Friday, April 26, 2013

Your 8 Best NBA Playoff Performers Thus Far

1Carmelo Anthony2012-1328NYKNBA228024536101617010102404570.453.600.3400.6



 
2Paul George2012-1322INDNBA228314341921252171915524450.412.111.840.3270.6



 
3Ray Allen2012-1337MIANBA308616359219937109304250.457.4291.000.3050.5



 
4George Hill2012-1326INDNBA22691422711551565203340.636.6361.000.2970.4



 
5LeBron James2012-1328MIANBA33106243939172332023201014668.615.333.739.2780.6
6Brook Lopez2012-1324BRKNBA33102224500202191019411371164.489.952.2680.6




 
7Kevin Durant2012-1324OKCNBA227917403141617191013233453.425.214.941.2670.4



 
8Chris Paul2012-1327LACNBA3310420393912121111220607955.513.3331.000.2620.6

Russell Westbrook - Torn Meniscus

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-04-26/russell-westbrook-injury-update-nba-playoffs-2013-okc-thunder?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D304660

Westbrook apparently never saw "Million Dollar Baby" -- protect yourself at all times.

If the Thunder can just give his 45 shots a game mostly to Durant and Kevin Martin they should be fine in round 1.

Reports I see are that if surgery is necessary, Westbrook is done (4-6 weeks recovery before crutches).  If surgery is not necessary, recovery time is 4-5 weeks, which means June 1.

George Jones - Dead

George Jones - no longer drunk, but currently dead.  An interesting Wikipedia entry that I saw this morning:

Later years
Jones announced his final concert was to be held on November 22, 2013, at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. Jones also mentioned a duet album with Dolly Parton would be released as his final studio album. Between April 19 - 26, 2013, he became one more victim on a long list of celebrity death hoaxes propagated by the internet. Jones' official representatives quickly silenced the hoax and confirmed he is alive and well, saying, "stop believing what you see on the internet".[10]



Maybe not a "hoax"

Thursday, April 25, 2013

I Guess If You Were Asked to Do It With an 82 Year Old, You'd Be Depressed, Too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/dina-eastwood-rehab_n_3153720.html?ref=topbar

I Guess NFL Groupies are In Short Supply

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/lb-prostitution-sting-quentin-groves-arrested_n_3148258.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

The additional charge of only $20 should have been a tipoff for him.  I mean, it was a 20% increase, but isn't it worth more than $20????

Stonehenge Was Near a Hunting Ground - Was a Feasting Site

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/stonehenge-built-feasts-ancient-bones-artifacts_n_3153808.html

What confuses me about this is that people have wondered for years about why Stonehenge was built, yet there is an area 1 mile from Stonehenge which has never been surveyed by anyone?   I guess people weren't all THAT curious, huh?  In 7,000 C.E. will someone wonder why the Washington Monument is still there but never figure out that the U.S. government was based there.........because no one looked at where the Capitol or White House used to be?

Imagine how many things we don't know about largely because no one has ever thought to look at or understand them.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

And David Kahn.......Still Has a Job

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/59362/you-realize-how-badly-the-t-wolves-screwed-up-the-2009-draft-right

In case you don't want to read - on Draft Night 2009 the Wolves had their hands on something like 7 very good NBA players and managed to get only Rubio, a low #1, a 2nd and Malcolm Lee.

Yikes.

Erin Andrews Is A Sports Reporter

Just a note.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Timberwolves Post-Mortem 2012-13

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2013.html

THE GOOD

The Wolves shot the ball 45 more times than their opponents and committed 338 fewer fouls while shooting almost the same free throw percentage.  They turned the ball over  92 fewer times than their opponents and were almost exactly even on the boards (-8 rebounds total on the season).  Their assists were slightly more than their opponents', as were their steals.   They played at a top 11 pace of play and were an above average defensive team (13th of 30 in defensive rating at 105.4)

THE BAD

The Wolves blocked almost 100 fewer shots than their opponents and averaged 2.4 points per game less than their opponents.  They won 31 games, although the statistic of "Expected Win-Loss" said they should have won 34 games (so they were a poor team in close games, if the game could go either way, the Wolves lost more often than you would think).  They were last in the league in ticket pricing (good for fans, bad for them), but despite that fact, were only 20th in the league in attendance.


