Saturday, December 31, 2016

Rousey Part of the Fake Rise

When Ronda Rousey squared off with Holly Holm during the pre-fight weigh-in over a year ago, I said to myself, "She's not beating that woman."

It didn't take much for me to know. I had never seen Holm fight and I'm not a huge fan of women's MMA, but I saw in Holm a fighter who had leverage, size, power, and I knew she was a striker. Rousey didn't face taller strikers. Didn't hurt Holm was training with Greg Jackson and his team in New Mexico. He always has a plan. They don't always work, but they always give his fighter their best chance.

Then I started reading some twitter remarks later in the day, and a number of people I trust (all fighters) were saying similar things.

We know what happened next.

Fast forward 13+ months to now, when Rousey faced an even better opponent in Amanda Nunes, who basically treated Rousey like she was an amateur. Again, Nunes is the bigger fighter as well as more experienced.

I saw Nunes fight once prior, and again, there was no doubt she was going to win the fight. She would beat Rousey 100 out of 100 times.

And did she ever.

Yet this is a story we have seen many times before, and for the UFC to survive, it will have to happen again and again and again.

What story is that might you ask? Well, it's the one where the company builds up personalities and stars, literally, and then in an instant sees them get torn down, while the company continues to rise. The first time they truly pulled it off with great success was with Chuck Liddell, beginning in 2004.

A brief history...

Liddell was managed by current UFC President Dana White (as was Tito Ortiz) before White was given ownership in the UFC by his childhood friend, Lorenzo Fertitta. Certainly a talented fighter, Liddell was treated like royalty from the outset. The fighter who was opposite of Liddell? Randy Couture. Every hero needs a villain to oppose, and even though Couture may have been the public hero, he was not White's. Couture did not have similar relationships with the company, and in the end was a thorn in ownership's side.

More than just being a good fighter, Liddell had the "look" of the new UFC fighter. Tattoos, the hair, the attitude, the whole thing. Couture was the polar opposite, with the wrestling and "Captain America" look. That's not what the company was marketing. Couture was country. Liddell was Hollywood/Vegas.

Knockout puncher versus grapper? We'll take the puncher.

After Liddell lost to Quinton "Rampage" Jackson in Pride in November of 2003, and following a loss to Couture 6 months before that, he was given a number of UFC match-ups the company knew he would likely win, specifically Ortiz. Liddell and Ortiz trained together, and everyone knew Ortiz not only couldn't beat him, but was actually scared of him. But Ortiz was still a very big name at the time, and it would be a tremendous boost to Liddell's brand if he could beat him. He walked right through Ortiz.

Before the fight Liddell said in my presence, "He's scared of me. He has always been scared of me. Even at practice."

From there the UFC continued the Liddell build, matching him against the smaller Vernon White, who was a seasoned striker, but had just lost a lot more fights than he won. Liddell knocked him out. Then they setup a rematch with Couture, who was in his own right, a big name, and the last UFC fighter to beat Liddell.

Now for the UFC this was THE big moment. Liddell actually had to beat Couture for it all to work, but what was the difference? If he did, amazing. If he didn't, they will build up someone else, but never Couture. Too old, wrong look, and a pain in their ass.

Fortunately for the UFC, Liddell not only beat Couture, he knocked him out cold. In truth, even though Couture had beaten Liddell previously, it was a bad match-up for Randy. Chuck had a great sprawl, was a wrestler himself, and had the length and power to knock out the aging fighter, who was already on the wrong side of 40.

The UFC's plan for Liddell was to have him "avenge" all of his losses. It was not 'Lets make the best fights.' No, no. Not that at all. It was build up Liddell; market Liddell.

Naturally, his next fight was against Jeremy Horn, who was a well-traveled and worn fighter, who had beaten Liddell years earlier, when Liddell hardly knew what Jui Jitsu was. I remember hearing the news and laughing, "You mean Jeremy Horn who isn't even in the UFC?"

Yep. That guy.

Don't get me wrong. I liked Jeremy Horn as both a person and a fighter, but this was a joke.

The fight was stopped after Horn couldn't see through the blood.

Then the UFC doubled down on another Couture fight, following the inaugural Ultimate Fighter TV show. Horn gave them some time to hype up Part THREE!

Liddell won again in similar fashion.

Who should he fight next? A killer like Wanderlei Silva? Maybe Jackson, the guy who last beat him? Maybe a newcomer? Who was even available?

The truth is there just weren't many great fighters in the UFC, specifically the 205 Weight Class. The company didn't have a huge stable because of the costs, and competition with Pride. Yet they could go out and get someone outside the company, right? It was still a hardcore fans sport, and everyone knew who the good fighters were. And not having someone within the company had not stopped them before, right? He just fought Horn...

Well...instead of a real fight they decided to keep the train on the tracks by rolling out Renato "Babalu" Sobral, a man Liddell had easily beaten a couple years earlier by kicking him in his face. Liddell dispatched of him, and Sobral was let go by the company 2 fights later for holding a choke too long, but not before having lost his next fight after he lost to Liddell, to basically a nobody (no offense - I was friends with that fighter).

After that fight, who could be next for Liddell? "Lets see if Tito Ortiz is available!"

He was!

The fight was no closer than the previous one. Next.

By this time Liddell had been built up as this "incredible fighter" who had taken on all comers and discarded of them. Never mind the fact the list was Ortiz, White, Couture, Horn, Couture, Sobral and Ortiz. In between the Ortiz and Couture matches were veritable nobodies, but ESPN was starting to pay attention and Liddell had become the most well known UFC fighter in the world. Almost mainstream.

Mission accomplished. The UFC has just established a playbook.

Next they put Liddell against a man who hit harder than him, was his size, and had beaten him before all this began: Rampage Jackson. The Liddell lemon had been squeezed almost completely dry, and there was almost no way to give him another soft fight. Plus, Jackson was a new piece of fruit for the company. They wanted him so much they purchased the company he was fighting for (I think).

Now since Liddell and I had a good relationship, my boss had me cover him 3 days out from the fight, while he covered Jackson. Liddell was a more difficult personality to cover if you didn't know him, and I always ended up with the more difficult guys. Difficult begets difficult...

While riding in a UFC van to the roof top of the MGM Grand parking deck for a photo-shoot, the Thursday before his fight with Jackson, Liddell started talking to me about Rampage. It was just the two of us, and the driver. He casually mentioned how much he liked Jackson, how "funny" he is, and on and on and on. I remember watching him stare out the window somewhat aimlessly, and I was thinking, "You're gonna lose."

But if that wasn't confirmation enough, the night of the fight when I went to his room for the walk-down (we video recorded them from hotel room to locker room for the DvD Bonus Features), there were about 30-40 people hanging out in the suite, having a gay ole time. A number of pro football players, and even some other well-known media personalities. This was literally 4 hours before he had to fight. Rampage was not doing the same thing.

When Chuck came to the door he was less than polite; certainly not accommodating. In fact, he was more wound up than I had ever seen him before, and I have seen him pretty wound up. Normally polite, respectful and professional, he was anything but. And of course, he got destroyed that night. Knocked out cold. He would go on to lose 5 of his next 6 before retiring. He knew in that van the magic carpet ride was almost over.

The UFC got what they needed, and Liddell became a very wealthy guy in the process. He was their first. That's how they do it. That was Ronda Rousey. That was last night. It was Brock Lesnar too, until he got punched in the face.

That's. How. They. Do. It.

Oddly, the fighters are the last to know. Liddell knew a little because he had lost before, but Rousey and Lesnar? They had no idea. They believed the hype created for them, and why wouldn't they? They had been given "cans", and never lost. Then they did. Then they couldn't handle the other side of it. Then they fell to pieces.


Here's the thing with the UFC...if you want them to make you the golden goose, you have do two things really well: 1) Speak English and 2) Play their game.

After Liddell faded the UFC set it's sights on Forrest Griffin, who didn't last, and so on, and so forth. They've tried to manufacture the star over and over and over. Sometimes it works, other times, not as well. They've managed with a few fighters, and some of them really are quite quality. A lot of them are average.

Now don't get me wrong, there are stars, but they're not perfect stars for the company. Jon Jones marches to the beat of his own drum, and does drugs. Georges St-Pierre wasn't personable enough. Anderson Silva and Jose Aldo didn't speak the language, and weren't white guys with tattoos. A UFC super-star has to be molded in their image, like a Conor McGregor, who sells PPVs WORLD-WIDE. Of course, he would get crushed by Khabib Nurmagomedov, but they will take their time showing you that one. Have to squeeze the lemon. In fact, McGregor holds TWO BELTS and has never defended one. Think on it.

The truly great fighters don't need the UFC to "make them." And that's why there is often conflict between them and the company.

With the UFC, it's not enough that the fighter be outstanding. For even when Jones was clearly the best, the UFC hitched themselves to his wagon. Jones got a Bud Light commercial, but of course, Dana White was in that commercial too. The stars will fade, but the company will rise.

The fighter will NEVER be as big as the company, or close to it. To McGregor's credit, he's trying to change that, but he won't. Not good enough.

So now we have Nunes, the new UFC Women's Bantamweight Champion, who as defending champion made 3% what her opponent did. Nunes who carried herself like a professional, unlike her opponent. Nunes who fought like a professional, unlike her opponent. But you're never going to hear much about Nunes. The company will not promote her. She won't be on "Ellen." They won't facilitate a book deal. They won't call movie producers on her behalf. None of that. She's not an English speaker. She's from Brazil.

