger for the dynamite when that thing goes up in smoke.

For the interested, Jon Garland currently boasts a 5.50 ERA. He has started 3 games, thrown 18 innings, and has struck out a fuckingwhopping (yes, that's a word) 2 hitters.

Jemele Hill Continues Her Quest To Become The Worst Journalist Of All Time

I have no idea who currently holds that title, but I can't see them doing so much longer as long as Jemele keeps up her recent pace of drivelish shit.

(A quick Google search reveals that she's far from the only writer out there to hold this opinion, but for our purposes let's pretend this whole perspective was her idea. It'll be more fun that way. And thanks to everyone who tipped me off about this.

LeBron's image clearly means a lot to him, maybe even as much as pursuing a championship.

Apples and oranges, you stupid bint.

And that's why I can't understand why he would allow Vogue to feature him with supermodel Gisele Bundchen in such a distasteful manner.

Here's a link if you haven't seen the shot in question yet. Jemele has the same image up in her article of course, but I don't want you going over there to see it and adding to her article's traffic unless absolutely necessary.

In case you haven't seen the cover, LeBron has Gisele in one hand and a basketball in the other. LeBron is dressed in basketball gear, with his muscles flexing, tattoos showing and bared teeth. Gisele, on the other hand, is wearing a gorgeous slim-fitting dress, and smiling.

Yes. And?

She looks like she's on her way to something fashionable and exciting.

Well, she's a supermodel. I'm not a supermodel, nor do I know any, but I'm pretty sure that all they do with their lives is put on nice clothes and attend events that are fashionable and exciting.

He looks like he's on his way to a pickup game for serial killers.

Why does it look that way, Jemele? Because he's black? It's because he's black, isn't it. (Actually, most serial killers in US history have been white, but you know what she's getting at. Black people = criminals!) You racist. Racist racist racist. A self-loathing racist, no less! You'd think in this day and age, we'd be able to get past this kind of thing, at least in the mainstream media. What kind of editor lets this kind of assertion go? "Hmmmmm... Jemele is saying that because James has a mean expression on his face and is dressed to play basketball, he looks like someone who likes to murder people... yeah, that works." Anyone with a brain should be insulted by this. Have you ever seen him play basketball? He makes that face like five times a game.

Now, maybe the point was to show the contrast between brawn and beauty, masculinity versus femininity, strength versus grace.

OK, sure, that works. I personally think it was really just more about showing a top model and a star athlete striking a fun and energetic pose. But whatever.

But Vogue's quest to highlight the differences between superstar athletes and supermodels only successfully reinforces the animalistic stereotypes frequently associated with black athletes.

Actually, it doesn't. What it does instead is reinforce those stereotypes in the minds of people that can't see past color and who bend over backwards to find racism in places it doesn't exist. In some cases, it may be because they are obnoxiously sensitive and find complaining about artificially offensive things like this soothing. Well, that makes them idiots. But at least they're not hateful. What we have here, based on that serial killer comment, is entirely different. This is ten thousand times worse than being an hypersensitive complainer with a stick up your butt. Break it down with me to its simplest terms- this is someone who's part of a group... who then sees a member of her group looking exactly as he often does while performing in his line of work... and then decrying it, because when she looks at the pose all she can see is the worst possible stereotype associated with said group. That's mind-bogglingly dumb. He's a goddamn basketball player who's well known for making intense facial expressions. When he appears on a magazine cover dressed as a basketball player and making an intense facial expression, the last thing you should be is offended.

A black athlete being reduced to a savage is, sadly, nothing new.

Reduced to a savage by who? The eye of the beholder.

But this cover gave you the double-bonus of having LeBron and Gisele strike poses that others in the blogosphere have noted draw a striking resemblance to the racially charged image of King Kong enveloping his very fair-skinned lady love interest.

This is also stupid, given how un-distressed Tom Brady's fucktoy looks and, again, the fact that LeBron looks like that all the time when he plays basketball. But at least the people who are taking that angle on the photo ostensibly managed to get past the idea that if a black guy looks angry, he's probably a felon. They got the "don't be an idiot" car down the driveway and out into the street. Jemele is stil in the garage.

LeBron is just the third male ever to appear on Vogue's cover, but it's hard to believe Vogue would have made Brett Favre, Steve Nash or even David Beckham strike his best beast pose.

Good point. You know who else probably wouldn't have been asked to pose like that? Tiger Woods. Or Tim Duncan. Or LaDanian Tomlinson. (Shawne Merriman? Maybe. But that's different.) You know who else they might've actually asked to try that pose though? Roger Clemens (pre-Mitchell report, of course). Or Brian Urlacher. Or, I know this is going out on a limb in terms of the definition of "athlete", but John Cena. So, nice try. This still has everything to do with LeBron the person and nothing to do with LeBron the African American.

...[W]e don't even have to dip back to the 19th century to see how images of black athletes have affected how we think and thus how we view sports. In 1994, Jack Nicklaus said there weren't more African-Americans in golf because "blacks have different muscles that react in different ways."

As stupid as that is, where's the Fuzzy Zoeller remark? I guess it doesn't work as well in this context.

And that backward thinking isn't limited to whites, either. Former ESPN NFL analyst Michael Irvin channeled his inner Jimmy the Greek when attempting to explain Tony Romo's abilities. Irvin surmised that Romo was good because his "great, great, great, great grandma pulled one of them studs up outta the barn [and said], 'Come here for a second.'"

All of that makes for interesting discussion. But you know what? It has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with this magazine cover. Go look at it again. If you think the magazine editor or photographer set up that picture intending to reinforce any particular stereotypes about black men or white women or what happens when a black man holds a white woman, you're out of your fucking mind. The picture is about LeBron and Gisele looking like they're having fun while doing what they do for a living.

