Seth Wickersham "beginning of the end" piece proves sports world revolves around Patriots

ESPN's Seth Wickersham's "Beginning of the end" piece on the Patriots claims there is a power struggle at the highest level of Pats' leadership: among the owner, the GOAT coach, and the GOAT quarterback. True or not, what the report conclusively proves is that the sports world is obsessed with everything the Patriots do.

Many of the pieces to Wickersham's puzzle seem to fit. I can imagine Bill Belichick grumbling about being coerced to trade Jimmy Garoppolo. I can imagine Tom Brady being worried about the security of his position as starter. I can imagine Robert Kraft interfering in an effort to alleviate tensions and to make his star QB happy. So there's a possibility it's all true.

But there's more than a possibility that the Patriots are the center of the sports world. That's an absolute certainty.

Even when they don't play, they're the top story. Just a whisper of dissension in Foxborough, and it's breaking news. The narrative of Garoppolo's success in San Fran is told as a Patriots' story. DeflateGate was national network news, not just sport news, and it endured for months. Compare that to the brief amount of time spent discussing the Seahawks violating concussion protocol (the media spent less time on that than Russell Wilson spent in the medical tent). People are obsessed with everything the Patriots do.

So while other New England fans might fret about tension behind the scenes, while other New England fans start blaming Bill or Tom or Bob for a breakup which hasn't happened yet, I'm just going to enjoy the fact that the sports world orbits around Foxborough, that Gillette Stadium is the center of the football universe. I'll enjoy it, because 20 years ago the Patriots were barely relevant, and 2 years from now the same might be true again.

SVP vs DFS: Scott Van Pelt takes on daily fantasy instead of stupid gambling laws

ESPN's Scott Van Pelt wants daily fantasy sports to drop the "charade" that it isn't gambling. You can watch his short monologue on the subject here. Before I discuss the material of his argument, I want to applaud him for having the balls to make it. DraftKings and ESPN have a huge partnership deal, and daily fantasy sports has become a massive source of advertising revenue. I'll also compliment SVP on the pace and structure of his argument. It's very well put together.

And I don't disagree with his premises, just the conclusion, and just the fact that he makes the argument at all. The easy way to describe daily fantasy is to say it's gambling. So he's right. Personally, I'd argue that it's gambling and a skill game. I'd also argue that poker, sports betting, and horse betting are also skill games, but most people treat those as gambling. The skill involved is to capitalize on other players who don't know what they're doing as well as you.

So daily fantasy shouldn't be much different. So why can't they just admit that it's gambling? Drop the charade, right Scott?

Because in this country we have stupid and nonsensical gambling laws that force you to avoid the G-word at all costs. We also have pious institutions like the NCAA that despise the stigma of gambling while they simultaneously benefit from it. Instead of going after daily fantasy's charade, SVP should ask why the charade is necessary at all.

In Massachusetts, gambling is illegal. Unless it's through the state run lottery, or at a casino sanctioned by the state. As long as the State House gets a piece of the action, they're fine with gambling. Otherwise, it's against the law. The government might as well say "Gambling is wrong, unless we do it."

The NCAA recently announced that student-athletes who play daily fantasy will lose a year of eligibility. But when March Madness comes around and people fill out brackets with NCAA logos on them, I don't hear much preaching from the NCAA about the evils of gambling. After all, those brackets are used strictly for fun, and not gambling, right?

I used to play $5 games of online poker until Congress made it next to impossible to deposit or withdraw money from online poker sites. This caused the reputable sites to stop doing business with US players altogether. One of the major laws that began this crushing of online poker in America (the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act or UIGEA) specifically stated that fantasy sports was not considered gambling. Fantasy sports was a game of skill. This is the law that allowed daily fantasy to one day grow into what it is today.

So I can buy $100 worth of scratch tickets, or play in a $200 million multi-state lottery, or go down to Plainridge Park and sit in front of a slot machine for 16 hours, and it's all legal, because the government has a stake in those games. I can also pick a fantasy football team for Sunday's games and risk $20 to potentially win $1,000,000, or risk $1 in hopes of winning $20, and it's legal. Because the law says it's not gambling. If it were gambling, it would be illegal.

So why the hell would DraftKings or FanDuel call themselves gambling sites if the reason they are legal and allowed to do business is because the law says they're not gambling sites? That's like demanding that CVS and Walgreen's call themselves drug dealers and not pharmacies.

Maybe, Mr. Van Pelt, you should go after the rampant hypocrisy found in this country's gambling laws. Maybe you should point out that sports betting is and has always been a huge ratings booster for the NCAA, NFL, and all other sports that ESPN covers, even while those leagues publicly condemn such activities. Maybe you should ask why Americans love to gamble, but America has a stigma against gambling?

