Just the Facts, Ma'am

Holy shit! Two posts in two days!

I hate when life gets in the way. I've had many ideas over the past few months that I really wanted to write about, I just have not had the time and opportunity to do it. Hopefully, with the change of seasons will come a change in my ability to actually post.

Today's post brings us back to our favorite whipping-boy, Bobby Kravitz. Bob's article today was on Butler's victory last night in the championship game of the Horizon League and how they deserve a higher seeding than the NCAA Selection Committee has typically given them the past few years.

The article itself is really not that bad. It is just that Bob's laziness has once again crept into his work. One of the first rules of journalism is to check the facts. Bob has a repetitive glitch in his system that seems to prevent him from either looking up or reviewing facts in his articles.

Today's example:

They have the country's best road record 12-0 (1-2 on neutral courts).

Butler is now 28-4 on the season. They went undefeated at home going 15-0 for the season. Let's do the math Bob-style, shall we?

Home 15-0

Away 12-0

Neutral 1-2

Total 28-2

So, Bob, where did the other two losses come from?

And Bob, didn't Butler lose to UAB on the road?!? Forgot that one, huh? I think everyone who follows basketball in Indiana could have told you that.

Fucktard!

I might have been able to forgive the missing neutral court loss. That could have been from a typo. Except, again, simple math should have told you that if a teams has four losses, you should account for all of those losses!

How FUCKING hard is it to pull up the Butler page on ESPN.com to verify your information? It took me all of 20 seconds to find Butler's schedule on ESPN.com. I could immediately tell you that they went 15-0 at home, 12-1 on the road and 1-3 on neutral courts.

Double Fucking Lazy Fuckatard!!!!

Get off your GD ass, open a browser and actually look something up for a change, will ya!

Come on, Streebeck. Let's go track down some more villainous writers...

What Do You Mean There's a Difference?

I don't know about you, but I was shocked to learn that there is a difference between the NCAA Final Four Tournament and the NBA Playoffs. No, really! I had no fucking clue...that is, I had no fucking clue that Mike Lopresti was this moronic.

NBA playoffs are nothing like the NCAA Tournament

So how is your NBA playoffs office pool bracket going so far?

Well, since I am the only person in my office, I am in the lead and the odds on favorite to win.

Now that April-May-June Madness is upon us, we can sit back and wait for the upsets. Who'd the Lakers draw in the first round - East Tennessee State or Siena? And since the Suns didn't get invited, what do you think their chances are in the NIT?

Oh, I get it. You’re trying to be funny comparing the NCAA Final Four Tournament and the NBA Playoffs. Uhh, dude, it’s not working…

Oh, sorry. Forgot to turn the mental switch from college to pro. I was wondering why the Pistons didn't have to win a play-in game.

Hey, honest mistake. Since it seems at least two teams typically from the Eastern Conference have a losing record as of late, you might think that it might make more sense to have one. NOT!

It might still be basketball, but deciding champions for the NCAA and NBA are entirely different processes, and not just because one has Dick Vitale and the other doesn't. To follow both the tournament and the playoffs requires separate rules of etiquette.

Well, considering one is an amateur collegiate association and one is a professional league, I think that is a pretty stark difference right there.

Now that the NBA postseason is fully engaged, here are a few:
In the NCAA, you refer to the best players by their full names. Tyler Hansbrough. Blake Griffin. Just as a professor would, calling attendance in literature class.
In the NBA, you refer to the best players by their first names, as if you have lunch with them twice a week. Kobe. LeBron. Dwight. I don't know why, but all the guys do on television.

Part of that may be due to the fact that most college players only play four years tops and many of the top players are there for only a year or two. The NBA stars referenced above have been in the league for years and that is just the way announcers, writers and society have come to reference them. If you say the name “Michael”, 98% of NBA fans will think of Michael Jordan. A few may think of Michael Olowokandi, and those people will be sent for psyche evaluations.

In the NCAA, an upset victory over a heavy favorite means an interview on ESPN, a celebration on campus, and a new contract for the coach.
In the NBA, an upset victory over a heavy favorite means you won't get swept 4-0.

One of the big draws to the Final Four Tournament is the one-and-done format of the tournament and the upsets that happen in the early rounds…most of the time. The NBA is set up to earn the team owners and networks as much money as possible. That is why every round is a best-of-seven series. Personally, I think that is way too many for the first round and it drags the playoffs until after Father’s Day. I would prefer the best-of-five series in the first round.

I think Mike needs to go check his history records because there have been upsets in the NBA Playoffs. Yes, they do not happen as often, but they do happen. The #8 seed Golden State Warriors upset the #1 seed Dallas Mavericks 4-2 in the first round of the 2007 playoffs. The #8 seed New York Knicks upset the #2 seed Indiana Pacers in the 1999 Eastern Conference Finals 4 games to 2 in addition to defeating the #1 Miami Heat in the first round. The 1995 NBA Finals saw the #6 seed Houston Rockets sweep the #1 seed Orlando Magic. Upsets do happen.

Wait…doesn’t Mike work for Gannett Publishing? The same publisher that publishes the Indianapolis Star, which also employs one our favorite fucktards, Bob Kravitz? Wow, what a coincidence!

In the NCAA, they have trombone players and drummers on the front rows at the end of the court.
In the NBA, they have Oscar winners and platinum recording artists on the front rows at the end of the court.

Only in LA or NY.

In the NCAA, the introduction of the starting lineups reminds you of a pep rally.
In the NBA, the introduction of the starting lineup reminds you of a Las Vegas floor show.

For most NCAA teams, the introductions are vastly similar to the introductions at a high school game. For the NBA, it is a show! The teams now they need to entertain the fans with more than just the basketball on the court. The Bulls and Pacers have had pretty good starting lineup presentations over the past couple of decades. (Don’t get me started on the starting lineups that the old AFL Indiana Firebirds had. That opening sequence just sucked ass.)

In the NCAA, they play in domes and sell cotton candy.
In the NBA, they play in arenas, and sell frozen daiquiris.

NCAA tournament venues are hosting four or eight different teams’ fans and need the 50,000+ capacities of the domes. NBA playoff teams have the majority of the seats filled by the home team’s fans, unless you are in Atlanta.

In the NCAA, they have crazy boosters who show up with painted faces and scream irrationally at the officials.
In the NBA, they have Mark Cuban. Except he hasn't painted his face. Not yet, anyway.

NBA fans are just as crazy as college team fans. Although, that could just be due to the effect of the alcohol.

In the NCAA, the officials wear black and white stripes, and are often accused of being partial to Duke.
In the NBA, the officials wear gray and are often accused of being partial to the Celtics.

Officials are always going to be more partial to certain teams and players. They are human and it is going to happen. I will forever say that back in the 90’s the NBA officials gave more calls to the Knicks and Bulls than to the Pacers. No, it was not some secret NBA directive to have a major city in the Finals, but there were too many calls that went against the Pacers or no calls that leave you scratching your head in wonderment.

In the NCAA, a championship team will journey on the road to the Final Four.
In the NBA, a championship team might journey on the road to Houston, then Portland and then Cleveland.

The NCAA plays the games in predetermined arenas/domes/stadiums. The NBA plays games at each teams home arenas and you don’t know where that will be until a given round is completed.
In the NCAA, they travel and get called for it.
In the NBA, they travel.

Yes, Mike is correct on this one. Since Michael Jordan started taking an extra step and officials decided not to call it back in the 80’s, now everyone gets away with it.

In the NCAA, the teams participate in the Big Dance starting in mid-March.
In the NBA, the Laker girls participate in a big dance at the end of each quarter.