THE UGLY

The Wolves had only one player who played over 2000 minutes (which is only a measly 25 minutes a game times 80 games) and who had a PER over the league average of 15 (Kirilenko 2034).  Their two stars, Rubio and Love, had offensive ratings of 99 each (very poor, Luke Ridnour was 107, as a reference point).  JJ Barea, who hogs the ball non-stop, had an Offensive rating of 101.  The Wolves 3 leaders in Usage Rate (Love, Barea, DWill) all had Offensive Ratings of 101 or lower.  Of the top 9 Usage Rate players on the Wolves, only one (Pek) had an Offensive Rating above 102.

The Wolves shot almost 3% lower than their opponents and shot an amazing 6.4% lower from 3 point range!  The Wolves were a terrible offensive team, playing at the 11th best pace of play, yet scoring only the 16th most points, resulting in an Offensive Rating of 102.9 - 25th in a 30-team league.

ANALYSIS

It does not take a genius to see that the Wolves lack shooting, particularly 3 point shooting.  Rubio, Shved and Ridnour jacked up 592 3s - they made only about 30%.  Derrick Williams (33% on 196 attempts) was a significantly better choice to shoot 3s than the Wolves' 3 smallish point guards.  Ouch.

Kevin Love, in the rare instances when he played, was actually a WORSE shooter than the bricklaying Rubio, either from the floor overall, or from 3 (20 of 92 for Love -- .217).

It is hard to express the shittiness of Kevin Love's 2012-13.  But let me give you a historical note.  No player since the BBR database's 1985 start has EVER shot 5 three-point attempts per game and shot under 28%.  Even some of the game's worst gunners managed to hit 28%.  This year Kevin Love shot 92 threes in 18 games and hit those threes at a rate of......21.7%.  Since 1985, only one other player has ever shot more than 2 3-pointers a game and failed to make 22% -  Charles Barkley in 1988-89.  Barkley shot roughly 2 a game and hit at 21.6%

The poster boy for terrible three-point shooting is Josh Smith, but JSmoove in any one season has NEVER jacked up more than slightly over 2 a game, and his WORST shooting year when he was jacking terrible threes was 25%.  So take Josh Smith's WORST year of gunning, multiply his awful shot attempts by 250% and then reduce his accuracy by one-eighth.  That give you Kevin Love 2012-13.

CORRECTIVE ACTION

Of course the best case would be to add two active off guards who could make 3s and block one shot a game.  That would make the Wolves a competitive shooting team and a better shot blocking club. 

It also is difficult to have both Love and Pekovic as your front line.  Neither is a particularly good or willing passer, and neither protects the rim.  Kirilenko was a godsend defensively (one block a game, 2.5 steals plus blocks a game), but he was forced to chase the Kobe's and Rudy Gay's of the world on the perimeter, somewhat negating his presence underneath.

The Wolves' primary need is for Rick Adelman to return.  Budinger and Kirilenko both can come back or leave, and both have stated that they are more likely to stay if Adelmen stays.  Pekovic must be signed, even if it is to deal him - when you are the Wolves, you cannot afford to lose a 20+PER player and a top 10 center for nothing.

Also worthy of note - the Wolves' mark without Adelman actually coaching?  2-9.  Terry Porter's .182 winning percentage was on a pace for 15 wins over a full season.

Of course, the ability to get value out of the draft and to get a Pek sign-and-trade if necessary comes down to the front office.  David Kahn has shown no ability whatsoever to draft players, and his theory on trading appears to be, well, "Don't."  So it will be hard for the Wolves to improve through front office moves unless a good off guard just falls in their lap at #10 or wherever they draft.

My hope would be that Rubio improves as a shooter (warning - it took Jason Kidd 10 years), that Adelman stays, and that the Wolves get lucky and Shabazz Muhammad (age unknown) can become an adequate NBA player and start for the Wolves:

Rubio, backed up by Barea or Luke (Luke or Barea traded for a backup big man)
Muhammad, Budinger, guy picked late first round
Williams backed up by Kirilenko
Love, Cunningham
Pekovic, Stiemsma, backup big man from Ridnour trade

I would be fine with that.




National Anthem In Boston Last Night

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1608580-boston-bruins-fans-unite-in-beautiful-rendition-of-national-anthem?hpt=hp_t2

Al Jefferson and Nikola Pekovic - Roughly the Same Player

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=jeffeal01&y1=2013&p2=pekovni01&y2=2013

They are one year apart, despite Al Jeff being in the league longer.  Neither is a good defender, and both are skilled offensively.  Slight edge to Al Jeff as he has an assist-to-turnover ration above 1, and he blocks over one shot a game.  A big concern to Jazz fans has to be his disinterest in being fouled (plays inside, shoots under 3 free throws a game).

