Really, Marbury? Really?!

FEUDS: Marbury says Knicks not good for stars

Stephon Marbury | Celtics

Stephon Marbury believes star players should be cautious about signing with the Knicks because of Mike D'Antoni's offensive scheme and the way the organization treats people.

"I wouldn't want to play in that system," Marbury told The Post. "That system can't win championships. You can't win championships if you don't talk about defense. In Boston, the coaches even play defense."- Source: ESPN.com

Interesting.

Marbury, the guy who gave himself the nickname of "Starbury," says Mike D'Antoni's offensive scheme should cause some concern for star players.

You know something? Marbury, the guy who even tatooed a star on the side of his head to further convince you his nickname is and should be "Starbury," is right.

Marbury, the guy who also released a line of shoewear called "Starbury Shoes," is right, because it was in that system people like Shawn Marion, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, and Joe Johnson just disintegrated as players.

It was in that system that players like Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, and Leandro Barbosa had their worst seasons and were almost completely ruined by that awful King D'Antoni.

Wait a minute, that's not right!

Steve Nash, a star, had two straight (and almost a third) MVP seasons in that system. Amare and Joe Johnson became stars under that system. Shawn Marion played a lot better under that system than he has since - just ask Raptor and Heat fans.

Before Diaw got to the Suns, he was a no-name throw-in for the Joe Johnson trade, and he then became a bit of a go-to guy for the Suns, flling in for the injured Amare. Take his stats with Atlanta and compare them with the rest of his career.

Richardson led the league in three-pointers in his first season under D'Antoni and saw a bump and his stats when he was reunited with D'Antoni in NY. Bell and Barbosa have flourished with D'Antoni.

That coach's system, directly and indirectly, has resulted in a lot of players making a lot of cash.

It's not surprising Marbury would say all of this. It is quite clear Mike D'Antoni does not prefer the company of Marbury - and few coaches do (Isiah Thomas, your thoughts?). One of the first things he did in Phoenix was have Marbury shipped to NY. And when D'Antoni went to NY, one of the first things he did was alienate Marbury and pretty much say he has no plans for the PG to play for him.

Maybe this is part of the reason Marbury spoke so poorly of Mike and his system? So is he really a reliable source on the subject? He hasn't really even played under the system - D'Antoni won't let him.

The fact is D'Antoni's system is capable of winning a championship, but so far it hasn't. Time will tell. Considering how close some of those Suns teams got, I wouldn't blame it all on the system.

D'Antoni is lucky a well-or-somewhat-respected player didn't talk trash about him. That could have done some damage.

Some Thoughts on the Simmons-Dunleavy Feud

I know I am a little late on this one, but I have been out of town for the last little bit, so I wanted to comment on something that is nothing short of begging to be commented on:

The coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, Mike Dunleavy, recently appeared on Colin Cowherd's radio show and called ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons a "joker" and a "joke-writer" and said he had no credibility.

Before I say anything else, it is only fair that I mention I am a fan and a reader of Bill Simmons' work. That said, let's take a look at Mike Dunleavy's time with the Clippers:

2003-2004: 28-54
2004-2005: 37-45
2005-2006: 47-35*
2006-2007: 40-42
2007-2008: 23-59
2008-2009: 19-63
* - made playoffs

Call me crazy, but making the playoffs once in the last six years and getting progressively worse each year after doesn't exactly scream "credible" in the coaching profession. How a coach can go 23-59 in his fifth season with the team and keep his job is confusing. But to come back the next year and do worse? Keeping your job after that is just beyond the realm of comprehension.

cred⋅i⋅ble /ˈkrɛdəbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kred-uh-buhl]

–adjective

1.	capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2.	worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

Bill Simmons has many years experience as a sportswriter and many more as a sports observer. He had season tickets to the Clippers last season and a front row seat to the players' relationship with and/or body language toward their coach. He wrote a 700-page book about the history of the NBA. Someone solely talking out of his rear could probably only make it to about two or three hundred pages. He's not even a Clippers fan, so it's not like he is just some unwashed mouthbreather in the cheap seats talking about how the Clippers should trade for LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Tim Duncan. He's a professional and his thoughts on Dunleavy and the Clippers franchise is as valid as anyone else's.

