jackhererra’s profile

I've noticed that while this is one of the more bright sports blogs out there, the discourse tends to go down the toilet when it comes to race. Once again, an African-American accuses of a sports franchise or league of racism. Once again, "yeah, there's still racism". Once again, "I don't think so in this case". I agree that the Sheff is quite the live wire. (Wake me up when Jeter tries to play Nat X, Gary.) And I wish he could articulate his comments better than he does -- especially if he's going to go off so much. At the same time, I'm wondering what he did at age 22 (his oldest in Milwaukee) has to do with his comments now. While I understand MGDADDYO's take in terms of what you're able to give up (France sounds nice after watching "Sicko"), there's also something to be said for not being treated like a piece of shit, especially if others aren't. (If that's what GS is saying.) Could go on and on with this, but another time.

posted at 01:04 PM on July 16

On cable, is anyone showing old videos of the classics of Borg, Connors, McEnroe?(Followed by Lendl and Wildander.) Overall, bry66, I guess it depends on what we mean with lack of competition. There's a lack of competition (outside of Roland Garros) when you consider that Federer generally makes the rest of the tour into mincemeat. That is not the same as a lack of quality on the tour, which I hope bry66 isn't saying. Yes, it's easy to wish for other players to raise their game to Federer's level -- a challenge only answered by Nadal -- but that's a tough request.

posted at 07:24 PM on July 10

I guess JaMarcus also has the right (a) to bust a cap in the ass of the stalker; or (b) filing a restraining order on Mr. Burning Bed Ass Cop. (I guess I'd choose B -- wouldn't want anyone to think I carry firearms.) Howard, I understand what you're saying in terms of some of the checking. I've gotten several phone calls from the feds over the last decade, asking me about a roommate I spent all of nine months rooming with. And I understand how many companies do the Big Brother thing on computers. But there's a difference between a computer that the company owns and engaging in 24-hour surveillance on someone who isn't even employed by these teams. For anyone invoking Pac-Man or Chris Henry as an argument for what happened to JaMarcus Russell, the fact is that it didn't exactly require Stasi to find out that these guys were total asses. Ninety-percent of the time, that tends to be the case. There's stuff in the paper. There's game and practice tape. There's a trip to the cop shop. There are calls to be made, just like the calls I get every few years when my friend is up for another gov't job. Bottom line: College campuses are worlds small enough to uncover and corroborate plenty of unsettling bits and pieces about an athlete who doesn't know how to act right. At that point, the team can draft the guy or not. As I remember, Pac-Man had a rap-ish sheet and was the No. 6 guy taken in the draft. So much for looking out for investments. P.S. -- The NFL security (actually Panthers' security) was more of a hinderance in the Carruth investigation, not a help.

posted at 07:35 PM on May 01

afx, I appreciate your "glass half-full" mindset. Wish I could share it. In any sport, you'd like to see the torch passed along in a legitimate manner. Even when Michael Jordan retired from the Bulls (the second time), you still had Stockton, Malone, Robinson, Shaq, etc. around in the NBA. In this case, you had Armstrong retiring, with the absence of Basso and Ullrich compounding that loss. So while all of the grand tours might be exciting, there would be a "tallest-midget" element to them.

posted at 05:59 PM on May 01

The #1 doesn't always get the winner of the play-in game, that much I know. As to why, it seems to be a mix between minimizing travel time from Dayton for the play-in winner while also giving the best overall team the worst team if possible. So while Pittsburgh, Nashville and Indianapolis were closer locations with No. 1 seeds (in '02, '03 and '05), the play-in winner played a higher No. 1 seed at a location not much further from Dayton. In all of those cases, it was less than an hour flight. Guess the lesson is to be surprised if any of these play-in winners gets sent out west. Florida is seen as the overall No. 1 because they had the weakest No. 2 on the S-Curve.

posted at 03:44 PM on March 13

Still reeling over the notion that Michigan belongs in the tournament. Low RPI, one barely notable win over Michigan State, 6-12 versus the top 100. I've not heard a case beyond, "we're Michigan, we've won 20 games, and these other teams don't belong"? Sorry, but that's not going to cut it. Maybe if your team left Crisler Arena more than three times in the non-conference season, perhaps you might be able to play some of these teams that you feel free disparaging. (I don't know if deeznuts is joking or not, with the naming of automatic bid LBSU as a "crap pick".) When's the last time Michigan has been screwed over with a 20-win season? I'm seeing that the team made it in 1998, the team's last 20-win season before this one. In fact, they got a No. 3 seed and got bounced in the second round. I love it how every fan of a "snubbed" team believes that their team met some sort of criteria, while totally ignoring other criteria. You have the team that got a few nice-looking wins, but that's supposed to outweigh the fact that the team that hides at home during November and December, that it's pretty pathetic overall against the better teams on its schedule, that it's awful against the best teams in its league, or that it has some pretty bad losses on the resume. Or you have the team that has a nice conference record, but does so with the help of unbalanced league schedules wherein "snubbed" teams only play the best teams once.