What will happen is the women's division will go back to being very secondary, until they can find their next manufactured star (Karate Hottie?). But believe me, when they find her, it will be the "BIGGEST GREATEST MOST UNBELIEVABLE MATCH UP IN THE HISTORY OF THE U-F-C!"



The UFC is fake real.

Real fighters.

Fake hype.

If viewed solely as entertainment, and not sport, it's a great product. But for people who think merit and talent should be the basis for someone's athletic success and subsequent payment, don't count on the UFC. They're merely a marketing company; not an athletic organization.

If you're going to fall for the hype every 18 months, that's on you. If you don't care if it lives up to the hype, then keep forking over the cash. But we need to stop pretending fighters like Lesnar, Rousey, Liddell and even McGregor, are truly great fighters. They're not.

The UFC is a "league" with one owner. They control every aspect of a sport. It's not natural. There are not enough talented fighters who can remain champion over the long haul, so the hype must be manufactured. And because this is the case, expect more of what you saw last night.

Real Fighters.

Fake Hype.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Something You Might Be Missing About Trump Supporters

I've seen a number of stories in the news the past few days about Trump going back on "campaign promises." There's the Newt Gingrich 'wall' comment, the potential to not un-do Obamacare, and how LGBTQ folk can use whatever bathroom they like, etc.

Make no mistake. There are LEGIONS of Trump voters, probably the majority, who want him to go back on these things, so throwing them in their face means nothing. And to those who will be bothered, you probably don't know them, and they probably are too dumb to care.

For the majority though, the Hillary Clinton hate was so strong they overlooked what Trump said/did. By Trump going back on these things it will only allow many voters to say, "I told you he wasn't that bad."

So don't start thinking there's some level of hypocrisy you can expose, for there is not.

The only real argument that exists, one which Trump voters won't care about, is how the damage is already done. If they cared about that they would have never elected him. Trump's close-minded rhetoric already set America back by giving license to all the deplorable people who now feel emboldened to do and say terrible things. There's no turning that back, and we're seeing it nationwide. It will take some time before those people go back in their holes.

The unfortunate reality here is it's easier to destroy than build, and Trump has caused some destruction of progress with his words alone. That's the worst part about him, and his future presidency. He didn't care what he did to get elected, as long as he won. That he won't carry out the things he said he would is not a surprise at all because most of it was unrealistic. But he got all of these stupid morons to come out and vote for him, which tipped the scales.

Now the other more "moderate" Trump voters? Like you, they hope he doesn't try do the things he said he would.

Make no mistake though, if you voted for him, then you're no less of a liar.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Hard to See the Light...But...'s some.

I'm not sugar-coating what happened last night, but step back from it. This country was swayed by a specific segment of the population: an aging, dated, white-male, who doesn't like "change." Forget the rest of the votes, one way, or the other, the election was changed by those people, at least among those who chose to vote.

Put the Supreme Court aside, which I'll admit, is a terrible situation (Hard to do - RBG better plan on dying up there). But again, step outside of all this for a moment and take another view - the long view.

The Republican establishment had little chance of winning this year. Their candidates lost to Trump, who mobilized people through fear, hate, and lies. That wears off as the lies come undone, and the haters begin to become marginalized. The GOP had no candidate who was carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida. Probably not North Carolina either. They had individuals from those states who would have won them individually, but not as a whole.

As I said earlier, Hillary Clinton was only losing to Trump this year of the GOP. Between Biden, Sanders, and Clinton, Trump could only beat her.

Here's the point. Liberals are always pushing progress, while conservatives are trying to fight against it. This year, an outsider-populist won. Yet he is a person with no core beliefs; certainly not someone who is dyed-in-the-wool. On the other hand, the progressives have a message, beliefs, in climate change being real, in equal rights for everyone, the need for universal health care, equal and fair pay, and so many other things. There's a core, and despite low turnout where they needed it, still won the popular vote. As for demographics, they're winning that battle too. It's becoming harder and harder for true GOP candidates to carry an election, and this may be the last time they win an election for a long awhile.

Trump is a poor excuse for a human being, and he did win the election, but he's merely a blip on the screen of progress; a dying blip at that. He tapped into a fear that's probably going to grow because he's not going to solve their problems, and moderate voters will not anchor themselves to them again.

The next 4 years will be who-knows-what, but recognize, while it may seem tragic today, we are moving in the right direction. That will not be stopped.

Obama showed what this nation wants to believe in. So did Bernie Sanders. Obama's electoral map is the future map. The changes we're seeing are the changes that will ultimately win out. The millennial voting map (SurveyMonkey Poll) also helps to show you the future.

These are the last days of the current GOP, and they know it. Ironically, they were saved for 4 years by a guy they didn't want. Go figure.

Things We Don't Get

I'm as shocked as anyone, but I'm not necessarily surprised.

As I mentioned on Facebook last night, about 6 weeks ago during a discussion on Colin Kaepernick, a caller, emailer, and tweeter all said the same to me during my radio show, "I'm in the union and I would never vote for her."

It may have been the same person, but I could tell by the way he said it he wasn't alone.

The polls? I never truly trusted them. I wanted to, but as we got closer I started doubting them. I tried to put on a face otherwise, and be confident, but deep down I was fearful.

I believed Pennsylvania was going to go her way, but I started to feel this union man was representative of many people. That group is made up of white, working class men, often laborers, who believe this country has been taken from them. They believe "rust belt" jobs can return. They also believe immigrants and people of color have either taken their jobs, or are the reason they didn't get a job. Trump tapped into that sentiment, and while they would not admit this in polls, or just in public, they came out and voted for Trump.

Never mind the fact that many of these people had a built in opportunity in life to have a better life just by the color of their skin, but of course, the "party of personal responsibility" is eager to blame. And Trump made sure to put a target on the people they should blame. Irony is not lost on me that these men, who blame so many others for their plight and hate government handouts, were looking for someone to give them something.

Many are the ignorant, xenophobic, often sexist and racist, and while maybe not completely "deplorable", they are willing to let the world become deplorable for others as long as they can maintain their way of life, or at least get a leg up on someone they deem less worthy than themselves.

Many on the right are asking others to "heal" and "come together." It's easy to say if your candidate won, but Trump ran a campaign on "jailing" Hillary Clinton; on overturning Obamacare; on "bringing back jobs to the rust belt"; on "building a wall."

That is HIS CAMPAIGN. That is what his supporters want. This is what they expect. You're asking us to heal that for you?

Make no mistake though, that was his campaign. Can he walk away from it?

If yes, it's only because his most fervent supporters don't care about honesty, facts, or reality. They care about hate, and being above some other group. They care about a platform to preach their point of view, regardless of how dated and awful it may be.

And if he can walk away from it then he basically ran a campaign on lies, while casting her as the liar. That's what you get from insecure bully-types, so I'm not surprised. But either way, no matter how you spin it, his campaign will have been a fallacy. From the top to the bottom, be it his message, or the support that carried him which unwilling to be honest about who they supported. It was wholly dishonest. You can't blame pollsters if people are lying to them.

It's a sad day, and to be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in what's to come. I wish I did. I don't think Trump is smart enough, nor do I believe he will surround himself with capable people. I guess the only way to go is up. I felt similarly when George W. Bush won, and in the end, he did nothing to make me feel better. The world only became a worse place, and then President Obama was asked to fix it. But make no mistake, it's a sad day. There's no sugar coating it.


Lastly, there has been this false narrative/argument that "Hillary was the only candidate Trump could beat, and she was the only person he could beat!"

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Had a candidate who spoke the truth about the Republican party won the nomination, and if it were a discussion of ideas, she would have defeated that candidate. No one on the right, be it Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush was going to carry Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It was only someone willing to lie and distort reality, able to make false promises, and willing to run on hatred and fear that was going to beat her. Despite all of their flaws, the other candidates never would have went where he did. But Donald Trump is a human being who lacks any semblance of class, or respect, for anything, or anyone. That will not change as President.

She lost to the only Republican who was going to beat her.

Would he have defeated Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden? No. But that's not how progress is achieved - by just putting out the winning man. It was time America got to see not only it's racism and xenophobia, but it's absurd sexism.

She had to be the candidate.

In the end, I hope for the best. I hope for those with less and for those of a different religion, color, or creed than a white, Christian man, to not fall further back.

Progress is not what Trump ran on. I can't imagine surrounded by Chris Christie, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, that's going to change.


History is littered with horrendous and awful people who have won elections. At the time, people have been proud and excited. It doesn't make him great, or them right. It just means they were able to dupe a willing society, wanting so badly to believe things that aren't true.

This will be no different.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Trump's "Locker Room" Talks...

Yesterday at work a few people in the newsroom (all guys) made comments like, "Trump didn't know he was being recorded" and "we've all said things we regret." Someone even asked a black guy who sits next to me, "Haven't you even said things you regret?" as if to make sure even he understood that "everyone does these things, right?".

Well, lets step back from it and assess what Trump did and why he did it.

There's no question I have said things in my life which out of context would be deemed sexist, racist, homophobic, demeaning, or just insulting to any number of people or groups. I can admit that without hesitation. However, when I have said these things I have done so to an audience. Presumably one that understands me; knows me; that I trust. In every instance I have ever uttered something offensive to some person or group, I did not have to worry about who heard me because those within earshot know who I am as a human being. They know the essence of me; the core; what makes me tick. No different from when a comedian says things off-color; when most of us say things which might seem over the line, there's an audience in mind. Whether it's of one, or a group. Most of us know how what we say will be received, and by whom.