Al Jeff makes $14M a year - will the Wolves pony up even $10M a year for Pek?  Especially when they previosuly HAD Al Jefferson and couldn't win with the real Al Jefferson, why would you pay $10M a year to get the white version?

Monday, April 15, 2013

Boston - Whoever Did this Had Better Hide


LeBron v. Wilt - 10 Years In

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=jamesle01&y1=2013&p2=chambwi01&y2=1969

Wilt a slightly better regular season player; LeBron a slightly better playoff player.  Very, very close.

Wilt played a total of 14 years, leaving the game after a year where he rolled up over 18 win shares and led the league in rebounding at over 18 a game.  His departure was brought on, in part, by his attempt to leave the NBA and join the ABA - which the Lakers blocked. 

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Tiger - Cheater - Part 3. The Tiger-Cult Apologists

The worst part of the Woods fiasco is the litany of Tiger apologists.  These folks basically form the Cult of Tiger Woods and feel that since Tiger is a good golfer that no rules apply to him.  In this way, they seem to be cut from the same cloth as the Kobe Bryant fans who ignore his rapist tendencies and general assholishness.

The Cult of Tiger accepts no criticism of Tiger and they are the Twitter equivalent of the "Leave Britney alone" YouTube video.   Many of them threaten to punch Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblis in the face for suggesting that Tiger should act honorably and withdraw.  Lord no!  Tiger is a good golfer and we want to watch him!   THERE is some compelling logic.

Then you have the odd group of Tiger apologists seeking to advance their own agenda.  This includes certain golfers who naively assume (ha ha) that the DQ rule is forever changed so no one will ever get DQ'ed again - since Tiger didn't. Yeah, right, Fred Couples and Graham McDowell - go  hold your breath awaiting some poor schlub at the bottom of the barrel getting any such relief.  And if the rule actually does change, how far have we gone away from "golf, a game of honor"?  Shit, I took a bad drop back there.  Oh well, there is a 2% chance anyone will notice, and if they do I will just take the two stroke penalty.

Jason Whitlock opines on Twitter that since golf has so much sexism and racism in its past that it basically owes Tiger a free pass.  Well, I guess at least that is a consistent position with what he has always said, but is there any end to that idea?  Can Tiger cheat at will for 250 years worth of oppression - so, for 250 years of play?  Is it basically anarchy on the women's tour?  "We haven't been allowed to play golf AT ALL for a long time, so why bind us with these stupid rules?"

And Rich Eisen undoubtedly takes the Twitter cake by sarcastically inquiring as to whether anyone can point him to any specific rule that says that Tiger MUST withdraw if he isn't DQ'ed?   Hey Rich - where is the rule that says that anyone must do anything ethically?   Is the general idea here, "If law enforcement isn't likely to catch me - just go ahead"?

Great lesson for our youth, Rich Eisen - hey, kids, if there is no one standing right there who will MAKE you do the right thing, then just go for it, baby!!!!!

One final commentary - those on Twitter saying "You watch,Tiger will kick ass and win".  So what?   When given 3 chances to win the gold medal game, the 1972 Soviet hoops squad came through with flying colors as well.  They, subjectively, can be as proud of that win as they want, but the world will always remember how tainted it was and still is.

Tiger had a shot at integrity; he could have self-reported his cheating and he didn't - integrity opportunity:  blown.

He then had a shot to show a little shame -- "OK, hey, I cheated and got caught and everyone is ripping me for it; I guess I should do the right thing." Nope - he has no shame.

Finally, he had a chance to at least express some regret - "Look, in hindsight, I made the wrong decision."  At least LeBron James was FINALLY willing at some point to say, "The Decision was a stupid idea and I should not have done it."  When asked on Saturday about his decision not to withdraw, Tiger said, basically, "I don't have to."   This far - cannot even express any regret.

Sports doesn't build character, it reveals it.

Tiger - Cheater - Part 2, "The Augusta Coverup"

So now Augusta National has Tiger on TV admitting that he broke the rules and did so in order to gain an advantage.  As a result of his rules violation, he signed an incorrect scorecard.  There really is no alternative but to DQ Tiger.