I have nothing…this one short-circuited by brain by it’s sheer stupidity.

In the NCAA, it takes 20 minutes to play the last 90 seconds of the second half.
In the NBA, it takes 20 minutes to play the last 90 seconds of the fourth quarter.

OK, shit-for-brains! Even an amoeba knows that the NCAA plays halves and the NBA plays quarters.

In the NCAA, they would never expect a team from the Ivy League or Mid-American Conference or Ohio Valley to contend for a title.
In the NBA, instead of the Ohio Valley, they have the Clippers.

True, Harvard, Ball State and Murray State are teams you do not expect to win the Final Four and over-achieve if they do make it to the Sweet 16. However, the BCS conferences dominate the tournament and the mid-major and smaller conferences can normally only hope to have an upset or two and wreak havoc on the office brackets.

The last non-BCS team to make the Final Four was George Mason a couple of years ago and the last non-BCS team to make it to the championship game was Larry Bird’s Indiana State team in 1979.

In the NCAA, there are college student-athletes who want to be millionaires.
In the NBA, there are millionaires who never spent a day as a college student-athlete.

Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? No, he got rich in college, everybody knows that!

In the NCAA, the coach is the director, the players are the cast.
In the NBA, the marquee players are the stars, then the role players, then the subs. The coaches are the boom operators.

College coaches have the advantage over NBA coaches in that they have near ultimate authority to bench a player at will or expel him off the team for any given reason. NBA players have contracts, salaries and owners that hamstring coaches to a certain degree. NBA players have more weight to throw around than their college counterparts and can push coaches to their limit without much repercussion. Owners do not care to have their star or major players on the bench unless the infraction is pretty grave.

In the NCAA, they play until Easter.
In the NBA, they play until Father's Day.

NCAA teams play roughly 30-32 games prior to the tournament. The NBA plays 82 games. NCAA teams rarely play on back-to-back nights unless it is in a tournament. NBA teams play a dozen or so back-to-back games every season. So it stands to reason that the NBA season is going to run longer, turdbag.

In the NCAA, they throw confetti on the champions.
In the NBA, they pour champagne on the champions.

Yeah, the BATF frowns on those underage college players drinking champagne. So they’re stuck with just confetti and hoping to bag one of the cheerleaders later.

In the NCAA, the championship coach leaves two days later on a recruiting trip.
In the NBA, the championship coach leaves two days later for Tahiti.

Well, NCAA coaches have to RECRUIT players while NBA coaches generally only have some type of input in who their team DRAFTS. As mentioned previously, the NBA season is longer and more grueling and he probably deserves to go on a nice vacation to Tahiti. I know I could definitely use a vacation to Tahiti right now.

In the NCAA, the teams that came close but fell short will hurt all off-season.
In the NBA, the off-season, thus the pain, is only shorter.

Whahuh?!? It is probably more hurtful for the senior players since they will not have another chance to play for a collegiate championship. Yes, the NBA off-season is shorter, but does that mean it hurts less?

So to sum it all up, Mike Lopresti is a moronic, turdbag fucktard who is trying to explain why there is a difference between the NCAA and NBA championships that anyone who has seen, heard of or read about a NCAA game and a NBA game would already know the difference between.

FotM...Better Late Than Never!

Hey, folks!

I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but jobs, deadlines and late night parties have kept me away for too long. We never got back to with the February Fucktard of the Month and now it is time for March's!

Along the way this month, we have also welcomed O'Hoolix into the mix and if it wasn't for him, this would have been a shitty month. Thanks, O'Hoolix for keeping us going this month. Not only are his posts funny, you can also take his picks to the bank (most days, sorry about Saturday and last night...).

Now back to the matter at hand.

We'll start with February's Fucktard of the Month Award. Our nominees were Bud Selig - Baseball's Fucktard Extraordinaire, Alex Rodriguez - Baseball's latest steroid poster boy, and ESPN - the world leader in shitty sports programming.

I am proud to say the we had a unanimous winner in our first monthly award. And our winner is...




Bud Selig!



Congratulations, Bud! The man is an infected boil on baseball's ass. This man has almost single-handedly dragged baseball from America's pasttime and the top sport in the USA to number two behind the NFL. Granted, the NFL has worked hard to become what it has and even though it seems to be trying to screw it up, it mostly gets it right. Bud Selig ignored the steroid issue until he no longer couldn't, allowed a tie in an All-Star game, dragged his feet on instant reply, and then tried to say the he had no idea that steroids were being used and it was not his fault. And this is why you have been given the FotM Award. Bud, something tells me I will see you back here again real soon.

And now that we have ushered in the month of April, that means it is time for another FotM Award and another batch of nominees.


1. Bob Kravitz

Bob, along with many other sports columnists, cannot seem to understand the NCAA tournament selection process. OK, so neither can we it seems. (Butler a No. 9 seed?) yet, the tournament selection committee does state that they look at the season as a whole AND only for the current season, i.e. we do not care how you did last year (Davidson) or how many championships you have won in the past (IU). And yet, here is Bob blasting the committee on Purdue's No. 5 seed, even though they won the Big Ten tournament. And here is Bob not saying a thing about Butler's No. 9 seed! Bob also wrote a piece on how the Big Ten deserved seven teams in the tournament because the Big Ten has had five different teams in the Final Four this decade, while the ACC and Big East only have had four "different" teams over that same period. Whahuh? Sadly, no one was not able to get to this piece in a timely manner. None the less, Bob is still a candidate for the FotM.

2. Jay Cutler

Man what a cluster fuck. I'm still having flashbacks of Jeff George and the Colts...must be the tequila (CaboWabo rules!). Every NFL quarterback has a good-sized ego. Jay's is probably three sizes to big. Therefore, Jay's ego was bruised when he heard the Josh McDaniel offered Cutler as part of a multi-team trade for Matt Cassel. So Jay decided to throw a tantrum and the Broncos' were forced to backpedal and try to smooth Jay's ego. Unfortunately, the whole episode blew up with accusations going back and forth, calls not answered, trades demanded and a gullible team to make a trade with. In the end Cutler was traded to the Chicago Bears and the Bears' overpaying in order to get a decent QB. We'll see how it all pans out next season, but Jay's tantrum nets him a FotM nomination.

3. ESPN (again)

Like Bud Selig and Bob Kravitz, ESPN will probably be a mainstay in the FotM nominations. I could probably just cut and paste last month's nomination here as it still mostly applies. Still not showing events in HD, shitty announcers, heavy East Coast biases, Joe Morgan, etc., etc., etc... I understand that they want to broadcast as much sports as they can, but I think they have tried to gobble up to much and they do not have the staff anymore to handle it. Most of the faces we had associated with ESPN, at least the ones I liked, are gone. The replacements do not hold a candle to their former associates and the quality of the programming continues to decline. Plus Joe Morgan is just consistently bad.

So post a comment or send us an email to vote for the March Fucktard of the Month. Remember, vote early and vote often!

Every Time I Think I'm Out...

...he pulls me back in!

Joy mixed with anger at Purdue

Apparently, the Big Ten Tournament result doesn't matter. They might as well have played the Purdue-Ohio State final next Thursday on the moon for all it impacted the NCAA selection committee's decision.

On the moon...with Steve?

Little Bobby Kravitz is probably right, the Big Ten Tournament Final didn't matter as to where Purdue was seeded in the NCAA Tournament--or to where Ohio State went, either. And why should it? It's one game--shouldn't the "overall body of work" (i.e. the whole season) matter more than one game?

Riddle me this: How does Purdue tie for second place during the regular season and then win the Big Ten Tournament title -- win the tournament in a conference ranked second in the nation -- and earn nothing better than a No. 5 seed?