During his radio appearance, Dunleavy also talked about all of the great draft picks he has made over the past few seasons. The next logical question is then why do the Clippers suck? If "all but one" of your draft selections have been great, why was last season your worst one yet?

What I am saying is it's quite clear Dunleavy is in no place to criticize Simmons. Someone who obviously sucks at his job can't say another person sucks at his or her job without one logical piece of evidence to back it up.

Obviously, Bill Simmons had a few comebacks to Dunleavy, and he posted them on his Twitter account. I loved almost all of them, and here they are:

• On Cowherd's show, Dunleavy just called me a "joke writer" & said I had "no credibility." Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle!8:11 AM Jun 25th
• Here's a joke: "What do you call an NBA coach who's 194-298 with the Clips?" A: "Still employed!!!" Now that's a funny joke.8:13 AM Jun 25th
• 1 more joke: Q: "What do you call a coach who decimated 40% of his team's season ticket holders base?" A: "Mike Dunleavy."8:15 AM Jun 25th
• Ok, 1 more: Q: "What do you get when you cross cheap suits, booing, 35-point losses + players mailing it in?" A: The Mike Dunleavy Era.8:19 AM Jun 25th
• Mike Dunleavy saying someone has no credibility is like Michael Richards calling someone a racist.8:35 AM Jun 25th
• I'm so on fire with Dunleavy jokes that Dunleavy just brought in an ice-cold Daniel Ewing off the bench to slow me down.8:38 AM Jun 25th
• And now, a few excerpts from Mike Dunleavy's upcoming coffee table photo book, "How The Hell Do I Still Have a Job?"9:20 AM Jun 25th
• "I look like this a lot. I'll be honest: It freaks out the players." http://tinyurl.com/nrmtq79:20 AM Jun 25th
• "After bad calls, I look like I'm trying to pass out a kidney stone. Again, it's important to scare your players." http://tinyurl.com/n6ga879:22 AM Jun 25th
• "The end of a typical exchange between me & Baron Davis." Jon & Kate have better body language than us. http://tinyurl.com/lkr6vt9:23 AM Jun 25th
• "Here's me waiting for Elgin to turn around so I could plunge a knife into his back." http://tinyurl.com/km3elm9:23 AM Jun 25th
• "My players were disappointed when this collision didn't put me in the hospital." http://tinyurl.com/mm5jr79:24 AM Jun 25th
• "Even the refs can't believe I still have a job." http://tinyurl.com/m4e7ym9:24 AM Jun 25th
• "A typical scene from last season: One of my players passing me without making eye contact." http://tinyurl.com/mbu6mb9:25 AM Jun 25th
• "Here's my doing my thing in the huddle. Notice that nobody is looking at me. Hey, I'm only the coach." http://tinyurl.com/msfy9r9:26 AM Jun 25th
• "I bought this suit online for 75% off from a website based in Hungary. Good purchase." http://tinyurl.com/luy9w99:26 AM Jun 25th
• "One of my favorite sports coats. I bought it from Vanilla Ice during an estate sale." http://tinyurl.com/mnsmbs9:27 AM Jun 25th
• "If you wondered how I can be 194-298 with the Clippers and still have a job, here's your answer." http://tinyurl.com/lsz23u9:28 AM Jun 25th
  

Make Room for Daddy!

Here is something you don't see everyday:

"Dallas Mavericks forward Dirk Nowitzki has filed for sole custody of his ex-girlfriend's unborn baby, if it's proved he is the father, according to a petition filed last week in a Dallas County courthouse." - ESPN.com

Obviously, the "something you don't see everyday" isn't in reference to a basketball player getting someone pregnant, since NBA players' licentious road-trip behavior brings new meaning to the phrase "Hands Across America."

The real news is an NBA player taking swift responsibility for his actions. And he's not just setting up a scholarship/trust and coming to birthdays, but he's actually filing for SOLE custody.