posted at 08:12 PM on March 12

Yeah, that was pretty nasty. I thought the still photo was worse than the actual video. Here's hoping for him to rebound and resume his career.

posted at 07:18 PM on February 27

Put me in the "Jan underachieved" camp, though it's possible that he was simply very good and not great.

posted at 07:11 PM on February 27

Taking some somewhat obvious factors out of it, the patriotic angle will induce the average U.S. fan to back a guy like Armstrong, Hamilton or Landis than a guy like Barry Bonds. Until Osama starts a baseball team, I think Bonds is shit out of luck. Plus, we've seen Bonds' "character flaws" up close for the last 20 years. In contrast, we know Cad Armstrong for his battle with cancer. Who gets the benefit of the doubt from the average Joe?

posted at 03:41 PM on August 07

I think the Pearl hurts the Pistol's claim on the list, since both played at about the same time, both played a street game and Pearl had the better career between the two.

posted at 01:53 PM on August 03

I'm wondering if the league researched the probability of 1-4 matchups (like DAL-SAS) before going to a six-division format wherein crap teams like Denver could receive top seeds. Perhaps they didn't think of it then because it wasn't much of a problem in the four-division format. The top wild-card team wouldn't get the top overall seed until the conference finals. And over the last 20 years of the 4-division format, only two No. 3 seeds had been more than five games better than the No. 2 seed. I think an easy (and less reactionary) solution to this NBA problem would be to simply do it in special situations. So if a wild-card team was 6-11 games better than a division winner, then they'd push ahead into one of the top three seeds. That would avert an early Dallas-San Antonio matchup, but I don't think Cleveland's one-game superiority over New Jersey merits a switch-up in the seedings in a similar situation.

posted at 08:54 AM on August 03

Maybe that should be the name of this year's tour. "Tour of Underestimation"?

posted at 05:20 PM on July 24

Given that the 2004 team was very aware of the embarrassment of the 2002 team, it's tough to jump to the conclusion that the team simply tuned Brown out. What you had is a lot of young players who had three months to get rid of a lot of holes in their games -- offensively, defensively and on the glass -- their shoe contracts notwithstanding. I'm not sure that talent adds up to the ability to ball in a well-rounded way, which the international and NBA game both demand. I don't think that means eradication of "stars", but if guys like T-Mac and Shaq aren't coming, you have to bring in the old-heads who know all the angles. That's another reason I'm less than thrilled with the exclusion of Iverson. People may think what they want about the guy, but players respect him and his game. And I think he would be willing to alter his game a bit to be on that team.

posted at 05:08 PM on July 24

Thoughts... 1) Unbelieveable tour. Unbelievable performance by Landis. 2) As an American, I find the "this must be killing the French" train of thought to be a bit juvenile. Okay, a lot juvenile. No Frenchman has won the Tour since 1985 -- only five have placed on the PODIUM in that time -- and it's fairly well-known that LeMond should have won '85. Which should give an indication that the Armstrong-hate was purely individual, since the French are used to the situation. 3) In general, the event has a far wider pool of athletes competing than in the past, so it does make sense that France is less of a factor in this race. You can add the Dutch and Belgians to the list. The Spaniards and Italians are still hanging in terms of the Grand Tours. But in general, it's the Germans and the Soviet Bloc who have joined the Americans in turning this sport on its head. 4) If T-Mobile ever pulls its organizational head out of its ass, I like Kloden for '07, regardless of Landis' condition.

posted at 02:18 PM on July 24

It goes without saying that you want guys who want to compete, and you do want to groom younger guys. But the problem in 2004 -- can't speak for 2002 -- was that you had too many young talented guys playing against a lot of savvy players on international teams. I think the attitude was fine in most cases, but you don't have as many operable gears at age 20 as you do at age 28 or 29 -- the average age of the 1992 team -- no matter how talented you are. So I would have liked for them to address that issue, first and foremost, instead of basically blowing up the model. And to fair, the team is going to be pretty old-headed when the 2008 comes around. But for the record, "Dream Teams" don't fail because you have too many stars. Every coach at every level has to make decisions on who plays, who gets the last shot, etc. (You don't have to deal with millionaires in most cases, but you do have to deal with parents, who can be every bit a pain in the ass.) For instance, two of the best HS players in the country attend the same school, yet there's a clear top banana. Eventually, you accept it, or you leave. (Hell, look at the alleged hot dogs on the Miami team who became role players on a world championship team -- Zo, Payton, Walker. And really, that occurs every year.) "Dream Teams" fail when the opponents have a more thorough knowledge of the game, which wasn't a problem when the USA had players with a full command of their craft. USA didn't have it on the last two go-arounds because they picked stars who were ready to play more experience competition. For instance, Pierce at 24 was a crummy pick for 2002, which was the greater disaster. At age 28, he makes sense. I can't even begin to count the number of guys on that 2004 team who had no business being in Athens. I do like the idea of starting early. A college coach? Not so much. But it'll be interesting to watch.

posted at 05:29 PM on July 21