Peyton Manning seems somewhat at peace with his departure from Indianapolis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And never mind what caused this divorce

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

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

Mmmm. More platitudes, please.

Manning made Indianapolis forget that it was a football stepmother.

Manning transformed a horrible franchise into a perennial contender.

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

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

Fuck paying Manning- is Jon Hamm available?

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

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

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

Mostly irrelevant.

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

Completely irrelevant.

Manning never made TMZ's greatest hits.

Almost completely irrelevant.

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

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

Manning had 63 games with at least 300 passing yards.

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

Manning was proud of playing in Indianapolis.

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

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

And now I'm awake again. The fuck?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KABOOM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I doubt it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boise State Loses! But They're Still Awesome!!!

As you might have noticed, the media darling of Boise State football lost in OT last night.

All season, blowhards have been whining about how unfair it would be that BSU wouldn't get the chance to play in the title game, even if they finished undefeated. Rick Reilly went on and on about how bad the BCS, arguing that the "computers TKO Boise State". Well, looks like BSU TKO'd itself.

So just today, Gene Wojecehjogiaski came out with an article titled "Despite Boise's Loss, non-AQ's belong". Now, of course one game doesn't constitute enough evidence to make a judgment about a whole system, but last night's game is a piece of evidence that affirms the points of view of the Gordon Gees of the world and damages the opposing points of view of the Gene Wojs of the world: competition in non-BCS conferences is generally not up to the same standard, and, consequently, teams from those conferences should get lower preference for BCS bowl bids.

Gene's whole article isn't worth a thorough examination, as most of it explains the reasons for Nevada's win. The most interesting stuff comes at the end, when Gene asks Nevada coach Chris Ault if WAC teams can play with the AQ conferences, and he said that "Ohio State wouldn't beat Boise State". It's kind of stupid for journalists to ask these coaches these things, beacuse like what the hell else would they say? But I guess that's their job.

Here's where the article gets bad:

Anyway, this is the win that will keep on giving. It was a hard-fought victory for all those Little Sisters of the Poor programs -- the same sometimes-scruffy non-automatic qualifiers Gee so casually mocked with his comments.

Actually, this game is just the opposite. By proving the BSU was more of the caliber of the Nevadas of the world and less the caliber of the Auburns of the world, this win actually devalues the LSoP programs, since their best just proved to be ... not that great.

For years the non-AQs have been forced to jump through BCS hoops. Now TCU could be bumped up to BCS first class if No. 1 Oregon or No. 2 Auburn falters in its final game.

And things are as they should be.

Make no mistake: TCU is now positioned for a long-shot national title try not because of the BCS "system," but in spite of it. Maybe that's what makes it easier to root for the Horned Frogs and Wolf Packs of the world.

Make no mistake: both Auburn and Oregon have proved themselves clearly more impressive than TCU this season. Each of those teams deserves their spot. The BCS system is working just fine. While it might not be perfect, sportswriters' hand-wringing and fulminating about its errors is far disproportionate to its actual evil.

The Pulpit of the Sportswriter

Gene Wojciechowski recently issued a call for MLB to quit its hypocrisy in re-admitting Mark McGwire to the game while at the same time denying Pete Rose his re-entry. Note that Mr. McGwire was not banned from the game.

I don't know why writers so frequently fulminate on moral issues in the sports world. No doubt that sports is full of moral failures, but the writing about it so often obscures the real issues.

For example, Gene's article attempts to point out a hypocrisy in MLB's policy towards its transgressors. In this case, in his haste to take up Mr. Rose's case, he's ignored the real moral problem: MLB's nebulous and uncertain position regarding the steroid scandal of the last fifteen years or so.

Gene's article is full of the usual problems, including:

radical oversimplifications....

They both compromised the game and they both suffered irreparable harm to their reputations. But somehow Rose's baseball sins are mortal and McGwire's are venial. Doesn't make any sense.

Gene, in this case, has ignored the fact that a lot of other men have been accused, have admitted, or have been proven to have used steroids. Major League baseball has a big problem with all the steroid issues, including current players still under suspicion. Heck, it's only been six months since one of the biggest sluggers in the game was suspended.

No doubt Rose's sins were mortal, and a clear precedent was established for that. This precedent runs from the 1910s, acheived a marked peak in 1919, and through a notable suspension in 1970. McGwire's sins may indeed be mortal - but no precedent has been set, and MLB would have to establish some clear standards for an already-sticky subject.

Gene, it's just not that easy.

...misuse of rhetoric...

To McGwire's credit, at least he admitted the obvious and apologized. Still, how come Rose's gambling admission in 2004 makes no difference to MLB, but McGwire's recent admission of steroid use (nearly six years after his embarrassing congressional appearance) results in a welcome-back hug from the league office?

Well, everyone knew he had done it anyways, and Rose sure waited fourteen years for his own halfhearted admission. But Gene's main question in this paragraph is intended as a rhetorical question-slam... except that it isn't rhetorical. The league didn't have any qualms welcoming him back because... it had never kicked him out.

I bought a copy of My Prison Without Bars at the local H.E.B. grocery store for one dollar last fall. It was an entertaining read, even if the title is a bit dramatic. Still, I was pleased that the story wasn't an overt plea for sympathy.

...abuse of statistics and metaphors...

Not Rose. The all-time hits leader (his career .303 batting average is 40 points higher than McGwire's) is in a permanent holding pattern. Selig sits in MLB's control tower and refuses to let Rose land.

Rose was a good player here, but comparitive batting averages has absolutely nothing to do with this article, or the morality of the situation. Nor does the metaphor of the control tower have much luster; besides the "control" version, I don't see any particular reason to compare Pete Rose to an airplane.

...more radical oversimplifications...

This isn't about the Hall of Fame. The moment Rose made a bet on baseball is the moment he forever forfeited his bronze plaque. McGwire should be held to an identical standard. The moment he began defrauding the game, the fans and the record book with his PED-aided dingers is the moment he became persona non Cooperstown.

The trouble with this situation is - we don't know that moment, and we don't know the moment for the rest of the sluggers of the 1995-2005 era. I completely agree with Gene that such players should be treated differently with regards to involvement with the game and the HOF - but Gene can't write this article as if Mark McGwire is the only player this applies to.

and some illogical foolishness.

Rose made his major league debut in 1963, the same year McGwire was born. McGwire made his major league debut in 1986, the same year Rose played his final game. So they are linked by years, by scandals and by confessions.

This has nothing to do with their respective cases. Their respective cases have notable differences, and the odd coincedence of years doesn't link them any more than if they both publicly announce a love for cannoli or a belief in Shamanism.

No doubt that moral inconsistency exists in baseball's steroid policy, but this article skirts that issue while prattling about another. Gene's not the only one who's noting some hollowness in McGwire's return, but that doesn't have a lot to do with Pete Rose. One sinner coming clean doesn't demand a sermon for the rest of us.

Before I Do This Week's TMQR, Let's Take a Minute to Remember that Gene Wojciechowski is Fucking Atrocious

See, the thing is this- I'm reasonably certain Bill Belichick made the right call in going for that 4th down against the Colts on Sunday night. It was a chance, with a great QB and a great receiving corps, to put the game away by gaining two yards. There are arguments to be made against it, of course, but I think it was the right call. What does Gene think? Mostly, Gene thinks that Gene is very clever and funny. He also thinks this is the most cut-and-dried situation in the history of sports, which I guess is the kind of hyperbolic attitude you have to write with to be considered for a position as a sportswriter at a major media outlet these days. Let's dive straight into the retardery.

With 2 minutes, 8 seconds remaining in the game, with the ball on the Patriots' 28-yard line, and with one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game standing at his side,

Exactly. With an awesome QB and and awesome WR corps by his side... yeah, I already talked about this.

Belichick decided to go for it.

This is like saying "With Albert Pujols by his side, 1 out, and runners on first and second in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, Tony La Russa decided not to bunt and instead to let one of the greatest hitters in recent history swing away." Actually, Tony La Russa is a dumbass so he probably would call for the bunt there. But you get the idea.

Not play it safe and punt. Not make the Colts drive 50, 60, 70 yards for the game-winning touchdown.

