The Most Valuable Under the Radar NBA Player Debate… Odom Holds the Key

May 19, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek.

Well, I was all set to argue for Vince Carter in today’s debate. And while he still may be a big part of the Eastern Conference Finals as they head to Boston (and we wait until Saturday) for game three, I couldn’t say much for him after he channeled his inner-Nick Anderson and missed key free throws down the stretch in last night’s game. So in a quick change of pace, I’m going to give a look to the riddle that is Lamar Odom and say that he is the most important under the radar player remaining in the NBA playoffs.

No one has really ever questioned Odom’s talent. Combined with Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol, the Lakers frontline is very tough when it is completely healthy. Together the three of them total nearly 21 feet of height. No one can come close to matching that. But Odom brings more than just a big body.

Odom has frustrated Lakers fans and coaches to no end with his inconsistent play this season. During some games Odom shows why he is one of the best sixth men every season on any team. During other games, he, quite frankly, fails to show up. Before Monday’s game against the Suns Odom averaged only 8.4 points and 8.5 rebounds per game thus far this postseason. That is down slightly from his averages of 10.8 points per game and 9.8 rebounds per game during the regular season. That’s what made Monday’s strong game of 19 points and 19 rebounds so surprising. It even led Suns star Amar’e Stoudamire to say that Odom had a “lucky game” in game one.

For all the talk about Kobe Bryant’s huge game, it was Odom’s game that stood out in the box score to me. Kobe is going to get his points. But for Odom to do what he did by dominating on the glass means the Lakers are still the favorite at this point. The seven offensive rebounds by Odom was definitely an added bonus.

This is exactly the type of performance many have expected of Odom since he entered the league in 1999 (yes, it’s been that long ago). Unfortunately, he was selected by that other team in Los Angeles, and we all know where the story goes from there. He came to the Lakers from the Heat in the Shaquille O’Neal trade. Ever since the trade he has been showing signs of stardom with his athleticism, but that is quickly followed by maddening inconsistency.

Now that all this love is coming Lamar Odom’s way, it’ll be interesting to see how he reacts in game two tonight. Can he duplicate his performance in game one, or will he fall back into the frustrating trap of inconsistency? Whether or not it was a “lucky game” from Odom in game one is up for debate, but he putting up the kind of numbers that will take the Lakers to the NBA Finals if he even comes close to duplicating them during the rest of the postseason.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The Most Valuable Under the Radar NBA Player Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Revisionist History Debate Verdict

May 19, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Fuel up the DeLorean, charge the Time Flux capacitor to 1.21 gigawatts of electricity, and set the controls for the football season for 2009, because TSD is about to go back… to the future.

Today’s debate pits Loyal Homer and Sports Geek against each other in a debate about Brian Cushing’s Defensive Rookie of the Year Award, and the sanctity of the space time continuum (well, it’s more about the former than the latter). Recently it came to the public’s attention that Brian Cushing tested positive for a substance banned by the NFL’s performance enhancing drug policy. In fact, as Sports Geek pointed out, it is the substance that is typically reserved for the fairer sex, the same substance that Manny Ramirez served a 50 game suspension for last season. Because of the revelation that Cushing’s dominance might be more a reflection of what he was putting in his body than his natural talent and heart, many have cried foul and suggested that he be stripped of his award. It appeared that the Associated Press heard the public’s cries for a revote, but should they have? Loyal Homer and Sports Geek each attempted to answer not whether the Associated Press got it right in awarding Cushing the award twice, but whether or not the AP should have revoted on the issue.

Loyal Homer’s argument centered around the potential dangers of setting what he called “a disturbing precedent” by attempting to alter history. Loyal Homer took the old “if we change the past who knows what type of trouble it might cause” defense. While I don’t think the revote will cause some sort of sideways flash to an alternate universe straight out of Lost, I do understand the point he is trying to make. A new precedent of stripping players of awards could give historians cart blanche to edit the records books and many feel this is one slippery slope better left alone. His argument was made even more effective by the fact that he backed up his assertion with the fact that a revote has never been the policy of the NFL. Citing Julius Peppers as an example, Loyal Homer proved that the NFLs previous inaction when evidence of cheating surfaced.