Nice up-to-date "Riddle me this" reference, Bob. How about a KAPOW!! in the article, too?

Now to his question--perhaps it's because the Tournament Selection Committee looks at the whole season, and not just one game? Yes, the Big Ten was the second-rated conference this season. Purdue finished tied for 2nd in the conference and ended the season with an RPI of 20 or 21 depending on who you look at. If the Committee uses RPI as its guide--which it says it does--the Boilermakers are exactly where they should be. You could even make the argument that they could have ended up with a 6-seed.

But I'm using logic and reason in my analysis. Bob is using...well, nothing.
Then, if the Boilers beat Northern Iowa in the first round, they would likely play Washington in semi-nearby Portland, Ore.

It could be worse. You could have to play a 1-seed about an hour away from its campus.

Here's how unimportant conference tournaments are:

Among the four No. 4 seeds (Wake Forest, Washington, Xavier and Gonzaga), only Gonzaga won its conference tournament.

Among the four No. 5s (Purdue, Utah, Florida State and Illinois), Purdue and Utah won conference tournaments. And Purdue wiped out Illinois in the conference semifinal.

Wow--one more 5-seed won its conference tournament than the 4-seeds! Stop the presses!!

Of the 4-seeds, only Gonzaga had an RPI higher than 20 (26). Of the 5-seeds, Purdue: RPI 21, Illinois: 22, Florida State: 14, and Utah: 9. If anyone should be bitching, it's Utah--why aren't the Utes a 3-seed?

I agree with Kravitz in that it seems clear that conference tournaments didn't matter to the committee. Where we disagree is that Kravitz thinks they should matter--I prefer to look at the entire season.

(And yes, I know the committee uses a variety of factors for selection to the tournament, including records over the last 10 games, which means that winning a conference tournament should help you in terms of being a "hot team." But I don't think winning a conference tournament should count more than going 8-2 or 9-1 over the last 10 games).

Look at the very top of the brackets, where Pittsburgh, Connecticut and North Carolina lost in their conference tournaments and still maintained their No. 1 seeds.

Unless you're a bubble team making a miracle run to a conference tournament crown -- or Syracuse -- this week was utterly meaningless.

Yeah--Maryland (RPI-52, 10-seed in tournament) didn't benefit at all from its conference tournament...I'm sure the 2-1 record Maryland had in the ACC tournament meant nothing.
Profitable, good for TV and the host cities and the winners who get to wear cool new hats, but ultimately meaningless.

I agree with Kravitz on this point. In fact, I'd like to see the NCAA give the automatic berth from each conference to the regular season winner, instead of whoever wins the conference tournament. But I know that will never happen.

Purdue should have been at least a No. 4 seed. That's not only based on the fact they had a marvelous weekend here in Indianapolis and won the tournament of one of the nation's deepest conferences, but the fact that when their team has been healthy, they are one of the 10 or 15 best teams in the nation.

So, using that logic, shouldn't St. Mary's have gotten in to the tournament? They lost Patty Mills for 5 weeks, and you could definitely make the argument that the Gaels are one of the best 32 teams "when they are healthy." Same with Davidson--Stephen Curry was hurt for a few games, but when he is healthy, Davidson is a deserving team.

See how stupid an argument that is? I know the committee can do what it wants in its selection process, but seeding teams based on what they "might be" compared to how they actually performed is a ridiculous idea.

And Purdue got a 5-seed...and Kravitz is acting like the Boilers should be pissed off about not getting a 4-seed. I mean, it's not like it was a top 2 RPI team that got screwed down to a 9-seed (keep reading...)

Does one seeding spot make that much difference? Not really. If form holds, the Nos. 4 and 5 seeds will play each other in the second round, anyway. And even given the geographic disadvantage of possibly playing Washington in Portland, there's a lot to like about Purdue right now against anybody.

So now you're saying a 5-seed is okay? Do you always write stream-of-consciousness style?

Sure, one seed makes little difference between a #4 and #5. But I'd say there's a tremendous difference between #7 and #8...

Big picture, the Big Ten really can't complain. Seven teams was exactly the right number, with four teams in the top half of the bracket (Michigan State, Purdue, Illinois, Ohio State) and three as double-digit seeds (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin).

I disagree. For the third year in a row, the NCAA selection committee has made a concerted effort to reward the big conferences and eliminate the at-large selections for mid-majors. The Big Ten did not deserve seven teams. Creighton (RPI-40), St. Mary's (46), and UAB (41) should have been considered before Michigan and Wisconsin.

As for Penn State, consider this equation: If your RPI is within 20 of Joe Paterno's age, you don't get the NCAA bid. So no whining.

Joe Paterno=82 years old. Arizona's RPI=62. Arizona is the #12 seed in the Midwest.

It's funny, pathetic, and sad all at once that the only time Kravitz uses RPI in his article, he fucks it up.

As for the other in-state team, Butler, the selection committee got it right. The Bulldogs could have been an 8 or a 9, which makes absolutely no difference. Sorry, but if you fall short in the Horizon League Tournament final and lose at home to Loyola, an 8 or a 9 is as high as you're going to rate.

Purdue lost at home to Northwestern. Now I'm not suggesting that Purdue be seeded lower than Butler (though their RPIs are very similar), but citing one loss as a basis for a seeding is stupid at best.

Butler has been in the Top 20 or 25 RPI all season--currently 22. How this warranted a 9-seed--who the fuck knows? Yes, Butler lost in the Horizon League championship game and went 7-3 over the final 10 games. So does that one tournament loss hurt you that much, especially when it's to a good Cleveland State team that has played well all season?

I know that Butler's strength of schedule isn't much--ranked 96th--but the Bulldogs had a great non-conference schedule, which included a road win over Xavier.

Let's compare Butler to a wildly successful mid-major: Gonzaga. Both Gonzaga and Butler have been ranked in the Top 25 all season--not that polls matter--but they've both been consistently good all year. Both teams are 25-5. Gonzaga won its conference tournament and went 9-1 over its last 10 games, and the one loss was against Memphis. However, Gonzaga's RPI is 29--seven spots worse than Butler.

What about strength of schedule? I mentioned already that Butler's is 96, but Gonzaga's is only marginally better: ranked 92nd! Somehow, Gonzaga is a 4-seed while Butler only got a 9-seed. Evidently, playing well at the end of the season is worth a whopping five spots in seeding. And for Butler, not only does the 9-seed give Butler a tough first round game against LSU, but it also means that if Butler wins, it gets 1-seed North Carolina in the second round.

As we've mentioned before on Lom Henn.com, many of us are Butler fans, myself included. Of course I'd like to see them seeded higher. But the NCAA has clearly been punishing the mid-majors over the last three seasons. At this point, I don't think Gonzaga qualifies as a mid-major anymore, despite the fact that it plays in a weak conference.

Back to Kravitz--the question he should be asking here regarding Butler and Purdue is why Purdue's conference tournament win didn't seem to be a factor in the selection committee's seeding, yet Butler's conference tournament loss did seem to be a factor. Shouldn't he notice and inquire about the inconsistency?

If they can beat LSU in an interesting first-round matchup, they'd have to face North Carolina in Greensboro, N.C. Apparently, the Dean Dome was booked at the time. Good luck with that, gentlemen.

That's it. That's all the analysis Kravitz has regarding Butler: "if you can win your first round game, forget about the next one." With North Carolina looming in the second round, isn't it more important Butler have gotten a higher seed? Maybe at least humor the Butler faithful a little by saying that it's too bad they got a 9-seed for that reason? Something? It's obvious during the season that Kravitz couldn't find Hinkle Fieldhouse if he ran into it with his tractor, but I'd think that Butler deserves a bit of coverage based on what they've done over the past few seasons. Not to mention that Butler is located in Indianapolis, after all, which is the same city of Kravitz's employer...