This is where Trump fails miserably.

You have to ask yourself why would he say these things to Billy Bush, who is not only a member of the media but whose uncle was the sitting President of the United States? Someone who Trump hardly knew.

The answer is clear: Trump always needs people to think he's more than he is. Only he truly knows the depths of his vacancies (although, it's becoming more clear), so he spends an inordinate ammount of time trying to convince others he is something he is not. Saying these things to someone who is a stranger? To what end? Right, because you want them to think of you differently than they probably do. Differently from what they have probably heard. Trump's worry is in perpetuity, always assuming others have heard the truth about who he is, from those who know him.

Insecurity has a certain scent.

Then consider the fact he not only said these things to Bush, but that he was wearing a microphone, or was at least within ear shot of microphones. No, he wasn't in a locker room. Had he been there we would never know this story. He was on a bus owned by a media company with the words "ACCESS HOLLYWOOD" emblazoned across the side!

In other words, in addition to everything else, he's a fucking moron. And not like, "Oh, he's a moron..." No! AN ACTUAL FUCKING DUMB MORON.

In a locker room? Yeah, that goes on all day. We get that. On a golf course with Bill Clinton? Sure, but no one heard that because Clinton isn't a fucking moron. There's no audio/video of Clinton having affairs with women, or him speaking about them because he a) isn't dumb and b) doesn't need to sell people on who he is. We know. Like him or not, people are attracted to Clinton. Few are attracted to Trump.

This isn't like Romney's "47 percent quote." Romney had a right to assume he was speaking privately, wrongly, or not. That's understandable.


And the stories never end with Trump. Whether his own wife accused him of rape, or this other story of assault, the comments about Miss America, or this latest gaffe. It never ends. And we're not even parsing every interview from the Howard Stern or Larry King programs.

The guy is a sexual predator, period. The end.

He may also build things, but he's a sexual predator as well.

Say what you want about Clinton because he seems to be today's standard for those trying to defend, but Monica had a CONSENSUAL encounter with him.

Trump bullies women like he does everyone else in his life, be it a female, a contractor, or a reporter. It's always the same. Show me the person who truly knows Trump and isn't collecting a check from him, who actually likes him.

When men make "locker room" comments in front of others, they do so in jest. They don't want you to think they actually believe in what they're saying, or would act out on their comments. It's all fun, whether it's tasteless, or not. Yes, many people do THAT.

Yet most men who would actually act out on their lewd comments, they don't verbalize them to others, let alone strangers. That's how clueless and psychotic this guy is. He not only acts this way, but he is telling you details of his escapades. So not only is it not in jest, it's both real and something he would brag about!

How deranged is that?

That's not locker room talk.

That's prison talk.


Is it not strange to Trump voters that the people who dislike him most are the ones living in the places he claims to be successful? Better known as: the people who know him.

As for Billy Bush, that was his locker room. He had every reason to believe that his comments would be safe. And at the same time, his JOB is to get to the heart of the guest. If acting out, in what he deemed a private environment, enabled him to make Trump feel comfortable, I understand that.

Not saying it's right, but I GET THAT.

I do not think he should be fired.

Saturday, September 24, 2016


Well, Week 1 NFL I went 9-5-1 Against the Spread (ATS). Was on air Sunday, after the Week 2 games so didn't make picks.

Not sure what's considered good, but we'll see how the season goes.

Week 3:


ARI -3.5 (BUF)

OAK -1 (TEN)

CLE +9.5 (MIA)

JAX +1 (BAL)

DET +7 (GB)

CIN -3.5 (DEN)

CAR -6.5 (MIN)

NYG -3.5 (WAS)

TB -5 (TB)

KC -3 (NYJ)

SD +2.5 (IND)

PIT -3.5 (PHI)

DAL -7 (CHI)

ATL +2.5 (NO)

SF +10 (SEA)

Monday, September 12, 2016

The Weekend that Was

For those of you who don't want your athletes getting involved in social issues, I'm about to end that debate.


We start with Allen Iverson and his Hall of Fame induction speech. If you didn't see it, you should. Even if you don't care about the guy, watch it. But not before you finish reading this.

It literally brought me to tears.

For those not in the know, "A.I." was both a transcendent and polarizing figure in the NBA. Misunderstood by many, especially the media and many older folks who couldn't deal with his "style", Iverson became a lightning rod for criticism with regard to nearly everything he did. In many ways he shined a light on a lot of issues mainstream America wanted ignored. Whether it was his tattoos, hairdo, relationships with coaches, or style of dress, we were often led to believe Iverson was doing something wrong.

Truth be told, Iverson was doing everything right: he was being himself.

Except "himself" wasn't tolerable for a lot of dated white people. Whether many people were able to understand him wasn't his fault, but their own. Slowly, but surely, more and more people are starting to understand him now, which gets to the most important aspect of Iverson, and a legacy not yet discussed fully.

When you consider all that is transpiring today when it comes to race relations, "Black Lives Matter", Colin Kaepernick, and the rest, Iverson was way out in front on all of it, albeit indirectly, and without specific intention.

Just to give you an idea of things, growing up in Hampton, Virginia, Iverson once lived in an a home where raw sewage leaked for a month. His parents had him when they were 15 years old, and like a number of kids in his neighborhood, his father wasn't much involved in his life. The two most important male influences who were in his life both disappeared before high school ended. One killed, the other imprisoned. Not unusual in his community.

Like many youths in urban areas, sports became the escape for Iverson. He was not only a phenomenal basketball player, but was considered by many to be the best football player in the South, arguably the entire country. Every single big time college wanted Iverson to wear their uniform(s). Except all of them would rescind their offers soon after learning of his involvement in a brawl at a bowling alley, which involved black teenagers fighting white ones.

Despite having no criminal record, and there being no real proof of outstanding violence on his part, Iverson was sentenced to 5 years in prison by a white judge who attended the Virginia Military Institute and later University of Virginia law school. Needless to say, the judge wasn't considered to be sympathetic toward Iverson. And worth noting, none of the whites involved were charged.

In December of 1993, Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder pardoned Iverson. Even though he had a very light complexion (which probably helped get him elected), Wilder was the state's first and only black Governor. Which begs the question: what would Iverson's life have been like had George Allen been in office?

A month after the pardon, Gov. Allen would follow Wilder. Much later on in Gov. Allen's career he would go on to use the word "macaca" in describing an employee of his political rival. Macaca means "monkey" in Portuguese.

Do you think Iverson would have been pardoned by Governor Allen? Do you think Iverson gets an opportunity to attend Georgetown 5 years after prison? What do you think happens to Iverson if Governor Allen had been in office; not Governor Wilder?

When you think about these things, maybe then you'll recognize a bit more what the "black experience" is like for many people living in America. Maybe then you'll start to understand a little bit more what "Black Lives Matter" is all about. Because without certain, very specific circumstances, there's a very good chance you never find out who Allen Iverson is. Then most of America never witnesses Iverson. And then many people are never made to feel a little uncomfortable about what he represents, looks like, or the way he acts.

Allen Iverson is a survivor of his experience, and by the skin of his teeth. Iverson's mere existence pushed many staid people out of their comfort zones.

And although Iverson doesn't kneel during the Star Spangled Banner, or wear a "BLM" t-shirt during a sporting event, he has always been one of the most important representations of the modern American black male struggle.

Allen Iverson is Black Lives Matter.

Now go listen to his speech.


For the first time in my life I decided to "pick games" against the spread, since I've noticed a lot of sports personalities and gambling "experts" take pride in doing this.

Well, so far it has been somewhat successful. I don't know how accurate some of these other "experts" are, but as it stands, going into tonight, I went 9-3-1 against the spread. I picked the Jets, Chargers and Lions to outright win their games, and was oh so close in all 3. Either way, they call covered.

Three of the 4 games I got wrong are the ones I had a vested interest in: Eagles & Raiders, and a push on the Giants. Which just goes to show when I let emotion enter my judgement, I don't do very well. It's why I don't gamble. That said, I might be good at picking games, and I'll continue to do so throughout the season on twitter and on-air.

You can listen to my takes from Friday's show here.

Again, I don't know if 11-3-1 is good, which I plan on being after tonight, since I don't gamble or follow "experts." But feel free to let me know what good is when it comes to picking games against the spread.


I preface this by saying I really do LOVE high level Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as much as anyone. But I've always felt the WWE component of it was lame. I still do. Whether it was Brock Lesnar, who was clearly a talent and a success story, or the latest effort by CM Punk, who got his ass handed to him by a guy from New Brunswick, it always just seemed lame to me. Lame in the way that Tim Tebow getting a baseball contract is lame.

When MMA is at it's best it really is amazing. But when it's at it's worst, which these days seems to be most it, you start to understand why it will never truly capture an audience the way boxing once did.

The circus act component has got to go.


...obviously the greatest football player of all time. And without question he's the best quarterback to wear #11 in Philadelphia since this guy did it.

Jokes aside, Wentz did a really nice job yesterday in light of how little he has played in the NFL, which includes little pre-season play. If you're an Eagles fan, today is a day to be excited.

It's worth mentioning that it was the Browns, but that being said, prior to yesterday Wentz was playing against opponents of North Dakota State. Yesterday he saw Joe Haden and Danny Shelton. Big difference!