This puts AN in a terrible position.  It's number 1 attraction won't play the weekend?  Oh lord.  What would be a proper decision?   Well, the rule doesn't say you need to drop exactly where you hit from, so, as their lawyer, I think the best decision would be to say, "The rule gives him leeway, we think he dropped close enough.  His intent in dropping 4 feet away is irrelevant - doesn't matter whether he says 'I am a cheater and tried to cheat,'  he dropped it close enough. ".  That statement has two advantages - it is consistent with your alibi that you looked at the viewer complaint and saw nothing wrong and it allows you to interpret a vague rule that has never been interpreted before.  Plus Tiger gets no penalty.

Does AN do that?   Nope.  They basically say that since Tiger's intent was to gain advantage that they NOW believe that he didn't drop a nearly as possible.  This is like saying that an offensive tackle has to stand "as nearly as possible to the line of scrimmage" and then assessing his team a penalty after the play when he tells the sideline reporter, "Yeah, I intended to cheat a step back into the backfield".  Review the tape - did he comply with the rule or not?   His intent is irrelevant.

But anyway, AN decides it has to punish Tiger since he tells the media he intended to break the rule.  What is the punishment?  Tiegr signed an incorrect scorecard due to (giving him the benefit of the doubt) ignorance of the rules.  Ignorance of the rules is specifically NOT proper grounds to avoid a DQ.  He MUST be DQ'ed.  There is no discretion.

So what does AN do?  AN utilizes their non-existent discretion to not DQ Tiger because they somehow misled Tiger by not calling a penalty on him immediately.  What!?!?  The logic here is dizzying.  They are saying, "Tiger relied upon us to tell him he broke the rules, and we didn't, so he is excused from signing a correct scorecard."

But your whole argument up to this point is that you had NO IDEA he broke the rules until he told the media he broke the rules!  Sooooooooo, you should have told him something you didn't know and something he DID know?!?!?

Follow along here - well, once Tiger told us he cheated THEN we knew he cheated, but we should have told him way earlier that he cheated...you know, back when we didn't know he cheated and he did.

Yikes!


Tiger Woods - Cheater - Part 1

As Rick Reilly noted, "We know he is a cheater off the course..."  While Reilly claimed that Tiger was not a cheater on the course, let's look at how this all evolved.

Tiger hits the flagstick at 15, the ball rolls back into the water.  What does Tiger do?  Does he assume that he can only drop the ball keeping the spot where he hit the ball between himself and the hole?  No, he does not.  He goes and looks at the drop area.  He also, tellingly, goes and looks at the angle where the ball deflected into the water and judges that he doesn't have much of a shot from there.  So he walks back to where he hit it.

Now the rule is that he has to drop the ball so it lands "as nearly as possible" to where he hit the ball from originally.  Does he try to do that?  Obviously not.  Even if you don't have his later admission that he cheated and intentionally backed up two yards (it looked more like 4 feet) it is obvious from any review of the film that he never tried at all to drop the ball "as nearly as possible" to the divot mark that was distinct and right in front of his face.  The rule doesn't say drop within two club
lengths.  The rule doesn't say "keep that spot between you and the hole" (he didn't do that either, the ball is clearly not on a stright line with the divot and the hole).  So, he cheated.

The first question is "did he know that he cheated.'  Well, we will never know.  But he did go down and look at where he could hit the ball by following the correct rule, so that sort of implies that he understands the rule.  So why would he drop, obviously, 4-6 feet away from where a legal drop would occur?  Either he just was reckless and didn't give a damn  or he was just grossly negligent and didn't really care at that point whether he was following the rules, or he was negligent and just forgot the rules.  Or he figured, "Hell, close enough.  I am Tiger Woods, they will never call it on me."  (note the similarity to Kobe Bryant here who hacked Ricky Rubio at the end of a Wolves-Lakers tilt and stated in his post-game interview, "I knew they would not call that.")

The second question is why did he break the rules?  He did it to gain an advantage so his shot would end up closer to the hole.  He admitted that - move back two yards, hit it two yards softer, perfect shot.  So he didn't just completely lose his mind (like some pathetic Woods-Cult apologists have claimed), he was thinking very hard about why he was doing what he was doing.

So - he cheated.  He either intentionally, recklessly or negligently broke the rules in order to gain an advantage.  He wasn't being sprayed by gunfire or running from a knife wielding maniac.  He knew what he was doing.

So that is the crime.  Then there is the coverup by Augusta National.

Per Augusta National, a TV viewer calls in and says,  "Hey, there is no way that drop is 'as nearly as possible'; penalize him."  We will never know what actually happened next, since Augusta National has no reason to tell us the truth.  But their current version of the story is that they looked at the film and saw no rules violation.  Really?  Dropping 4-6 feet away is "as nearly as possible"?  Come on.