Sports Geek came back swinging, and I would like to personally congratulate Sports Geek for the viciousness and ruthlessness he displayed in the debate. He not only belittled Cushing for taking what he called a “lady-roid,” but also compared him to the infamous Kate Gosslin, earning him some serious points in my book. Sports Geek’s argument focused on the policy of a revote providing increased credibility and transparency in the awards selection process. He completely dismissed the criticism against revoting and altering the future of sports by explaining that a lack of previous precedent does not justify a lack of action. Sports Geek indicated that a sport/league can change, often for the better, so why shouldn’t the rules and policies that govern them evolve and adapt as well? He ended by making a powerful point, and pandering to my patriotic nature (which of course wins of course is yet another Ruthless tactic employed by Sports Geek in this one). He stated that if the validity of an award is called into question, the democratic and American thing to do is to reexamine the contested issue in light of new evidence.

I could not agree more, and that is why Sports Geek walks away with this one.

Now more than ever players should attempt to be above reproach during the steroid era. A lack of precedent is not enough reason to keep the record books from re-examining situations. I remember vividly the depressed feeling I had when Barry Bonds broke the all-time home run record. Even though I could not prove it, everything in my body felt that a cheater was stealing something precious from the memory of the sport I loved. Should definitive proof ever come to light indicating he did indeed cheat, I certainly wouldn’t want a mere lack of precedent be the reason Barry sits atop a throne of lies in the record books. That’s how I feel. I do not care what the consequences are for the future.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | The Revisionist History Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Revisionist History Debate

May 18, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Brian Cushing has won the AP Rookie of the Year award not once but twice. In light of a recent four game suspension for violating the NFL’s performance enhancing drug policy, the AP reconsidered whether he was still the most deserving candidate. While Cushing retained the award, the fact that the AP actually took action and revoted carries potentially huge ramifications for contemporary sports. In a time where legacies are tainted because of PED accusations, should the historians and records keepers have the ability to reconsider awards and achievements?

Many in the sports media have weighed in on Brian Cushing’s situation, and today TSD examines this decision and the implications it has for the future of sports. Should the AP have revoted Cushing’s Rookie of the Year award?

Loyal Homer argues against the AP’s decision to revote, and Sports Geek counters with his argument that the revote was justified.

Gentlemen make your best arguments the first time. Unlike the Cushing decision there will not be a revote.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Revisionist History Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Revisionist History Debate… New Evidence Requires More Informed Decision Making

May 18, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Developing a system that effectively, and consistently, metes out punishments and secures justice is not easy task. Civilizations have been trying to perfect the idea for Centuries.

While establishing the perfect legal system is not a realistic notion, the dedication to continuous improvement is as mandatory as that pursuit is noble. As science becomes both more sophisticated and more practical, lawyers and judges are burdened with the responsibility of reviewing new evidence and determining if a case is worth reopening.

Now, I am not taking my argument in the direction of whether enough evidence existed to warrant a revote in the first place. It is clear that it does, it is clear Cushing cheated, and clear that he has received a four game suspensions as punishment for his actions.

It is easy to get bogged down in the details of this case, too, in researching the drug that he tested positive for, the weird excuses, the professionally crafted image, and the basic disbelief by every onlooker. Cushing isn’t going to win many likability contests right now (unless you put him up against that Kate lady from Jon & Kate Plus 8). The point is, Cushing was guilty, but the bizarre system constructed for voting on awards initially allowed him to walk away with trophy in hand. If only there was some other way to prevent this type of injustice from happening. If only there was some precedent somewhere that experts could look to as an example of how best to approach this type of situation.

Wait, the United States legal system has just such a precedent. When science finally caught up to the business of making justice, the U.S. court system allowed DNA evidence to reopen already decided cases in instances where new evidence may prove innocence… or more to the point, prove a shadow of a doubt.