Or, shit, maybe I'm naive and stupid and everything Hill speculates about the photo's intent is actually true. But if you know for a fact that that's the case, please don't tell me. I kind of like living here in Noteverythinghastobeaboutracegoddammitville. (It's located in HeyIunderstandracismstillexistsbutfortheloveofgodletsnotmakeeverythingintoaracialissue County.)

Oh, The Irony

Thanks to the results of today's wholly satisfying game, you'll probably see a lot less Boston bashing from me during the next few weeks. I feel so incredibly relieved. It's like an enormous weight has been lifted from my frail, un-muscular shoulders. Don't get me wrong; I still hate those teams and their fans just as much as I did 24 hours ago. But the proverbial itch has been scratched. Knowing that pretty much everyone north or east of Hartford feels like a bag of shit right now really frees up my mind. That said, I will still continue to post about Bill Simmons with the same frequency I have been. Boston-centric articles by him are on an entirely different level of awful than those written by other journalists.

I was going to post about this before the game, but things are a little busy right now. (Incidentally, after this, you won't hear from me again until Wednesday at the earliest. So if someone else around here wants to step up for a couple days... yeah... otherwise, see you when I see you.) From Simmons' Super Bowl pick column:

Over the past few weeks, I have become mildly obsessed with how this moment came to be -- and by moment, I mean "the chance to go 19-0" -- partly because everyone is dissecting the Patriots these days, and it's frustrating to hear dumb points or half-assed thoughts about my favorite team,

What is it again that you do at ESPN, Bill? Oh that's right. About 50% of the time, you write about the Sawks/Patties/Celts in a fashion that's totally uninteresting to people that don't already like them. The other 50%, you offer practically nothing but "dumb points and half-assed thoughts" about other peoples' favorite teams. Did you really write that and think your non-Boston readers wouldn't mind?

Who else out there is brimming with excitement to see what Bill comes up with re: the Super Bowl? I'm terrified that he'll puss out and not even write anything. But assuming he does... don't bother emailing me and requesting that I make a post about it. I'll already be halfway finished.

Bill Simmons- Still Dumb, Still a Hypocrite

Ho hum. This is all I could find to complain about on teh interwebs tonight, and it's pretty standard stuff. But I must continue my mission to make all four of our readers (note the plummeting BallHype ranking, down more than 100 spots in just 2 weeks! We need to get linked on The Big Lead again) hate The Sports Guy just as much as I do.

Go ahead, Bill. Tell me about unfortunate teams and annoying fans.

Which brings us to the difference between suffering and insufferable. When Celtics fans like me were pulling the woe-is-us routine after last May's NBA lottery, outsiders found it distasteful that any fan base that had been fortunate enough to have enjoyed the Russell, Havlicek and Bird eras could complain about anything. In our defense, it was almost worse to have lived the high life (16 titles) before falling on hard times (14 mostly terrible years) than never to have lived the high life at all.

No. No, no, no, no. That's not a defense. It's funny, this paragraph comes at the end of a long segment in which Bill acknowledges that fans of the Bills, Pirates, Blazers, have basically nothing positive to hang their hats on in the last 20 years. Which is great. Good to hear him admit that, especially in the context of his (until this season) constant bitching about the Celtics. Yet at the same time, here he is claiming it's "almost worse" to be a Celtics fan. This is a consistent pattern frequently repeated by Simmons- even when he's stumbling towards being right, he inevitably careens into Boston-homerism mode and ends up being hideously wrong.

We knew what we were missing: big playoff games, the sound of a sold-out crowd, rooting for a franchise that meant something.

Whereas... fans crappy teams have no idea what that kind of environment is like. It's not as if, you know, they can watch other teams enjoy those things on television basically each and every fucking night of the entire year (minus the playoff games, which can only be watched on like 75 or so fucking nights of the entire year). Go ahead, ask a Royals fan to describe a playoff game. See if they can tell you what a packed, loud, baseball stadium looks and sounds like. I'm guessing they have more than a vague understanding of one thanks to TBS and FOX. Now, granted, very few if any of them have probably ever seen such a game in person and felt the energy that accompanies it. But what percentage of Red Sox or Yankee fans have been to a playoff game? Two? One? Probably less than that. So their understanding as a group isn't that much more sophisticated. They've just had the pleasure of knowing their team was involved in the big games several times over the course of the past 15 years or so, whereas the Royals fans do not. But it doesn't mean the latter "don't know what they're missing." They have brains and imaginations. I'm sure they can put two and two together and come up with a vague idea of what a Royals playoff game would be like.

And because there were more of us, our suffering made us loud -- and, yes, insufferable.

Thank you. See, here he is, on the doorstep of admitting something that's long overdue. And yet, he still manages to blow it:

Same goes for Knicks fans now. In a sports world that is increasingly defined by big money and big markets, the Knicks play in the richest, biggest market of all.

This is true. But Bill's favorite teams play in the 5th largest market in the US (as of 2004, according to this website). And of course they also have legions and legions of bandwagon fans nationwide (arguably more than New York or any other city's teams), not to mention the world's largest and most influential sports network in their back pocket. So it's not much of a different situation.


You can't drown out their fans and can't reason with them, so don't even try. They will just have to figure out for themselves that they're lucky they don't live in Buffalo or Pittsburgh, where nobody hears you at all.