But no, it's easier to go after the people who bombard you with commercials. It's easier to go after the "charade" they're trying to pull off, instead of digging deeper and asking why they need the charade at all.

LeBron James is trying to get hurt, media wants to see him get hurt

The story of LeBron James, a.k.a. King James the Great, was already written and published long before he set foot on an NBA court. Years before he was old enough to enter a casino and gamble recklessly with Michael Jordan, LeBron's legacy was already being compared to MJ's. It was foolish and unfair to compare someone who had barely played the game to the greatest who ever played. It's like seeing Johnny Depp act in a high school play, then comparing his acting ability to all of Marlon Brando's work.

LeBron's legacy and legend have always preceded him. He was a great player before he ever played. He was a winner before he won. He was one of the greatest of all time before he had played enough time to do anything. The story of LeBron James's career has always been told before the facts had a chance to catch up.

And now to enhance that legacy and justify their LeBron worship, ESPN and the rest of the sports media want to see LeBron suffer some sort of injury, then play through the pain, and carry his team to victory. They want LeBron to have his Willis Reed moment, they want to see LeBron have the equivalent of Michael Jordan's flu/hangover game against the Jazz. And so since it would bolster LeBron's legacy, each minor malady that afflicts him becomes the focus of attention. Because it's an opportunity for reality to fulfill the prophesy of LeBron's legend.

And LeBron is no passive victim of expectations in all this. We shouldn't blame him for being overrated, but we can blame him for overrating himself. LeBron also wants to enhance his legacy with a memorable injury-game. Which is why he turns every pain into a show. Every bruise causes an awkward limp. Every fall elicits a scream and the cradling of possibly injured limbs. Every cramp requires a grimace between plays. And each corpuscle of blood shed becomes a gusher.

And he wants to get hurt. He dove into the photographers on purpose Thursday night. He launched himself into them. Why? So he could get up gingerly. Or stay on the floor in a fetal position, yelling and screaming in agony.

The reaction of the media was so dramatic after he was cut Thursday night, I'm surprised that the Cavaliers didn't initiate an emergency blood drive in the arena, and give LeBron rapid transfusions during TV timeouts.

LeBron got hurt, which is exactly what he wanted. It's what the media wanted too. They got a raging LeBroner as the man lived up to the legend. As CBS Sport's Ananth Pandian marveled "That LeBron James is one tough guy."

I don't know who was happier about LeBron getting hurt, himself or the sports media who want facts to justify the legend they built around him.

Photo Credit: Ken Blaze, USA Today Sports

It Doesn't Matter if Tom Brady Is a "Top-5 QB" or Not

An ESPN article has outraged the sports fans of Boston and New England. Sam Monson wrote a piece that argued that Tom Brady was no longer a "top-5 QB." I contend that as far as the Patriots are concerned, it doesn't matter if Brady is or isn't.

I'm not going to waste much time dwelling on Monson's assertions. If forced at gunpoint to give my top 5 NFL QBs, I'd include Brady. You'd have to force me at gunpoint because I think such discussions, and the side-arguments they spawn, are essentially meaningless. Being in the top 5 is such a relative, changeable thing. One year the 6th best QB could be great, another year the 3rd best could just be good. What does it matter?

It's all relative, yet the discussion is phrased in absolute terms. Instead of Brady "being in the top 5," pundits and some fans say Brady "is a top-5." That's an important difference in words. Being "in" a top 5 suggests that there's a list that QBs enter, fall out of, rise, and fall. The list is permanent, the player's spot on the list is not. Saying someone "is" a top 5 suggests that it's the player's greatness that is permanent, that he has some sort of top-fiveness quality to him, and somehow this attribute can only be possessed by 5 players at any given time. Once this greatness transfers to another player, the player drops out of the top 5.

So instead of acknowledging that these are rankings and are relative, they become attributes, described the same way that someone might describe height or weight. "He's a tall QB," "He's a big QB," "He's a top-5 QB." Saying a player "is a top-5 QB" sounds much more absolute than saying "he's in the top 5."

It pisses me off.

The biggest reason I hate these discussions is because football is so team-oriented that it doesn't matter if your QB is in the top 5 or not. Monson didn't include Russell Wilson in his top 5, but did include Philip Rivers. Who won the last Super Bowl? Was Joe Flacco "a top-5 QB" in 2012? Eli Manning wasn't a top 5 candidate until the Giants won in '07 (against Brady, who was a top 1 QB that season), then Eli was top 5 material, then he wasn't, then the Giants won again so he was, now he's not.

A "top-5 QB" is not a necessary ingredient to victory. Monson's top 5 (Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger) have a total of 5 Super Bowl rings, none in the last 3 years. Non-top-5 QBs have won the last 3 Super Bowls, and wear a total of 7 rings.