While Cushing’s season was furiously underway, and he was impressing the naïve fans and media alike, Cushing was fighting a different kind of battle behind the scenes with the NFL. After testing positive for that “lady-roid” (the same one Manny Ramirez was busted for), Cushing fought the ruling tooth and nail, trying to claim legitimate cause for having test results that warranted his impending suspension. Well after the season concluded, and well after the draft was over, it was revealed to the world that Cushing had tested positive and he was suspended. Then the AP voters made the type of decision that is as momentous as it is mandatory in reopening the vote for 2009 AP Defensive Rookie of the Year.

The goal of any good news organization – and the AP is a not just a good news organization, but a GREAT one – is credibility and transparency. The AP has held steadfast to both principles in this case by opening up the revote. The commitment to justice is credible, and the entire process, from the APs perspective, has been transparent. The idea that sports writers are infallible, and not subject to second-guessing their initial ideas based on new evidence, is preposterous. It is also irrelevant. The Steroids Era across all sports calls for a new course of action from sports writers to account for the misdeeds. The revote is the right move.

The primary counter-argument to reopening voting for Cushing’s award is that it has never been done before, and there is a chance that a negative precedent may be set. That is an invalid argument. Throughout history a number of different folks have been presented with the opportunity to change history. Those who changed history were not afraid to set new precedent. Certainly this AP award vote is not a major event in the course of humankind, but a similar lack of fear for setting a precedent must exist for the NFL to continue to modernize and move forward.

There are some old stand-bys that think they are fighting a noble battle by refusing, or abusing, the perfectly legitimate revote process. Ed Bouchette, for one, changed his vote TO Cushing, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, as a way of protesting the revote. This is what I call “Henry Ford Mentality.” Henry Ford was famous for many advances in the world of business, production, and manufacturing. But, he was also famous for his denial about the evolution of business. He famously quipped that consumers could purchase a Model T in any color they wished, as long as it was black. Bouchette and his ilk are modern day Henry Ford’s, refusing to adapt to changing market conditions and accept market drivers. In Ford’s case the market driver was (quite literally) the consumer. In the modern sports era, the driver is as much production as it is justice.

The Cushing revote only superficially SEEMS unjust. Yes, the NFL blew it in allowing Cushing to be on the list for voters to evaluate when recasting their votes. But the idea of a revote should not be questioned. It is right – and fair. Just remember that the crazy thing about democracy is that the majority rules, even if the majority is wrong. Just ask Al Gore supporters.

If questions about a vote’s validity persist, the NFL should take a page out of the book OF LAW that the U.S. established. If new evidence exists, institute a revote to fully establish a just verdict.

Besides, I know if I were the player whose award-winning validity was debatable, I would want another vote to make my victory above reproach. I have nothing to hide, so why fight a good system… the type of system that is specifically designed to seek out justice and reward fairness? Anything less would be un-American.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Revisionist History Debate, TSD | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Revisionist History Debate… The Decision Has Been Made so Stick With It!

May 18, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

As a sports fan I get quite disgusted with repeated occurrences of hearing about how athletes, either knowingly or unknowingly, took performance-enhancing drugs. It doesn’t matter what sport it’s in. Recently, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing was suspended four games after testing positive for hCG. That falls in line with the rules set by the NFL. I’m perfectly fine with that punishment, obviously. However, when talk began to center around the possibility of taking a revote for Defensive Rookie of the Year, I cringed and shook my head. Thankfully, in the revote, the voters chose not to change their earlier decision. Also, the fact they decided to revote totally opens up a can of worms and sets a disturbing precedent.

Obviously, no one is condoning the fact that Cushing violated the league’s performance-enhancing drug policy. But I have questions about how all of this came out. Cushing supposedly tested positive back in September. What month are we in now? May?! Why are we just finding out about this now? Why weren’t the voters even told about this when they originally voted? Does it take that long to find out the results? It does not! The original voting of this award was done shortly after the end of the regular season in January. How realistic is it to overturn an award given four months ago?

Flash back to 2002. Then Carolina Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers won the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year. This was despite Peppers violating the league’s drug policy. It turns out he took a banned dietary supplement. What he took is beside the point. If it was okay then, why shouldn’t it be ok now? That’s what voter John McClain of the Houston Chronicle based his vote on. He said, “In good conscience, I couldn’t NOT vote for him after voting for Julius Peppers in 2002 knowing he’s tested positive.”