This is the ambiguous ending to the piece. Is he saying that he realizes the exact same thing applies to Boston fans, so maybe they need to shut the fuck up every once in a while if their precious Celtics don't go to the NBA Finals for a whole twenty years? Or worse, if their beloved "Patties" can't win the Super Bowl every single year (see Simmons's sour grapes/woe is us analysis of last January's AFC Championship Game)? If so, great. But this statement is too vague to be purposely vague. It's like he admitted earlier in the article that big market/popular teams get a disproportionate amount of press... but once he arrives at its conclusion, he feels it's necessary to make a distinction between New York fans the rest of those fans that like popular teams. Assuming that's the case, then this flagrantly obvious and glaring piece of hypocrisy has somehow slipped from his brain to his fingers to your computer screen undetected. It's truly astonishing that this is America's most popular sportswriter. Is the average sports fan just not annoyed by Boston fans? I guess so.

Too bad for me that I am, huh? My blood pressure is through the roof because of this topic.

I Can't Believe I'm Dignifying This With A Post

It's shooting fish in a barrel. But as usual, when it comes to this particular quasi-journalist, I just can't help myself. From Bill "My ESPN.com Profile Picture Makes Me Look Like A Used Car Salesman" Simmons's 2007-2008 NBA Preview:

As far as I'm concerned, Duncan is the greatest power forward ever and the most underappreciated superstar since Moses Malone. But what if KG rolls over him in the NBA Finals? What then? Doesn't that open the door for a lifetime of, "Yeah, Duncan was good, but if KG had his supporting cast, he would have won seven titles!" arguments? Just the chance that we might settle this once and for all makes me happy. I love when things get settled. You know, kinda like how the "Brady vs. Manning" argument was settled over these past 11 weeks.

Really? We can put that one to bed now? Great. I'm all for it. I mean it's not like before their showdown a couple weeks ago Manning had won the last three matchups between the two, including last year's AFC title game. Or that Manning has a higher career yards/attempt, completion percentage, and quarterback rating. Or that even with how good Brady's been this year, that Manning still has thrown more TDs per game over the course of his career.

Am I saying Manning is definitely better? Absolutely not. Assuming he doesn't get hurt, Brady's 2007 is going to end up being better than Manning's 2004. Brady has thrown fewer interceptions per game during his career, has won more of their head to head matchups, and trails Manning only slightly in those three metric categories I listed above. (7.7 vs 7.2 yards per attempt, 63.9 to 63.1 completion percentage, and 93.9 to 92.9 QB rating.) What I AM saying is that the issue is not "settled." It probably never will be, even after both guys wrap up their careers. Who's better, Montana, Marino, Elway, or Favre? Depends on where the person you ask grew up. Montana has the rings, Marino has the yards (not for long, admittedly), Elway was great for years with a terrible supporting cast, and Favre has the TDs. Although I'm from Colorado, it's hard for me not to choose Marino after his performance in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. But if you want to say there's a clear cut winner in that debate, you must have invented some kind of "magical impossible debate settling machine" that you should patent and start selling. Lord knows I'd buy one.

Anyways, barring unforeseen circumstances, in about 10 years we'll throw Brady and Manning into the debate. People from Indiana will all hype up Manning and people from New England will hype up Brady. People from Northern California, Colorado, Florida, and Wisconsin will disagree. The argument will escalate. Someone will imply (or possibly state directly) that they had sex with someone else's sister. The first punch will be thrown. Bar stools will be broken over heads. Beer bottles will be shattered on pool tables and used as stabbing weapons. The bouncers will kick everyone out so that the fracas can continue in the street until all but one person is arrested or killed. The end. But still, even that one person won't be right. It's just not possible to "settle" that debate.

And don't get me started about how Brady has more rings than Manning. There's exactly one reason the Patriots won those three Super Bowls and will probably win this year's. He goes by the name of Tedy Bruschi. (Did you know he had a stroke and missed part of the 2005 season, but ended up making a triumphant return on Monday Night Football? I heard that somewhere. What a fuzzy, warm, cuddly story! Where was ESPN when this happened? They really dropped the ball.)

Final "food" for thought (food, because it's Thanksgiving... GET IT?): Who had/has the better supporting cast? 2004 Manning or 2007 Brady? You've got Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, Clark, E. James, and a great offensive line versus Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Watson, some capable RBs, and another great offensive line. If you're Bill Simmons, this debate has already been settled. If you have a brain, it's just another great unanswerable question.

Jemele Hill Probably Just Wants To Make You Laugh

I mean, I can't think of any other reason why she would write this article. It needs no further introduction.

(Note, for the sake of legal accuracy: throughout this post, when I say "Bonds committed perjury" or stuff like that, I just mean he has been indicted. I don't pretend to know how the case will pan out, and obviously he is innocent until proven guilty. He's not officially a perjurer... yet.)

The indictment of Bonds is just plain wrong

You will automatically assume the reason I'm defending Barry Bonds is because he's black and I'm black.

You will be wrong.

Good thing I didn't also assume that you were a half-decent journalist, because I would have been wrong about that as well.

This is not about the commonality of race. And for the record, I have been as critical as anyone of Bonds.

Now, Jemele is being partially honest here. She hasn't outwardly been a vehement Bonds supporter. But when you look at some of her recent articles, such as:

Hall of Fame needs to rethink accepting asterisk ball (Nov. 13)
Why aren't Ankiel and Bonds painted with the same brush? (Sept. 11)
All-Star Game loses relevance without Bonds (Jun. 27)

You can see that she's not exactly tripping over herself to criticize the guy, either. There is a popular figure of speech for this kind of behavior: it's called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Jemele isn't dumb (about this one, specific topic). She knows that the argument about Bonds is a very contentious one. And she's desperate to please people on both sides of the issue, so she consistently writes articles that play to audiences in each camp. "Hey, it's not like I love Barry. I mean, he's a jerk and probably took steroids. But at the same time, I think everyone is being too mean to him! Be nice to Barry, what has he ever done to you?" It's pretty sad. Fortunately I am in neither the pro-Bonds nor the anti-Bonds camp. I am in the hating bad journalism camp. This allows me to see through Jemele's little ruse.