Six of the last 11 Super Bowl winning QBs aren't among Monson's top 5. Eight of the last 14 Conference champions have been helmed by QBs outside his top 5. In the past three seasons, only 1 of Monson's top 5 has made the Super Bowl, and he lost.

Have I made my point?

Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

1. Monson's list isn't very good

2. More importantly, teams win Super Bowls, not top 5 quarterbacks

Tom Brady may or may not be in the top 5 in 2014. Time will tell. Ultimately, it doesn't mean that much in determining the fate of the 2014 Patriots. And here's why:

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it will be because they did not need Brady to be amazing.

I'll phrase the argument to address Monson: If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, it will be because they did not need Brady to be a top-5 QB.

In other words, for the Pats to win this year, they have to win as a team. Brady could be the best QB in the League, but if the Pats NEED him to be "a top-5 QB," they'll lose in the end, no matter how good Brady is. By the same token, if the Patriots DON'T need Brady to be "a top-5 QB" to be successful, then they have a strong chance at winning it all. And that's the only way they'll have a chance, if they don't need him to be amazing all the time.

Therefore, Brady's position in the rankings of quarterbacks is irrelevant. He's part of a team. An important part, but still just one part. If that team needs him to be spectacular, the team will fail. If the team doesn't need him to be spectacular, the team has a good chance to succeed.

Where Brady falls in QB rankings is meaningless for the Patriots, and should be meaningless for their fans. What matters is that the Patriots don't rely solely on him to win. Brady being in or out of the NFL's top 5 QBs has little bearing on the success or failure of the 2014 Patriots.

SportsCenter/DunkCenter Continues to Suck

On Wednesday I ranted about how I hate SportsCenter because it almost completely ignores hockey, and focuses on basketball dunks. Not basketball, and all the great plays made in a basketball game, just the dunks. Unfortunately SportsCenter was more of the same today.

Last night the Boston Bruins played the St. Louis Blues. It was the 2nd best team in the East against the 3rd best in the West. The NHL equivalent of the Heat playing the Trailblazers. There were no highlights on SportsCenter from the Bruins/Blues game. Even though it was a 3-2 overtime game, even though the B's came back from 2 goals down, even though Jarome Iginla almost scored a game-winner in OT but Alex Petrangelo made a great play to stop him from scoring on an open net. Nope, not worthy of a 30 second SportsCenter clip. Not even 15 seconds.

SportsCenter did show highlights from the Capitals/Jets game. Alexander Ovechkin scored his 40th goal of the season. But John Kerry, who dropped the puck before the game, was as equal a part of the brief highlight as Ovi was.

There were also highlights from the Canucks/Canadiens game. Because Max Pacioretty scored a hat-trick despite missing on two penalty shots. But the highlights were in low definition! How does that happen? How can that happen?

And then there were the Top Plays. Ten plays, 9 basketball highlights, 7 dunks, 1 golf shot. There were 2 really good basketball plays. Someone in a college game hit ten 3-pointers. And an LSU player made a very strong block against a Georgia player trying to dunk on him. I found the blocked dunk to be quite cathartic, and it temporarily soothing my anti-dunking rage.

If you're going to focus almost exclusively on basketball highlights, show more than just dunks. Show the big 3-pointers, the blocks, the strong drives, the good defense, the quick moves, the steals. There are a lot of great plays made in basketball games. It's more than just dunks. Showing just the dunks is like a highlight reel of jokes, with just the punchlines.

And don't forget to show the flops, the double flops, and dives. Especially if they lead to foul calls that determine the game. Isn't that an important highlight to show?

I Hate SportsCenter a.k.a. DunkCenter This Time of Year

I get it. NBA and NCAA basketball is significantly more popular nationwide than the NHL. And ESPN broadcasts pro and college hoops. So I'm not expecting hockey to get top billing, or second billing or third billing on SportsCenter. It would be nice to see hockey get some billing. It is, after all, a sport. And ESPN calls their flagship show SportsCenter. Sadly I don't expect SportsCenter to cover the NHL. Nevertheless I'm still disappointed that they essentially don't. And angry.

Before I rant on, no I didn't get any sleep last night, so I'm extra irritable and paranoid. And no I don't have anything better to do today than wait for snow to fall so I can clear it out of my driveway. So I watched SportsCenter and took notes.

On Tuesday night there were 9 NHL games. SportsCenter Wednesday morning showed highlights from 2 of them. There were 4 NBA games, SportsCenter showed highlights from all 4. There were 7 NCAA basketball games involving Top 25 teams, SportsCenter showed clips from 6. That's 10 basketball highlights compared to 2 hockey. And 9 of those basketball highlights came before any NHL coverage.