Something they had done twice in the quarter already. Both times from 79 yards, actually, and both times in about 2 minutes. Now that's playing it safe!

But go for it in a "Top Gun" "I've got a need for speed" sort of way, even though everybody is staring at their TVs and saying -- no, screaming -- "What is he doing?!"

It's worth mentioning, of course, that if the 4th down attempt had succeeded Wojciechowski's article would have been titled "Gutsy Belichick knows how to push all the right buttons!"

Not me. I knew what Brady was going to do. He was going to drop into the shotgun formation and try to use a hard count to coax the anxious Indianapolis defensive line into a 5-yard penalty.

Because the Patriots had no timeouts at that point. And surely, if the hard count didn't work, taking the delay of game penalty and punting from 5 yards further back would be no big deal.

Fourth down would become a gift first down.

The hard count trick works like 10 times per season across the entire NFL. Thinking the Patriots were going to try it there, in situation where every yard is critical, is ridiculous.

And it did.

Wait, it did?

For the Colts.

OHHHHHHHH, SNAP!!!!!111

You can rationalize the decision any way you want, but Belichick cost New England a crucial victory.

Well, sure, he sort of did. And so did Kevin Faulk. And so did Tom Brady, for throwing to Faulk when Faulk was dangerously close to the first down marker rather than safely past it. And so did NE's defense, for allowing 21 4th quarter points. And so on and so forth. The result doesn't invalidate the decision. If the Belichick had decided to punt, and then the punt had been blocked and returned for the game winning TD, that decision would have cost New England a (questionably crucial) victory too. But who am I kidding with this logic stuff- trying to explain this to Gene is like trying to explain to a small child that they can't eat cookies for every meal.

Two yards isn't six inches. This wasn't a gimme quarterback sneak; it was a pass, meaning lots of things can -- and did -- go wrong. The first wrong thing was going for the first down.

This decision was wrong for several reasons. First, for being wrong. The way the federal government gave stimulus funds to banks earlier this year was irresponsible for several reasons. First, it was irresponsible.

The second wrong thing was Faulk's bobble.

Yeah, like I've said, let's not not throw him under the bus here. Catch the ball, butterfingers.

The third wrong thing was not having any timeouts to challenge the mark of the ball after Melvin Bullitt's tackle.

0% chance that gets overturned if reviewed. 0%. Ugh, it sickens me, but I'm channeling my inner "Oddsmakers" Mike Wilbon right now. ZERO PERCENT, TONY. ZERO PERCENT CHANCE THAT I WILL MAKE ANY REASONABLE OR NON-BOMBASTIC ARGUMENTS ON THE SHOW TODAY.

But where Belichick's logic springs a very large leak is why he chose Brady and fourth-and-2 over the Patriots' defense and first-and-70. That's about how many yards Manning presumably would have had to cover in the final 120 seconds (with one Colts timeout).

Because, you know, the Colts had only gone 79 yards in 1:49 and 2:04 on separate occasions earlier in the quarter. Clearly, the best way to analyze this decision isn't to look at all the specifics of the situation- it's to simply say "Duhhh, 70 yards is a long ways! Question: ANSWERED."

Giving Manning two minutes and one timeout from his own 30 is taking a chance. He's that good. But giving him two minutes with the equivalent of two timeouts from your 29 is football suicide.

Classic "double wrong" situation. Not only is this idiotic because taking one chance to gain 2 yards with the Patriots' offense is probably less of a chance than giving it to Manning on his own 30 with 2 minutes left (expressed mathematically: [odds of making 4th down attempt] + [odds of stopping Colts IF turnover on downs] > [odds of stopping Colts IF punt]), but they didn't give it to the Colts on the NE 29 "with the equivalent of two timeouts." The turnover on downs happened at the 2 minute warning. The Colts weren't able to use it as a timeout.

If Belichick was worried that his defense couldn't stop the Colts from scoring a touchdown from 70 yards out, why would he possibly think it could stop them from scoring one from 29 yards out?

Wow. You are a simpleton. You are a mental midget. You are a fucking stump.

Brain freeze.

Evidently Belichick was enjoying a Slurpee as he made this decision.

I Beat All of You to It. Suck It.

This is a big, fucking, flagrant red flag. If you ever want a recipe for how not to write an article, aspiring sports journalists, this is it. Courtesy of everyone's favorite old guy tryin' to relate to the younguns, Gene Wojciechowski.

Jeter the name that matters
If Yankees' captain ever ended up on positive test list, baseball's done

The Essence of Beauty would never!!!! What an unholy thing to even suggest!

But in all honesty, Gene's right. If Jeter comes up dirty, attendance at Marlins games is going to fucking plummet.

BRONX BOMBSHELL: DEREK JETER SAYS HE USED STEROIDS

Well, what would you do if ESPN interrupted your regularly scheduled programming for that one?

I would laugh, have a beer, call 20 people, say "ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG!!!!! Baseball must be dead now!", and in all honesty, I would probably have to take a week's vacation and do nothing but write on this website. Remember when Eck won the World Series MVP award? Multiply that by 54. It would be an apocalyptic barrage of Wojciechowski-quality writing.

Would it be enough to make you shred your season tickets,

....for a team I root for that has zero players ever linked to steroids.

douse your baseball cards with charcoal fluid

Douse my whatball whats? It's 1991, right?

and delete America's pastime from your Facebook friends list?

I'd log on and do that Gene, except I'm too busy Tweetering while listening to Lady Googoo on my newfangled iPhonical Mobile Music n' SpeakToPeople device. Thanks for keeping with the times!

I am about 60% sure that Gene Wojciechowski thinks it's possible to be friends with "baseball" on Facebook.

If I ever see Jeter's name attached to the hip of performance enhancers, I'm done. I mean it -- I'll never watch another big league game again.

Why not just hold up a gigantic sign that says "I, Gene Wojciechowski, am the worst fan of anything in the history of things and people."

Because if Captain Pinstripes could do the Vitamin S deed, then anybody can.

Huh. You have a point there, Gene. There's no reason to be suspicious of Craig Counsell right now, but boy howdy, if that there Jeter's guilty, we can't trust anyone!

Jeter's name is where I draw the line in the PED sand.

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's repeat ourselves for 8 straight sentences!

He is the absolute last guy I'd ever suspect of juicing.

Really? What about like, Craig Counsell?

It seems so, well, beneath him.

I trust that Gene personally knows Jeter well enough to make this claim. It can't be that he's just salivating over The Essence of Beauty.

He is the one player who I actually think would walk away from the game if he thought he had to cheat to compete.

The only one. Really. You think that of the 750 guys on Major League rosters, that Derek Jeter is the only one capable of achieving that level of "morality".

You are an idiot.

To me, Jeter is the anti-Barry Bonds, the anti-Roger Clemens and the anti-Alex Rodriguez. He understands that if you compromise the game, you compromise yourself.

It's very easy to make stuff up and then publish it!

Bonds, who didn't need to cheat but did anyway, was undone by an ego the size of Alcatraz.

Fair.

Clemens, the pathological liar who tries to intimidate people into believing his gum-wrapper-thin explanations, cheated because he was "The Rocket'' and you're not.

Clemens, the [description of Clemens], cheated because [I don't have anything to say about Roger Clemens, nor do I have any clue why he did it, so I'm just going to type "because he was 'The Rocket' and you're not" and hope that people ignore it and keep reading].

And A-Rod, overpowered by the need to please and justify his historic contract, copped to at least three seasons of PED use -- but only after lying about it for years and only after he was cornered by the truth.

See? Nice and factual. He made you forget all about that awful Clemens line. Sneaky little devil......

Not Jeter. I can see him marrying Mariah Carey before I see him squirming in front of a Congressional hearing with the lawyered-up Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire.

Because he wouldn't be squirming. Imagine him standing in front of Congress, with those calm eyes cutting through the souls of every corrupt politician in the room, saying, "I've never taken steroids." Is there a poor sap in the joint that wouldn't believe him? Of course not. HE'S FUCKING BEAUTIFUL!

Jeter would never put himself in that position. At least, that's what I want to believe.

So at least you admit that this is based purely on your personal conjecture, and not on any real evidence that Jeter is innocent.

Then again, I wanted to believe it with his New York Yankees teammate, A-Rod. More than anything, I wanted to believe in the integrity of Rodriguez's numbers.