I didn't want to see him break Hank Aaron's record, because he's not as dignified as Aaron was and Bonds didn't respect his natural ability the same way Aaron respected his.

But that doesn't mean Bonds belongs in prison.

It sure doesn't! But you know what does? The fact that he lied to a federal grand jury! Wait, you're telling me Bonds isn't being indicted for doing steroids? That his actual crime is something much different, and something that no other member of baseball's "steroid generation" has done? So we can't bitch and moan about how Barry is being singled out over McGwire and Palmiero, because he did something they never did? In short, yes. (Jemele's complete and total lack of understanding about the justice system will come to further light throughout the column.)

The only way to see the indictment of Bonds is as a gross, terrible injustice, a startling abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer money.

God, I love the "this is a waste of taxpayer money!" argument that always surfaces anytime a famous person gets in trouble for something. "There are starving kids in Africa, you know!" pleads Paris Hilton's mom/Martha Stewart's fans/Jemele Hill. It's such a comical line of reasoning it doesn't deserve a response, but I am bored so I'll give it one anyways.

Here's how crimes work: if you do something illegal, and are charged with one, you have just forfeited your right to complain about the "big picture" of government and the justice system as a whole. You have not forfeited your right to defend yourself against the charges. My advice to you (and in this case, "you" is being applied to both the criminal and those who support him or her) is to shut up and deal with the issue at hand. Telling a cop who's giving you a speeding ticket that there are unsolved murders he should be solving is not a good idea. If speeding was never enforced, everyone would speed, and the greater good would suffer as a result. Same goes for one of my favorite things to complain about- parking regulations and tickets. Sometimes I get furious when I think about all the money that goes into parking enforcement in this fine country. Then I realize, if parking laws were never enforced, a whole lot of problems would pop up. I'm not here to claim to know the perfect balance of resources that should be devoted to the enforcement of every variety of law, but I most certainly am here to laugh at the idea that it's a bad thing when the government spends money (in this case, chump change by their standards) to prosecute someone who they believe has committed a felony. Our legal system has a wide variety of crimes that carry a wide variety of punishments. All have been enacted because they theoretically serve the best interests of the country. Is perjury as bad as murder? No. Could that $6 million be better spent elsewhere? Sure. But crimes and punishments (epic sports cliche alert!) "are what they are," and exist for a reason. If government authorities have reasonable cause to think you've done something illegal, and you get charged with a crime as a result, that is the opposite of a "terrible injustice." It is, in fact, an "expected occurrence." Deal with it and stop playing the "but that's a waste of money!" card. Put into one pithy sentence: that's how America works, moron.

The "race card" is somewhere in my back pocket, but I'll play that later on.

Wait! But you said... about you being black... not related... I'm so confused.

For now, let's focus on something even bigger than race -- the unbelievably deep hypocrisy that has fueled the federal government's pursuit of Bonds for four years.

How dare they attempt to prosecute someone who committed several felonies! Hypocrisy! If you look at the real facts, you'll see that they were the ones committing felonies! (And taking steroids in an attempt to break Hank Aaron's home run record, although that's not related.) Hey Jemele- if you want to toss around big words like hypocrisy, you might want to know what they mean first.

The decision to indict Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, a charge I still don't understand, considering the government didn't need Bonds to topple BALCO -- isn't right, fair or just.

This isn't about toppling BALCO. This is about a man swearing under oath to tell the truth to a federal jury (with total immunity, I might add) and then not doing so. That is a crime. A very, very significant crime. The feds don't like it when people do this, so when they have a chance to catch someone who did, they usually go after the offender. I can probably just copy and paste this paragraph about twenty more times to finish out my criticism of the article.

The feds have made Bonds into Al Capone, when he's more like Pookie than Nino Brown. They're blaming the crackhead instead of the drug dealer, the prostitute instead of the pimp, the wayward child instead of the enabling parent.

They're not blaming Bonds for distributing steroids. They already got the drug dealer, pimp, and enabling parent more than two years ago when Victor Conte plead guilty. They're blaming Bonds for a different crime, which occurred when they were trying to solve the first set of crimes.

Cast aside whether Bonds signed enough autographs, the irrelevant tales about what a jerk he's been to the media, his mistress, the rocky divorce and our general addiction to seeing towering stars fall,

OK. Do I also have to cast aside the fact that he committed perjury? I hope not.

then digest this: Barry Bonds -- who didn't create BALCO, who didn't distribute the performance-enhancing drugs that came out of BALCO, who was nothing more than a client of BALCO -- is facing stiffer punishment and castigation than Victor Conte, the man who masterminded the entire operation.

Distributing steroids. Lying to a grand jury (when you have total immunity!). Both are really bad. The former is probably more damaging to society, but the latter is still atrociously horrible and deserves harsh punishment. If found guilty, Bonds will probably receive a sentence similar to Victor Conte's 2 years of probation, so this point is irrelevant anyways.