And what pisses me off is how repetitive and uninteresting basketball highlights are. Why are they in such relatively high demand? It baffles me. It's 80% dunks. And most of those dunks are uncontested. Dunks on the break. SportsCenter even flashed back to a high school dunking contest before showing highlights of a college game. Just to show that a certain player could dunk in high school, and his dunking continued as a Florida Gator, and with only marginally more defensive obstacles in his way.

That's what you hoop heads want to see? Tall men with long arms dropping a ball into an unguarded hole? That not only passes for entertainment, you'd rather see 10 sets of dunk heavy basketball highlights with only 2 hockey highlights? I feel kind of bad for you if you're mesmerized so easily.

There were 18 minutes of basketball highlights compared to 3 minutes of hockey highlights.

There were highlights of Duke beating Wake Forest by 20. What a nail-biter.

There was a story about the ranking of college players for the NBA Draft. That's right around the corner, isn't it? Only a few days away on June 26th.

Hockey wasn't even mentioned until Jeremy Schaap's piece on potential terrorism at the Winter Olympics, 30 minutes into the broadcast. Because who else would turn to for analysis of geopolitical friction and global terrorism?

Then there were 2 NHL games highlighted. The Rangers playing the Avalanche, and the Senators playing the Blues.

No mention of Roberto Luongo playing his first game in Boston since the 2011 Cup Finals. That wasn't nearly as important as UConn's women's basketball team crushing SMU. That brief highlight also came before hockey.

Then we get to the Top Plays, a reel of dunk highlights featuring the best dunks you've already seen in the show. Because dunks are so amazing, unique, unexpected, difficult, fun, funny, exciting, exhilarating, and most of all special. Slam dunks are special.

Eight of the Top Plays were from basketball games. One was from hockey, one from soccer. Five of the basketball plays were dunks. Most of those were uncontested, players driving through an open lane or on a break.

So of all the plays in 9 NHL games Tuesday night, only one (a save by Capitals goalie Michael Neuvirth) was on the same level as uncontested dunkage. Really? All the goals, the saves, the hits, only one of them was on par with tall men who cannot be touched on their way to the net, jumping in the air with a ball, and putting it in a hole.

That's evidently what you want, America. You can have it. Just like you can have crappy musicians that sing off key, politicians who lie to your face as you vote for them, you can watch all the amazing dunks you want.

Grading ESPN's MegaCast

ESPN got bold Monday night with their coverage of the BCS Championship Game. They went all out. They truly went balls to the wall. And some of their efforts worked, some did not.

The Title Talk on ESPN 2 was atrocious. Imagine watching people watch something. And not like a reaction YouTube video, watching people react to Two Girls and a Cup. This was watching 2-4 astute college football fans watching a game with 3-4 moronic people. "Is the guy who snaps the ball called the snapper?" That was a direct quote from ESPN 2's Title Talk.

Jemele Hill was also there. Remember she was the one who compared rooting for the Boston Celtics to rooting for the Nazis in World War II. She's not too smart, and is habitually prone to hyperbole, which means she's one of ESPN's favorite personalities. Why be smart and appreciated when you can be moronic and controversial? Which one results in more internet hits? That's all that matters for ESPN.

I will grade ESPN's Title Talk program with a D-. It's not a complete fail because it did what it tried to do, and have an inane conversation of ignorance. And I think NESN should learn from it and make a ThinkPink simulcast for Red Sox and Bruins playoff games in the future. The Pink Hats would love it. The rest of the real sports fans will watch the actual game.

The BCS Film Room merits an A-. It was great. Truly great. There were some small problems, like keeping pace with the live feed. However, the coaches and experts were interesting, informative, and honest. As a BC fan I gained new appreciation for Steve Addazio. And it was also cool to listen to thoughts from Texas A&aM's Kevin Sumlin, and Pitt's Paul Chryst.

The only critiques I have for the Film Room coverage is that Matt Millen monopolized conversation. Just let other people talk, man. There was so much college football wisdom and knowledge in that room among 6 people, but Millen spoke more than a third of the words. And the show was somewhat disjointed. Which is typical for the first run of shows. But by and large it was great.

The Sounds of the BCS coverage on ESPN Classic was what it was. The TV broadcast without TV broadcasters. I'll give that a B.

The BCS Command Center on ESPN Goal Line gets an Incomplete because I don't get that channel.

All the features on ESPN3 get a B- because they delivered what they promised and nothing more. And for some reason Comcast Xfinity and my computer and phone have a major disagreement. I'll call it a philosophical misunderstanding. Watching ESPN3 feeds was fun while they lasted.