You know, that Pujols fellow is being a tad overlooked. It's articles like this that make the man simultaneously the best player in the world and underrated. Why don't you write an article wondering if the best player in baseball is clean?

I'm not a Yankees honk.

A Yankees....what?

In fact, I want to scrape my ears with a steel-haired barbecue grill brush every time I hear play-by-play man John Sterling do that grating, "Thhhhhhhhhhhhe Yankees win!'' thing. But how can you not admire the way Jeter treats his craft? He is the template for baseball professionalism.

What does Derek Jeter do to deserve this label that like, Grady Sizemore does not?

That's why I'd need a year's worth of Dr. Oz therapy sessions if it turns out Jeter did the steroids deed. And I'm not the only one.

You know, the word "hyperbole" is thrown around a lot these days......

Yankees fans would go into permanent mourning if Jeter betrayed them. A-Rod's steroids admission they could handle; he was a free-agent import. Jeter, though, was born and raised by the organization.

Yankees fans would. Padres fans would not. Baseball would survive. I'm getting sick of this.

You think Yankees and you think Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Maris, Berra, Munson, Reggie and Jeter.

And Brosius, and Spencer, and JETER, and Williams, and JETER and Martinez, and, and David Cone, and JETER JETER JETER ZOMG I LOVE JETER HE GIVES ME TEH BIGGEST JOYGASMS EVERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

Can you imagine if Albert Pujols, the man who eventually replaced McGwire at first base, was a syringe enthusiast? City officials would have to set up a baseball suicide prevention clinic at Busch Stadium. Cards fans adore Pujols.

There it is.

A Jeter steroids admission would be the deal-breaker for me. Pujols, too. If those guys went pharmaceutical, I couldn't go to a big league game if Bud Selig paid me.

Again....you don't seem to like baseball.

Ken Griffey Jr.? If The Kid did it, I'm gone.

Meh.

Chipper Jones? The same.

Are people even aware of Chipper Jones these days? Have they ever been?

Mariano Rivera? I'd think about it.

No calm eyes. That's why he isn't a dealbreaker.

Joe Mauer? The sound of weeping followed by my baseball resignation letter.

Mauer, though an absolutely great player, has barely had an impact on anything in his career (thinking mostly along the lines of what the Twins have done since he's been around...). Why Mauer?

Jim Thome? Baseball's nicest guy wouldn't do that to us, would he?

Don't you fucking dare say that around me.

Tim Lincecum? Sadness if The Freak was a fake.

You're just getting bored and creating verbal puns.

Trevor Hoffman? Hells bells, please not Hoffman.

See?

David Wright? See Mauer response.

That's just your way of saying "David Wright is awesome and uninteresting."

So far the game has survived the depressing revelations. It sort of coagulates, scabs up and then heals as best as it can.

There is an absolute dogfight going on for the NL Wild Card right now, but sure, I guess we should be dwelling on...::sigh::...this.

But there could come a time when the PED damage reaches a tipping point. For me, the magic number is 2.

Wait for it. I mean it. Just wait for it.

Jeter's jersey number.

BOOM!

Honestly Jeter, if you read this article and are guilty, please come clean just to spite this guy.

Gene Wojciechowski is Braindead

Thirty-three games this week (hey, the opening round counts), so 33 reasons we love the NCAA tournament:

Thirty three pieces of evidence that Gene is a mental (and comedic) midget.

1. The leader of the free world hates the BCS but loves the playoff format of March Madness. President Barack Obama even filled out a bracket for us. (I'll give him this much: He's no homer. The prez didn't pick Washington, D.C.'s, very own American University of the Patriot League over Villanova.)

He has no connection to American. He never went there. Why is Patriot italicized? I'm hoping it isn't a Patriot Act reference. I'll assume it's not.

Watch -- he'll win the White House office pool but have to give all the cash to AIG.

TOPICAL!

2. Verne Lundquist. I could listen to Lundquist do play-by-play of U.S. tax code. He understands the game is the star, not he.

3. Screamin' Gus Johnson. The exception to the rule.

So what Gene is probably saying is that he's friends with both these guys, so the fact that their styles are so different is OK. He loves them both. Because he knows them.

4. Redemption. Banished eight long years by the NCAA for money-whipping a recruit's family, former California Bears coach Todd Bozeman is back on the sideline and back in the Big Dance. Weird how it works out.

Ain't sports beautiful? How Reillyesque. Looks like Rick is rubbing off on his ESPN colleagues. Although this is not really an uplifting story. Bozeman was definitely a grade A asshole. In addition to paying at least one player, he was also the subject of a sexual harassment complaint (filed by a student) shortly before leaving Cal.

5. Kobe and KG have won NBA championships, but they'll never know what it was like to do what MJ did -- play in (and win) an NCAA tournament.

Some current NBA stars never played in the NCAA tournament, but others from the past did. Therefore Gene is excited to watch the 2009 tournament. QED.

6. The 10 members of the selection committee probably will never admit it, but here's guessing they're sweating bullets over No. 12 seed Arizona's first-round game against No. 5 seed Utah. The committee invited the Wildcats but stiffed Saint Mary's, which on Tuesday beat Washington State by 11 points in the NIT -- the same Washington State team that beat Arizona by 16 points on Feb. 26.

Gene is very excited to see if Arizona doesn't embarrass itself. Now THAT'S a reason to watch. Also, if team A beats team B, and team B beats team C, then team C should not be in the tournament over team A. Gene will imply this to you as sublty as possible.

Patrick Mills, who would have looked good on CBS air, scored 27 points for the Gaels.

He's a sexy man! Arizona doesn't have any such players, certainly not future NBA first rounders like Jordan Hill or Chase Budinger.

8. Bruce Pearl's orange sport coat. (Because it's the Big Dance, it'd be nice to see Pearl unveil an orange tux.)

9. Rick Pitino's salute-to-the-Bee Gees white suit.

Although idiotic, at least these are literally reasons why someone might be excited about the tournament. As opposed to, say, the fact that Michael Jordan once played in one.

10. Sleeper picks.

11. Boss buttons.

You are a lazy journalist.

12. Planting yourself and your school flag in a Vegas sports book Thursday through Sunday of opening week -- just to hear the groans.

And suddenly, without warning, we've entered a Dane Cook routine.

13. Bill Raftery. "And the kissssss."

No one likes Raftery. No one.

14. The satisfying feeling that comes with knowing that Kentucky is an NCAA tournament no-show, but the coach it all but forced out -- Minnesota's Tubby Smith -- is in.

Apparently Gene and I have something in common- we both enjoy schadenfreude. Still, I'm not sure you can cite the fact that a team didn't qualify for the tournament at all as a reason you're excited to watch it. Unless that team is Duke. Take that, team everyone loves to hate! I hate you too!

15. The microscopic odds of a No. 16 seed's beating a No. 1 seed. It has never happened, which means the newest 16s -- Morehead State, Chattanooga, Radford and East Tennessee State -- are on the clock.

Lazy. So- something crazy could happen. This logic can be used to watch pretty much anything. Hey, you never know when Larry King might keel over and die while doing a broadcast. I think that's reason enough to watch his drivel.

16. Picking Kansas to advance, yet rooting for first-time Big Dance entry North Dakota State to upset the Rock Chalks.

Personally, I picked Gonzaga to get to the sweet 16, but I am FUCKING PUMPED to watch Akron take them on tonight. Totally stoked. (Insert similar logic for any of the other 20-some possible big upsets in the first round.)

17. Figuring out the over/under on how many times UNC coach Roy Williams will cry.

I bet Simmons and House could nail that line before Vegas releases it.

18. Always persuade your ball and chain to fill out a bracket. Mention how many "units" are at stake. She'll become instantly interested in the tournament (even though she doesn't know Robert Morris from Van Morrison) and, in a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, actually encourage you to watch more sports on TV.

So Gene is excited to watch the tournament because he might get permission from his "ball and chain" to do so. Oh, the thrills of marriage!

19. Pep bands, good … male cheerleaders, bad.

Because Gene is a dude, and he likes chicks! Why would he watch dudes... when he could be watching chicks? Or bands? He's totally not gay. And likes bands.