Granted, his ex-girlfriend is about a couple Planters past a nut job and the child would be better off in the hands of a grizzly than in that train wreck's care, but it's still impressive to see Dirk, who would rather be a defensive-minded player than see his ex again, step up and do the right thing.

All things considered, I really hope he is successful in his efforts, and maybe his actions will help future daddies to be more responsible than those than the those that infamously inspired the 1998 Sport Illustrated article.

Reasons I'd Rather Be a Sox Fan

Starting with the most obvious...

In the last 100 years, White Sox have two World Series wins, and the Cubs have zero. Nevertheless, Cub fans try to lead White Sox fans into believing they're the dumb ones. Meanwhile, idiot after idiot lines up for tickets to Wrigley Field every year, because Cub fans don't expect anything from their team's management. Each year a pile of crap they call a baseball team trots out onto the field destined for mediocrity or worse. Albert Einstein, who's smarter than anyone or anything ever associated with the Cubs, said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Instead of not going to games and showing management you want a winning team, year after year fans pile into the stadium, lining the pockets of team owners with cold, hard cash. In fact, this year the Cubs are spending the third (NY Yankees, Red Sox) most money in the league, and it has amount to a .500 record. Well done! I suppose spending $40 million more than the White Sox for the same amount of wins by June 15 is a good idea. So the dopiness doesn't merely reside in the bleachers - good to know. The White Sox also had a streak of undistinguished baseball, but at least the White Sox and their fans never blamed their championship drought on a curse. And why "The Curse of the Billy Goat"? Couldn't it just be "The Curse of Being a Walking Punchline" or "The Curse of Not Being as Good as the Majority of Baseball Teams"? It makes more sense to me. Cub fans aren't there to watch baseball, they're there to A) party, B) get drunk, or C) party and get drunk. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote by then-Senator Barack Obama regarding Cub fans: “I’m not one of these fair weather fans. You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer, beautiful people up there. People aren’t watching the game. It’s not serious. White Sox, that’s baseball.”

I just don't understand how people could live like that, pretty much knowing your team will never win a World Series. I dare say there are no Cub fans alive that have seen the Cubs win a World Series. One would have to be over 100 years old or own a time machine to have accomplished such a feat, so it's probably not likely. While people over 100 years old do exist, common sense would tell you that, over the course of 100 years, they'd have smartened up a bit. Sadly, many Cub fans are merely victims of generational stupidity, and their fanhood has been passed down from generation to generation. It's a lot like racism in that way, and it's sad. The present-day fans are blind to the illogistics of their passion. So starting on Tuesday, when the White Sox start wiping the dirt and grass with the likes of Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, and Derek Lee, I just hope something will click in the minds of Cub fans, and they'll see a World Series isn't likely for the next 100 years either.

Thoughts on the 2009 NBA Finals

Congratulations to the Lakers and their fans on L.A.'s 2009 NBA Championship! It was quite an impressive accomplishment. During these Finals, however, an even greater feat of endurance occurred: actually watching the NBA Finals.

Despite a couple of close finishes, the 2009 NBA Finals left a lot to be desired, and it started with Game 1.

Lakers dominated that game from beginning to end, winning 100-75 and possibly saying good-bye to the casual fan. At that point, the Finals storylines went from "Kobe vs. Superman" to "Does Kobe need another ring to solidify his legacy?" and "Phil Jackson to pass up Red Auerbach."

After the thrashing the Lakers gave to the Magic in Game 1, the NBA Finals focused around when, instead of "if," the Lakers were going to win the championship. It became a foregone conclusion the Lakers would win, so the series became a great deal less interesting.

Another component to the lack of interest were the huge breaks in between the games. It is a momentum killer. I've already mentioned how much I hated the 5-day layoff in between the last two rounds of the playoffs, but my fury was only compounded upon hearing about the 3-day break between Game 1 & 2 and 4 & 5.