I thought it worked on some levels. Title Talk wasn't for me. Not at all, not one bit. But the BCS Film Room was fan-fucking-tastic. I mean it was awesome to behold how smart football coaches are, how they can read a play with just a few frames of footage, how they viewed the game in such an holistic way. They were schooling, non-stop.

The only drawback was that Matt Millen seemed to think his contract gave him the rights to 40% of the words, even though three respected college football coaches were in the room, along with two other college football analysts. Maybe in 2015 Matt Millen will get his own channel on MegaCast, and he can dominate his own conversations.

I'd love to see stuff like the Film Room for future big games, maybe for the Super Bowl, the Final Four, the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals, and so on.

2013 BBS Awards: Varitek Award for Most Overrated Athlete

This goes to the athlete whose actual production paled in comparison to the hype that surrounded him. It's named after Jason Varitek because in his later years, people gave him way too much credit for what he actually did on the field. This award shouldn't be looked on as a criticism of its recipient, but of the fans and media who praised him too much.

This year I can only think of one athlete who deserves this award. It's more because of the attention he got outweighing his contributions. It's Tim Tebow.

Tebow was the biggest story of the Patriots off-season up until Aaron Hernandez was arrested for murder. And as a former college teammate, Tebow managed to become part of that story too. He was the biggest draw at training camp. Tebow jerseys and shirts were everywhere.

He then struggled in the pre-season games. "Struggled" is actually a kind way to put it. He was awful. And nobody, except the most blindly faithful Tebowists out there, was shocked when the Patriots cut him.

And now he has a job at ESPN. And good for him. He seems like a nice guy. Especially in a sport that features murderers, rapists, wife-beaters, dog fighters, gangsters, and douchebags of all kinds.

And working at ESPN is perfect for him. He's already loved and adored by many people there. He's already smarter (and has a more accurate assessment of himself) than pundits like Skip Bayless.

NBC Sports Aggressively Expanding

NBC Sports bid $250 million for the rights to broadcast the English Premier League for 3 years. They outbid Fox and ESPN, who currently hold the broadcasting rights for English soccer in America (source). It's the latest in a series of aggressive acquisitions by NBC Sports.

A few weeks ago they outbid Fox for the rights to broadcast Formula 1 racing in America. Formula 1 has niche appeal in the States, but is a global powerhouse. Forbes listed F1 driver Fernando Alonso as the 19th highest paid athlete in the world, with $32 million in earnings. His team, Ferrari, was ranked the 15th most valuable sports team in the world, between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Chicago Bears.

Both European soccer and Formula 1 have loyal but relatively small fanbases in the US. However there is significant room for growth. NBC is well situated to encourage and exploit that growth. Like ESPN, they have multiple channels at their disposal. They can reach a broad audience with their flagship NBC network, and a smaller but more concentrated viewership on NBC Sports. At night and on weekends, business-focused CNBC is essentially an idle channel, which NBC has already used to air Olympic and NHL coverage.

NBC's expansion isn't limited to small sports looking to grow, it includes established sports that already attract large audiences. The Big East recently decided to field open bids for the TV rights to its football games, instead of re-signing with ESPN. NBC Sports will compete with ESPN, as well as Fox, for those rights. NBC Sports currently hold the rights to Notre Dame football (this has been a good year for that contract), as well as the lower level Ivy League and CAA. They sub-license rights to Mountain West games from CBS Sports. If NBC snares the Big East, it would be a significant incursion into major college football.

NBC already possesses an arsenal of sports assets: Sunday Night Football, every third Super Bowl, the Olympics, horse racing's Triple Crown, and the NHL (which is unfortunately not taking advantage of NBC's growth campaign). They also broadcast second-tier sports such as Major League Soccer, the Golf Channel, IndyCar racing, and rugby.

And since 2011, when Comcast bought a majority share in NBC Universal, NBC Sports has controlled Comcast's network of regional sports channels. That includes 11 channels across the country focused on regional sports, including Comcast SportsNet Houston, which launched just a few weeks ago.

In the age of onDemand and DVRs, broadcasters and cable companies crave programming which people watch live, and therefore cannot skip commercials. Sports provide such content. NBC is determined to conquer as much territory in the lucrative sports landscape as it can. It might not challenge ESPN, at least not for a few years, but it does have an eye on CBS, and seems dead-set on hunting Fox.

Curt Schilling Blocked Me on Twitter

Yesterday I wrote an angry rant about hating Curt Schilling. I sent a Tweet to Mr. Schilling's account (@Gehrig38).

@gehrig38 I Still Hate You, Curt bloodsox.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-stil…
— BostonBloodSox (@BostonBloodSox) October 17, 2012

And shortly thereafter, Mr. Schilling's account had blocked mine.