20. Picking the annual 12 versus 5 upset.

But only if his ball and chain lets him!

21. Sixty-four games of hoops heaven.

22. Crammed into a combined 11 days.

Easily the laziest, stupidest items on the list yet. Hey, you know why I enjoy watching the World Series? Between four and seven games of baseball euphoria.

23. There's the 'Cuse, as in Syracuse. But during the Madness, there's the ex-cuse, as in, "What kind of excuse am I going to use to call in sick so I can watch the tournament?"

First the ball and chain, now the boss. It never ends! Also, some words sound like other words.

Some time-honored favorites: grandmother died …

You're a bad person.

stomach virus … caught my neck in the car door.

I LEFT MY DESIRE TO DO WORK IN MY OTHER PANTS! MY DOG ATE IT!

24. It helps the economy: Snack foods, pizza and HDTV sales spike.

TOPICAL!

25. The mascot box. See how creative mascots can be in their NCAA-designated areas.

This is a great reason to watch sports- to check out things unrelated to sports.

26. To all those BCS honks who insist fans can't make travel arrangements on short notice, I'd like to remind them of the Sunday regional final, followed by the national semifinal the next Saturday. Always seems as though plenty of fans make the trip and fill up those huge indoor stadiums.

Much as I support the idea, 1) short travel arrangements for a football playoff would take place during the holidays as opposed to March and 2) putting 17,000 people in a basketball arena for the regional final is a whole lot different than putting 85,000 people in a football stadium. (His point about the national semifinals and capacity crowds is legitimate. I guess.)

27. It's a bargain: At the regional in Minneapolis, your $180 ticket is good for six games.

So as long as you have the money and time and means to travel to one of the sites, you're in great shape! Gene does (as long as his "old lady" lets him)- so why shouldn't you?

28. Here's what the tournament does to you: Before it's over, there will be a team you've never watched, coached by a guy you've never heard of, played by kids you'll never see in the NBA -- yet you'll be on your knees in front of your plasma rooting … begging like an alumnus for it to pull off the upset.

Alright, you know what, I will non-sarcastically give him this. I went pretty apeshit for George Mason back in 2006, as well as Davidson last year. So I guess this list's retardery only extends to 32 items rather than 33.

29. It's the tournament of guards.

But if it were the tournament of power forwards, no way would Gene be watching. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

30. Other than maybe when the NFL plays its two conference championships on the same day, there isn't a better sports day than the first Thursday and Friday of the tournament. Check that: Semifinal Saturday is the best day in sports.

I can't make up my mind! Help! Or what if it's the first weekend, when the sweet 16 gets finalized? Also, note the logic here: Gene is excited to watch this tournament because it has some pretty great days. And those great days are probably why he's so excited to watch it. Etc., etc.

31. Legends are made. You think Bryce Drew will ever have to buy a meal in the greater Valparaiso, Ind., area again after his buzzer-beater gave 13th-seeded Valpo the improbable win against No. 4 seed Ole Miss in 1998?

Yeah. I bet he does. BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS BAD, REMEMBER? No, but seriously, I really don't think hitting one first round buzzer beater for an unremarkable school is a ticket for free food for life in that school's town.

Christian Laettner probably won't pay for as much as a parking meter when he visits Durham.

Slightly more plausible given that Duke is actually a basketball school and that happened late in the tournament. Still probably not happening.

32. Disturbing body painting.

What?

33. A tradition like no other? It isn't the Masters,

Turned that one around on you, didn't he? You'll think twice before coming up with your next slogan, Masters people. "I'm lovin' it?" Fuck you, McDonalds. The only thing I'm lovin' right now is the NCAA basketball tournament.

it's net cutting and "One Shining Moment." Gets me every time.

This sums up Gene's interest in the tournament: he really likes the montage they play at the end.

Please, ESPN, I'm asking nicely. Tell this asshole to hit the bricks. Use the money you save on his salary to get Kenny Mayne (or someone else who has a sense of humor) to do more stuff.

Wow, This Is Incredibly Poorly Written

What is? This is. Gene Wojciechowski likes Brett Favre, you see. He likes Favre at lot. And you can have his admission that Favre was not as good as Aaron Rodgers last season as soon as you pry it from his cold, dead, idiotic hands.

The e-mails began arriving shortly after the New York Jets' season ended.

"Get ready to print your retraction," read one.

To be fair, this guy could have been talking about almost anything Gene has written in the last couple of years.

"I'll bet you don't remember me," began another. "I'm the guy who said, 'I think you're wrong about Brett Favre. I think he's washed up."'

And "[Aaron] Rodgers is, right now, much, much better than Favre -- not a little, a whole lot better."

That might be a slight exaggeration, but the guy is right. And, poorly conceptualized/contradictory response from Gene.... GO!

Turns out some Green Bay Packers fans have long memories, except when it comes to the Packers' 6-10 record this season.

The argument at hand is whether Rodgers is better than Favre. Nice point.

They also have blind spots; we all do. I have one for Favre and will never apologize for it. I also have one for the Packers. It's my favorite pro team, favorite stadium, favorite helmet logo, favorite game-day experience. I grew up on that franchise.

Making you especially suceptible to offering completely unobjective opinions about them and Favre. But please, go on.

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

"You have facts which can be used to lead to logical conclusions. But I have ultra-subjective opinions, which by definition cannot be proven wrong. Therefore I win. QED."

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Just look at David Eckstein, for Christ's sakes.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Because we all know that there is a direct correlation between how good a QB is and whether or not the other 52 guys on his team help him get to the playoffs. You know why Drew Brees is staying home this January? Because he sucks, that's why.

I wrote before the season's start that Packers management botched the entire Favre situation. I stand by that.

I feel like there might be two sides to that story.

Favre changed his mind about retirement,

Thanks, let me expand on that. FAVRE WAS THE WHINEST, LAMEST, MOST ATROCIOUSLY PATHETIC ASSHOLE HE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE SITUATION. Anyone objective with a basic level of knowledge about the situation should acknowledge this. Regardless of anything the Packers did or didn't do, Favre was inexcusably wishy-washy. What sadsack fuckstick. I'm literally embarrassed for him, with his tear-filled press conferences and straight-faced lies. Fucking gag me. Worst story in pro sports in the past five years. Bar none.

but the Packers just as clumsily changed their minds about Favre.

Favre made his own bed. He can lie in it until he dies for all I care. Trying to act like the Packers are more than 5% at fault for his departure would be dumb.

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

More "my ultra-subjective opinions are wrong" stuff. You can't disprove this, can you?

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

Such a graceful concession.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Thesis of this article: the Packers were not better with Rodgers than they could have been with Favre. And that's how good Favre is. Gene will admit that he didn't play well as often as Rodgers did, but he still would have been better for the Packers.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road. You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

You know who gave up those 51 points to the Saints? Rodgers. He was the only person playing defense for the Packers that night. It's all his fault. Meanwhile, as the Jets beat the Titans 34-13, it was Favre who single-handedly held the Titans to 45 yards rushing and 281 total yards. Yay Brett! Go #4! He's just having fun out there! Doesn't even know what the score is! Brett being Brett!

Turns out Favre played hurt, too. No surprise there. But a now-diagnosed torn biceps tendon affected his arm strength down the stretch.

Operative word here: "too." As in, every player in the league, including Rodgers (as Gene already admitted), played hurt too.

His critics say he looked old. Duh -- he's 39. But isn't there the possibility that he simply looked injured? Big difference.

This has nothing to do with anything, least of all your terrible argument. Irrelevant difference.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's.

What Gene is trying to say is that the mistake people make is trying to think about this situation logically, rather than simply assuming Brett is the best QB ever who can do no wrong and could never possibly be worse than the pathetic likes of Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers had more passing yards, more touchdowns, fewer interceptions, more rushing yards and a higher passer rating -- so he's clearly the better quarterback.

How dare people try to think like that. What is that called, brain using? Idea having? Maybe not "clearly," but I will say he's probably the better QB based on all that. Especially when the difference in rating is substantial- 93.8 to 81.0.

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

All this is somewhat relevant, but not nearly as relevant as personal statistics when you're debating which QB would be better for a given team. Because, you know, the fact that the Jets had a better defense and (much) better running game than the Packers might have something to do with the teams' records.