But no, we just get the same amount of meaningful analysis we've come to expect from Kravitz, which is none at all. At least he's consistent.

WFNI - Brainless Broadcasting

We all know that sports talk radio in general has its flaws. While there are diamonds in the rough on the radio dials, idiots that think they are experts proliferate the airwaves. In the past 24 hours I have heard a couple of whoppers that make me shake my head.

Last night on the Kravitz and Eddie Show on WFNI 1070AM, I heard this lovely tidbit from Eddie White:

"The only time you see sports on the front page is when there is bad news," regarding an article on the Indiana Pacers' statement they need help from the city to help pay the $15 million per year in facility costs of Conseco Fieldhouse.

Really, Eddie? They only put bad news on the front of the newspaper? What kind of fucktard are you?!?

I'm pretty sure that when the Colts won Super Bowl XL, that was on the front page of the Star. The front page of the Sunday edition of the Star after the Indiana Boys High School Basketball State Finals always has a story on the finals. The day after the Indianapolis 500 always has a picture of the winner on the front page.

It may seem that the front page only has bad news, but come on! Eddie, you've been hanging out with Bob to long and it is starting to rot what little brains you had left.

Then just a few minutes ago on the Tirico and Van Pelt Show again on WFNI, Mike Tirico dropped this shit-bomb of a comment on the Butler-Cleveland State game (paraphrasing):

"You know, I was watching the last two minutes of the game last night and I was thinking that Butler lost the game so that two teams would make the tournament and make more money for the conference."

Yes, Mike feels that Butler tanked on purpose since they are a lock to make the Big Dance and letting Cleveland State win give the Horizon League two teams in tournament and resulting in a large piece of the tournament revenue pie. While it is true that the Horizon League, Butler and Cleveland State will benefit financially since Cleveland State won, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you fucking think that Butler fucking threw in the towel so they could fucking get more fucking money out the deal!

You fucking fuckheaded fucktard!

Mike, I thought you sucked to begin with, but you have reached a new level of fucktardedness. You are not quite down to the level of Tony Kornheiser or Bud Selig, but you are close. The only reason I listen to you is because I hate the shows on the other two shows in your time slot more than yours (and shit like this that I can post here).

So basically WFNI and ESPN Radio are staffed by idiots, but then we already knew that didn't we.

They've Been Playing Great Games; Thanks For Finally Noticing

It's been nearly a month since we've done anything on our favorite sportswriter. And by favorite, I mean "shitty like a yak with diarrhea."

Of course you know who I'm talking about: Bob Kravitz!

Girls take center stage with great players, games

In the 34 years they've been holding an Indiana girls high school basketball championship, there's never been a year like this one. Shoot, there's never been a year like this one in Indiana boys high school basketball, either.

Technically, unless every score of every game is the same and every game contains the exact same teams as a previous year's tournament, every year is unique. So by definition, you could say "there's never been a year like this one" about ANY year.

And when it was done, an undefeated Ben Davis staked its claim for the unofficial national championship of high school girls' basketball.

Kravitz does say "unofficial," but let's be clear about this: there is no national championship in high school basketball! Yes, I know some publications do national rankings, but they are completely meaningless. How can you possibly equate teams and schools from 50 states? Do you really have enough knowledge and data to say that the #1 team in Texas is better or worse than the #1 team in Indiana?

Publications and websites do national polls for two reasons: to sell more papers/get more hits and to make more money. There is no credible way of forming a Top 25 national high school poll.

As for this article, we'll see later how Kravitz adds more hype (inaccurately, of course) to the national championship hype machine.

Early in the afternoon, there was Heritage Christian, ranked anywhere from eighth to 14th in national polls, winning its fourth consecutive 2A state title by edging Oak Hill 60-58 in overtime.

Claire Freeman, their guard, had her own Bobby Plump moment, hitting a tough, contested shot off the backboard for the game winner with three seconds remaining.

Maybe she'll open a restaurant someday, call it "Freeman's Last Shot.''

Or maybe not.

If it were possible for the sound of crickets to be imbedded in a newspaper, you'd have heard it here. The online version of this story should have had them added for effect.

Then, in the tournament's much-anticipated marquee game, there were the state's and the nation's Nos. 1 and 2 teams -- some rankings had it Ben Davis-South Bend Washington and others had it South Bend Washington-Ben Davis -- and a game that exceeded all expectations.

Actually, as you can see here in an article from Kravitz's own paper, only one national poll had Ben Davis #1 and South Bend Washington #2. The rest had both ranked high, but in no other poll were the two schools #1-#2. Nothing like over-hyping an already over-hyped fictional national championship idea!

This, too, ended with another Plump moment, this one involving Ben Davis sophomore guard Bria Goss. Her twisting, falling, leaning, praying shot in the lane slammed the glass, pounded the front rim and then fell softly through the net with 1.4 seconds remaining.

Does every last second shot have to be described by invoking the name Bobby Plump? I know that Milan's small-school 1954 state championship is the stuff of legend and of Gene Hackman movies, but isn't there something more recent that can be referenced? Isn't throwing Plump's name into every story concerning a late-game shot a bit cliche now? Never mind that it's often inaccurate--does everyone hold the ball for more than a minute, without moving, before taking the final shot?

The 4A title wasn't just a state title game; it was an unofficial national title game.

You've said this already, despite it still being a stupid notion. More to come on that.

Boys?

Who needs boys?

(That's what I tell my daughters, anyway).

Bad joke aside, why does Kravitz feel the need to compare the boys and girls tournaments? Why is it assumed that the boys games would automatically be more interesting? I would say that NONE of the girls tournaments have needed boys to make them interesting (besides the fact that if the boys were there, it wouldn't have been girls basketball).

But wait; it will get worse.

Clearly, this is a historical anomaly. It's rare enough to have one top high school team named among the nation's top 10 or 15. But three teams in the national rankings, including the top two?

That said, the epic rise of Indiana girls basketball is not some accident of history.

When I first read this, I took a bit of an exception to the idea that girls basketball wasn't great 10 years ago. If you watched Stephanie White play when she was in high school, you know what I mean. But I have to agree with Kravitz here--for as ridiculous as the national polls are for high school sports, I don't believe Indiana has ever had the accolades for girls basketball that it enjoys now.

The next couple of paragraphs Kravitz points out that the rise of year-round play over the past 10 years in girls basketball has made the overall level of talent greater. It is a completely valid point, and I agree completely.

However, Kravitz quotes Garry Donna, the long-time publisher of Hoosier Basketball. At first it seems harmless, as Donna agrees with Kravitz that year-around AAU play has helped girls basketball. But then:

"...Second, the coaching has gotten a lot better in the girls game. There's been a trend over the years and it's gotten to the point where around 80 percent of girls coaches are men. That's not a gender thing, but a lot of girls coaches are former boys coaches and they have more experience..."

Fuck the heck? If that's "not a gender thing," then what exactly is it?

Not only is Donna's statement blatantly sexist, it also exhibits faulty logic. Perhaps Donna is correct that "80% of girls coaches are men" (I've been unable to find numbers for Indiana), but is this a new trend, even if it is true?

As for male coaches who started out in boys basketball before becoming basketball coaches for girls teams, how would that give them more experience? The girls state basketball tournament has been around for 34 years. Isn't that enough time for female coaches who have only coached girls basketball to have enough experience? Is Donna actually suggesting that coaching the same number of boys basketball games imparts more experience than coaching girls games?