Expect a regression to the mean very quickly for Wentz as defensive coordinators start to figure out his flaws. In the short term, they may make him struggle, but in the long run he will figure them out. Not to say he's winning Superbowls any time soon because even studs like Matt Stafford aren't close, but at the very least it seems the quarterback problem in Philadelphia is solved for the moment.


And speaking of "solving" the quarterback problem, the Cowboys haven't. As I've been saying on the air for a few weeks: Dak Prescott is at best an average quarterback in the NFL. Yesterday his flaws were exposed.

Playing behind the best offensive line in football, and getting at least an extra second to throw the ball, Prescott was merely fair. If you watched the game it was apparent early that Prescott can throw the ball accurately from the pocket, or on the run, within 20 yards. But when the field shrinks near the red-zone, or he has to go up top to make a play, he doesn't do it very well. No different from when he was lofting balls to De'Runnya Wilson.

It's why he was a 4th round draft pick.

Don't expect too much from Prescott, and don't be surprised when Mark Sanchez is taking snaps.

Please follow me on Twitter. Need some love there since I cancelled my old account :-/

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Coming Up Tonight...

Tune in here to listen live online as I wave the old STARS AND STRIPES...

I'll be talking about the Ryan Lochte drama, why he did it, how Brazil is partially at fault, and whether I really care that much.

Also discussing last night's UFC 202, and whether MMA is kind of over.

How I discovered a new found liking for the Olympics, but could use a lot less of it.

Wondering what adults actually like Pro Wrestling.

The Eagles signing of Dorial Green-Beckham speaks to management's flaws.

And a whole bunch more.

8 to 11 PM on WIP.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

08/03/16 ICYMI - Radio Show Highlights

Radio show highlights form this past Wednesday on 94.1 WIP in Philadelphia.

I devise the best way to make the American Olympic team interesting, tackle the NFL's drug problems, and talk about why I think MLB Umpire Bob Davidson is awesome for throwing a fan out of the stadium.

That and more right here...commercial free...

Friday, July 22, 2016

Trump and His Asshole Face

I watched that shit show of an acceptance speech last night, and some post-game analysis on CNN.

Few things of note.

Trump is just a weird person with an asshole face.

There came a point in his life where that strange face he makes (eyes squinted with the wry smile) became his thing.  It worked for him.  Must have come about when he felt he did, or said, something right.  Which probably wasn't right, but was at least perceived by him as right.  It's like he's saying, "I told you so..."  People love that line, and that type of face...

I wonder how many times he made that face when telling people about one of his businesses that ultimately failed.  I'm guessing every day.

It's basically the face of an asshole.  And I guess if you support him; if he's your asshole, then you don't mind that face.  But I'm guessing to undecided voters that's just the face of an asshole, and it won't win over many people.  Generally speaking, people don't like assholes.  I happen to be an exception.

How come no one calls Trump on his "Make America Great AGAIN" bullshit?

Is America not "great?"  I mean, can you imagine someone went on FOX News or Conservative talk radio and said "America's not great!"?

What the fuck would Sean Hannity say to someone if they questioned America's greatness?  Aren't all the people who support the Republicans the ones who are always espousing America's greatness?  Now all of a sudden it's not great anymore?  What happened?  What did I miss?

Furthermore, if we're going to make it "great again", when exactly was it great?  What did it look like then?  When did it stop being great?  Were the presidents who were in office then Republicans or Democrats?  Were they Whig?  Was it great when the fucking WHIG PARTY WAS IN OFFICE?

When was it great, and more importantly, who was it great for?

Were unions stronger when it was great?  Was the tax code more fair?  WHEN THE FUCK WAS IT GREAT?  Can SOMEONE ask him that?  Was it great for a day?  A week, a month, a short period of time?

Was it great when Reagan was in office and Trump was a Democrat, non-Christian, pro-choice guy with an Asshole face?

Lets be clear here: the people in America who think this place may not be so great are quite often the poorest Americans; the most vulnerable.  Or maybe Americans who feel it's a racist country, always being judged by the color of their skin.

In other words, there are a lot of people who have a right to question America's greatness, but believe me, it's NOT the people who were in Cleveland to support Trump.


Ahh, but that's the point of Trump support.

There is a largely white, angry, dumb segment of America who is scared about what the future looks like.  A place where a white guy doesn't get a job over a black guy because of skin color.  Where women are as likely to get ahead, and where they make their own choices about their bodies.  One where poor children get access to health care and after school programs.  Where people of all shapes, sizes and beliefs are treated equally under the law.  

To these people America was "Great" when only they were represented, and when others were treated like garbage.

That's the America Trump is promising them.

They don't need solutions, they don't need answers, they don't need honesty, consistency, or anything close to those things.

They just need a guy willing to represent their own delusions, and no one is more delusional than Trump himself.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016


Why not do a draft especially when you've only witnessed like half the dudes who will be selected?

That said, I have watched A LOT of ball, so I have some idea.

OK...I'll limit it to top 10, and then make some wild predictions.

1) 6ers - Ben Simmons - He'll be a star.
2) Lakers - Brandon Ingram -  Don't love the guy.  Think he's B+ level in all areas.
3) Celtics - Dragan Bender - You know I LOVED Kristaps.  I LIKE Bender.  Better D than KP.
4) Suns - Marquese Chriss - 3 months ago I kinda loved this dude.  Now everyone does ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
5) Wolves - Kris Dunn - I think they trade the pick though, but Dunn out of Top 5 makes no sense.
6) Pelicans - Jamal Murray - Need a guard.  He can shoot.  Better on D than Hield.
7) Denver - Jaylen Brown - Can't dribble, can't shoot, can't pass, BUT...he's an athlete. So, whatever.
8) Kings - Buddy Hield - I don't like him, but so jealous of the Warriors they'll do it. Good character.
9) Raptors - Domantas Sabonis - Will play and stay in Canada.  That matters to them.
10) Bucks - Wade Baldwin - If Greek Freak is going to run the show, Baldwin a great compliment.

Alright, since none of this will happen I'll add some other random thoughts.

Henry Ellenson, Malachi Richardson, Malik Beasley, Deyonta Davis, Demetrius Jackson, Deandre Bembre, and Petr Cornelie will all be worth drafting.

I also think Stephen Zimmerman will end up being a good NBA player, or at least serviceable.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

The Ole Miss Meltdown and the Complicit NFL/Media

It's going to take someone much more dedicated and talented to uncover this story fully, but what transpired tonight for Ole Miss players during the first round of the 2016 NFL Draft deserves inspection.  The reality is it didn't start tonight.  It began in 2013 when Ole Miss captured the #1 ranked recruiting class in NCAA Football.

At the time it happened Sports Illustrated's Andy Staples wrote this:

Since the possibility emerged that (Huge) Freeze and the Rebels might sign a recruiting haul that included's top-ranked receiver (Laquon Treadwell), top-ranked offensive lineman (Laremy Tunsil) and top-ranked overall player (defensive end Robert Nkemdiche), one question has nagged Freeze. Not even the question, truly, but the way everyone outside Oxford automatically fills in the answer without even considering another possibility.
How are they doing that?
Well, tonight we found out some of the reasons "how."

The rumblings about the type of players Freeze was bringing in didn't just begin this past week, as questions lingered for years about Tunsil, Nkemdiche, and many others, including Nkemdiche's brother.  Except tonight Tunsil decided to admit to the world that his coach, possibly Freeze, gave him money.  Tunsil was also suspended 7 games earlier in the season for "impermissible benefits", and was involved in other issues, including beating his Step-Dad's ass (which I loved).

Nkemdiche's had/has own behavioral issues which most fans of the draft already know about.

Treadwell didn't have any off-field issues, but was brutally injured trying to make an amazing play.  Thankfully, for his sake, he returned.  I remember watching the game with my wife and praying he would make it back so he could achieve what he did this evening.

All 3 of these players were at one point, or another, projected to be top 10 picks, with 2 of them often considered the #1 player overall.  Instead, they were selected 13, 23 & 30.

I'm not of the mind that if one guy is doing something fishy then every guy on the team is.  You have situations like what happened in Miami, where Luther Campbell was paying people off, and then what happened with some Ohio State players during the Maurice Clarett era, where boosters were involved.  And there are countless other stories.

But when a player claims he's getting money from COACHES, then you have to assume nearly every player recruited by those very coaches at least KNOWS something about it, at least the stars.  Whether they choose to partake, or not, isn't really relevant because they have opted to play for people of questionable character.

And that's insane.

Coach Freeze took over Ole Miss in 2011, an SEC team which was clearly not one of the best in the conference, let alone the country.  Within 2 seasons he somehow snagged the #1 recruiting class in the country, and they became part of the national conversation.  In 2017 they're projected to be in the Top 25.  Any wonder how he did it?

For years I've heard people say, "It's different in the SEC", as it relates to players, payments, recruiting, gifts, girls, school work, you name it.  I've always believed it.  After tonight?  I think it's official.  At least for some teams.  In some respects, it's the reason Urban Meyer left Florida, where he was certainly a part of it.


I don't blame any of these kids for taking money, or whatever someone offers them.  So many of them come from poor backgrounds, bad schools, and are dealing with situations the likes of which I will never have to experience.  Watching Treadwell at the draft with his 3 year old daughter, I feel great this day has come from him.  He was 18 when he had a child, and expected to be a football player and student at Ole Miss.  If I were him I'd take whatever I could get.  Sure, it's a risk, but at 18 years of age I certainly wasn't making great decisions.