Do divisions count for anything?

Sure. Again, not as much as defenses or running games. But something.

Favre's Jets played in an AFC East in which two teams finished with 11 wins and the worst team finished with seven. Compare that to the mediocre NFC North, home of only one double-digit-win team (the Minnesota Vikings) and the 0-16 Detroit Lions. One-third of the Packers' victories came against the losingest team in the history of the NFL.

And again, you can't disprove Gene's implication that Rodgers would have folded like a cheap tent in the AFC East. Can't. So there.

Do circumstances count for anything?

Nope, not when they're of the person in question's own making! You're about to make a bunch of apologies for Favre based on his not having a full training camp with the Jets, aren't you? Guess whose fault that is? Hint: he spent last fall just having fun playing QB for the Jets.

Favre didn't have the benefit of a full training camp or a full playbook. Everything was a work in progress with the Jets -- and stayed that way.

Because Favre is a crybaby fence-sitting dickhead.

(And yes, I know Chad Pennington made a similar transition from the Jets to the Miami Dolphins and thrived. It was a remarkable season for him. Pennington deserves much of the credit, but it helped that he was in Jets/Dolphins camp for the entire time. And it's clear now that Tony Sparano and his Miami staff were more nimble and better prepared for the transition than the Jets' Eric Mangini and his staff.)

So what you're saying is your argument has an immediate and devastating counterargument. Thanks for providing it.

Rodgers had the pressure of replacing Favre,

I'm sure he barely noticed.

but he also had an entire offseason and training camp to prepare for it.

Here comes the dumbest sentence in the whole article- are you ready?

And there can't be any debate that the Packers' skill players, especially at wide receiver, were better than the Jets'.

I must've just read a Rick Reilly column, because I am laughing insincerely. What are you, Gene, fucking retarded? Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Dustin Keller, Jericho Cotchery, and Laveranues Coles are clearly worse than Ryan Grant, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, and Donald Driver? I appreciate the effort, but you are wrong. Simplifying things, Cotchery/Coles are certainly in the neighborhood of Jennings/Driver. Saying there "can't be any debate" about this is moronic.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup.

But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts.

Therefore, Favre would have been better for the Packers. You can't disprove it!

In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

All 8 of those losses, such as Week 16 against Chicago when Mason Crosby's game winning 35 yard field goal attempt (that Rodgers basically set up singlehandedly) was blocked, were entirely Rodgers' fault.

The simple truth is we'll never know if the Packers would have been better or worse with Favre this season.

Remember when you wrote this?

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

Way to stand by it.

That's because it was never an option.

It was an option, technically. The reason it didn't happen, as I said earlier, is probably about 97% Favre's fault and 3% Green Bay's fault. Hey Gene: it's not a team's duty to bend to the whims of and endlessly put up with the bullshit of washed up old players like Favre. He could have stayed if he wanted to. Instead, he decided to put on a media circus and re-change his mind at the last second. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, fucko.

All we know for sure is that the inconsistent and underachieving Packers moved on.

As did the inconsistent and underachieving (actually, probably not underachieving, he's just not that good anymore) Favre.

Did they move forward? I don't know -- is 6-10 moving forward after playing in an NFC Championship Game with Favre a season earlier?

And clearly Favre's presence would have changed things. Are you ready? Say it with me: YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT! Also, next year when Rodgers is no longer a first year starter and Brett is off hunting possums, feel free to the foward movingness of Green Bay's move.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

Thank you for admitting the real reason you hold your stance. Poor Brett! He got a raw deal! Boo-motherfucking-hoo.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

Just like it's dumb that you seem to be (in a way) reveling in the Packers' struggles this year.

So no retractions. Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough.

That's nothing like your point at the beginning of this article. Nothing at all. You have completely abandoned everything you were originally saying. You know, I'm completely sure that John Kerry would have been a better president than George W. Bush for the past four years. 100% positive. No doubt in my mind.

Well, I mean, there's no way we can tell.

And neither were/would have been very good.

But I'm sticking to my guns! Sort of!

Gene Wojciechowski is a tiny brained dipshit.

All About Maddux

Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN's (The Worldwide Leader in Sports's) renowned senior writer, just wrote an homage to Greg Maddux in a very clever, hilarious and consistently relevant manner.

(Note: much in the style of the awesome article I'm about to tell you about, take the opposite of everything in italics as the truth.)

Everything Maddux wasn't

The rest of the article can just be assumed after this line. But I mean, yeah, he wrote it anyway.

Am I going to miss Greg Maddux? Are you kidding? I couldn't stand the guy.

WTF?!?!??!! You COULDN'T STAND Greg Maddux? Are you out of your mind? What kind of writer are you? Maddux is like a canary-red leaf wafting in the breeze on a cool spring day while the hummingbirds are singing and the wind is composing a soothing melody as it soars through the tree branches, overlooking the greenest field you've ever seen with the most refreshingly blue lake, complete with sparkling sunshine! He's fucking media poetry! There's no way anyone in the world could hate Gre-.......

Oh.

I see what you're doing here Gene.

You had me going there.

You're a clever boy, aren't you? Saying the opposite of what's actually true like you did. Your keyboard just radiates the brilliance of the gods, doesn't it?

First of all, he wasn't greedy enough. He signed for only $75,000 after the Chicago Cubs selected him with the 31st pick of the 1984 amateur draft. No messy holdouts. No nothing. And get this: He actually reported to Pikeville of the Appalachian League that season. For $175 a week. Loser.

Anyone want to read a lot more paragraphs in the exact same style as this one? Great!

He wasn't brash enough. The guy made his major league starting debut near the end of the 1986 season. The Cubs stunk, but the 20-year-old Maddux threw a complete-game victory. Hadn't been done by a Cub that young since 1966. He also got two hits and ended a seven-game Cubs losing streak. Instead of popping off about his big day, Maddux told reporters, "I'm kind of awestruck now."

Melts my heart. Go on.....

He wasn't intimidating enough. When the dinky Maddux first reported from Triple-A Iowa, the Cubs didn't know whether he was a player or there for Father-Son Day. "He's a good competitor and he's fun to watch," minor league coach Jim Colborn told the Chicago Tribune, "especially knowing he's just finished his paper route a couple of years ago."

Not being intimidating isn't exactly a positive quality for pitchers.....

He wasn't quotable enough. You can list the number of great Maddux on-the-record quotes on the back of a Sweet'N Low packet. He was polite. He was pleasant. But mostly he shrugged his shoulders a lot.

...Sweet'N Low packet? Are you trying to get tomatoes thrown at you?

Like, because there's zeroes on the back of a Sweet'N Low packet, and Maddux has delivered zero great quotes?

Because you can fit a lot of digits on the back of one of those.

Chad Johnson has about 913204234203 great quotes. I could list that number on the back of a Sweet'N Low packet.

He wasn't controversial enough. Would it have killed him to get caught carrying, say, a semi-automatic weapon, just once? Some sort of drug charge would have been nice. And is it asking too much to maybe oversee a money-laundering ring? But, no, not Maddux.

Top 10 problems facing baseball today.

10) Someone is paying Jason Marquis money.
9) Kevin Mench isn't going to play in America next year.
8) Brian Sabean has a job.
7) Too many people think "leadoff hitter" is an actual position.
6) ZOMG THE YANKEES DIDN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!
5) Ryan Howard doesn't get 1/100th of the credit he deserves.
4) The Red Sox make too many assholes happy.
3) The economy
2) PEDs
1) Too many players overseeing money laundering rings.

I can't remember what the point of all that was.

He wasn't narcissistic enough. Even when he was winning four Cy Young Awards in a row or walking into the clubhouse the day after his 300th career victory, you never saw Maddux with a posse, entourage or security detail. Wait! There were those times
when he brought his two kids to the ballpark.

Haha get it! That's his entourage! His kids! He's a family man....he's...he's the everyman, and he wears Wrangler-brand jeans!

Oh. My. God.

Greg Maddux is Brett Favre.

He wasn't ill-prepared enough. In 1996, just before Maddux and the Atlanta Braves faced the New York Yankees in the World Series, pitching coach Leo Mazzone met with his starters and relievers and read them the detailed scouting reports. Maddux raised his hand after Mazzone read the report on Yankees slugger Bernie Williams.