In addition, a Pandora’s box of problems is opened up if you revisit history and change the chartered course set some four months earlier. If this revote had overturned the previous decision, the NFL would have set a precedent not only for its own sport, but for other sports as well. What if other award winners test positive at some point in the future? Maybe he was juiced up during his award winning season. How do you determine if that was the case? To avoid any future problems, the AP should have just stuck with its original vote and left it at that. It just wouldn’t be worth the headache that it would have caused if the award had been rescinded.

The decision has been made. The people, or in this case, the voters, had already spoken! Stick with it!
My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Revisionist History Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate… Shaq Is the Biggest Reason

May 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

This is difficult to narrow down.

Whole and partial blame for the Cavaliers playoff loss to the Celtics lies with so many, that it is challenging to pare the field of candidates down. Mo Williams has been a huge bust for the Cavs, having neither the smarts to run an offense, the consistent scoring ability to take focus off of LeBron, nor the defensive skills to matchup against good players in the playoffs.

Delonte West, a steady bench performer for the Cavs for a few seasons now, and one of the few players on offense that is able to score in one-on-one situations, completely disappeared on both ends of the court against the Celtics.

Mo and Delonte are close runners up for me in choosing who to write this argument about. But, one player did more to disrupt a reasonably talented team than any other – Shaquille O’Neal.

The reason I’m writing about Shaq is two-fold. The first fold is a virtual mandate from my colleagues since I already went on the record on November 2, 2009 decrying the move to bring Shaquille O’Neal to Cleveland. The second fold is more complex, but it has something to do with and rapidly aging old timer hampering a up-tempo basketball team.

A quick perusal of Shaq’s playoff stats and you may conclude that he actually performed fairly well, and that the Cavs’ playoff meltdown was not because of the presence of Shaquille O’Neal. After all, in 11 games Shaq only averaged 22.1 minutes per game and shot over 50 percent from the field. He even made 66 percent of his free throws. Not vintage Shaq, but not that terrible, either, right?

Let’s examine O’Neal’s physical limitations. His inability to show and recover on screens on defense is exactly what opened up so many driving and passing lanes for Rajon Rondo. Shaq was a liability on defense because he simply was not quick enough. On offense and defense his presence (read: girth) was still intimidating, but he was no longer able to get the type of position on either end of the floor that he needs to be effective. On defense he was not versatile enough to recover, and on offense he was routinely unable to catch the ball close enough to the hoop to be effective, especially as the Cavs were committed to get him started on offense early in each game. Shaq’s inability to get back down court after a quick offensive play or a turnover hurt, too. Kendrick Perkins was consistently out-hustling Shaq down the court and it led not only to easier baskets for the Celtics but many second chance opportunities as well. He also consistently out-battled him for position down low… something that was obvious. In a May 2 interview, Kendrick Perkins revealed the strategy to stopping Shaq, specifically talking about forcing him to catch the ball far away from the basket. Shaq was unable to physically do what was necessary to make the adjustment and regain position. When physical limitations prevent a player from being effective it is the responsibility of the player to speak up.

It is true that Shaq was no longer the player he once was physically, and another bit of evidence is found in the fact that the Celtics never really had to double team him on the offensive end of the floor. In fact, the Cavs were able to take a 2-1 lead in this series largely because the Celtics, at least in name, still believed it was necessary to double-team. Once the realization set in that it wasn’t mandatory to double Shaq any longer, the entire Cavs team, LeBron included, was unable to find open shots – or even enough space to get the rhythm necessary to line up a shot. Shaq’s presence in the middle also made driving the ball more difficult for players like LeBron James and Mo Williams. Williams, especially, was driving to the basket with Shaq in the game, but Shaq was unable to cleanly catch those passes and immediately go up to the rim. Shaq is, offensively, a shell of his former self. It seems like the only folks in the matchup with the Celtics who were unable to recognize that fact are Shaq and the Cavs.