No one has ever mistaken Garry Donna for a classy guy. Several people who have covered high school sports have commented independently that Donna's interest in girls basketball over the years was driven more by a leering motivation than by genuine interest in girls basketball (it was widely noted by some that Donna had an unhealthy obsession with Indiana Miss Basketball Stephanie White while she was still in high school). Even if he has a newfound respect for girls basketball, to say that it's only better because there are more male coaches with "more experience" is idiotic.

Of course, Kravitz does nothing to disagree with Donna--in fact, Kravitz gives him nearly a quarter of the article in quotations.

This is a classic case of Kravitz declaring that girls basketball is now worth watching, because he's just discovered it and declared it so. I'm glad that Kravitz has finally come around to giving the girls' game a chance, and that it's as "worthy" of watching as the boys' game. Perhaps he should have done it sooner, so he wouldn't have missed the last 10 years of great girls basketball.

Let It Out (Pffffht)

My what an interesting smell you've discovered. No, it that is not manure that has recently thawed, it is another Bob Kravitz article.

It's been a couple of weeks since we've picked on Bob Kravitz and I was beginning to go through some withdraw symptoms. Thankfully, Bob wrote another of his typical articles and I get to calm my shakes by tackling some hack journalism.

Let It Out (Sports):

Or

I have nothing to write, so I am pulling from any and everything I have heard or read from other people better than me (Sports):

A word of advice for Pacers coach Jim O'Brien, who, I'm quite sure, treasures my input on all things hoops: Play the rookies.

No, I imagine that Coach O’Brien thinks your as much as a fucktard as we do!

Seriously, get Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush out there and let's see how they develop.
I understand O'Brien wants to get to the playoffs -- as do Herb Simon and Larry Bird -- and he's merely doing what he is paid to do. But after those terrible home losses to the Knicks and Timberwolves, it's apparent that even in the woeful Eastern Conference, this team isn't going to make the playoffs.

Probably not with the way they are playing, but Larry and Herb are trying to put and keep butts in the seats. Trotting out Hibbert and Rush mean the Pacers are announcing they are throwing in the towel for the season and might easily scare away what gains the team has made attendance-wise this season.

If we are seemingly eliminated with a month or so to go, then you might re-address this issue, but right now, the Pacers have to live in the now and not in making the future.

No knock on Rasho Nesterovic, but what's the point in giving big minutes to a guy who won't be a part of the Pacers' future? If the Pacers are going to lose, lose with Hibbert and Rush and give them the opportunity to grow in game situations -- which, I'm happy to say, has been the case the past two games against Philly and Orlando.

Wow! And we sucked in both of those games! Now might not be the time to make sure everyone plays.

>I swear, Tony Dungy could write a casserole recipe on a bar napkin and have it debut at No. 4 on the New York Times bestseller list.

I don’t know about you, but I would be interested in a Tony Dungy casserole recipe.

Yeah, I'm bitter: My book on the Colorado Rockies' first year is now available on Amazon.com for one penny.

Huh, I would have thought someone would have to pay me in order to get your book. I would say a penny for your thoughts, but I don’t care about your thoughts.

>I'm not forgiving Michael Phelps for forgetting that with big money comes big responsibility, but aren't there more heinous crimes being committed in South Carolina than one involving a 23-year-old taking a bong hit?

Yes, your writing could be considered a heinous crime against journalism.

I'm hesitant to drop the bomb on a young guy who did some of the stupid things I did during my wayward youth, but Phelps needs to understand that with all those millions in promotional dollars comes added responsibility.

There are worse crimes, but Phelps is a big household name and it made for big amounts of press. Was it blown out of proportion? Possibly. But when you are getting paid MILLIONS of dollars, you have to keep that squeaky clean lifestyle or pay the consequences.

>The more I hear about all the NFL job cuts -- and that includes the Colts -- the more I wonder, "Why was this necessary?''

While the economy is a shambles, it seems to me the NFL is about as recession- proof as any business in this country. The teams are still getting their TV money, still selling out, still getting sweetheart leases from their local municipalities.

The NFL is not recession-proof. The Colts have an advantage of having a long run of 12+ win seasons, a recent Super Bowl win and a brand new stadium. If the Colts had gone 8-8 or 7-9 this year, you could have had a mass exodus in the backing of the team and left Colts really struggling financially. Even with all of the good times for the team, this is still a small market and I’m sure the Colts are trying to gear up for some possible rough times ahead.

And when businesses like the Colts decide to cut costs, why is it always the lesser-paid employees who get the axe?

We’ll, generally those lesser-paid employees are either expendable and/or in jobs that the team can live without. I did not see a breakdown of the job titles that were being cut, but some of them may have been for season ticket sales, promotions, and public relations or places where they had duplication that they no longer needed. Since the Colts have a long (at least for now) waiting list for season tickets and no problems filling the arena, the Colts may have felt they could do some cost cutting.

I'm not buying the NFL's poor-mouthing act. It is nothing more than a transparent attempt by the league to position itself more favorably before the collective bargaining agreement expires in 2010.

Even if they came out and said that, it makes good economic sense to do so.

At some point, I want a coach or a player to step up and agree to bear some of the financial load. That's how it happens elsewhere. At our newspaper, everybody must take an unpaid, one-week furlough. At my radio station, everybody is taking a 3 percent cut.

Why should a player or a coach take the pay cut? Without them, the team doesn’t make any money. Why don’t you ask the executives at your newspaper to contribute more so you wouldn’t have to take your unpaid furlough? They would just laugh as they had you escorted out the door. Your readers can only hope that your job will be cut, preferably sooner than later.

How about the players who make millions? When do they start to shoulder some of the load?

For now, most of the NFL teams are probably doing well enough to at least get by. If teams really start struggling financially, then I would expect some players and coach to shoulder more of the load.

>Somewhere, the late, great Paul Newman is turning over in his grave.

Yes, because you mentioned him in one of your articles.

His race team, Newman/Haas/Lanigan, has signed the spectacularly unprepared Milka Duno to drive for them. There is only one reason -- well, many millions of reasons -- why the Venezuelan got this gig: She is bankrolled by the country's deep-pocketed oil company.

Considering how hard it has been for racing teams to find or keep sponsors lately, the fact that Milka is bringing sponsors and backing money to the team, I really can’t blame them. I’m sure that she was not the team’s first or probably second choice.

I REALLY do not care for Milka “The Dangerous Back Marker” Duno as a driver. Although part of that may have been her previous team. With a better team now, she may be able to excel and become just “The Back Marker” Duno.

>News: David Beckham says he wants to stay in Italy and does not want to come back to Los Angeles.

Have you seen American soccer? Compared to England, Spain and Italy, most U.S. soccer teams would be in the second or third tier leagues. The only reason he came here originally was the money ($25 million per year) and the fact no one in Europe really wanted him at the time. Now that AC Milan is interested in keeping him, I would want out too!

Views: David Beckham was in Los Angeles? Really?

Shut up, fucktard! You’re not funny. Stop trying.

>It's going to be interesting to see how these most recent Purdue and IU football recruiting classes turn out.

The Hoosiers' Bill Lynch filled his class with in-state talent. Conversely, first-year Purdue coach Danny Hope hit Florida hard -- Purdue had more Florida signees than any non-Florida school -- and did not sign a single Indiana high school player. It was Hope's contention recently that Indiana just didn't have many worthy players, and the few that were opted to go elsewhere.
If Purdue improves, Hope will be lauded for extending the school's recruiting scope. If he loses, fans will howl at the lack of home-grown talent.