Bonds -- who wasn't the first baseball player to take performance-enhancing drugs unknowingly or otherwise, who played in a league that, for a time, subtly encouraged PED use, who played against players taking the same drugs as him, who isn't even the first player to lie to the government about taking performance-enhancing drugs (see: Palmeiro, Rafael) --

There are two epic problems with this point, both of which prove Jemele's total inability to understand what exactly the fuck she's talking about.
1) Palmeiro allegedly lied during a Congressional hearing, which is done under oath, but is not a situation which leads to perjury charges. It's certainly nowhere near as bad as lying to a grand jury. One takes places in front of legislators, but the other takes place in a motherfucking court of law. There is a significant difference there. The best analogy I've heard is that what Palmeiro did is like lying to your boss and what Bonds did is like lying to a cop. Both will get you in trouble, but only one will get you charged with a crime.
2) I'm not here to defend Palmeiro. (Uh-oh! I'm starting to sound like Jemele. I swear I'm not a closet Rafi fan!) Anyways, it's highly likely that he had been juicing for years, but his positive steroid test came back after he testified. Therefore it's highly unlikely, but conceivable, that he was actually telling the truth when he made his statements to Congress and only got on the juice during the timeframe between the two events. With the Bonds indictment, the positive test the feds claim to have must have been administered before his testimony was given. Without that, there is no perjury charge. So obviously that's what they think they've got. It's a key difference.

is facing prison time and will be anointed the primary culprit of an era he didn't create.

As if it's unfair to ever anoint the most prominent member of an era its primary participant just because they didn't create it. I was trying to think of an example that wasn't too obscure or creepy. How about Kurt Cobain and grunge music? Anyone?

And the universe was definitely trying to send us a message, because as the Bonds indictment continued to ripple, MLB commissioner Bud Selig announced that Major League Baseball's revenue climbed to $6 billion this year, the highest amount in history. How much of that came from Bonds' bat? How much of that came because of an orchestrated ignorance of steroids?

She's got me there. Baseball is to blame for the steroids mess to a large degree. But you know what they're not to blame for? Barry Bonds perjuring himself. Nope. He did that all by his lonesome.

The government has spent some $6 million to catch a baseball player who mostly committed a crime against himself and his legacy.

And against the government of the United States, when he lied to them under oath.

They have sought Bonds for four years, a pursuit that would have been reasonable if he were a violent criminal.

Most white collar criminals are nonviolent. I guess we should put a cap on the number of years the government is allowed to investigate them. After all, there's other stuff going on, you know?

For what? Because they didn't like that Bonds didn't cower in fear while testifying during the BALCO trial?

No. Because they didn't like how he lied to them while testifying during the BALCO trial.

Because he's spoiled, rich and arrogant, and they wanted to knock him down a peg or two?

No. That's why much of America wants him put in prison. You've mixed them up with the Justice Department, Jemele. The two are not related.

Should Bonds have fessed up to whatever he did? Certainly. But $6 million seems like a hefty price to pay to crush a ballplayer's ego and inflate a government branch's.

She's right. I mean, we should punish perjurers. But not at the cost of 0.00001% of the federal budget! New rule: if the justice department can't catch a nonviolent criminal for less than $20, drop the case. It's not worth it.

I certainly don't support lying to the government -- if that's what Bonds did. But I'm not about to pretend that Bonds' alleged lie is the equivalent of handing over sensitive government documents to Osama bin Laden.

What? Bin Laden... somehow in this article... I'm confused again. Maybe she decided to drag him in after watching Bill Simmons reference Nazism four times in one column last week.

SMACK. Time to play the race card.

I love this. Boom. Slap. Smack. Boo-yeah. Facial. In your grill. Onomatopoeia. ALL CAPS. Reader, you have just been pwned by Jemele Hill. She's about to tell you how it is.

Bonds' blackness is not the sole reason Bonds is in this mess.

That's correct. In fact, for the twentieth time, the fact that he lied to a grand jury is the sole reason he is in this mess.

But it is a factor in why the fairness seems so skewed, why the vitriol seems so severe, why the pursuit was so unrelenting.

PUNCH. Time to play the please don't play the race card. Jemele, please don't play the race card if you're not going to base your accusations on anything other than unprovable bullshit which ignores the one real legal issue at hand.

Bonds' most egregious error is that he is not content to play the role of the grateful black man.

This is the last time I'm going to say it. His most egregious error is committing perjury. In fact, from now on, [P] represents the phrase "committing perjury" or "committed perjury," whichever makes sense in the context of the sentence. I'm tired of writing it. Jemele Hill is so stupid, she's moved me to using shorthand.

Black athletes, particularly males, who express the kind of arrogance Bonds does are often villified more than white athletes who do the same. Brett Favre pleaded to be surrounded by talent for years, yet when Randy Moss expressed similar frustration in Oakland he was called selfish and whiny and told to shut up.

We here at FireJay have a label to stick on columns we cover that contain stuff like this. Look for it below. Two words. First one starts with "a", second one starts with "b" and ends with "shit."

Gary Sheffield, while not the most eloquent speaker, alerted us to the obvious -- that MLB has a certain amount of economic control over Latino players because it plucks them from their home countries so they won't have to pay hefty signing bonuses in the draft.

No. Sheffield alerted us to the obvious- that he is a crazy racist dickhead who doesn't know his asshole from his elbow. And also, that you "can't control" him.

Sheffield was roasted for this, but it was perfectly fine for Larry Bird to say the NBA needs more white superstars.

More anecdotal bullshit. Oops! I gave away what the label I was talking about earlier is.

Black athletes who refuse to kowtow get it worse, and from that perspective the race card is appropriately applicable.

They don't, and, it isn't, but thanks for making yourself sound more ridiculous.

For weeks, we've gotten reports of various baseball players purchasing human growth hormone, for obviously circumspect reasons and from obviously suspect people. Why isn't the government knocking at the door of Rick Ankiel, forcing him to testify against his supplier? Why didn't the government pursue the past that Mark McGwire wasn't eager to talk about? Why does MLB seem to have only a passive interest in Paul Byrd?