"He wasn't ill-prepared enough."

See how stupid you had to make that sound just to fit a compliment to Maddux's pre-game prep into this article?

"That report is not correct," Maddux said. "I've been watching film of Williams for two weeks, and that report is not correct."

"Did everybody hear that?" Mazzone said.

The Braves pitchers nodded.

"Well, then the hell with this report," Mazzone said. "We go with what Mad Dog says."

Williams hit .167 in the Series.

While leading the Yankees in RBI.

(Hey, if he can use a stat that doesn't tell the whole story, so can I!)

He wasn't serious enough. Jimmy Farrell, who was the longtime umpires room attendant at Wrigley Field, told me about the time he asked a young Maddux to wiggle his ear if he reached base on a hit. The Cubs went on the road, so Farrell and his wife, Eleanor, watched the game at home that night. Sure enough, Maddux got a hit.

"He's not gonna do it, Jimmy," Eleanor said.

"You watch," Farrell said.

Maddux stood at first base. And then wiggled his ear.

"We just about fell off the couch laughing," Farrell told me.

Please, please watch Nick Swisher play just one inning of baseball, then tell me you are still amused by this.

He wasn't aloof enough. You'd think a guy with more wins than any living player (355) would keep to himself. But when I saw him this past March at spring training with the San Diego Padres, Maddux was doing his usual thing: working the clubhouse, cracking wise with vets and rookies, recruiting players for one of his golf pools. Same sort of thing happened when I saw him near the end of the season. He was a Los Angeles Dodger by then, but he was sitting in the dugout trading jokes with teammate Derek Lowe.

Brett. Favre.

Here's the rest. Read it, and be sick of it. I sure am. I couldn't even make it through the entire damn article.

He wasn't one-dimensional enough. After a while you really got tired of watching him earn Gold Gloves (18 of them -- nobody has more), lay down perfect sacrifice bunts, or even steal bases. The nerve.

He didn't listen well enough. Colborn said back in 1986: "He's not a strikeout pitcher, and he probably won't ever win 25 or 30 games in the big leagues. But he should have a good big-league career." Maddux, who just had to make Colborn look bad, finished his career ranked 10th all-time in strikeouts.

He wasn't buff enough. Didn't he get the memo about steroids? Sammy Sosa had nose hairs with more muscle tone than Maddux. Maddux had a bit of a paunch. I'm not sure he could bench press a fungo bat.

He wasn't flashy enough. After Maddux won No. 300, reporters asked how he'd celebrate. "I don't know," he said. "I'll do something." What, take the family to Pizza Hut?

He wasn't into legacies enough. He once said he actually valued pitching 200-plus innings per season more than the wins. And if you asked him about the Hall of Fame, you usually wouldn't get much on the subject. But his former teammate Glendon Rusch once told me, "In my opinion, he's a first-ballot, 100-percent-of-the-votes Hall of Famer."

He wasn't unprofessional enough. Maddux probably could have squeezed another season and paycheck out of that 42-year-old right arm of his. Others would have taken the money. But not Mr. Integrity.

Nope. Won't miss him at all.

Until spring training 2009.

BOOM! That's the fantastic line at the end of the article that lets the reader know...."Hey, I was just joking about all that stuff before! I really think Greg Maddux is a great dude, and I have 37 posters of him hanging in my room!"

ESPN Senior Writer.

My name is baseball, and I'm an alcoholic. Because admission is the first step to recovery.

Hi. I'm new here. I'm Andrew. Consider me Windows Vista to Larry's XP. I used to work with Larry at a law firm before he quit and moved away. Later, I was Larry's roommate after he wised up and moved back to D.C.

I'm now in law school in Arizona and have been graciously brought onto the blog.

Now that we've got that out of the way, Gene Wojciechowski brngs us this piece today on the "troubling" issue of champagne celebrations in baseball.

Commissioner Bud Selig can talk all he wants about the "phenomenal success" of the 2008 season, but make no mistake, Major League Baseball faces a crisis that threatens the very core of the game.

The high propensity of shattered maple bats that will someday impale someone? Prospects running over two people, and then fleeing the scene? Games played on the West Coast ending too late for Peter King’s preference? I bet I got it.

That's right, I'm talking about champagne celebrations.

Definitely. That. Wait, what?

Enough is enough. Someone needs to explain to the Tampa Bay Rays, even the Boston Red Sox, who should know better, that you pop the cork only when they hand you the really big trophy with all the pennants on it.

The Rays? Really? You’re going to pick on a group of guys celebrating that their team is doing something they’ve never done before?

Instead, big leaguers insist on dousing themselves for simply reaching the playoffs. Don't they realize that nearly 25 percent of the teams make it to the postseason? So it's not like you climbed K2 on your knees.

Not that it’s important, seeing how as it only furthers his stupid point, but eight teams make the playoffs. Thirty teams play baseball in the Major Leagues. I’ve consulted my abacus to determine that eight in thirty is 26.7%. Well, I guess that really what this does is furthers the possibility that Gene Wojciechowski never took a math class.

The Rays are the worst. They went all New Year's Eve when they clinched a playoff spot, when they finished atop the AL East (and a reported 200 bottles of the bubbly), when they beat the Chicago White Sox in the ALDS and when Evan Longoria completed a USA Today crossword puzzle. You can get drunk from second-hand bubbly in the Rays' clubhouse.

Clinch a playoff spot, never been done by the Rays before.
Clinch an AL East title, never been done by the Rays before.
Win the ALDS and move on to the ALCS, never been done before by the Rays.

I know -- the Rays had the worst record in the majors in 2007 and the third best in 2008. Until this season they'd never won more than 70 games. So you can't tell the Rays to act like they've been there before, because they haven't.

You just said the Rays were the worst. Seriously. Go back two paragraphs. You said “The Rays are the worst.” It’s cool that you’re consistently bad, it’s your shtick. But, it’s not cool that you’re consistently inconsistent.

But big leaguers keep wasting valuable champagne on non-championship moments. Equally disturbing is the sight of ballplayers spraying, sigh, lite beer. What's next, wine spritzers?

The Dodgers wasted more money this year on Andruw Jones and Juan Pierre than baseball players will waste on champagne celebrations, collectively, from 2008 to 3174. If you’re alive then, you are free to complain.

And if you're going to do the champagne showers, at least man up enough to skip the protective eyewear. I've been in those clubhouses lately. It's embarrassing. Players are wearing swim goggles, even ski goggles. Before long they'll be wearing wet suits or deep-sea copper diving helmets.

David Ortiz can play with an injured left wrist, but he's afraid of a little champagne spray? Big Papi is a big wussie. Champagne is supposed to sting the eyes. That's the charm of it.

And whose idea was it to erect these elaborate plastic curtains in front of the lockers? Nuh, uh. If a sportswriter has to get his clothes soaked while trolling for quotes during the postgame celebration, the ballplayers' civvies should be available for dousing.

You were just complaining about players being pansy and not wanting to get champagne in their eyes. Now you’re indirectly complaining about getting “soaked” yourself because Coco Crisp’s iPod is protected.

The madness must stop. Bud, are you listening?

No. At least not to you.

Gene Wojciefaf;ejlfawefak;lfsdf'pawefawski

(I never get sick of "man, old Gene needs a new last name" jokes).

Anyway, he shifted to baseball mode. Which means I'm shifting into shit all over his face mode.

Playoff success all that matters to Angels

Now that's just fucking brilliant.

Josh Byrnes: "I don't care what the hell else happens. I just want the Diamondbacks to win the division and make a quick first round exit."

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- So here are the Los Angeles Angels, who pretty much clinched the American League West on Opening Day, who are so good opposing coaches tell closer Francisco Rodriguez, "We don't really like to play you guys," who might have the best owner in baseball and whose clubhouse might be the dullest thing this side of "Asparagus: The Documentary."

Wow. That is the worst-composed sentence in the history of the English language. 4 derivations of the word "who". Is that supposed to be clever or something? Let's check this one out piece by piece.