I understand the league wants to get games on certain days of week when they will more likely produce ratings and this isn't the first year they've done it, but it just makes me lose interest in the games. It seems like that idea would work better with more interesting matchups. But if your team isn't involved in the Finals, do you really have any reason to watch when it looks like it's over after Game 1?

The NBA Finals used to be "appointment TV." Each year the Finals would be full of stars: Michael/Scottie vs. Magic/Worthy, Drexler, Barkley, Payton/Kemp, and Stockton/Malone. This year's Finals lacked real star power.

Don't get me wrong, the Finals had a star in Kobe Bryant, averaging over 32 points and 7 assists per game. Stars rise to the occasion on the biggest stage. Not necessarily winning, but at least playing like an all star.

After the Magic knocked off the Cavs, thanks in part to a big series from Dwight Howard, I think a lot of people - and count me among them - thought Magic-Lakers was going to be a very interesting series.

It turned out the NBA Finals actually did need LeBron, because Superman did not show up against L.A. (15 ppg, 15 rpg, 3 orpg, 4 bpg, 48.8 FG%, 60.3 FT% 4 topg) the way he did with Cleveland (25 ppg, 13rpg, 4 orpg, 1.2 bpg, 65 FG%, 70.1 FT%, 2.5 topg).

Sure, he might have been better defensively in the Finals, blocking more shots and grabbing more rebounds. But solid defense doesn't do it for the general basketball fan, maybe an Orlando Magic fan, but not the every-day fan.

Solid defense never drew viewers for series with the Detroit Pistons. It never drew viewers for the San Antonio Spurs. And it most certainly didn't draw viewers when the Pistons played the Spurs in the 2005 finals.

Still, the TV ratings from the 2009 Finals are comparable to last year's matchup, which included a team from a bigger market and with a richer team history: the Boston Celtics. One might conclude that my theory goes out the window, since fans were still tuning in the same as they did for last year's championship, a very good NBA Finals.

Maybe.

Or maybe since the TV ratings for NBA Playoffs this year had been a 20% improvement over last year's, the 2009 Finals should have reaped the benefits of that success. Was it the 5-day break from the Conference Finals to the NBA Finals? Was it the 3-day breaks in between Games 1 & 2 and 4 & 5, when there was no traveling involved for teams? Was it the lack of star power?

The TV ratings for the NBA finals took a nosedive in 1999 after the lockout, and it really has never recovered. And in the 1990s, the ratings were only high when Michael Jordan was playing. This year the NBA really needed LeBron vs. Kobe. The two best, most exciting, most fun-to-watch players going against each other. A matchup of the two players most compared to Michael Jordan would have drawn a big audience.

Here's hoping future NBA Finals produce more intriguing matchups - and soon.

We're going streaking!

Streak for the Cash

It's not what you think...or at least it's not what I thought.

It's an entertaining, as well as addictive, game on ESPN.com.

The basic idea is ESPN and Progressive insurance company, are giving sports fans (and I guess non-sports fans would be eligible as well) an opportunity to win $1 million. Every day ESPN provides you with a set of sports scenarios, and you just have to predict the outcome. If you build one of the top seven streaks by December 31, 2009, you win $10,000 and a trip to the ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn. There, you will compete with the other six for the $1 million. Click here for complete details on how to play.

When I first saw this game, I thought, "Pfff! I could do this." However, it is harder than it seems. In fact, my streak has never been longer than 10, and right now, the top seven streaks range from 20-24.

I've got a ways to go.

After one of my streaks is broken, I'll just pick whatever game is next - just to get back in the game. And I lose again. Actually, there are times when I lose so many in a row, I wonder if a losing streak would still qualify for the $1 million. The way I figure it, losing 25 in a row, is just as hard as winning 25 in a row. After looking a the official rules, I now see ESPN and Progressive insurance company don't necessarily agree with me.

My wife and I are playing, and currently, we have a combined streak of one. Not our finest hour, or more accurately not my finest hour, since I am with one with zero. Not too long ago, each of us had streaks of nine at the same time. We thought, "This is our chance!"