Granted, I could have been more clever with that headline. Maybe make him think I'd written something defending him. Maybe I could have been vague and said "A blog post about 38Studios." That might have been a sounder strategy because I don't think he even read what I sent him.

Then again, I didn't want to be deceptive or evasive. That would have been Schillingesque of me.

Regardless, it's just another example of Curt "Bob and Weave" Schilling avoiding tough questions. He made a career of having a big mouth and calling other athletes out. Then he screws up and can't address what he did, or why he did it. Except to WEEI's Dennis and Callahan who each had to ice their jaws after so much ball-washing.

I know this is old news, but that's what pisses me off. We obsessively rage at something for 72 hours, then move on to something else. And in this case, the rage should have lasted until Schilling showed genuine contrition instead of blaming the Rhode Island Governor.

We forgot about how much of a hypocritical jerk Schilling was. He hid, we moved on, and he's escaped the humiliation and humbling that his actions deserved. Curt Schilling is a coward.

I Still Hate You, Curt Schilling

Hearing Curt Schilling's voice on ESPN sent me into a cataclysmic rage. This fraud, this failure, still gets paid to watch baseball games and then talk about it. And in this society, which rages at something for 72 hours then forgets about it, we're fine with that.

Remember #Kony? How big was that on social media? Who cares about that now?

Of course, Curt Schilling is not a murderous dictator in Africa. But he's still an asshole. He still ran a business with government money from the state of Rhode Island, and it failed. He was a fake Conservative who enjoyed speaking the rhetoric but didn't want to practice it. He makes actual Conservatives like me look bad with his stupidity.

I don't want to talk politics, I want to talk Schilling.

Here's another thing that pisses me off about Curt. The only media he opened up to were Dennis & Callahan. I wonder what Schilling would say if a hitter only faced softball pitchers, and never faced anyone who would give them a tough pitch. Schilling didn't have the balls to face someone from the Globe, or (God forbid) a Rhode Island news outlet.

He was able to take money from Rhode Island, just not able to take questions from them.

I loved Curt Schilling as a baseball player, but as a man, I have no respect for him whatsoever. He's a fake, a hypocrite, a remorseless vulture who doesn't feel bad for the money that Rhode Island citizens have to pay to fund his stupid video game company.

Possible All-Star Break Alternatives

I think it's a bit ridiculous how in depth ESPN covered and analyzed the trivial filler-material known as the Homerun Derby. Then again, what else should they talk about? There are no other sports to discuss this week.

I think it's time for the other sports to step up and schedule something for the All-Star Break. The sports fans in this country are eager to be entertained. Give them some options.

Maybe something as simple as making the All-Star Break the first day of free agent movement for the NBA and NHL. At least then there'd be something to talk about apart from batting practice dingers.

Or maybe the NBA and NHL can allow teams to scrimmage each other during this one week.

Better yet, call this week "Pick-Up Game Week." Allow the players to form their own teams and play a game or two in some small gyms and rinks around the US and Canada. Do it for charity. People would love to see unique combinations of players. And as mentioned, there is nothing else on.

The sports fan deserves an option this week. Give us some big free agent signings, or some scrimmages between hastily assembled teams. Let's see KG and Paul Pierce build separate teams and play each other in Boston. Let's see a team of French Canadian hockey players play an Ontarian team in Ottawa. How about an all-star team of European basketball barnstorms across the country?

The Homerun Derby is for morons. Big men hold a club, are thrown easily hit balls that are wound much tighter than regulation balls, and they hit them 450 feet while Chris Berman flirts with a heart attack. It's impressive for a few moments, then repetitive and tedious.

The other sports should take advantage of the opportunity and give us some mid-season entertainment. The players would like it. The media would like it. The broadcasters would like it. The fans would love it.

Entertain us, please.

Goodbye Syracuse

Not since the 2004 Democratic National Convention have I been happier to see a rabble of out-of-towners depart the City of Boston. I am so happy that Syracuse and their fans have been sent packing, both out of Boston and out of the NCAA Tournament.

I haven't liked Syracuse for nearly a decade now. I went to school in Central NY State, embedded among annoying SU fans that thought their 22-10 basketball team was great, and their 4-8 football team would compete for a BCS bowl. And the same Syracuse fans who cursed Boston College for jumping to the ACC now gloat about joining the ACC, and leaving the likes of Georgetown and UConn to fend for themselves.

What's worse is that these delusional orange-bleeding morons wind up working for ESPN. They used to just overrate The Orange in their coverage of the team. Now they cover up the skeletons in Syracuse's closet.