When I first wrote about the “Shaquisition” I was decrying the signing as a reach and a failure. I put forth that if the Cavs were unable to work Shaq into the offense consistently that he would not be an effective player and could very well be the reason the team loses a shot at a title, and a shot to keep its superstar. I am not an oracle, nor am I big on predictions – generally a TSD no-no. But, it was clear Shaq was a not a fit then. It is not right to blame management, as a safe assumption was made that O’Neal possessed the skills and tools to make the necessary adjustments during a season and playoff series. The coaching staff, though deserving of blame in many areas, does not shoulder all of the blame because Shaq must take it upon himself to adjust and be a professional player working toward the single goal of a championship. Shaq was still more important than the team, and that is clear from his action… and, more specifically, his inaction.

Some perspective – the Phoenix Suns find themselves in the Western Conference finals just one season after jettisoning Shaq, a player who chalked his Phoenix experience up as an “L” and found a way to grab a place on the team with the league’s best player. The Cavs, with Shaq, have clearly regressed into an offensive team unable to get out of its own way, and a defensive team not nearly quick enough to keep up with even the aging Celtics.

Blame for a collapse this significant cannot, of course, be laid at the feet of one player. But, the burden for this debate is to prove which person had the most impact. Shaq, of course, had help, in that Mike Brown chose to rely heavily on him and play him a great deal, but Shaq’s ego was far out-pacing his ability. He knew he was in over his head, unable to be the dominant player he once was. Rather than acquiesce to reality and take a step back, he continued to have a negative impact on the team. The result is obvious, and O’Neal is the biggest reason this Cavaliers team failed.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate… Cleveland Was Too Cavalier

May 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

I’m not normally one to gloat (especially when I never wanted to be right in the first place), but – I told you so!

Last year, after the Cavaliers lost to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference finals, I highlighted the many serious shortcomings of Cleveland’s newest version of Marty Schottenheimer – head coach Mike Brown. Brown’s inability to make good adjustments during the game, combined with a blind reliance on talent to overcome strategy, cost the Cavs a shot at the 2009 NBA Finals.

Rather than acknowledge Brown’s problems last year and fire him when they SHOULD have, the Cavs’ owner (Dan Gilbert) and GM (Danny Ferry) allowed the regular season accolade of “2009 Coach of the Year” to cloud their judgment – a decision that has now come back to haunt them (possibly at the expense of LeBron James).

Getting Outcoached

Without rehashing shortcomings of Mike Brown that I already highlighted 12 months ago, I will simply reiterate a couple key indicators:

  • Lack of Halftime Adjustments: The Cavaliers were outscored in the third quarter by the Boston Celtics by a total of 30 points over their four losses in the six-game series.
  • Poor Execution When it Matters Most: The Cavaliers were out-rebounded 144-168 in the four games they lost to the Celtics, and 230-239 overall. Likewise, the Cavs had 71 turnovers to the Celtics 53 during their four losses, and 93 to 76 over the entire series.
  • Matchup Problems: Once again, Mike Brown failed to play the matchup game, and the result was that Rajon Rondo, who is generally a B-class point guard, ended up looking like a superstar against the seemingly hapless Cavaliers. Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison were ineffective, and LeBron (hurt elbow or not) was completely shut down for much of the series.

Creating a Culture of Winning Being Laid Back

Added to those problems that were evident even last season, however, came a new realization as the ALLEGED best team self-destructed once more. Mike Brown has no control over the players on his team.

During a January 27 interview, Mo Williams was quoted as saying that Shaquille O’Neal called the Cavaliers, “the most laid back team he’s ever played on.” At the time the comment seemed innocuous enough, but in hindsight that is a VERY telling statement.

Consider some of the other teams that Shaq has played for that weren’t “laid back:”

2005-2006 Miami Heat: Coached by Pat Riley all the way to a championship.

1999-2004 Los Angeles Lakers: Coached by Phil Jackson, won THREE NBA championships, and reached the Finals a fourth time.

Coaches who create and demand a championship culture actually WIN championships, while coaches who are laid back get laid back effort. That is not a coincidence!

The Cavaliers lost to the Boston Celtics because Mike Brown is an impotent coach who has failed to lead, instead delegating that responsibility to his players.

During games, players (including LeBron James) could often be seen clowning around on the bench, rather than paying attention to what was going on out on the court. It was silliness, plain and simple, which by itself is not a major crime. The Cavs were winning games AND they were having fun. Consequently, the fans were all having fun with them.