Overall, most of the nation’s high school football talent comes out of Texas and Florida. So that may actually be a good thing. I don’t think most alumni care where their players come from, just that their team wins. I’m sure they’ll be pissed if the team loses regardless.

>For the record, I remain completely in agreement with the Pacers' decision to turn Jamaal Tinsley into a non-person.

Damn! I sadly have to agree with him on the one. Ouch, my head hurts now.

You say it hurts his marketability? I've got news. Everybody around the NBA knows he's got issues, the most important issue being his inability to stay healthy. If he'd been allowed to stay around the team, it would have turned into a Stephon Marbury-like circus.

Tinsley is under contract, but that doesn’t mean the team has to play him, just pay him. Tinsely has known his fate since the end of last season. Unfortunately, no other team really wants him, at least at his current salary. So I agree (Fuck that hurts!) that making him persona non grata at the Pacers facility was the best for the team.

Plus, the Pacers management had to make a statement to its fans, just as they did by unloading all the other jokers: They weren't going to let Tinsley's presence poison the focus of this year's locker room.

[I refuse to comment on this as it may cause my head to explode if I agree again.]

>News: Lisa Leslie said she will retire from the WNBA after this year.

Views: Good timing. There might not be a WNBA at this time next year.

The WNBA is still around?

>With a healthy Robbie Hummel, Purdue is an Elite Eight team or maybe better.

Without him, the Boilers can lose the first week of the NCAA Tournament.

News flash, the Boilers can lose the first week with him! Yes, they are a better team with him, but any team can lose in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Butler has a better chance of being an Elite Eight team than Purdue does, even with Hummel at this point.

>Now that Larry Coyer finally has been named the Colts' defensive coordinator, a quick piece of advice (and I'm sure Larry will appreciate my input): It's OK to blitz once in a while. Really.

If they can shore up the secondary a little bit more, then the Colts should blitz more often. If they had tried blitzing more last season, I think we would have gotten burned more often than we succeeded.

Thus, we end another trashing of Bob Kravitz’s attempt at an article. Bob, don’t quit your day jo…no, wait, please quit your day job! Pretty please?!?

Day of Reckoning

In honor of it being Super Bowl Sunday, I thought I'd take a look back at the few articles concerning NFL predictions that were posted here at LomHenn.com this past season.

How well did everyone do? Let's find out!

First off, I went after Michael Lombardi for his three stats that will define the Super Bowl teams. Lombardi's first prediction:

I can promise you with a 99.0 percent degree of certainty that the final four teams in the playoffs will be ranked in the top eight of point differential in the first half.

This year's final four playoff teams were Philadelphia, Arizona, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. I responded to Lombardi's prediction at the time by showing that this prediction was wrong for the 2007 season. Also, why would first half scoring differential be more important than overall scoring differential? I then predicted that the Super Bowl participants would be in the top eight of overall scoring differential.

In 2008, Philadelphia (at #2, +82 in points) and Baltimore (#6, +58) were in the top eight in first half scoring differential. Pittsburgh was tied for 11th (+34), while Arizona was...28th (-53!!!). So Lombardi's first prediction--which he promised with "99.0 percent" certainty--was only 50% accurate.

For the overall scoring differential, Baltimore (tied for #1, +141), Philadelphia (#4, +127), and Pittsburgh (#5, +124) all ended up in the top eight. Arizona was 18th (+1). My "prediction"--that the two Super Bowl teams would be in the top eight--was 1 for 2, also 50% (if I had phrased my prediction like Lombardi had--saying that the final four teams would be in the top eight--I would have had that pick 75% accurate).

In any case, I think this supports my original point that first-half scoring differential is no more a meaningful predictor of playoff success than overall scoring differential. Arizona is a good case in point--the Cardinals were blown out in the first half of a couple of their games this season, which made their first-half scoring differential much worse than their overall scoring differential.

Let's see if Lombardi fared any better for his second can't miss Super Bowl prediction:

Throw the ball in the first half -- often

Lombardi's rationale here is that teams that establish the passing game in the first half are more likely to score in the first half, and therefore have a higher first-half scoring differential. Besides the obvious issue of Lombardi's second prediction being related to his first, my problem with his assertion is that it doesn't really tell you anything. Using 2007 statistics (since the predictions were made at the beginning of this season), 29 of 32 teams passed more than ran in the first half, so there's really no meat to his prediction.

Finding 2008 statistics regarding running/passing plays by half is like trying to find someone who still thinks Carrot Top is funny. After a couple hours of searching the Internet, the best I could compile were season totals for each team. Seven teams (out of 32) ran the ball more than they passed this season:

Atlanta (56% run/44% pass)
NY Giants (51%/49%)
Carolina (55%/45%)
Baltimore (58%/42%)
Minnesota (53%/47%)
Tennessee (53%/47%)
Oakland (52%/48%)

An interesting list. Discounting Oakland, the other six teams are all playoff teams, including Baltimore, who made it to the AFC Championship game running the ball 58% of the time. The remaining six playoff teams:

Indianapolis (39% run/61% pass)
Miami (48%/52%)
Whale's Vagina (47%/53%)
Philadelphia (41%/59%)
Pittsburgh (48%/52%)
Arizona (35%/65%)

So of the Super Bowl teams, Arizona was pretty pass-wacky, while Pittsburgh was more balanced. However, the league average was 46% run/54% pass, so most of the playoff teams (9 out of 12) ran the ball more often than the league average. Again, it's hard to analyze this directly without the first half statistics, but based on game statistics, I don't think Lombardi's prediction was valid.

What about Lombardi's third "stat that will define winning teams"?

Seven yards per passing attempt

The two teams that find their way down to Tampa for the Super Bowl will have above a 7.25 average per attempt passing for the season.

As I noted in the original article, 11 out of 32 quarterbacks were able to accomplish that goal in 2007. This season, only 10 QBs were able to do it. As far as the two teams in Tampa for the Super Bowl, Arizona averaged 7.42 yards per attempt--Pittsburgh averaged 6.5 (if we go by quarterbacks, Arizona's Kurt Warner averaged 7.66 YPA and Ben Roethlisberger averaged 7.04 YPA. Since I don't know if Lombardi was referring to individual or team stats on this, I'll include both).

Bottom line--sorry Hans, wrong guess! Would you like to go for double jeopardy, where the scores can really change?

I think it's pretty easy to say that Lombardi went 0-for-3 on his predictions.

From the same post, I also made some predictions. How did I do?

The Super Bowl participants will each be in the top 8 in the NFL in scoring differential.

See above. 3-out-of-4 for the teams in the championship games; 1-of-2 for the Super Bowl. For the final four teams, better than Lombardi; for the Super Bowl itself, the same as Lombardi.

Each Super Bowl team will be in the top 14 in offensive yards per game.

Arizona=4th (365.8 yards per game). Pittsburgh=22nd (311.9 ypg). Another 50% success, though Pittsburgh was pretty far down on the list.

Each Super Bowl team will have jerseys that don't read "Kansas City Chiefs."

Nailed that one!!

The takeaway here is that I did just as well as an NFL "expert" in making picks based on arbitrary criteria. My point is not to say how great a job I did in making picks; rather, it's to show how ridiculous it is to make these kind of picks at all. Year after year pundits make their picks, and year after year most of the picks are flat out wrong. And no one goes back and tells them how wrong they are.

Next up, an October prediction Zinglebert made concerning the Colts and Titans and the AFC South race (in an article critiquing the one and only Bob Kravitz):

I’m going to put on my Nostradumbass hat on and predict that the law of averages catches up with the Titans and they will come into Lucas Oil Stadium in Week 17 with a 10-5 record and either the division title or a playoff berth on the line.