So yes, I'm thrilled that Boston is rid of the Syracuse program and it's clingers-on. I'm giddy that SU is out of the tournament. Jim Boeheim runs a dirty program that doesn't report drug violations. What a great guy to be a mentor to young men as they prepare to enter the real world. And in his spare time, he insults victims of sexual abuse. Yet he remains uncriticized and untouched by the Cuse grads that run ESPN and the rest of the sports media.

Goodbye, Cuse.

ESPN: Entertainment and Syracuse Protecting Network

ESPN has a voracious appetite for big stories. But they're allergic when Syracuse basketball is on the menu. Cuse runs a dirty program. The #2 team in the country has been failing to punish (or even notify) players that have tested positive for illegal drugs. The timeline of the infractions includes SU’s 2003 NCAA title run. Seems like an interesting story. I wonder why ESPN barely covered it.

Marv Albert. Bob Costas. Sean McDonough. Jayson Stark. Mike Tirico. Syracuse University produces sports media personalities like the 1980's Miami Hurricanes produced quarterbacks. Actually, it's like Miami with QBs, Auburn with RBs, Penn State with LBs, and USC with WRs all combined. That's how abundant Syracuse grads are in sports media. If you want to get to Bristol, CT, the road starts in Syracuse, NY.

I went to college 56 miles south of Syracuse. That entire region of New York state revolves around SU basketball. In Central NY, Jim Boeheim is Lord of the Realm and Syracuse BBall is more like a religion than a sports team. And why not? There’s nothing else there to divert attention and affection from SU BBall. The AAA Syracuse Sky Chiefs are the next biggest team in the area.

Syracuse's biggest fans might be the future sportscasters, reporters, editors, directors, and writers that matriculate at SU's Newhouse School of Public Communications. It makes sense. Young men and women who passionately love sports (so much so that they want a career watching and discussing sporting events), congregate in the middle of New York and the one team (and only team) they can all root for is Syracuse basketball.

It's the only story to cover, the only game to talk about, the only team to love. Even when struggling, SU BBall set attendance records for NIT games. Their fanbase is rabidly devoted to that team.

These intensely dedicated student fans don't leave their passion behind when they graduate, take off their orange t-shirts, put on a suit and tie, grab a microphone, and cover sports for ESPN. There may be no cheering in the press box, but if cut, these people will bleed orange.

Normally, the prospect of a big news story makes a reporter salivate like a dog in a butcher‘s shop. Reporters relentlessly dig for information, writers type stories all night, producers and executives dedicate hours of TV time to coverage. Perfect example: Penn State sexual abuse scandal. That story was covered so heavily and closely that the story about the story became a massive story in and of itself.

But when Syracuse assistant Bernie Fine was accused of something similar, there were no banner headlines. There were no live broadcasts from Onondoga County. It was a side story, almost a footnote to the Penn State scandal.

When Boeheim accused the accusers of lying and seeking only money, the outcry was minimal. Boeheim's insensitive remarks weren't plastered across ESPN.com. They were buried. To Boeheim's credit, he did apologize.

ESPN used their shovels to unearth and excavate the Penn State sex scandal. They then used the same shovels to bury the Syracuse sex scandal. ESPN originally buried the story in 2002 when it failed to disclose the accusations, despite having this audio tape in its possession:

One of Bernie Fine's accusers gave this audio tape to ESPN. ESPN reported nothing. Did they investigate the story? Probably. Did they investigate with the same relentless drive that they investigated Sandusky and Penn State? I doubt it.

I can imagine a group of ESPN staffers receiving this information and reacting much the same way Boeheim did in 2011: disbelief. An angry reluctance to believe that it might be possible. These reporters didn't want to find any corroborating evidence to besmirch their beloved basketball program. In 2002, Syracuse was on it's way to their first NCAA Championship. Why try to dig up dirt during such a happy time?

Can you imagine a Syracuse fan busting their ass to confirm a story that would distract his/her favorite team during a championship run? Just because the fan works for ESPN doesn’t mean they left their bias behind in the Carrier Dome.

The same thing has happened again. The Syracuse drug scandal story isn't a secret. It's not being ignored. But it's not exploding across ESPN either. When other college sport scandals break, ESPN doesn't have a rooting interest. They just see a potential story, and they cover it. Relentlessly. They cold-bloodedly dig dirt and expose it to the light. As they should.

But with Syracuse, the rules change.

Watch ESPN and see how much they'll talk about bounty payments in the NFL. Peyton Manning leaving the Colts was a blessing for the SU fans that work for ESPN. Something substantial to further bury the SU drug scandal.

When they did talk about this scandal, the coverage was dry, free of flare, free of sensationalism. Look how bland this is:

There isn't even a picture or a stock video of Syracuse playing. Just a big "S" in the corner of the screen and John Anderson reciting a lengthy, grey monologue.