The next picks we made were made very carefully, but since we both lost and went back down to zero, one could argue those picks weren't made carefully enough.

Anyway, play Streak for the Cash. It's a load of fun, and maybe, just maybe you'll end up like this guy.

In case you were wondering, the NBA Playoffs are not over yet

Life gets busy, so at times, we need to forgive ourselves for not staying completely current on the happenings outside our own bubble.

One piece of news that might catch a few off guard is that the NBA playoffs are not over yet, but not staying up-to-date on this warrants no self-pardon. The one needing forgiveness is the NBA, not the fans.

If you are not a Lakers or Magic fan, forgetting the playoffs are still going on is absolutely acceptable (and I wouldn't be that surprised if fans from L.A. and Orlando have forgotten, too) for the sole reason that the Conference Finals ended five days ago.

Five days! If a best-of-five series started immediately after the Magic clinched their trip to the Finals, there would have been enough time to finish it before Game 1 of the NBA Finals started (if it was a 3-0 sweep).

Five days! That was long enough for LeBron to leave the court without shaking any hands, stand up the media, come up with an excuse and talk to the media the next day about it, have David Stern want to talk to you about it, maybe talk to him about it, have a benign growth removed, and be back at home resting comfortably by tip-off.

Five days! That was long enough for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to travel from Florida to the friggin' moon - a total of about 240,000 miles!

Five days! That's long enough for wives to make their husbands watch everything from Steel Magnolias to The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood to make up for the months of neglect sports brought to their lives.

And it is long enough for the NBA to lose all of the momentum earned through two hard-fought, could-have-easily-gone-the-other way conference championships - not mention all of the great series that came before those.

Why would they do this? Three days would have been fine, but five days is poor marketing. We have experienced one of the best playoffs in recent history. And it's not just the drama of nail-biting finishes, but the drama itself has brought more and more viewers back to watching NBA action. Compared to last year's playoffs, TV ratings were up over 30 percent for Eastern and Western Conference Championships.

But a lot of that momentum is gone now, and barring outstanding game-winning shots or even a brawl in Game 1 or 2, the NBA Finals - TV ratings-wise - will fall considerably short of what they could have been.

LeBron's Postgame Behavior

I don't blame LeBron James for not shaking hands with any Magic player after losing the Eastern Conference Finals last Saturday.

I don't blame LeBron James for not making himself available to the media.

I don't blame LeBron James for not wanting to talk to anyone after playing his heart out and still losing.

He is still only 24 years old, and he showed it. Plus, throughout his entire career, I don't believe he has ever lost a series he was expected to win. It was a first and it stung. I can't blame him for that.

I can't blame him, but I do have some problems with his post-series behavior.

First, let's say Kobe Bryant had done the same thing. Any Kobe-hater would have been rounding up all of the friends, pitchforks, and torches he or she could find, and they would not rest until the mob was satisfied. There is no denying an act like that would have caused irreparable harm to Kobe.

Second, since he was a junior in high school, LeBron has had to deal with the media. His poise and composure while interacting with the media has drawn all sorts of praise. How do you all of a sudden not realize how your actions will look? How not shaking any of your opponents' hands will look? How not talking to the media that built you up will look? It just doesn't make sense. He should and does know better.

Third, it makes him look like a sore loser.

He recently said, "It's hard for me to congratulate somebody after you just lose to them. I'm a winner. It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm a competitor. That's what I do. It doesn't make sense for me to go over and shake somebody's hand."

Just because he says "it's not being a poor sport," it doesn't mean it's true. As it turns out, this isn't the first group of handshakes he has managed to dodge. Last year, he skipped out on the Celts, and the year before that, he left the court after a quick hug/butt-slap from the Spurs' Bruce Bowen.

It actually looks like it is "being a poor sport." I'm surprised he didn't take the ball with him.

Finally, he can't choose when and when not to be the NBA's "Golden Boy." He can't choose when and when not to be the face of the Cavaliers. He has to take the good with the bad. An NBA career is not going to be all Nike and Powerade commercials. It's not going to be all ESPYs and MVPs. It's not even going to be all puppets in your likeness.