Ole Miss had the #1 recruiting class, and there were questions.  Tonight there were questions about the 3 stars from that class, and they suffered somewhat for it.  During the Tunsil press conference someone from the NFL ushered Tunsil off the stage, and then quieted him down.  The NCAA makes millions off these kids, and then the media destroys them for "poor decisions."  The NFL ushers them away behind closed doors and tells them how it is.

The optics of how things shook out for Ole Miss tonight were terrible.  The university is complicit, the coaches are complicit, the NFL is complicit, and the media as well

As far as I'm concerned, the least complicit?  The athletes who are made to be the villains.  Especially the one who began to tell the truth.

Hosts on ESPN and NFL Network are painting the players as the villains, but they're not saying a word about the system which makes them villains.  ESPN's Mark Dominik is falling all over himself trying to lay blame on Tunsil.  Maybe open your eyes for a second and ask yourself why these players are even in this situations to begin with.

Someone needs to look further into this, dissect it, rip it wide open.  Because it's just one more piece of evidence about how these "student athletes" are really just cattle for the football economy.

Maybe I'm Wrong - Draft

Because I'm a loser I spend about 30 minutes each night before I fall asleep watching youtube vids of various NFL prospects.  If I was single I'd probably be doing something else, but as a married man with a child, this is what I do now.

Sooo...having watched a good number of videos, here are some non-first round players I think will pan out.


Philip Ely - Don't even know if he'll be drafted, but was impressed every time I saw him.  He's small.


CJ Prosise - Looks like he can do it all.  Not a star, but a player.
Daniel Lasco - Not sure why people knock him.  Reminds me of Arian Foster.
Josh Ferguson - Small, but this is someone who will produce in the NFL, at least on 3rd down.
DeAndre Washington - Smaller yet, but again, he will produce.  Reminds me of Ray Rice.


Michael Thomas - Cannot understand how he's in 2nd round.  Amazing hands and body control
Pharoh Cooper - Very good player who dealt with poor QB play.
Marquez North - Always looked like a beast to me, but Tennessee WRs have been bad in NFL.
Jordan Payton - Always uses his hands; seems to run great routes.
Demarcus Robinson - Off the field problems, but he looked dominant when playing in SEC.
Da'Runya Wilson - Seriously, have to root for someone with that name.  Da'Runya off the Field.


Jerrell Adams - Looks like best TE in class to me.
Nick Vannett - Can do everything, and is a great blocker.


Carl Nassib - Endless motor, and just manages to make plays.  Poor man's Bosa.
Bronson Kaufusi - Seems like he can play any position.


Chris Jones - Should be in Top 20
Kenny Clark - Should be in first round.  Dude is immovable.


Alex McCallister - Super skinny, but feel like he'll be doing things.
Jordan Jenkins - Watched almost every Georgia game, and he was always involved.
Dadi Nicholas - Not sure where he plays, but he looked more good than bad.
Antonio Morrison - Got hurt a lot, but if he can stay healthy he just seems like a player/leader.


Josh Forrest - Reminds me of Vont Burfict.

Never got around to Safeties, CBs or OLs.  Sorry :-)

See how this turns out!

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

There's a Shit Storm in Philly...

...and umbrellas are in short supply.

Having had time to reassess the Eagles quarterback/draft scenario, I've come to the conclusion that this is a much bigger fucking mess than I first realized.  

Here are the 3 reasons I'm most bothered:

1) The Draft.

I don't hate the idea of trading up to get yourself a quarterback, as you can read about in my previous post.  I get it.  You need a good quarterback to win, and there just aren't many good ones coming out of college in the near term.  Next year's draft is worse.  So yes, I get it. bothers me the Eagles are picking 2nd and not 1st.  

Why?  Because Carson Wentz is not Jared Goff, and vice versa.  

One of them will surely be better than the other, and the Eagles won't even get to choose the one they believe will be the best of the two.  Now they can pretend they know what the Rams are doing (they don't), and they can pretend they "got their guy" regardless of who they get (they will), but the truth is they don't make the call.  Someone else does.  And that's fucking annoying! 

The Eagles sat idly by hoping no other team would shake up the draft board, but of course, that didn't happen.  Then they were forced to move into the #2 slot, which caused more problems.  Typical.  

I'll explain more about this in a moment.

2) The Quarterbacks.

I am pretty positive Wentz won't be great, but that Goff will be very good.  

That means the Eagles may be in a hole for years, unless Chase Daniel is somehow 5 times better than he was at Missouri.  As it stands he's not as good as Alex Smith, who is merely average.

Folks in the media have been saying, "We don't know what Wentz will be like...we've hardly seen him...the competition he faced wasn't great..."  All this is true, but you should still be able to tell if he's good.   

When I saw Joe Flacco at Delaware I knew pretty quickly he had the goods. 

Not Wentz.  I watched the entire FCS Title game, and while his team won and he made some plays, a lot of the big plays happened because of his teammates.  If you watch the game it's hard not to see this.  

Under-thrown balls, circus catches, bad shoulder fades, all that and more.  He did do some nice things, but any NFL quarterback would look good on that stage.  There's not a single NFL QB who couldn't have done what Carson Wentz did at North Dakota State.  Matt McGloin included.  

I'm not saying Wentz will be a complete bust, but I am saying he's a lot further away from a sure thing than Jared Goff, a player I have watched live many times. 

I do not believe he will ever be one of the top QBs in the NFL.  I hope I'm wrong. 

3) The Lying.  

I'm willing to bet Roseman and Lurie believed one of the two quarterbacks would slide down in the draft to #6, which meant #8 was a good position to be in.

Only a month ago the mock drafts had Tunsil going #1, and both quarterbacks somewhere in the Top 10.  In this scenario, the likelihood is the Eagles would have made a deal with the Ravens, jumped over Chip Kelly's 49ers, and snagged a QB they could live with at #6.  In the process they would have probably dealt a non-drama-laden Sam Bradford to another team.  

Had this happened things wouldn't have seemed all that bad, but of course, it did not.

Good results don't often come about for people who suck at their jobs.  

I call this part "the lying" because on draft night there is a 100% chance Roseman and Lurie will be lying to their fans when they say, "we got the player we wanted."  

We can't possibly know if this is true, and if both players are in fact coveted, then in essence there is no singular "guy."  If there is no singular "guy", then you are in fact lying. 

On a number of levels they're also lying to everyone on the roster (and the fans) due to their treatment of Bradford. They just signed the guy, and yet they plan on getting rid of him?  That wreaks of dishonesty.  When you sign a player in the NFL usually the plan is to keep him, at least for a moment.

 Not the Eagles.  

As it stands, there cannot be a single player on the Eagles, who when speaking to management about anything can ever assume they're being told the truth.  Why would they?  Look how they've handled this situation.  

There is officially an air of dishonesty surrounding management.  


There are those in the media saying the Eagles are in a "great spot right now...they hold the cards..."  etc.  

Don't listen to a word of it.  They're not in a great spot.  They hold no cards (and few picks).

Despite Sam Bradford proving himself to be a whiny asshole, and his agent an idiot, these facts don't mean management is winning.  They're all wrong in how they've handled things.

Being less wrong doesn't make you right.

The more I think about this, the more I don't see it working out. 

Having 3 QBs next year, trying to get your guy, I'm fine with all that.  If Wentz plays great, that's wonderful.

Just not fine with how management has handled any of it.  And it's because of how things are handled that I see failure.  

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Eagles Go All In

Was this a bad trade?  Really depends on your perspective.

The last time I was on 94.1 WIP I spent nearly 3 hours discussing how poor of a General Manager Howard Roseman is.  That hasn't changed one bit.  He's still not good, and probably the worst.

BUT...I also discussed how some aspects of the job aren't difficult, and giving away a lot of picks for a better pick is one of those scenarios.

You hire a new coach, so you want to give him every opportunity to prove he can succeed from the ground up.  Drafting a top quarterback is doing just that.  You'll know soon enough if ex-QB and now Head Coach Doug Pederson can design an offense and run a team with players of his choosing.

Looking at it from this perspective, it's a good move.

As for having highly paid QBs Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel on your team already, well that's just a one-year scenario.  This is why the NFL players demand free agency comes before the draft - so guys like Bradford and Daniel can get a lot more money.

Bradford will not be with the Eagles this time next year.  If he succeeds, you have someone worth trading, and maybe you get picks back.  If he doesn't?  Well, he's gone anyway.  In the short-term it's a waste of money, but over time and within the grand scheme of your franchise, it's pretty irrelevant.  Besides, it's not Howie or Doug's money.  Or yours.

I have to assume Eagles Owner Jeff Lurie was head over heals with both Jared Goff and Carson Wentz because after he just laid out money for 2 other QBs, there's no way this gets done unless he is firmly on board.  Considering Roseman's penchant for sucking up to the owner it would be a safe bet to say Lurie was in agreement.  Neither Pederson nor Roseman jumps into the water until Lurie dips his toes in first, right?  Of course.

Now lets say it doesn't work out for the QB they drafted,  Well, what's the difference?  It's not going to workout for Bradford, and no position matters more than QB.  Chase Daniel?  Come on.  Is Alex Smith that good?  He can't beat out that guy.  Did you watch him at Missouri?  I did.  He's average.  If the QB they take fails it doesn't change the trajectory of where the team is today all that much.

You have to get a quarterback in order to win, especially when you consider that 3 of the 4 remaining QBs in the 2015 playoffs were #1 overall picks.