Those are all relevant questions on their own. But not in the context of this article. You know why? Because this indictment isn't about taking steroids. It's about [P].

What-about-them arguments are normally despicable, but to ignore that Bonds was part of an ensemble cast is foolish and lacks perspective.

You're right, he was part of a cast. But he's the only one who [P] in front of a grand jury.

Of course, no matter how this situation concludes -- despite the hypocrisy and racial undertones in this case -- the overall moral lesson here is integrity should be used in conjunction with talent.

Still waiting for proof of hypocrisy on the government's part. I haven't yet seen the part where Jemele builds her case about them [P]. (Or taking steroids, even though that's not what the case is about.) As for the overall moral lesson part, did Rick Reilly tell her to write that? I mean, it's right and all. But still.

If it's true Bonds could have avoided this -- had he not been jealous of Sammy Sosa and McGwire, players whose talent was never in the same stratosphere as Bonds' -- then that's the real crime.

From a legal standpoint, he also could have avoided this by not [P]. That would have been really easy to do. I mean, his baseball reputation would have been damaged. But not much more so than it was before this indictment. How many rational people living outside of Northern California believed before last week that Bonds was clean? I guess what he got out of it by [P] was a more fun run at 755. People were only wildly speculating about his steroid use, rather than knowing for sure that it had taken place.

Had Bonds simply stayed the course and remained the player he was prior to the steroid era, he would have received the credit that made him seek out performance-enhancing drugs in the first place.

That's the most sense you've made all day. Keep it up, you might eventually match up with Skip Bayless!

He'll have to live with that forever. And that, to me, is justice.

Good for you. To me, though, justice is being charged with and tried for a crime when the government thinks you've committed one. I've always been an abstract thinker like that.

[Update, 1:21 PM- Steroid Nation's take on the situaion, which is a lot shorter and more articulate than mine.]

a nominee for "most annoying fan behavior in all of sports"

i've come to a conclusion: lots of golf fans are fucking stupid. i was just watching the PGA championship, and a split second after tiger woods hit his drive on 17, while everyone else was still being quiet, some dickbag in the gallery shouted "STANFORRRRRD!" stop and consider that for a second. what the hell does that mean? why would you do that? can you imagine someone yelling out the alma mater of the guy shooting a free throw at an NBA game right after he released the ball? how ridiculous would that be?

on a more general level, just what exactly is going through the minds of fans at golf tournaments who shout "GET IN THE HOLE!!!" right after a player strikes a chip or putt? do they think that's awesome? do they think the player appreciates it? do they expect some kind of pat on the back from the player or from other fans should the ball actually get in the hole? do they want to be able to go home and tell their buddies, "hey, remember right after ernie els hit that 15 footer for birdie on the 6th yesterday? *smugly* yeah. that was me shouting something stupid during that silence there." going back to that guy who shouted "STANFORRRRD!"... was he hoping tiger woods would immediately turn around and say "who said that? i went to stanford! that is so cool that you shouted that! do you want to hang out play golf together sometime, sir?" this behavior confuses the shit out of me. i've never been to a golf tournament, and i should probably never go. after about the third time i heard this kind of thing happen (which, unless i was going out of my way to not stand near any people, would be at about 9:30 AM on thursday) i would immediately go over and get in the person who did it's face.

All Right HatGuy: Your Gross Abuse of Your Job is now Personal

"Carroll Could be the next Rockne"

In this article, HatGuy compares Pete Carroll to Knute Rockne. In this article, HatGuy makes outlandish claims based on nothing. In this article, HatGuy states 'facts' that are patently false. You might think it about par for the HatGuy course. Except this article is about Notre Dame and USC, which means I hate you even more, HatGuy.

Let's get down to business:

When I think about Pete Carroll, the name that keeps jumping into my head is Knute Rockne. I keep telling myself that there have to be better analogies, and there probably are. But my brain won’t cooperate. It keeps whispering “Rockne.”

This isn’t an opinion based on careful analysis. It’s a gut feeling. If it were anything else, I’d flippantly fling it in the recycle bin and move on.

Focus on that last paragraph. Actually, re-read those three sentences. Do it again. I'll wait.

...

I believe HatGuy just claimed that if this concept for an article WERE ANYTHING BUT A NONSENSICAL FEELING OF HIS PROBABLY-CIRRHOTIC GUT, HE WOULD PLACE IT IN HIS RECYCLING BIN AND MOVE ON. OSTENSIBLY IF HE CAREFULLY ANALYZED SOMETHING, HE WOULD THROW IT AWAY. MIKE CELIZIC BASES HIS JOURNALISM ON ITS CONSISTENCY WITH HIS DAILY GASTROINTESTINAL ISSUES, WHICH ARE PROBABLY SEVERE BECAUSE HE IS OLD.

Picture me using a Norm McDonald voice for this one:

"Yeah, hello REAL READERS? Yeah it's me... dan-bob... Listen, there's this fake HatGuy going around pretending to be a real HatGuy and offering carefully analyzed opinions... he just stole a bunch of readers from firejaymariotti.blogspot.com.... so DON'T BE FOOLED!"

Also, I like the line: "If it were anything else, I’d flippantly fling it in the recycle bin and move on." I figured that the moment a vague connection floats into HatGuy's addled head, he flippantly flings it onto MSNBC.com and then moves on to the next hat store or something.

It shouldn’t be hard to do. Carroll isn’t anything like Rockne, college football’s first celebrity coach. Rockne was born in Norway and worked in the U.S. Post Office in Chicago before enrolling at Notre Dame. He was a star end at the age of 25 on the team that beat Army in 1913 and introduced the nation to the forward pass.