Those acts, however, were symptoms of a bigger problem.

From overly elaborate, choreographed player introductions to that STUPID “gooseneck” gesture, it should have been evident THEN that the team spent FAR TOO MUCH time focusing on trivial (and CHILDISH) games, and probably not nearly enough time focusing on winning a championship.

If THIS is how seriously they approached the regular season, why should we have believed their approach to the playoffs would be any different?!

Rather than committing 100 percent to building and maintaining a championship culture, where WINNING was the top priority, Mike Brown allowed his team to instead commit to making up fancy handshakes as though they were forming a secret club for sixth-graders.

Phil Jackson would NEVER tolerate that kind of foolishness from his players. Even with larger-than-life personalities on his teams such as Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, and Dennis Rodman, Jackson was the unquestioned leader. He maintained the role as coach and boss, and DEMANDED that his players act accordingly, as was the case for Pat Riley with all of his championships in Miami and Los Angeles. Mike Brown, however, is apparently okay with unfocused goofing off, which has been paid off in kind.

Everyone on the Cavaliers’ team simply EXPECTED to reach the Finals. The problem is that no one actually helped them prepare to get there, and that is where Mike Brown has ultimately failed. The result was an ineffective performance by unprepared players against a team who KNEW what to expect, and (more importantly) HOW to win when it mattered most.

Good luck to the Boston Celtics and their coach, Doc Rivers, who truly embody the essence of being a CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM – something the Cavaliers may never be – at least with Mike Brown at the helm!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate… LeBron Choked

May 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

As of 2008, the state of Ohio had roughly 11.5 million residents. After hearing from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan last week, it’s fairly obvious that the vast majority of those residents were extremely frustrated, disappointed, bitter, or all of the above after yet another meltdown by a Cleveland franchise. Blame is going around, as this was supposed to be the season the Cavs won it all. A large black cloud named “LeBron Free Agency 2010” was quickly approaching, and a championship needed to be won before the storm came. Well, the storm hit Ohio a little too quickly as the Cavs were knocked out by the Celtics last week. Who is to blame for this premature “storm?” It’s none other than LeBron James himself.

As a resident of Georgia I am not immune to the endless hype machine they call LeBron. The rest of the country, Georgia included, has known for at least seven years what the state of Ohio has known for over ten years – the man is a freak of nature. No one is disputing that. Go to Cleveland.com and you’ll find countless stories about James. He has a rock star persona that few can match. But let’s be honest. He choked in the Celtics series.

Through much of James’ career I have heard much about how he makes his teammates better ad. People say, “He’s a threat to get a triple-double every time he takes the court.” Well, that may be the case. But, it’s hard to say you make your teammates better when you aren’t holding up your end in the bargain. Sure, LeBron had a triple double in game six. But he also was one turnover short of having a quadruple-double the wrong way. But for me, the lasting image of this series was James’ lack of effort in game five.

It’s true that James had an awful game. He had a paltry 15 points on just 3-14 shooting. But what was alarming was not that he had a bad game, as that happens to even the great ones. What was quite shocking was the fact that LeBron just wasn’t into the game. He looked like he had about as much interest in that game as Milton Bradley has in behaving. He just didn’t want to be there. He was dragging! That’s likely how the entire state of Ohio felt last Wednesday! They didn’t want to be at work. That is according to Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan. And at this point, that’s totally unacceptable. It’s one thing to be disinterested in a mid-February game against the Clippers in a half-empty Staples Center. It’s quite another to be out of touch with the game in a pivotal playoff game that ultimately could change the direction of the franchise.

There are many definitions of the word “choke” (some of which will be explored in full detail later this week), but in this context choke is defined as not coming through when all the pressure is at its most intense. The pressure was most definitely on James, and he choked. All the individual accomplishments to this point can’t erase the lack of success his teams have had in the postseason. All the money he has received, and will receive in the future, can’t buy him the one thing that will cement his legacy – a championship ring. Comparisons are starting to be made to Alex Rodriguez, and the comparisons are starting to gain traction as, until last year, ARod had a horrific postseason reputation. And that rep was well earned. Time will tell if James is able to eventually win a ring.