Lets look at this from a different perspective.

Had the Eagles done this last year they would now have Marcus Mariota as a starting QB (who I personally don't like).  Would Eagles fans be satisfied today if they had Mariota as a starter moving into this upcoming season?  Yet were minus guys like Jordan Hicks, Nelson Agholor, Gabe Wright (DET), and this year's first and second round picks?

I don't think the fans complain much.

The anticipation alone of having a full season with a Mariota at the helm, Eagles fans would be pumped up.  Plus the team would have had money from losing Bradford, and the draft would have been secondary to them.  Maybe they add Alshon Jeffrey and/or Danny Trevathan to go with Mariota, etc?

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with the scenario because as I mentioned, I don't love Mariota, but that's just me.  However, I think both Goff and Wentz are going to be very good, especially Goff, so in this scenario I'm fine with it.

If I want my team to have an actual future, a chance to win it all, and not just kind of meander around as a team with no real chance of holding significant hardware, then I like this trade.

If I am one of those lost souls who believes Bradford is the long-term answer, and that this team is going in the right direction, then I'm upset.  Believe me though, it's not going in the right direction.


Finally, and least discussed of all, the point about NEXT YEAR'S QB class.

Let me be the first to say that short of a miraculous transformation of his abilities, Clemons's DeShaun Watson is not going to be a great QB.  Miami's Brad Kaaya and Ole Miss's Chad Kelly, I wouldn't count on them either.

There's a very good chance the price of paying to get Watson next season will be even greater than it is for the #2 pick this year.  And the Eagles will need a quarterback going into 2017.  That being the case, why not start the process a year early with a QB you can draft now; one you believe will both be better than anyone in next year's crop?

It actually makes sense when you step back and think about it.

Yeah, Howie Roseman is not a great GM, and this may not work out.  But it only fails if the QB fails, and that's a risk worth taking.

I'm firmly on record of believing Jared Goff is going to be excellent.  Which, of course, is why the Eagles will get Wentz.  I like him too though, so we'll see.

Not the worst day to be an Eagles fan, relatively speaking.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Process vs Theory: The Sixers Failure

If you're not a fan of the Sixers then you're probably unaware of the drama surrounding "the process" (TP) and former General Manager Sam Hinkie. 

TP basically meant the team would be bad for a long period of time, acquire high draft picks, trade for more draft picks, and eventually build a winner through great young players and assets.

The basis for supporting TP was simply: there's no point in just making the playoffs and being average.  We have to be terrible before we're great, but lets at least try to be great.


If you want to be brought up to speed very quickly about what has now transpired, while simultaneously being entertained, all you need do is listen to the argument between legendary Philly broadcaster Howard Eskin and his son Spike Eskin, who now manages the radio station.  The first 10 minutes are worth your time, especially if your city provides you with lame sports talk.

Bottom line here is Howard thinks Hinkie and ownership are a bunch of idiots for allowing TP to take place (he's right, but couldn't have known.  It was merely a guess).

Spike believes if the team (and fans) were patient, it would eventually pay off (he's wrong because the owners put the wrong guy in charge).

Both wrong, and to some extent, both right.  

In theory, TP could actually work if you had different ownership.

Spike is a believer in the theory of TP itself.  Problem here is the man running the process (Hinkie) continually selected the wrong players year in; year out.  Ownership allowed him to do this, but seemingly leaned on him this past draft, which resulted in the team selecting the wrong player: Jahlil Okafor.

I have to figure if Hinkie had the SLIGHTEST clue about judging talent he would have selected Kris Porzingis.  This is what leads me to believe TP was not entirely run by him.

Anyone with an eye could see what Porzingis brought to the table.  Hinkie did not (or was forced not to).

If TP was being run by a different organization, with competent people at the helm, it could certainly work out.  Like if the Warriors, with Joe Lacob, Jerry West, Bob Myers, Steve Kerr, and others were in control, TP could work.  But that's not the case.

Putting Porzingis aside, what's worse is Hinkie seemingly caved in to the weight of TP itself, maybe fearing it wasn't working, or that he'd lose his job.  Taking Okafor was the end of the process.  In the 3rd position they either needed to move up or down to get a guard, or bit the bullet and taken Emmanuel Mudiay at 3.  

What did Hinkie do?  He went safe.  Safe isn't how TP works.  TP is the opposite of safe.  He choked.
But yes, A PROCESS can work; even one that follows along the same path the Sixers embarked upon.

THIS PROCESS did not work because the people in charge didn't know what they were doing.

It's really that simple.

The reality is, even if all the players the Sixers acquired end up healthy there's no guarantee this team would be better than say the Atlanta Hawks.  If you want to be as good as the Atlanta Hawks, then you might be happy with the direction of the Sixers.

Short of that they'd have to sell off assets and continue TP with no end in sight, while hoping their prize piece doesn't get injured...again.

Spike is right in supporting A PROCESS.

Howard is right in calling out ownership.

I think what rankles TP believers is all the fans who refused to ever recognize it was a good idea in theory.


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Trump is a Trump Supporter

Can you imagine what George W. Bush must be thinking as he clears away brush on his non-working farm?  Had he not listened to the experts, the politicians, family members, friends, consultants, business folk and everyone else, about the need to have to actually know shit when running for President he could have cleared so much more brush!

Assuming he even follows elections, or spends time listening to Trump speak, he must be shaking his head in disgust.  All that time spent learning things, and to what end?  Trump proves you don't have to know anything, literally.  Not a thing about what the country is facing, or how to fix a problem.  All you need to do is ramble on incessantly about whatever topic happens to come to mind.

Oh, you haven't heard the interview with the Washington Post Editorial Board where Trump says absolutely nothing of substance, nor answers a single question specifically for over an hour?

You're probably thinking it's a waste of time, but believe me, it's not.  At some point your mind just starts wondering off, but then it gets ripped back and you say out loud, "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?  IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING?"

Yes, it's really happening.  I can't imagine what was going through the minds of the people conducting the interview.  I wish I could see their faces.

So before you go listening to it let me just explain one simple thing:

There are many ignorant and stupid Trump supporters.  If they ever heard this interview they would come away thinking, "Trump is right!"  They will think, "The media doesn't treat him fairly...he is a great builder!"

Because these people are so stupid and/or willfully ignorant they don't even consider the questions being asked.  To them it doesn't matter that he can't answer a question because they can't either, and he represents them.  They won't realize the questions being asked are paramount to understanding whether this man has the intelligence or capability to lead because they don't understand the necessity for those things.  They just see a man being treated unfairly, even though he's not.

Many Trump supporters are just not smart enough to recognize a news organization is supposed to ask serious questions, and that they should expect serious answers.

And frankly, I don't think Trump realizes it either.  We give him way too much credit.  The general belief is because he has succeeded at making buildings and has a lot of money that he's therefore intellectual, or smart; that he's "playing" the crowd.

It's a fallacy.  The guy is Al Czervik.

And that's what is missing from the national dialogue. Trump speaks on the level of his voters because behind the money and opportunity given to him, he is that voter.  He doesn't answer difficult questions because like them, he can't answer difficult questions.  He is petty and redundant, but so are they.

Trump isn't using his voters.  It's not an act.


Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Sanders/Clinton Difference

I want to preface this again by saying I've not listened to a word either of these two people have said for the last few months.  And I also don't plan to.

What I have read the last few days is there are "voting irregularities in Arizona" and "Sanders is actually beating Clinton but the media won't tell you!"  Strange how I read that in the media.

This will be quick.

The Clinton campaign is not involved in voting irregularities in a Republican controlled state like Arizona.  The fact that polling locations were not as plentiful in no way proves Sanders would have won that state - one in which he lost by nearly 20% points.  Many of those closed polling areas were in minority and urban neighborhoods, who have shown themselves to largely be Clinton voters.  Someone suggested to me on Facebook that "Sanders voters were more likely to vote at night!"

Seriously, shut the fuck up already.  Is night-voter a new demographic?  Do you hear yourself?

This is the bottom line in all of this, and the reason Clinton is going to win:

There is a system in place; it's an imperfect system, but it's one Hillary Clinton understands.  It's one controlled by elected state officials like governors and others.  Just like you saw in Florida during Gore v Bush.  The states control the elections at all levels.  Clinton is more likely to receive support from these election officials after having spent YEARS engaged with these people.  That's the system.  Politics is real.  There has been a lot of horse-trading going on well before you "felt the Bern."

It wasn't the cause of any problems in Arizona because the Republican governor is in no way helping Clinton, or anyone likely to vote for her.  But it is a hurdle someone like Sanders would need to overcome.  It's going to be no different for Trump in Republican states that don't want to see him win.
All told, Clinton spent years battling on the front lines, and in return she receives the preferential treatment of all the statewide politicians who support her.  Senator Sanders was mostly in Vermont, or speaking to a largely empty chamber in the Senate.  She was on the front lines; he was not.

That's the difference in why she'll be the candidate.

I appreciate the support for Sanders, and the excitement behind him.  It has been borne out of Gore v Bush and countless other issues.  But it doesn't upend an entire system.  That takes years of fighting; battling.  The years Hillary Clinton already put in.

When Sanders loses we'll see how many of you pack up and quit.  Say things like "the system is rigged!"

Thing is, Hillary Clinton will still be fighting when you've stopped.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

You Should Support Hillary

I want to be clear about this: I don't watch the debates.  I don't listen to a word Hillary Clinton says.  I can't stand her voice when she shrieks.  I have not paid one bit of attention to a single policy prescription she has uttered in the last year.  There are certain things she does as a female that bother me as a male.  We're different.  We're built differently.  We've experienced different things.  We see things differently.