On graduation, Rockne became a chemistry teacher at Notre Dame. When he took over the football team in 1918, it’s doubtful that many people outside of Notre Dame either knew exactly who he was or cared.

HatGuy's dedicated readers might think that Notre Dame is the sort of shit-lucky place that can pull chemistry teachers out of the lab and chuck them onto the football field and turn them into college football legends. I don't really want to disabuse anyone of that notion; I find it kind of endearing. But, HatGuy readers, anyone who cared about college football in 1918 would've realized that Rockne had been an assistant coach for the Irish since 1914. But that wasn't an important fact, was it... HatGuy? HatGuy?

It took him six years to win his first national championship and five more years to win the first of back-to-back titles in 1929-30. By then, he had transformed himself into a coaching superstar, the darling of Hollywood and the syndicated columnists like Grantland Rice who were to Rockne’s world what ESPN is to Carroll’s. When Rockne died in a plane crash in the spring of 42, it was like the death of a president.

1. Don't mention the fact that his 1919 and 1920 teams are also in some books considered national champions, inasmuch as they finished the season undefeated and untied both years.

2. Fact check: Rockne's plane crashed in the spring of 1931, immediately after his teams won those back-to-back titles. About par for the HatGuy course: at least one completely incorrect fact that could be proven wrong with three seconds of googling. I imagine he looked up a bio of Rockne for this, but somehow managed to get one of the more critical dates utterly wrong. I suspect HatGuy has Mad Cow disease or something.

I have an idea! We take all of HatGuy's future articles and play HatGuy Golf - seeing how much under par or over par he is for his pitiful standards. Anyone want to play a round later?

HatGuy goes on to illuminate Pete Carroll's string of loserness in the NFL. Apparently he made the playoffs in no fewer than HALF the seasons that he coached in the NFL - including a stint with the Jets in which he coached a single season before getting the axe. A vintage bit:

A three-year stint with New England from 1997-99 saw a 10-6 record and a 1-1 record in the playoffs, then two years of decline before he collected his second pink slip.

Fact check: in 1998, Pete Carroll's 1998 Patriots MADE THE PLAYOFFS at 9-7. His record in the playoffs is actually 1-2! I guess that was decline! You are a lazy piece of shit!

He came by the USC job by default when all the candidates ahead of him, including Dennis Erickson, turned down the job.

This is probably true.

But here’s where I start thinking Rockne again. The reason is because both he and Carroll basically came out of nowhere — one from the chem lab and the other from the scrapheap. One was a funny-looking immigrant kid, the other was just funny. Rockne took over a program that had had a taste of glory and wanted more. Carroll moved into one that had been at the heights of the game and wanted to get back.

National titles at ND before Rockne: 0
National titles at SC before Carroll: 5 (or so).

So basically Rockne took off his chemistry lab goggles, rolled up his smock and commandeered an institution that had never been regarded as a football power and turned it into the most significant single institution in college football even 77 years after his death.

Pete Carroll is a great coach. He rescued an admittedly moribund program and has returned it to incredible heights. Pete Carroll was already a famous person - since one normally gets famous when one coaches in the National Football League.

The basis of this article is patently false: Carroll's unique story is not really comparable at all to Knute Rockne's unique story.

Most of all, both are heavy on charisma and self-confidence; Rockne didn’t care what everybody else thought, and neither does Carroll. And those qualities are what made Rockne the best in his day and Carroll the best in his.

Rockne's Winning Pct: .881
Carroll's Winning Pct: .844
Rockne's Charisma and Self-confidence Pct: 100%
Carroll's Charisma and Self-confidence Pct: 100%

I almost wish he would've supported this claim with some anecdotal evidence. Maybe Rockne's self-confidence was noted by the fact that he was willing to take the Irish to LA to start playing SC. Maybe Pete Carroll's self-confidence is noted by the fact that his players complain about the length of the grass.

A big difference is that Carroll has gotten to the top faster than Rockne did. After going 6-6 in his first season, Carroll went 11-2 in his second, and then won 37 of his next 39 games, including 34 in a row and two national championships — the AP title in 2003 and both the AP and the BCS crown the following year.

Let the record show, FatGuy, that Rockne went undefeated in his second AND third year at ND. As a matter of fact, he only lost two games in his first three years! As a matter of fact, Pete Caroll lost two games in his first three games!

After finishing 11-2 last year, Carroll’s record for the past five seasons is 59-6. His overall winning percentage is 84.4 percent, just a couple of ticks behind Rockne’s all-time Division I-A record of 88.1 percent. He's expected to move closer to that mark this season as the Trojans are likely to start No. 1 in the preseason polls. And his recent recruiting classes have been second to none.

Pete Carroll is a very good coach of very good football teams. Let the record show that even after all those accomplishments he still has to win 24 straight games to pass Rockne.

Then HatGuy goes on to compare Carroll to some other college coaches like Wilkinson and Bryant. I imagine there are egregious errors there, but I don't care. I've had enough of your shite, HatGuy. Your offenses to sports are encouraging me to compile your errors, contact MSNBC.com, have you removed from your job, and force you to enter a profession where people tolerate this shit. Like maybe political journalism.

i'm not saying OPS is the only meaningful baseball statistic, but COME ON

currently on the front page of espn.com:

San Francisco Treat

(picture of barry bonds and his gigantic head)

Despite a lackluster season and a cloud of suspicion hanging over him, Barry Bonds will be right at home in the 78th All-Star Game.

i would use something other than "lackluster" to describe his season so far (.302/.513/.599, 16 bombs, a staggering 82 BB). something along the lines of.... what's the word... oh yeah, "great."

someone fire the stupid intern who wrote that already. no, not because he wrongly thinks bonds is having a lackluster season, but because "san francisco treat" is a tragically unclever headline.