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- So here are the Los Angeles Angels, who pretty much clinched the American League West on Opening Day,

And had a worse run differential than the A's when the A's sold off their team...

who are so good opposing coaches tell closer Francisco Rodriguez, "We don't really like to play you guys,"

Attention everyone! If there's anyone out there that knows something about superlatives, please give ol' Gene here a lesson. Please? This was painful to read.

who might have the best owner in baseball

Probably.

and whose clubhouse might be the dullest thing this side of "Asparagus: The Documentary."

Larry, your Gene Wojciechowski = Michael Scott comparison is reallllly holding water.

They're in the HOV lane for 90-plus victories and a fourth division title in the past five years. And if you can find a weakness in their everyday lineup, the Rally Monkey will wax and buff your car.

OK, I'll give it my best shot.....I'm going to have to squint reallllly hard though.

How about this one? Every team in fucking Major League Baseball except the Braves has a left fielder who hits better than Garret Anderson. This is not a joke. If you rank every team's left fielder by EqA. Garret Anderson is almost dead last. He's worse than fucking Willie Harris. Does this count as a weakness? I think it does!

Good thing too. My car needs both of those things very badly.

Here's the problem: The Angels have a habit of acing the compulsories but falling off the balance beam during the postseason program.

I can think of 1532 easier ways to write that sentence. And only one worse. This is it.

"Here's the problematic nature of the situation: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (formerly just the Anaheim Angels, and formerly the California Angels) have a compulsive tendency to obliterate the opposition in the primary seasonal region of the baseball calendar but stumble off of a 30-story building in Parsippany, New Jersey during the schedule of baseball events that occur in the future with respect to the said primary seasonal region."

Angels outfielder Torii Hunter sits in front of his locker Thursday afternoon, a freshly poured cup of coffee at his feet, and listens patiently as I detail the playoff exits.

Why is this conversation between these two men even occurring?

Hunter is the guy who left the only franchise he had ever known (nearly 15 years in the Minnesota Twins' organization) for the one franchise he hoped would offer him a free-agent deal this past offseason -- the Angels. So yeah, it's sort of tough to convince Hunter, who literally scouted the Angels before signing a five-year, $90 million contract over the winter, that he might have made a career mistake.

This might be a liiiiiiiiitle off-topic there, Gene.

Most of all, Moreno wants what Hunter wants: a championship. He'll come into the clubhouse, pull up a chair next to Hunter and say, "I need a ring. I want a ring."

Hank Steinbrenner and Jerry Reinsdorf want.....?

Wanting and getting are two different things. The Angels are loaded, although the recent injuries to second baseman Howie Kendrick (placed on the DL Thursday with a strained left hamstring) and shortstop Erick Aybar (hamstring) could alter the postseason equation.

Aybar will be back in like a week. How does that matter?

Then we're talking about a lineup that goes Chone Figgins, Aybar,

Yeah, go ahead and bat that .316 OBP 2nd and pretend that isn't a weakness.

Teixeira, Guerrero, Hunter,

Very good, very good, overrated, still good.

Garret Anderson,

2nd worst starting LF in baseball.

Juan Rivera,

Yeah....no need to mention that he's having an absolutely terrible offensive season or anything.

Or that offense is 100% of the reason a DH plays baseball....

Kendrick

Yeah, so in Gene's world, Kendrick, a very good hitter, bats 8th, while Erick Aybar, a poor hitter, bats 2nd. Great. I totally believe you've seen an Angels game this year, Gene.

and catcher Jeff Mathis.

He's fucking terrible. Every team in Major League Baseball has a catcher who hits better than Jeff Mathis. Even the Angels have very underrated Mike Napoli, who should probably be in this spot in your batting order, but whoops! You just scooted over to MLB.com and noticed that they have Mathis listed first on the depth chart, didn't you? Rookie mistake from an old man, Gene.

Oh, by the way, on the whole, that lineup that you just fed me is not good. At all. Mayyyybe average-ish. Maybe.

All five starters in the pitching rotation have 10 or more wins (Joe Saunders leads with 14).

Those five men are pretty much the team right there.

And Rodriguez has as many saves as the Cleveland Indians and the Seattle Mariners
combined.

Put any of the top 30% of closers in baseball on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in place of K-Rod and they do the same fucking thing. If he wins the Cy Young over Cliff Lee (who is probably the most valuable player in the AL), that's fucking bogus, 58+ saves or not.

Teixeira homered Thursday night, his 28th of the year and eighth since the trade. That sort of power helps fill a pothole in the Angels' lineup.

No, it filled a Kotchhole. Kotchholes are like potholes except their presence doesn't slow down your car, and have a glove inside them that actually prevents future damage to your car.

Scioscia won't discuss the upcoming postseason because, well, I guess he's worried about the Angels blowing a 16-game lead in the division with 29 games left. This is standard-issue Scioscia doctrine.

"Let's talk about it a month from now," says Scioscia, the manager Hunter calls a "brainiac."

But...I thought the Angels only cared about winning in the playoffs?

A month from now will be the day after the end of the regular season. Then the playoffs will start. Hunter can already see it: a champagne fest, ring ceremonies, a Rose Garden presentation at the White House.

"I got that picture in my head," Hunter says. "But we got a long way to go, a long journey. When you get in the playoffs, everything is going to be different. … We could win 100-plus games, and it does not matter. When you get to the postseason, you got to change. You got to be totally different. Any mistake you make, you're going home."

The Angels can tell him all about it.

Great.

So Gene, thanks for writing this article in which you revealed to me the following things.

1) You have no clue that Howie Kendrick is a way better hitter than Erick Aybar
2) You think that listing off players constitutes proof that the Angels have a "loaded lineup"
3) You pretend that Jeff Mathis, Garret Anderson, and Juan Rivera aren't fucking terrible.
4) You don't have a clue that Mike Napoli exists.
5) You quite possibly are the worst composer of sentences the world has ever seen.

Gene Wojciechowski Attempts to Give Up His Day Job; It Immediately Returns to Him

This is why some people are cut out for general management positions, and others are not. Re: Gene's best buddy Brett Favre and the sticky situation he's put his (former?) team into.

The bottom line is this: If you believe in Rodgers as much as you say you do, you trade Favre. And it shouldn't matter where. If NFC North rival Minnesota offers the most comprehensive package, you trade him to Minnesota. If Chicago comes up with the best deal, then off to the Bears he goes. That way you get Favre's name off the roster and draft picks in your pocket. It's a win-win.

Well, except for the fact that you've just made one of your divisional rivals (one that certainly needs help at the QB position) better in 2008, and only received a chance to be better in 2009 or later in return... yeah, I guess that's a win-win. It's not like the NFL is a "win now" league or anything. If the Packers traded Favre to the Bears or Vikings, and then finished second in the division to that trading partner, I'm sure their fans wouldn't think that was too big of a deal. You know what makes everything better? Draft picks! Who cares if we got bounced in the first round of the playoffs, and the Bears are headed for the conference title game with Favre at the helm? We're about to pick up an extra linebacker!

If You Can't Say Something Nice About Someone, Instead Say Something That Doesn't Make Any Sense

Apparently that's one figure of speech ESPN's new resident dumb guy, Rick Reilly, lives by. From his first chat for the WWL:

Martin Bell (NYC): There's no way to put this gently, so I'll be blunt: Are you and Bill Simmons going to get along?

Rick Reilly: (Blah blah blah, says some nice stuff about Bill and insists they're already pals.) And you combine that with one of the purest writers in the country, Gene Wojciechowski, plus all the other writers, and I think this is a helluva staff.

What exactly is a "pure" writer? I hope Rick isn't trying to pass that term off as a compliment. Based on that description, I'm having a hard time not thinking that in this context "purest" must be synonymous with "worst." I've got the documentation to back that up right here. If Gene's a pure writer, Darin Erstad is a pure hitter, the Detroit Lions are a pure franchise, and Washington DC has some of the purest summer weather in the country.

Gene Wojceichowski- Still Full of Drivel

Even when he picks a very defensible angle on a topic he still comes out sounding like a dummy.

This is that special time of the year when the nation's best freshman basketball players appear in front of the TV cameras, say that deep in their hearts they'll always be a Bruin-Wildcat-Trojan-Tiger-blah, blah, blah, and then announce their decision to leave school for "the next level."