You have to be able to answer questions after losing, as well as you do when you sweep the first two opponents. Nobody really cares all that much about what Mo Williams thinks of the loss. They (not just the media, but all of the fans, too) want to hear the MVP's thoughts.

You can't be the man, without being a man.

LeBron's Playoffs to be Overshadowed by Conspiracy Theorists

Everybody loves a conspiracy theory.

NBA has long had to quell ideas and rumors of the playoffs being fixed, and it became even more of a problem after the whole Tim Donaghy thing. People love to look at plays and results as something more than coincidence, as something "the league wanted to happen."

Does the league want certain teams or players to be playing on TV as much as possible? Of course. The NBA is a business, and it wants to see its most marketable players with as much face time as possible. However, Daniel Stern had more power over the result of a game in Celtic Pride than David Stern currently does.



What LeBron has done in these playoffs is nothing short of remarkable, and I don't think he's done. If his teammates break out of their shooting slumps, then the Cavs could quite possibly become the ninth team to come back from a 3-1 defecit.

The games have been too close to say the Magic have dominated and the series could very easily have been over by now. By that same token, with a couple of different plays, the Magic could very easily have been down 3-1 in the series.

But if the Cavs end up coming back and winning the series, this will all add more fuel to the fire of NBA Conspiracy Theorists. It can't just be that LeBron is the MVP and could will his team back from the brink of elimination. It has to be "what the league wanted."

If the NBA truly does "make things happen," it has done a horrible job at giving itself the best possible results:

The Cavs' first two rounds were done as quickly as possible this year. Wouldn't the league have an interest in prolonging those series? Wouldn't it be good for the league to make the games closer?

Game 7 of Atlanta-Miami would have been a perfect chance to give us LeBron vs. D-Wade. Wouldn't that have been a better matchup for the league than LeBron vs. Joe Johnson? (By the way, if you are an all-star and you're not known by your first name or a nickname, you need to talk to your agent ASAP.)

The San Antonio Spurs have almost no marketability (except for ABC being able to pimp "Desperate Housewives" with Eva Longoria in the crowd), yet they won over and over again. Why would the league - if it rigs the playoffs - allow the Spurs to win so many titles? In 2006, in suspending Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, the NBA basically chose the boring Spurs to advance over the much more exciting and marketable Suns. What would the league have to gain from that? Lower ratings?

The 2005 Finals put the Spurs against the defense-driven Detroit Pistons. The result was a seven-game borefest. If the league controls the results, why would it do this?

The answer to all of my questions is there is no answer, because the league may have a rooting business interest, but it doesn't change the outcome, and it doesn't choose the matchups. If it does, then the league is comprised of the worst businessmen on the face of the earth.

It's a shame, because it is possible we will see some great things in the next week from LeBron and the Cavs, but some people might be too suspicious to appreciate it.

How many mistakes can one person make?

When Lane Kiffin got fired as coach of the Al-kland Raiders, I chalked it up to the Steinbrenner of football, the way-too-old-to-pull-off-that-look Al Davis (Just remember to breathe, baby) up to his ol' antics again. The alien-autopsy that is left of him continues to make mistakes that has put and kept the Raiders in their current state.

I assumed Kiffin would be given another chance elsewhere, probably in college. On November 30, 2008, Lane signed a six-year deal with SEC's University of Tennessee. A big-time program. Millions of dollars. Not a bad life. However, in the short span of less than six months later, any UT fan without some doubts about the hire is either the more optimistic than Tony Robbins or in a coma.

I don't have a rooting interest either way (although I like to see teams that did well when I was growing up get back on the right track - One day, Nebraska!), but a small part of me wouldn't be surprised UT were to take a $7.5 million mulligan within the next couple of years. Let's look at his gaffes thus far:

1. On February 5, 2009, Kiffin accused Urban Meyer the head coach of the Florida Gators of violating NCAA recruiting rules at Tennessee Booster breakfast at the Knoxville Convention Center.