A Day Late, 100 Cents Short

...on my part, but this article from si.com evaluates NBA draft day and somehow comes to the conclusion that the Celtics were geniuses for trading for Ray Allen.

Time will bear out whether that is the case, but I loved this bit of spin doctoring Chris Mannix uses to prove his point:

For starters, Boston's acquisition of Jesus Shuttlesworth, er, Ray Allen was a stroke of genius. In Allen, Ainge picks up arguably the league's best perimeter shooter whose presence alone will open up huge driving lanes for Pierce. Despite playing in just 55 games for the floundering Sonics last season, Allen averaged 26.4 points on 43.8 percent shooting.

Some Boston pole-smoking from a likely Massachusettsan...I love how missing nearly 30 games is used as evidence that Allen's points average is even more impressive. Too bad almost everyone knows that the less games a player has played in, the more distorted his average numbers will be. There is a reason why, for instance, major league baseball has a minimum number of plate appearances to qualify for the batting title, etc.

Also, it's pretty funny that in trying to praise this deal, Mannix brings up one of the major flaws in this deal: Allen has been less than healthy lately. Here, by way of contrast, is how another writer discussed this deal:

Worst Deal: This is a tough call, but we're going with Danny Ainge and the Celtics on this one. Jeff Green is going to be a quality player in the NBA and he was dealt for a soon-to-be 32-year-old Ray Allen who is coming off two ankle surgeries. Unless Ainge makes another deal, this is a team that won't be able to stop anyone — and also won't have enough guys who make anyone better.

Methinks Mannix needs to put down his copy of "He Got Game," and his glass of green Kool Aid and wake up to the fact that Allen's not getting much younger and that he has shown that he's really not good enough to carry a lousy (and yes the Celtics are an absolutely lousy team) team to contender status.

If anything, this trade is reminiscent of the ill-conceived Payton trade that sent Allen to Seattle in the first place.

I mean EVEN BILL SIMMONS thought this was a lousy deal

they just don't make 'em like they used to

mike kahn of foxsports.com is tired of all the NBA draft hype. and hey, who isn't? i'm not disagreeing with the concept of his article. of course the NBA draft is overhyped. so is practically every-fucking-thing in the world of sports today; we're living in a golden age of hype. but i digress. the problem here is, rather than address the potential shortcomings of guys in the class, or point out notable busts from recent drafts (insert darko joke here!), kahn would rather just wax nostalgic about some of his personal favorite draft classes and express sincere doubt that this year's guys will live up to their standards because... because those old guys were really good! my point is- if you're going to complain about an event being overhyped, this is the exact opposite of how you should go about doing so.

After 11 years, we can conclude the 1996 draft class has certainly made the most noise from top to bottom. So I'm sticking with them for the time being as the best overall class in history.

Led by Iverson, Bryant, Nash, Ray Allen, Peja Stojakovic and Jermaine O'Neal, the class has dominated this era with style points, pure shooting and six different players with 11 championship rings for bragging rights. And that's not to mention outstanding players such as Marcus Camby, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Stephon Marbury and solid starting centers from the past two NBA Finals — Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Erick Dampier.

Indeed, the class of 2007 has a long way to go to top that. Heck, so do the guys from 2003, which is why I'm not ready to jump on their bandwagon just yet.

After all, who can possibly say they will do more in the NBA than the 1984 crew of Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and John Stockton? That's eight championships out of the first two players, along with the most unique player of our time in Barkley, and Stockton is the all-time leader in assists and steals.

Heck, the 1974 draftees paced by Bill Walton, Bobby Jones, Maurice Lucas and Jamaal Wilkes, and the 1970 group of Bob Lanier, Rudy Tomjanovich, Pete Maravich, Dave Cowens and Geoff Petrie will be tough to top.

to sum up kahn's points- i'm tired of hearing about the 2007 draft class, because there have already been some really great drafts in the league's history. what?

As always, these guys haven't proven they can take their game to the next level...

and how would they go about doing so?

Of course, Durant is a special offensive player — the first freshman ever to be the NCAA player of the year — and Oden leading Ohio State to the championship game was no fluke because of his extraordinary defensive presence.

But they have yet to prove it against the best players in the world, and even if they do, it will require more than skill.

booooooooooooooooooooo.

The draft is always exciting and unpredictable, and it's crucial for the NBA to retain that mystique heading into the fall. But you never know when the next "draft superstar" will land with the thud of a 3-pointer hurled by the illustrious Antoine Walker, class of '96.


that's the last sentence in the article. are you kidding me? you go 1,000ish words trying to point out that you're sick of the hype surrounding this year's draft class without bringing up a single overhyped player who "busted" from a past draft... and when you finally try to go in that direction... you choose ANTOINE WALKER? dude. you're killing me.

From the Department of Lame/Unfunny Stuff

Here.

A few bad jokes for your laughing pleasure.

1. Drew Brees (New Orleans Saints): Despite working in a city visited by women who will lift their jerseys without a downpour of U.S. currency, Brees has a relatively clean street record.

According to rumor, he once shushed someone at the Purdue library, but we haven't been able to corroborate the tale.

2. Carson Palmer (Cincinnati Bengals): Palmer has impressed scouts with his ability to just say no to social offers from certain teammates.

To date, a football is the only thing he's passed to Chris Henry

also, their ranking of Tom Brady as more of an off-field risk than Ben Roethlisberger because he "alienated fans by wearing a Yankees hat" confirms that this is the kind of article this site was created for.

I hate stupid shit.