Go to the college basketball page on ESPN.com and if you can actually find a link to a story about Syracuse and drugs, you get a prize. There is a story about Syracuse being invited to the 2013 Maui Invitational. Because apparently that's hard-hitting, late-breaking news.

This isn't a backroom conspiracy. There's no executive order, no secret agreement to keep this story from growing. ESPN isn’t trying to cover it up, but they don’t seem to be trying to expose it either.

ESPN reports other scandals with ruthlessness. And that's how media should report the news. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have uncovered the Watergate scandal without occasionally acting like jerks to confirm vital leads. But Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t have been so motivated to reveal the truth had they gone to school with Richard Nixon. Similarly, ESPN has no motivation to smear Syracuse basketball, or taint Jim Boeheim’s accomplishments. In that sense, Bristol, CT is very much like State College, PA. It’s a community of fans that will blindly defend their program and their heroic coach.

Racial Linsensitivity

The English language is a fun and funny thing. There are so many words and phrases that have multiple meanings. Homonyms, homophones, double entendre, et cetera. But ESPN crossed the line with their racist headline.

People should be fired. If it's an "honest mistake," then the writer of the headline has demonstrated a fundamental failure to grasp the English language. If you don't know that this word is a racial slur for Asians, then you shouldn't be in the writing profession.

The word "chink" is only used for two reasons. The first is as part of the expression "chink in the armor," which is rarely used. The second, and much more prominent usage of the word is as a derogatory slur. This cannot be excused as an accident or a mistake. This was intentional.

This person at ESPN gets paid for their proficiency with words. They get paid to fill the site with words. And if they don't know this basic racial slur then they must not be very proficient with words. In which case, they shouldn't be in the Word Business.

The alternative is that the writer did know what they were saying. Which is worse. Someone who knows that what they were writing had serious racial overtones. Did they think it was clever? Did they think it was cute to use such a vile term?

The writer should be fired for either their failure to grasp basic English, or their willingness to use racial slurs. Moreover, the editors should also get the boot for allowing such a headline to appear on the site. And even the lowly web designers who write the codes for the site should be scrutinized. How come nobody at ESPN said "hold on a minute?"

I had intended to write a post about people overreacting to MSG's fortune cookie graphic and how it wasn't racist because fortune cookies are something that's positively associated with Asian-Americans. Sort of like spaghetti being associated with Italian-Americans. I don't think it's racist for Asian-American food to be associated with an Asian-American basketball player.

That graphic was a relatively innocent thing. Utterly innocuous. But ESPN's headline is not innocent. At the very best, it's an example of extreme ignorance of the English language, which is inexcusable for a professional writer. And more likely, it's some jerk who thought they were being clever as they incorporated a racial slur into their headline. In either case, it's wrong, and people need to be fired over it.

Change for the BCS?

There may be change coming to college football's postseason. At the very least, it will be discussed by the 11 Division I-A conference heads along with Notre Dame's AD. There will be mafia style meetings like when the heads of crime families from across the country meet. There will be discussions on what's best for college football's future. There will be stubbornness, there might be compromise, and the Big East might get whacked.

The SEC wants a playoff. Ironic considering how much they've thrived in current BCS format.

The ACC also wants a playoff.

The Big Ten doesn't. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney is adamant that there be no playoff. He also believes that the world is flat and that the earth is the center of the Universe.

The Pac-12 is a wild card, and could be the best chance for compromise. They could be open to a playoff. So long as the Pac-12/Big Ten/Rose Bowl threesome remains intact. At least they're willing to talk.

The Big XII might want a playoff after seeing Oklahoma State lose 1 game and go to the Fiesta Bowl.

The Big East just wants to survive.

As a demonstration of how messy this discussion is, nobody involved even uses the word "playoff" because it's too inflammatory. "Plus-one" is the term to describe a 4 team playoff. Which makes no sense because there'd be 2 rounds, 3 games, and 4 teams.

Call me cynical, but I don't think there will be any major change from these meetings. Maybe the BCS will only sanction the national title game, instead of the title game and 4 BCS bowls. Maybe the notion of automatic qualification will go out the window, which might stop the musical chairs we've seen in college football.

But there are too many uncompromising people, too many various deal-breaking demands for everyone to be satisfied. And without consensus, there will be no big changes.

Until Jim Delaney dies or gets fired, there won't be any significantly positive change to college football's postseason.

Or maybe, if the BCS does separate itself from the bowls, it might grow as an independent entity. It might eventually build its own playoff system. Just like the NIT. Only with no NCAA tournament to compete with. Think of how popular the NIT would be if it were the only postseason tournament and featured all the best teams. ESPN would pay billions to broadcast a football version of that. And where the TV money goes, the teams will play.

That might make the Orange Bowl less profitable, but I really don't care.