What probably happened is AN looked at it and said, "Tiger is winning the tourney, we have big money riding on him winning on Sunday - ignore the bad drop."  They don't tell Tiger that he cheated (which, apparently, they now feel they have an obligation to do - turning the traditional practice of golf on its head).

They ignore it; Tiger signs his scorecoard.  Then in a moment of complete idiocy, he goes on TV and explains how he intentionally dropped his ball so as to gain an unfair advantage.  Oops.  Suddenly Tiger has done away with their alibi ("close enough, no advantage")/

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Paulina Gretzky - Masters

THAT is how you wear white pants.....

Jessic Biel's Nose 2005 and Today

I guess as you get older your nose.........shrinks????

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Monday, April 08, 2013

Spencer Haywood - Hall of Famer........Oh Wait.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-04-07/spencer-haywood-naismith-basketball-hall-of-fame-bernard-king-final-four

Yikes.

If you had aksed me whether Spencer Haywood was a Hall of Fame player, I would say "definitely not."  And if you look up his stats, you will see that he is 85th in all-time points and 85th in all-time rebounds.  I don't think that gets you in the Hall.

But, being fair to Spencer, he was a 5 time all-star and a 5 times all-ABA(1) slash all-NBA (4 - 2 first team) player.  He won the ABA MVP Award.  There are certainly guys in the Hall with worse resume than his resume.  Basektball-reference.com places his HOF chances at 51.5%, and one of his his most similar comparison player is Grant Hill.

So - close call on Spencer.  I still say I would not vote for him, but I wouldn't be offended if he got in the Hall (unlike, say, Calvin Murphy - yikes).  I guess maybe voters felt the same way, so he was left out.

Gary Payton got in - 9 time all-star and 7 times ast or second team all-NBA.

Bernard King got in, which should really piss off Spencer Haywood fans.  King was a 3 time all-star and a 3 time first or second team all-NBA.  King gains votes because he had a couple great years as a Knick, so he gets the east coast bias vote.   

Their stats are virtually identical  Haywood actually being just barely better in WS and WS/48. 

Annette - RIP


Margaret Thatcher and Annette Funicello - Dead

The Iron Lady and the girl pictured above who caused so many men now ages 60-75 to discover themselves.

These things come in threes, who will be next? 

Friday, April 05, 2013

James' "Injury" Costing Him History

Since the NBA-ABA merger (basically what most use as a cutoff point for "modern NBA basketball"), only one guy has ever logged 20 Win Shares in a season more than once in his career - Michael Jordan, 3 seasons.

LeBron James has one year with over 20 Win Shares (2008-09) and he had 18 Win Shares with 10 games to play this year.  At a rate of .31 Win Shares per 48, James could have logged 360 more minutes, and rolled up 2.3 additional Win Shares, thus joining Jordan as the only modern era player with 2 such seasons.  Instead, he has agreed to pretend to be too hurt to play.

The reply may be, "we play for the playoffs, not the regular season," but it generally is not a good idea to just spit on the regular season and spit on history.  Generally, those who do so don't end up that well (recall the Bears team that came into Minnesota, rested its starters, lost out on a chance at various NFL defensive records and.......lost badly in the playoffs).

One wonders when James and the Heat will deem him able to take the court.  And by that time, will he be more likely to suffer injury because, well, he hasn't played at game speed in a while?

And will MVP voters begin to prefer Kevin Durant to a guy who basically thumbed his nose at NBA fans and missed 10% of the season? 

Thursday, April 04, 2013

Malkin and Hannity - Love Mike Rice

http://crooksandliars.com/david/hannity-defends-rutgers-coach-my-father-hit-

If you watch all of the way to the end, it may help you understand the mindset of these two.....wow.

I was saddened to learn that Malkin is better at giving spankings than receiving them - that just seems wrong.


Link removed?  Try again:  http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/ncaa-basketball/sean-hannity-defends-rutgers-university-coach-mike-rices-abuse-players

Malkin's statement that her dad did a lot more to her than hit her with a belt is......well....a little disturbing.

Michael Reagan - Gay Marriage is Like Bestiality and Murder

Or are our churches and their comfortable leaders simply no longer willing to fight for what is right?

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Beastiality involves a concept of consent - similar to child pornography and underage sex - we can have laws that protect animals (who literally have no voice) and also vulnerable people against assault and other behavior at times in their lives when we think they should be protected. 