"I'm going to turn Florida in right here in front of you," Kiffin told the crowd. "As Nu'Keese was here on campus, his phone keeps ringing. And so one of our coaches is sitting in the meeting with him and says, 'Who is that?' And he looks at the phone and says, 'Urban Meyer.'

"Just so you know, you can't call a recruit on another campus. But I love the fact that Urban had to cheat and still didn't get him."

While Kiffin was accusing Meyer of violating NCAA rules, he was actually violating Southeastern Conference rules himself and his accusations of Meyer's conduct being against NCAA rules was incorrect. Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive issued a public reprimand to Kiffin over the comments. In addition to the public reprimand by Slive, Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley issued a statement demanding an public apology from Kiffin.

Kiffin issued a public apology a day after the remarks. In a statement released by the University of Tennessee, Kiffin said, "In my enthusiasm for our recruiting class, I made some statements that were meant solely to excite those at the breakfast. If I offended anyone at the University of Florida, including Mr. Foley and Urban Meyer, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention." - Wikipedia

So he called Meyer a cheater, and Meyer wasn't, and Kiffin made himself a cheater by saying Meyer was a cheater, and then says "IF I offended...Urban Meyer, I sincerely apologize." It's not like Kiffin said he didn't like the way Meyer combs his hair or dresses. He called him a cheater. No need to wonder if offense was taken.

2. He "intimated that Nu'Keese Richardson's high school in Pahokee, Fla., couldn't be trusted to fax the national letter of intent to Tennessee." - Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN

and

3. According to ESPN’s Chris Low, “Kiffin told Jeffrey that if he chose the Gamecocks, he would end up pumping gas for the rest of his life like all the other players from that state who had gone to South Carolina.” - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Comments like that ought to hurt his future recruiting efforts in Florida and Georgia. It's a good thing Florida and Georgia don't have a rich pool of high school football talent. Wait a minute...

4. Tennessee plans to self-report a secondary violation, the third one involving Kiffin in the last month, after he mentioned unsigned prospect Bryce Brown by name during a radio show in Knoxville on Friday morning.

NCAA rules prohibit coaches from commenting about unsigned prospects, specifically their ability. The other two secondary violations involving Kiffin had to do with simulating game-day experiences while prospects were on campus.- ESPN

and

5. Tennessee plans to self-report another NCAA secondary violation after a high school recruit was mentioned by name Tuesday on Lane Kiffin's Twitter page.

Tennessee athletic director Mike Hamilton said it wasn't actually Kiffin who penned the post in question but an employee in the football office who was updating Kiffin's Twitter page for him.

The post was up for about an hour during the afternoon before being removed by Tennessee officials. It read: "It's a beautiful day in Knoxville, Tennessee today. I was so exited to hear that J.C. Copeland committed to play for the Vols today!" - ESPN

Whether he or an employee posted it, they had already got in trouble once for mentioning a recruit by name. It just seems like if you are going to coach NCAA football, you really should be aware of what you can and can't do. It just makes career sense.

And several more things he's done:

• guaranteed a victory at Florida next season
• angered South Carolina's Steve Spurrier
• angered Alabama's Nick Saban
• threw out that maybe heralded recruit Marlon Brown was "a grandmama's boy"

I think it's great he has gone into Tennessee and re-energized the players and fan base, but at what cost? When I think of the name "Lane Kiffin," the first thing that comes to mind is a crazy man who's finally getting all of the attention he could ever want or need. It should also be mentioned 11 Vols have left the team since he arrived in Knoxville, so doesn't seem like his approach is completely winning over the players. And he doesn't appear to become apologetic to players, fans, or coaches anytime soon.

Still, UT has gained a lot in the process: national attention for a "ghost" program and what "experts" deem to be a top-10 recruiting class (however, I am still waiting for all of Notre Dame's "#1 recruiting classes" to dominate).

The bottom line is winning. If he wins - which means compete for the SEC and National Championship soon - he will be loved and his style will be praised. If he doesn't, he and his style will wear out their welcome faster than Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequels - and maybe Al Davis wasn't so far off on this one.