None of that matters to me.

I am 100% solidly committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for President.

The primary reason is simply this: she's the toughest person in America.  Period.

This woman has taken more hits than any politician in the history of our nation, and it's not even close.  Whether it was her marriage, her looks, the way she acts, things she previously said, friends, , acquaintances, policy issues, scandals, you name it, she has taken all of it.  Every last drop.  And yet...she isn't even wobbling.

There's not a single shred of evidence that all of the supposed scandals surrounding her, the perceived "lying" and the like, is anything but manufactured.  For if there was a single lie, or any evidence of fraud pertaining to her life she would be in jail.

Yep.  She would be in jail.

How do I know this?  Because there's an entire industry devoted to putting her behind bars, supported by thousands of politicians and government employees hoping to see it happen.  Millions and millions of dollars have been spent to destroy her.  Movies produced to end her career.

Still standing.

Still fighting for what she believes in.

I am 100% committed to voting for and supporting this woman for President.  A woman who has taken more shit than any man could ever stand.


Here's why I'm not supporting my dad for President. Uhhh, I mean Senator Bernie Sanders.

First, I'd like to say I think it's kind of cute that Americans are supporting a Socialist Jewish guy from Brooklyn to be the leader of the free world.  It's like if Neil Simon and Mel Brooks came together on a last comedy piece.

Lets be clear about something though.  If Sanders had all of the same qualities he does now, but was 45 years old and the Senator from California, a lot of his supporters would not be there.  It's a lot easier to support a Jewish Grandpa for President than it would be a highly energized "Jew."

You'd hear things brought up like, "How will the Arab world respond with a Jew for President?" and "Great, another Jew running the world?"  And many worse things.  Believe it.  But because he's like this old comfy Jewish guy it's different.  It's cute.  Plus, no one thinks he's going to win so it's not really addressed too closely.  I bet it even gives some people a feeling they're open-minded, but that's not the point...

It's worth pointing out that I largely agree with most of what Sanders has to say, maybe even more than Clinton's message, but that's not enough for me.  While Sanders was in Congress espousing ideas Prof. Bronner was so fond of repeating to me, Clinton was taking flack on the front lines.  When he was speaking his mind, his truth, his beliefs to an often empty and ignorant chamber, she was out there taking heat.  And don't get me wrong because I appreciate Sanders's ideological purity and his unwavering consistency.  It's fantastic. is also not realistic.  And that's the key point to everything.

There's a place for Senator Sanders.  He should have a voice.  That place is not the Oval Office.


Realism is the key difference between Sanders and Clinton.  If I lived in a world where we could start from scratch; enact an entire society tomorrow, I would vote for Bernie without hesitation.  And so would Hillary!  He speaks to her as well, as they are cut from the same cloth.  Sure, she has been jaded by everything she has had to deal with, and sure she has had to make deals with people she hates, but again - that's the real world.

When you spend a lifetime in both the public eye and public office you're going to have to make decisions, and those become part of your record.  They don't necessarily define who you are though.  In fact, you compromise so you can live to fight another day.  And no one has been fighting longer.
Bernie is preaching an idealism.

Hillary is preaching a realism.

I appreciate both, but I have to go with the person who I not only know will do right by all Americans, but who will not stop fighting until there's not a single breath left in her body.

At the end of the day, I know deep down inside that when she finally has her way; when no one else is telling her what to do, how and when, she's going to be the most forceful and most effective Democrat we have ever seen in our lives.

I don't need to watch the debates, hear her discuss policies, or relive the past to know this.

I see her standing tall.

That's enough for me.


Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Radio Blogger Rich Lieberman: Scumbag Misogynist Calls Out Others

I think a lot of credit should be given Rich Lieberman, the Bay Area media blogger.  I say this because it's pretty uncanny that a man could have such a loyal following while being so consistently wrong about everything.  And, AND...when he's not wrong he's usually just ironic.

Like he was today, when discussing "misogyny" as it relates to a certain sports radio host.

Rich isn't a fan of posting negative responses on his site, so I figured I'd just write it out here.

In his latest tirade he goes off on Kate Scott, a Bay Area sports media personality, who not only knows sports, but is also a good person.  I've had a number of conversations with Kate (none recently), and every time we spoke I came away a bit better for it.  She's great.

Believe me when I tell you, Scott knows her sports.  And since I know my sports more than most, I feel qualified to say that.  But lets be realistic here and recognize that "knowing sports" isn't a hard thing to do.  You watch, you read, you talk to people.  Poof!  You know sports.

What is hard to do is to entertain people within the realm, which she does quite well, on multiple platforms.

Speaking of entertaining within sports, the next person Lieberman attempted to smear was John Lund.

There are few people in Bay Area radio I can actually listen to for more than 15 minutes, and Lund is certainly one of them.  In fact, I have ONE TIME in my life written a radio host to tell them I like what they do.  Lund was that individual.

Apparently Lieberman takes issue with Lund's supposed "misogyny" and "juvenile" behavior.  Are you kidding me?  Have you seen your own website?  I mean, I've spoken with Lieberman directly, and the things he has uttered to me personally about females is nothing short of deplorable.  I remember one instance having to do with Robin Winston in particular.  Lets just say on more than one occasion he mentioned "what I'd do to her."  Just embarrassing and disgusting.

Let me tell you what she'd do to you: create space through running.

This guy can't go 6 weeks without posting photos of all the women he finds attractive in Bay Area news rooms, and when he's not doing that he's busy taking pot-shots at those he finds unattractive.  Furthermore, he allows comments to be posted about women which are both anonymous and flat out disgusting.  Considering the comments are moderated by himself, he's the one allowing for these things to see the light of day.  Plus, we don't even know if he is the one making the comments.  All told, anything written anonymously on your own site, that is misogynistic, racist, ageist, or any other "ist" you want to add on ultimately falls at the feet of the person publishing those comments.

And believe me, he's also posting the anonymous ones as well.

This is the guy taking shots at others?  Please, asshole, give it a rest.

As for Lund (and Papa), sure their show is littered with dick jokes and the like, but so what?  It's humorous.  Not all the time.  I'll agree they maybe do it a bit too much for my liking, but it's entertainment.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.   They usually get out of the cycle just when I've had too much. As for Lund specifically, he is actually quite self-deprecating on such a natural level that he in no way comes off as a misogynist.

I also find it interesting that Lieberman's blog consistently takes shots at Lund, but not Greg Papa.  Of course Rich would never criticize someone he may actually know, or in some way fears.  But if you listen to the show of which Lund is co-host, Papa is at the VERY LEAST 50% responsible for any perceived lewd comments about women.  This man usually triples down on a joke!

I personally have no issue with it at all.  I do have issue with a gutless, jealous, "media blogger" attempting to slander and smear people every chance he gets.

But just you wait, folks.  Because my wonderful knowledge of Rich Lieberman and bread butterer Michael Savage will be coming to you oh-so-soon.  Just you wait...

"It's a doozy!"

Sixers One Way, Warriors the Other, and the End the NBA?

Philadelphia's Two NBA Teams

There is something so unbelievably strange to me about the two franchises the Golden State Warriors and Philadelphia 76ers that forces me to write this.

As some of you know I've been doing some occasional on-air radio work for SportsRadio 94 WIP in Philly, and for the last however-many-months have been waist deep in east coast sports.  Yet at the same time I live here in the Bay Area, engulfed in the "we kinda care" mentality that exists among fans here.  

Truth be told, they're better for it, but in no way do they live and die the way the rest of the country does.  Why?  Well, because everything here is kind of awesome.  

I digress...

If you happen to be one of those hardcore fans that missed the game last night, you might overhear someone at Philz Coffee say, "Can't believe the Warriors lost last night."  

Someone else will immediately chime in with, "Really?  How many is that?"  

The only thing similar to the surprise of the Warriors (53-5) losing is the 76ers (8-51) actually winning,

Except that conversation is more like, "Can't believe the Sixers won last night."

"Shut the fuck up.  Who'd they beat?!?!"  

I'm probably one of the only people paying seriously close attention to both these franchises, and I have to tell you both are at times equally hard to watch.  You'd think watching the Warriors (a team I do root for) would be easy since winning is fun, and I'm sure for the lifers it hasn't been a struggle.  But from my perspective the Warriors point out just how bad so many other NBA teams are that it at times becomes painful to watch them put on these clinics.  Usually by the 2nd Quarter I'm ready to shut it down.  

The best games of recent note have been Saturday's Oklahoma City game (albeit overrated because of the poor jobs the refs did - despite Curry's heroics), the Atlanta Hawks game of last week, and oddly, the 76ers game where the Warriors almost loss.  I mean, what person wasn't hoping the 6ers won that game?  Of course, the Warriors were hardly trying...

When it comes to the 76ers all I can say is I'd rather watch a train crash than one pass safely by.  Not sure if that always holds for sports, but in this scenario it sometimes does.

For all intents and purposes, the 76ers are a borderline D-League team.  It's that bad.  For those not in the know, the running joke in Philly circulates around the phrase "The Process", or more accurately, "trust the process."  

This is centered around General Manager Sam Hinkie's concept to continually play poorly, acquire as many high draft picks as possible (and low ones), draft players with upside, and then have all of these things fall neatly into place eventually resulting in the 76ers becoming a great team.