Murder, again, involves a non-consensual act that takes away someone's life without their permission and often leaves that person's dependents in terrible emotional and economic shape - resulting in a burden on the state. 

Now, polygamy, I have never understood - I tend to agree with Reagan there.  When I was taking First Amendment law in 1988, our professor stated quite clearly that he believed that there was no basis for denying people the right to multiple marriages.  There was no proof that it hurt anyone, and, in fact, when the Supreme Court said it was OK to ban it (1905) it was actually church doctrine for the Mormons.  I am sure someone smarter than I can figure out the difference between polygamy and gay marriage (record keeping?) but I doubt you would find great support for the proposition that polygamy really "hurts" anyone.

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Mike Rice - Fired, Should Sue for His Pay

Look, I hate to say it and be all lawyer-ish on everyone, but if I am Mike Rice and Rutgers tries not to pay me, I sue.

You had all of this footage of me doing all of these terrible things and you punished me.  You took me away from the program for 3 weeks, you took away my pay for those three weeks and fined me $50,000.  You made me go to anger management counseling.  I did all that.  It is now the off season.  I am obviously not doing anything additional right now, so how can you fire me and not pay me?

I am sure that Rutgers' response will be:  1) Well, you have destroyed the public image of the Rutgers program by the ESPN tape, and 2) we didn't know you did ALL of these bad things....

I don't see how engaging in awful conduct known to the AD becomes worse when it is disclosed to the public.  He did the same exact things, just now OTHERS know about it?  So if he had raped a cheerleader or shot someone, and you knew about it, 3 games.  If it comes out in the press - fired.  Really?

The "well there is more stuff now" defense is a little better, but exactly how much extra did he do?  You had hours of footage showing he abused players.  Did you go look at the other hours of footage and see if these were isolated incidents?  If you are raising that defense - obviously not.  So you turned a blind eye to additional abuse, but now it is SUPER important to you?  It is the additional abuse that you didn't even care enough about to look up that now forms the basis for firing the guy?

One plus to Rice in suing to get his pay - it isn't like his public image will get WORSE, right?  I mean, he has been branded as basically Hitler and he can never work again north of the Mason-Dixon line due to his homophobic rants, he can never coach children under 18, if you judge by LeBron James' Twitter feed, the NBA guys want to kill him, so what is he left with?  Not much.  He can be an assistant at a college in the Deep South.    So he has nothing to lose - he needs the money.

Rutgers, on the other hand, is between a rock and a hard place.  They are a state school, so the legislature and taxpayers will scream if they pay the guy, but if they are sued for the money, the school probably looks even WORSE during discovery and trial.  Eric Murdock (the Man of Steal) will testify that he told everyone who would listen exactly what a scumbag Rice was, but the people in charge did not care and gave Rice a slap on the wrist.  Rutgers, from a legal standpoint, actually would have been better off pretending that they knew nothing and taking no action whatsoever against Rice.

Interesting sports law issue.

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Mike Rice, Um, Spirited

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9125796/practice-video-shows-rutgers-basketball-coach-mike-rice-berated-pushed-used-slurs-players

I really enjoy his explanation that he had to degrade his players because other teams thought so little of Rutgers that he was demonstarting that disgust.

With that in mind, imagine his behavior with his significant other and what happens at the end of the night.  "Sorry, had to do that.  You saw how those other guys walking around tonight showed so little respect for you...."

Glad to see there will be at least ONE available Gophers head coaching candidate.

Earvin Johnson -- Back Door

http://www.tmz.com/2013/04/02/magic-johnson-son-goes-public-with-boyfriend-dad-proud/

Hard to imagine the kid is gay.  I mean, he looks so masculine.

Monday, April 01, 2013

What My Son Does On Vacation


G.I joe Retaliation - It Really Isn't Much of a Movie

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/04/01/box-office-gi-joe-retaliation_n_2989138.html

My son gave it a 6.5 and I, being a generous grader of films involving The Rock, gave it a 7.

Six things:  1) The Rock is good as the Rock
2) Adrienne Palicki (if that is her name) is a hot chick.  Sadly, we only see her thonged behind in a distorted reflection.  Hey, we are paying 3D prices here - it won't get you an R, give us some value!
3) Channing Tatum dies early - don't go for him
4) The ninja side of mountain fight is worth the price of admission
5) There is virtually no good 3D - go to the 2D version.
6) While the scheme to rid the world of nuclear weapons is clever, I think the rest of the movie was written by The Rock on the set....literally.  I mean, there just ain't much there.