Tennessee was 13-2 coming in, and the game was meaningless because both the Colts and Titans had clinched all they could clinch. If the Colts had won one more game early in the season, perhaps the division title would have been decided in the regular season finale. Instead, it was a chance to see Jim Sorgi in action!

To be fair, I had my own bad Colts prediction:

I'll make a prediction now: if the Colts win 10 games, they are definitely in the playoffs.

The Colts went 12-4 and easily made the playoffs. However, New England went 11-5 and stayed home. Obviously, 10-6 wouldn't have been good enough to get in. So another bad pick by me.

Finally, I'll wrap up with this little nugget: some of us here at LomHenn.com participate in our own prediction contest at the outset of each NFL season (we do this despite knowing how lousy our picks will be). We pick each of the division winners and wild cards, then take a shot at the playoffs. Zinglebert took the time to compare our picks to the "experts" at SI.com and ESPN.com to see how we did. Here is the result (correct picks are in white, incorrect picks in red):


Click on the picture to see it more clearly.

The column on the right is the total number of division winner/wild card picks that were correct. Although I'm proud of the fact that I got 6 out of the 12 possible picks correct, what I find more interesting is that of the 25 "experts" making picks, none had more than 5 picks correct. And absolutely NO ONE (including myself) had the Super Bowl matchup right, or even close (though I have to point out that both Dr. Z of SI.com and Mike Sando of ESPN.com had Philadelphia going to the Super Bowl, so at least those two writers had Philly advancing in the playoffs--unlike the rest of us. Those picks are denoted in grey in the picture).

So does my success this season make me an expert? Far from it. My point is that come next year, you have as much of a chance of picking the teams who will play in the Super Bowl as the people you read online or see on TV do. And unless you actually put your picks online, no one will hold you accountable if you pick poorly--just like no one holds accountable the "experts" who get all of their picks wrong year after year. You'll be in good company.

Since I've had soooo much success this season picking games, here's my prediction for this year's Super Bowl:

Arizona 33, Pittsburgh 31 (3 OT). The game will be decided on a safety with less than 2:00 to go in the third overtime.

Yeah, that could happen!

Kravitz's This Old Stat

Listening to the Kravitz and Eddie Show on WFNI 1070 AM [A painful duty, but I was unable to listen to my usual The Zone on XL-950 at the time, but it gives me stuff I can put on here!] I had tuned in as they were discussing the NFL overtime rules and the coin toss. Bob Kravitz feels that since the winner of the coin toss in overtime has only won 52% of the time, that is not a significant enough difference to require any changes.

Well, Bobbo, you are correct (amazingly) that the coin toss winner has only won 52% of the time. However, that covers the time period from the inception of overtime in 1974 through 2003. Since the NFL moved the kickoff back to the 30-yard line in 1994, things have changed, more than just a little.

Looking at the NFL overtime games from 2000 to 2007, the winner of the coin toss has won 60% of the games. In addition to that, out of the 124 overtime games in that time frame, 37 were won on the opening drive in overtime without the opponent touching the ball. That's 30% of the games. So nearly 1 in 3 overtime games end up like the Colts-Chargers playoff game where once you lost the coin toss, you were essentially hosed.

Bob, I think you need to update yourself on some stats...in addition to a few other things. I imagine you are a batting average and wins kind of baseball idiot person and statistics like VORP, OBP and BABIP are just made up stats by geeks like us, huh?

It is definitely time the NFL do something about overtimes. What that should be is a matter of debate. One I'm sure will be represented on this site. Yet, something does need to be done.

Now if we could only do something about Kravitz...

And the Winner Is...

Cue the music...cue the lights...cue the dog and pony show!

Welcome everyone to the Inaugural 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year Awards! Our first year (OK, seven months) have hopefully brought you some laughs, some deep cognitive thoughts and some fuck the hecks(?). I know that we have enjoyed the experience and look forward to entertaining you during 2009 and hopefully beyond. What's even more exciting is this is our 100th post on LomHenn.com!

So before we try and get all emotional, let's get down to business and announce the winners of the 2008 Fucktard of the Year Awards.

We thank everyone who cast their votes for the FotY. As we mentioned previously, there were many worthy fucktardy candidates for this prestigious award, but in the end, it was just a two horse, or more accurately, a two horse's ass race between Indy's local hack Bob Kravitz and national suck-ass extraordinaire Tony Kornheiser.

After the votes were tabulated, reviewed for any dangling chads and we scrubbed the data, we honestly had a tie...at least before my vote.

So, without further ado, our 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year winner is...











Tony Kornheiser!





Yes, congratulations to Tony K, you suck ass more than any other sports entity in the entire known universe! Anything the you write or that comes out of your mouth just further solidifies you as a Fucktard Extraordinaire. You status as a fucktard will be forever ingrained as the inaugural winner of this just award. Without fucktards like you, this site would not be here.

I'm sure that Bob Kravitz will be heartbroken that he did not win this award. My initial instinct was to vote for Bobbo because of his numerous infractions and postings here. I understand he is here to spark controversies and conversations and to sell newspapers. Many of his opinions are valid and have merit. But that is where reality seems to stop for him. I have never seen a lazier journalist in my life. He rarely seems to lift a phone to get additional details for a column or even spend two minutes to do a couple of Internet searches to provide a shread of valid evidence to back up his reasoning. One time he nearly plagiarized one of his fellow columnists by pulling only the information he wanted from another story, nearly word for word!

But then there was Tony Kornheiser. Tony, Tony, Tony...I can't even begin to list or describe how much suckage there is to you. We are stuck dealing with you for 16 weeks of Monday Night Football and on ESPN's PTI. The man is forever behind on his commentary and his "observations" are inaccurate, incorrect and/or absurd. Again, I'm not sure if this is part of a grand scheme to get people interested in the broadcast, but the man just does not belong in the booth. I wish I had recorded the MNF last year in which Slut and Zinglebert were shouting, "Kornheiser sucks!" below the MNF booth. I would have loved to here if any of that made it over the airwaves. Tony may not have been posted on as much as Bob Kravitz, but you have to agree that Kornheiser does suck more.

So in the end, I had to cast my vote for Tony Kornheiser. His SCuZ numbers were much higher than Kravitz's and his high school pic was just downright scary! Congratulations you assbag fucktard!

Bob Kravitz, however, does not go home empty-handed. Bob may have come in second place for the coveted FotY, but we have a few more awards to dish out from LomHenn.com.

Most Posted Fucktard - Bob Kravitz - Yes, Bob led the way with 19 posts on LomHenn, far out distancing the runner-ups Murray Chass and Tony Kornheiser with four each.

Most Used Label - Bob Kravitz - Once again Bob was a popular candidate on our site. Why? Honestly, since he is our local sports columnist we see his stuff more often than some of the national or other city's columnists. But his stuff is typical atrocious and ends up as one of our posts. 'Really long post' was runner up with 16 posts. (Slut and Zinglebert do like their long posts.)

We may have few more awards to pass out later and I'll let the rest of the gang dish out those awards as they see fit.

Thanks, gang, for helping to keep the site going. I may not contribute much, but I do enjoy the reading while jetting around.

Thanks to those of you who voted, your votes were greatly appreciated.

Thank you to our readers, however few or many of you there are. We hope that you have enjoyed reading our site as much as we do. We welcome any emails telling us if you enjoy or hate the site or if you run across an article or post that we should take an interest in.

Wow, 100 posts! I wasn't sure if we would really post ten times in the beginning, but here we are at 100. Our 2009 goal is to post at least five times a week, so this is a challenge to everyone to see if we can actually maintain that.