LeBron vs. Kobe: A Little Premature?

I was flipping through the channels the other day when I came across this documentary on ESPN: Nike Dream Season: 23 & 24 (LeBron James and Kobe Bryant).

Now I like a sports documentary probably a considerable amount more than the next guy (Sports movies, too - I'll even watch "Love & Basketball" when it periodically comes on cable). Especially when the documentary centers around athletes I know and have watched play. I probably wouldn't get as sucked into a Babe Didrikson documentary.

Anyway, as I was watching it, I couldn't help but hear the same question in my head over and over again: Isn't this a movie better suited to be aired during an NBA Finals in which LeBron and Kobe are both playing?

I know marketing is marketing, and if they both don't make it to the Finals, then this would have been the best time to air it. Still, at the time this aired, the consensus pick for the Finals was still Cavs-Lakers. So the ideal time to run this kind of program would have been during that matchup, not during the Conference Finals.

But I can't help but think that this, along with the Vitamin Water ads, is too much too soon. This will all look a bit silly if we get a Nuggets-Magic series. Carmelo Anthony was on the Olympic team. Dwight Howard, too. Where are the 'Melo-Superman documentaries? Where are the 'Melo-Superman ads?

I feel it would be better to wait until real life shows us LeBron vs. Kobe and then piggy-back onto it, instead of creating a rivalry out of two players with an age difference of seven years. I guess the Lebron James-Darko Milicic (the #2 pick in the 2003 draft; LeBron was #1) rivalry never had the requisite steam to stand the test of time.

-SG

P.S. - Yes, that is Justin Timberlake narrating the movie. Finally!

Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

When Michael Vick was first convicted of bankrolling a dog-fighting business, I was working at an animal control center. Obviously, all of my coworkers were outraged by the acts committed by Vick and his cronies. I feel pretty secure in saying all rational (and some semi-rational) people would consider Vick's conduct to be disgusting. There is no argument here.

To me, the argument in respect to Vick lies within his removal from prison, which has fueled a lot of talk about his possible return to the NFL. One of my former coworkers had said (upon his conviction) his "career was over." No way would any team sign him after this. This is the point where emotions cloud thinking and rational (and some semi-rational) become irrational.

The problem, as I see it, is that crimes against animals are groundlessly viewed as worse than crimes against people - especially by fanatical animal lovers. A relative of mine, who worked in a newsroom, told me of the different reactions of reporters assigned stories that involved animal abuse and stories involving people abuse. When it's people, "Same ol', same ol'. Another day, another dollar." When it's animals, they have to muster up the strength to keep living in a world in which that could happen. They're about as sad as Milwaukee butchers after hearing Prince Fielder went vegan.

How many plumbers, roofers, accountants or journalists, having served time for something like domestic abuse (a crime I would consider to be much worse), would not be allowed to work in their trained vocational upon being released from prison? Sure, they might not be allowed to return to the position they once held (and I don't think there is a team willing to sign Vick to another $130 million contract anytime soon), but they would be able to work in their field again. Why shouldn't Vick be able to do the same?

But all of this talk avoids the biggest reason you will see Vick in an NFL uniform in the fall of 2009: If a player can play, an owner can pay.

Ray Lewis was given a one-year probation sentence for obstruction of justice in the stabbing deaths of two men after a Super Bowl party in Atlanta. Question: If he was innocent, what justice did he feel the need to obstruct?

Adam "Pacman" Jones has been arrested around 10 times since he was drafted in 2005.

Jamal Lewis tried to set up a drug deal in 2004 and spent four months in prison for it.

Michael Irvin was arrested for cocaine possession and assault.

Chris Henry, Lawrence Phillips, Leonard Little, etc. The list goes on. All of these guys had complete laspses in moral (and legal) judgment, but they deserved and were given a second chance.

Some people don't learn from their mistakes (Pacman). Others go on to be model citizens (Lewis).

Doesn't Michael Vick deserve the opportunity to show us which one he'll be?

-SG