Except it's not working.  At all.  And it's why I'm writing this.

After thinking about how annoying so many newly transplanted Warriors fans are in their recently discovered adulation for the sport of basketball (they do this with all sports here), it occurred to me that the 76ers "process" is so fundamentally flawed that even if they had Steph Curry and Klay Thompson on their roster they wouldn't be winning any titles.  That's the absurd reality about how far away the 76ers are from winning.  

Yep.  I believe this.  The 76ers recent draft picks of Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid and Jahlil Okafor are getting them nowhere near a championship, even with Curry and Thompson.  Throw Draymond Green into the mix and you might definitely have something, truthfully those 3 can make any team a winner.  Granted, with Curry and Thompson on the team they would select other players, but this is just to point out how poor the picks are in the overall scheme of things.

The reason I believe this is because the players Hinkie has selected are so lacking in basic game fundamentals, which runs counter to every single player on the Warriors roster, and the overall design of the team.  There is a hardly a player on Golden State who does not completely understand what it means to move without the ball to free up a teammate.  They do this almost innately.  It's a major part of the reason why Curry has become so successful.  

The 76ers?  Outside of maybe Nick Stauskas, who is seemingly getting worse by the week, I'm not sure they have a player who understands the essence of team basketball.  We'll discuss this more shortly, but lets just chalk it up to this franchise is still a number of players away from being good, and that's after 3 consecutive picks in the Top 6 of the NBA draft.

I hear a number of callers into sports radio stations, and even hosts themselves, say things like, "The rest of the league needs to take notice of what the Warriors are doing."  Doesn't matter.  It won't be replicated.  But even short of replicating it, the 76ers are seemingly not even learning a thing from the road map itself.  They've acquired 3 bigs who have a combined 2.5 years of college basketball under their collective belt.  The first barely has any offensive skill, the second is an injury waiting to happen with about 5 years of competitive basketball experience, and the third is basically a throwback to an era that has seemingly passed him by.  As for their guards, prepare to see most of them playing for the Delaware 87ers.   

Eventually the 76ers will win.  They have to.  And someone might say, "Look, the process worked!"  Well, I can assure you that nothing they've done regarding the last 3 draft picks is getting the team closer to being a viable franchise, let alone a contender.  

If the 76ers management understood the direction of the league they could have made 3 very different selections: CJ McCollum, Aaron Gordon and Kristaps Porzingis.  These 3 could have been the start of a championship team (I'm sure there are other combos).  A lights-out two-way guard who spent 4 years in college, an intelligent and outstanding defender in Gordon, and Porzingis, a player who may very well completely change the game.

McCollum is excelling in Portland, Gordon is being compared to Draymond Green, and Porzingis, a player many believe has transcendent qualities, who wouldn't even meet with the 76ers pre-draft.

The Sixers likely are left with depreciating assets, two out of the 3 just recently reaching the legal drinking age.

Of course, the one who shouldn't be drinking at all has made all the headlines...

It's fair to point out that taking Noel, in a year that was so incredibly weak, may have been the right pick.  You could argue he was worth the "upside" when the "process" was beginning.  Except the follow-up picks have been so lacking it's hard to credit management otherwise.

The reality is the team has no vision.  If you believed in this supposed "process" you select Porzingis.  It was clear immediately he had the most upside of any player.  He was available to you.  Not selecting him leads me to believe they've stopped believing their own bullshit.

You can see my take on Porzingis just from having seen him for 5 minutes in Summer League.


Oh, fundamentals.  

They're hard to describe and explain when discussing the modern game, but let me just say this: There are two teams in the NBA whose franchises are mostly made up of players who spent at least 2 years starting in college (closer to 3-4), or have a number of players from overseas, where "team basketball" is more heavily stressed.  They are the Warriors and the San Antonio Spurs.  

Recently, the Miami Heat won 2 titles with some extremely talented players, but keep in mind the team was littered with intellectual ballers like Ray Allen, Shane Battier, to some extent Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem and others.  Even still, they barely escaped the aging Spurs in 2013.  

The bottom line is the best teams in the NBA understand how to play the game on a higher level than what most "one and done" filled teams are capable of achieving.  Yes, there will be outliers, but they border on being unicorns.  

That's why it's so shocking to me when I hear former superstars like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson and Charles Barkley trying to cut down the Warriors style of play.  Guys like Curry, Thomson and others are dominating because they're playing the same type of basketball which these greats played: fundamentally sound.  Same goes for the Spurs.  

I mean, are these former players actually watching the games?  Yes, the 3-point shot has completely altered the game, but the reality is it's ONE player who's actually doing it.  Without Curry on the floor, Green would not be a great shooter because he would rarely have open looks.  Thompson is a very good shooter, made even better because of Curry's presence.  When you look at the rest of the teams around the NBA who are running the awful offense of driving the lane, kick it out for 3, rotate if covered, eventual 3-point shot, yeah, it's painful.  It's worth criticizing.  

But that's not the Warriors.  

They are the anomaly in all of this.

As for the Spurs, the reason they have been so good for the last few years despite their aging roster is because their core players are intelligent basketball players.  Intelligence and skill is beating raw athletic ability.  As talented as the Clippers and OK City are, they're never going to win with those players.  I think that's obvious.  And they have guys who can jump over the backboard and shoot from 40 feet away.

During the Spurs run a couple years ago, I heard fans say things like, "This Spurs team is one of the best of all time!  They're so good without the ball!"

They were good.  They weren't that good.  It's really the opponents being that bad.  Most teams they played were so flawed and weak that the Spurs looked like the 1970 Knicks.  The Pistons, Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Trailblazers, Rockets, probably the Suns, and other teams from the later half of the 20th Century would have beaten the aging Spurs.  


Realize this, and take note of what I'm about to say to you because it will be true: 


Remember this.

The.  Last.

You will never again see an accidental superstar like Curry who spent 4 years in college, and whose father was a very good player.  You will never get a guy like Thompson who spent 3 years in college, also with a talented father, who both understand the game and shoots this well.  And you certainly won't find many guys like Draymond Green who had 4 years under Coach Tom Izzo at Michigan St, who can play 3 positions well.  In addition the Warriors have seasoned players like Andrew Bogut, Iguodola, Harrison Barnes, Mo Speights, and others.

You'll never see this happen again because the NCAA and NBA rules do not allow for players like this to develop..

You won't find fundamentally sound basketball stars like this in the United States ever again.

So take it all in and stop bitching about it because you'll wish you were seeing it again in 5 years.


I do not think the Warriors would be a 70 win team in any other era.  I think they would have consistently won 50, maybe 60.  But what makes them so great now is something many opponents in the 70s, 80s, and 90s possessed: team basketball.  

Long story short, Green's rebounds would be cut in half in any other era.

As an example, The Cleveland Cavaliers of Mark Price, Craig Ehlo, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty and others would beat the Cavs of today.  Forget athleticism.

Sidenote 2

There's a reason the current best college player is from Australia, and the likely best pick from last year from Latvia.  Worth noting, Karl Anthony Towns father was a coach, in case you want to toss him in there...  

I'm Glad

In 2013 the Warriors pushed the Spurs to 6 games in a series many either forgot about it, or had just expected would end as it did.  From my perspective the Warriors let it slip away.  They should have been up 2-0 ON THE ROAD.  Unfortunately for them, Boris Diaw decided to have the game of his life, sending the first one to overtime, and the Warriors to a loss.  It was a ridiculously good game.  

Heading home up 2-0 the Warriors would have had the confidence to win.  Instead, after game 3 they were down 2-1 and eventually lost.

Looking back, I'm glad this happened because that series somewhat set the stage for an eventual meeting this season.  The two teams have somewhat avoided each other since 2013, both winning titles without having to go through each other.  Because of this some tension now exists. 

Reality is the Warriors have nothing to worry about in the NBA this season.  We're really just hopeful the Spurs can give them a run.  Make it interesting!  Judging by the last game, they won't.  But we have to reach for something, right?  The Warriors are making the NBA meaningless, except, of course, if you're into "the process..."  

All told, I'm sure there's still a bad taste in Curry and Thompson's mouths from the 2013 season.  They're too competitive for there not to be.  Maybe winning a title is motivation enough, but always good to have that extra bit of sports-hate.

I'm guessing no one will challenge them.  Obviously, I'm a descendant of Nostradamus.


I mentioned the fundamentals, the 4 year players, etc. etc. throughout, and will mention it again.  AAU basketball has destroyed high school and college basketball, and by extension, the NBA is suffering.

I'm a guy who watches a shit-ton of college hoops, although recently this has been waning.  Why?  Because the product is getting worse.  It's not always bad, as there are some good years, but it's like a 2 steps back -1 forward scenario these days.  And I hate it.

I wish the NBA, or NCAA, could institute a new rules modeled on this idea:

You can go straight to the NBA from high school, but if you choose the college route you must stay for 2 years.  

This would not only help the NBA in the long run, but would undoubtedly help not only college basketball, but the players themselves.  The reasons should be obvious.

As it stands, this '1 year in college' rule is just awful.  I'm guessing it's a way to get eyes on the NCAA game just a little bit, but now both the NCAA and NBA are becoming hard to stomach.

Something has to be done.  I'm not sure what it is, but something has to be done.

Because like I wrote previously, once this Warriors team expires the NBA is going to be a big pile of crap.  But hey, if you're a Sixers fan that should give you hope.  Once the entire league sinks to a lower level they should be competitive...