I like how that's in quotes. As if it's worth questioning whether or not the NBA is the next level above the NCAA.

That's what UCLA's Kevin Love said: "I'm in the right spot to take my game to the next level."

That's what Kansas State's Michael Beasley said: "It's time for me to take my game to the next level."

That's what Memphis' Derrick Rose sort of said: "… I feel that it is the right time for me to take this step."

That's what Arizona's Jerryd Bayless sort of said: "It's the right time to move on."

That's what they all say: Love, Beasley, Rose, Bayless, USC's O.J. Mayo, Indiana's Eric Gordon, maybe even Beasley's K-State freshman teammate, Bill Walker. The basketball Class of 2011 just became the One and Dones.

Well, ten or so of them, anyways. The other several hundred are remaining in school, well aware that they don't have the necessary talent to compete in the NBA.

First of all, if the NCAA and the NBA really want to improve our lives, they'll outlaw the use of "the next level."

Because the NBA is really "the previous level?" Because it would be better for kids to come up with a different, untrue reason for leaving school? Sure, it's a cliche, but it's one that has enough truth to it to not bug even someone as critical as myself.

While we're at it, no athlete is allowed to say, "It's not about the money," because, dude, we know it's about the money.

Sometimes. In many cases because the athlete in question grew up with almost no money at all, and has a family they want to provide for. This cliche is worthy of being complained about when it's said by a pro athlete choosing $50 million over $30 million, but I don't see any problem when it's a college athlete choosing $15 million over $0 million.

And on a more general note, no airline pilot is allowed to say, "Well, folks, we're just waiting on some paperwork and then we'll be on our way." There is no paperwork. You're stalling. Just go ahead and tell us the flight's been delayed 40 minutes.

OK, Peter King. Thanks for the Annoying Travel Note of the Week. Tell us about how nice the concierge at the Best Western in Saskatoon was while you're at it.

Anyway, technically speaking, the "next level" for these guys is the National Basketball Developmental League. The next level after that is the NBA.

Oh, yeah, I bet you'll be seeing all of those guys you just mentioned suiting up in the D-League come this fall. No doubt about it. I'd be shocked if Gordon cracks an NBA roster before 2010. What, you think Kevin Durant just came straight out of college and started contributing for the Sonics? Poppycock.

The NBA isn't kidding when it says its league is where Amazing Happens. Amazing because the NBA forces the very best high school players to wait until they're 19 (or one year removed from their high school graduation) before they can declare for the NBA draft.

That's not amazing. It's a (kind of) well intentioned rule. If that's amazing, lots of stuff is amazing. I won't even make a list. OK, maybe just one example- cardboard boxes.

That's the only reason why Love spent a season at Westwood, Mayo at L.A., Beasley at Manhattan, Rose at Memphis, Gordon at Bloomington. What a deal. The NBA gets a free minor league system, and the college programs rent a star player for nothing more than the price of room, tuition and books.

Whether it's working out this way or not, the NBA is merely trying to improve the overall talent level in the league and prevent guys like Lenny Cooke and Taj McDavid from ruining their careers before they have a chance to get off the ground. It's not really exploitation from that angle. The NCAA is a different story, but it's not like they made the rule. They've been exploiting athletes for years, but this doesn't do much to change that. It just means they get to exploit some super-talented athletes that otherwise would have never passed through their system.

And, as usual, the player is used as a commodity. He becomes -- what's the term? -- "product."

Agreed, but I don't think the NBA sees them that way. The NCAA does, but still- not their policy, not their fault. The one-and-done rule has nothing to do with them.

USC coach Tim Floyd didn't attend Mayo's farewell news conference. But he did issue a statement thanking Mayo, who wore NBA logo socks in his final game, for "everything O.J. did for all of us the year he was with us."

What Mayo did was increase average attendance at USC's Galen Center from 5,798 a year ago to 9,647. Cha-ching.

I'm sure Floyd sees Mayo as nothing else. Just an ATM in sneakers.

Anyway, Floyd will soon welcome USC signee DeMar DeRozan, "… probably the best NBA prospect on the West Coast and maybe in the country," Floyd told the Los Angeles Times. In other words, another one and done.

Whom Floyd hopes will help him win, but only because Floyd wants more money. His motives are entirely financially motivated and have nothing to do with putting the best team possible on the floor except inasmuch as it helps him get a new contract.

Meanwhile, K-State coach Frank Martin told reporters at Beasley's recent news conference that "Mike has put our brand out there again, let people know Kansas State basketball is back, and he's put us on national television."

Branding. Television exposure. Revitalized K-State hoops. That's super.

Now then, what exactly did Kansas State do for Beasley?

What exactly does any school do for a student athlete who doesn't graduate? What's the difference between being a superstar like Beasley and leaving after a year with no diploma, or being one of the hundreds of role players every year (particularly among the ranks of men's basketball) who finish out their eligibility and have to leave school without earning a diploma? Gene has correctly identified the problem- unfortunately, he's still working on figuring out the fact that the NBA's age policy has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the upside for the players here. Everybody conveniently benefits from this mandatory, one-year sentence except the actual freshmen. K-State gets its precious brand and TV games. USC gets its attendance spike. UCLA gets to the Final Four. Memphis does too, and coach John Calipari gets a new contract.

As for NBA teams, their scouts get a whole year to evaluate the freshman talent against college, not high school players. And here's the best part: The NCAA provides the talent free of charge!

Just like they always have! And yes, the NBA does want to give teams an extra year to evaluate talent. They're protecting their league from unnecessary dilution, and protecting unprepared players from themselves. For a year anyways. It's not much, but it's something.

In return, the players are deprived of the opportunity to go directly from high school to the NBA, even if their games are ready or near-ready.

That's the idea, yes, because many players in the past have proven to be horribly poor judges as to how ready or near-ready their games were. If they're really that good, that draft pick and those dollars will be waiting for them just a short year down the line.

They also risk injury. IU's Gordon and his left wrist can tell you all about it.

Take out an insurance policy. If they're really that good, they can afford to pay it because they'll be making big money 12 months later. This isn't that complicated.

Did I mention how academic integrity takes it in the shorts?

I'm getting very frustrated at this piece, because I know I'm not being funny or saying anything new. But really, Gene? Seriously? A buttsex joke? Academic integrity has been "taking it in the shorts" from the NCAA for decades now.

These freshman stars are only required to attend at least one semester's worth of school. Once the season is finished and they declare for the pros, anything goes. They can phone it in, skip classes or quit altogether.

Of course, the downside to that is something called the Academic Progress Rating. If a program's APR is too low, the NCAA can take away future scholarships. So if, say, Mayo, decides to quit going to classes this spring semester, USC pays the price.

OK, good. So you realize that. While it's an imperfect system, it's still a system. The NCAA has a long ways to go but they're at least trying to look like they're coming close to making an effort.

The entire arrangement needs a bar of soap and a shower. Worse yet, there's talk of the NBA possibly adding another year to the draft ban. Dumb. The NBA ought to get out of the minimum age requirement business.

After all, amazing happened when the Cleveland Cavaliers drafted an 18-year-old King James, and when the Charlotte Hornets drafted a 17-year-old Kobe Bryant.

Sure, let's let the exceptions dictate the rules. Have fun pretending like there aren't dozens of high-school-to-the-NBA failures for every Kobe or LeBron. I'll be here in the real world, realizing that some promising careers might have been saved had the kids been forced to go to school and grow up a little bit before entering the league.

And the NCAA ought to get out of the enabling business. Being at school isn't the same thing as being in school. Rationalize it any way you want, but one and done is mercenary sports, nothing more.

OK Gene, I'm going to stop you right there. This is it, we're done. The NBA's fucking age rule has essentially nothing to do with the massive academic problems faced by the NCAA in revenue sports.

And no, Jermaine O'Neal, it also has nothing to do with racism. Go back to being injured and cashing enormous paychecks.

I'm sure some people out there will disagree with me or want to point out something stupid I said. I'm not around during the day to check comments and defend myself, so feel free to carry out the blogopages equivalent of suckerpunching me or kneeing me in the balls. It's fine, I won't notice. My favorite baseball team has now lost four straight games which they were leading in the 8th inning. The world of sports can't get much worse for me right now. Life is just so damn tough.