In the meantime, let’s quit calling him King James. He has not conquered any throne in the grand scheme of things.

That is, unless we all stand and behold King James: The King of Choking!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Cavaliers Playoff Loss Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The NCAAF Super Conference Debate Verdict

May 14, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Change is inevitable.

The Conference structure that we know in college football today is not the same as it was ten years ago, and it will not remain indefinitely as it is today. Schools will come and go, Conference alignments will shift, and as some Conferences rise into dominance, others will fall into obscurity.

With that perpetual shift, Sports Geek correctly identifies the inevitability of not just Conference re-alignment, but of Conference expansion. Even if the Big Ten does not expand tomorrow, despite the many rumors to the contrary, it will happen at some point in the (probably near) future, and the Super Conference will emerge.

Loyal Homer, in anticipation of this change, raises many valid questions regarding the fallout from the emergence of such a conference.

How will the other Conferences compete?

Will the result be the folding of some “lesser” Conferences?

What will happen to the BCS?

All of those are outstanding questions, but as Sports Geek highlights, the answers to those questions do not necessarily imply doom for college football. The winner of this debate is Sports Geek.

Yes, other Conferences will be forced to step up to the plate and expand themselves in response to the creation of a Super Conference, or otherwise face the possibility of folding as their schools defect into Super Conferences. It would not be the first time that a Conference had to fold, though. In fact, just within the last 15 years, two Conferences have already folded as a result of Conference Expansion elsewhere in the nation – the Southwest Conference (which had been in existence since 1914) closed in 1996, followed by the Big West Conference which closed its doors in 2000.

Yes, the Super Conference will also have a major impact on the BCS format. But when you consider the fact that the VAST majority of college football fans would like to see the BCS done away with, perhaps the Super Conference would help speed that process along.

The important thing to remember here is that these changes can ALTER the game, but they do not RUIN it. For every Conference rivalry that is lost by the closing or realignment of one Conference, another is created. When Penn State left the Independent ranks to join the Big Ten in 1993, they were walking away from the Penn State-Syracuse game, which historically was one of college football’s biggest rivalries. As much as college football may now be suffering from the absence of that one rivalry (although Syracuse would HARDLY be considered a worthy opponent today), new rivalries sprung up to capture the attention of football fans and replace the old ones. One of the biggest games each year now is the Penn State-Ohio State game, which often plays a major role in deciding the Big Ten Championship, as well as carrying BCS implications.

While the “history” may be lacking from some of these newest rivalries, they are no less competitive and compelling than their now-retired predecessors once were.

It is ultimately the fans who will determine the success or failure of the organization. Fans of Notre Dame (for example) will remain fans whether the school plays independently, or joins a conference such as the Big Ten. While Conference structure and rivalry can help to enhance the fan experience, it is not the source of it.

It is love and support for the TEAM, not its CONFERENCE, that ultimately sells tickets and merchandise.

There is just no indication that the Super Conference would ruin college football. Expansion is a process that the sport has undergone many times in the past. When it does occur, the schools, players, coaches, and fans all adapt and move on without missing a beat, as though the new format is the way they have been playing the game all along.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAA Super Conference Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NCAAF Super Conference Debate

May 13, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

We have been hearing the rumors (and denials) for months. One day, they may be about Notre Dame, the next it could be Texas, but the rumors are all essentially the same: Will the Big Ten expand?

The Big Ten (at least according to the rumors) seems eager to bring some new Universities into their organization. Teams from conferences such as the Big East and Big XII all appear as likely targets for the Big Ten’s growth, and the latest speculation points even to the possibility of the conference swelling to 16 teams, essentially creating a “Super Conference.”

Expansion of that magnitude would not affect only the Big Ten. The impact of a change like this would likely alter the entire landscape of college football as we know it today, but is that change good for college football?

Would the creation of a “Super Conference” ruin college football?

Loyal Homer will argue that a Super Conference would ruin college football while Sports Geek will argue that this would not negatively impact the game or the NCAA.

Would you want YOUR school participating in a 16-team goliath conference?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAA Super Conference Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.