Once again, congrats to our 2008 Fucktard of the Year winner, Tony Kornheiser! Something tells me you may be an annual front-runner for this award for many years to come.

One Turd Deserves Another

This is a painful post to write, as it's only a day after the Indianapolis Colts lost yet again in the first round of the playoffs (if you don't already know, this time the culprit was San Diego, beating the Colts 23-17 in overtime). Last night's loss was the third first round playoff exit for the Colts in four years, with the only exception being the Super Bowl title after the 2006 season. Most of us at Lom Henn.com are Colts fans. Obviously, it goes without saying that we are disappointed.

Perhaps worse than the playoff loss will be the incessant talk and fall-out that will come in the next few weeks (okay, not worse. Nothing could be worse than that turd of a game). And who has already started the talk, even while the Colts' playoff corpse is still warm? You guessed it--Bob Kravitz.

Colts are underachievers

Another 12-victory season . . . and nothing.

Another Peyton Manning MVP season . . . and nothing.

Another Tony Dungy playoff appearance, his record 10th straight . . . and nothing.

Another glorious chance to advance to a Super Bowl, their second in three years, with the New England Patriots out of the way and the AFC unfettered by the existence of a dominant team . . . and nothing.

Yeah, we get it--the Colts have nothing despite all of the things they accomplished this season. No Super Bowl. But let me let you in on a little secret, Bob--30 teams will also have "nothing" this season, since only two teams play in the Super Bowl.

I understand the Colts had greater expectations then other teams entering the season. But I don't agree with Kravitz that the only measuring stick of a successful season is reaching the Super Bowl.

Let's just say it how it is: The Colts are the ultimate paper tigers. And if you don't like the Atlanta Braves comparison -- multiple postseason appearances, one championship -- feel free to come up with your own.

As a fan of both the Atlanta Braves and of the Colts, I knew this comparison was coming, and I'm sure that Kravitz won't be the only one making it. But it still bothers me--for reasons I'll get to later. For now, though, let's see about this "Colts are the Braves of the NFL" thing:

The Colts have made the playoffs for 7 straight years--six division titles and one wild card berth. The Braves made the playoffs 14 straight years from 1991-2005 (there were no playoffs in 1994), winning 14 straight division titles. So right there, not quite the same thing.

The Colts have made it to the Super Bowl one time in that span, and won it. The Braves also have "only" one World Series championship during their run: 1995. That's probably the focus most people will take, including Kravitz.

But the Braves made it to the World Series both in 1991 and 1992, right at the beginning of their playoff run. They also made it back in 1996 and 1999, for a total of 5 World Series appearances and 1 title. Plus, the Braves lost in the National League Championship Series four times--in 1993, 1997, 1998, and 2001. That would be like the Colts making it to the AFC Championship Game six times in their seven-year playoff run, and going to three Super Bowls. So, if anything, the Colts don't measure up to that comparison.

But my point in analyzing the Colts/Braves comparison is not to verify its accuracy. My point is that it's a stupid comparison! For one, they're playing different sports with different playoff structures. There is no way to compare success in one sport vs. success in the other.

The other reason it's a stupid comparison is that again, it defines success as winning a championship, and nothing else. The Braves made 14 straight post-season appearances. I can think of plenty of baseball clubs who would kill for that level of success (for example, this team, this one, and this one, too). The same goes for the Colts--do you think the Oakland Raiders would take seven straight playoff appearances and "only" one Super Bowl win? How about the Cincinnati Bengals? Or the Detroit Lions? Perhaps we should look at a relatively long streak of getting to the playoffs as a meaningful accomplishment, instead of just having the only measure of success be a league championship.

In fairness, I know that Kravitz isn't the only one guilty of this line of thinking. But he is guilty of it, nonetheless.

But how can a franchise be so routinely dominant year after year, and yet be found so routinely lacking when the brightest lights are shining?

Who knows? Could it be that Peyton Manning really is worse in the playoffs? That he chokes? That he gets too nervous? That he catches a case of happy feet? Maybe--he seems to not play as well in the playoffs.

But I think the better answer to Kravitz's question as to why the Colts can be "dominant year after year" and still lose in the playoffs is that in the playoffs, the best team doesn't always win.

You think the best team always wins in the playoffs? The last #1 seed to win the Super Bowl was New England after the 2003 season. In the four years since, there have been two wild cards (Pittsburgh and the New York Giants), a #3 seed (the Colts) and a #2 seed (New England again). The last #1 seed prior to 2003 New England to win the Super Bowl was St. Louis in 1999. So in the past nine years, a #1 seed has won the Super Bowl twice.

Clearly, the best regular season teams don't always win championships. Why? Because the playoffs are the ultimate small-sample size test: one game. You've heard the cliche: on any given Sunday, any team can win. Even in the playoffs, anything can happen: A 10-6 team can beat a 16-0 juggernaut; The #6 seed who had to win its last 3 games to even get in the playoffs can beat the best team from the other conference; Even a quarterback from an upstart league can guarantee a Super Bowl victory and have his team follow through. None of these things was predicted, yet they happened.

Last year's Super Bowl was a classic, and a great win for the Giants over the Patriots. But does that mean the Giants were a better team than the Patriots last year? The Patriots were six games better than the Giants in the 2007 regular season, and even beat the Giants in the final game. So the Patriots had already proven they were better than the Giants, both head-to-head and over the long haul. Yet, when they met in the Super Bowl, for whatever reason, the Giants were better that day.

I think it's pretty clear that the regular season means nothing when it comes to the playoffs. Of course, a team has to do well enough in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs, but otherwise, the regular season means nothing.

Back to the Colts. Yes, the Colts have seven straight playoff appearances and six straight 12-win seasons. And that guarantees absolutely nothing in the playoffs--case in point, the Colts' loss to an 8-8 team last night. Does it mean the Chargers are a better team than the Colts? Absolutely not--the 16-game regular season proved that.

However, that's not to say that I think the Colts deserved to beat San Diego Saturday night. The Chargers were clearly the better team in that game. They deserved to win.

Saturday night's 23-17 overtime loss to the short-handed San Diego Chargers was all too typical of the Colts' recent postseason history.

It happens year after year after frustrating and infuriating year. And it's always something. The weather in New England. The officiating in New England. The long layoff before Pittsburgh. The Dwight Freeney injury against San Diego.

It's always something.

Or, it's just a case of another team playing better that day.

(By the way, one legitimate factor in the Colts' playoff loss to Pittsburgh in 2005 was the suicide of Tony Dungy's son. I think Dungy and the team handled it as well as could be expected, but that had to be a distraction then. Interestingly, Kravitz omitted that.)

And yet teams like last year's Giants march on despite losing Jeremy Shockey, or the Chargers win this game without their top running back.

Fuck the heck? Is Kravitz comparing the Colts losing Dwight Freeney to an injury last year to the Giants losing Jeremy Shockey? Are you kidding me? Dwight Freeney, one of the best pass rushers in the game? That Dwight Freeney? Losing Jeremy Shockey is supposed to have the same impact? Shockey can play well at times, but he is, by almost all accounts, completely overrated as a tight end. Losing Freeney last year was a significant loss for the Colts, and it showed in the playoff loss to San Diego, as the Colts had absolutely no pass rush.

The fact that Kravitz compares the two injuries as if they have remotely the same impact is laughable.

If it happens once, it's an anomaly. But this happens time and time again. It's a trend, and it's something Jim Irsay and Bill Polian have got to address.

The only way to address this is by having the team play better. There is no magical formula or potion that can make it happen. I mean, how does one work on being better in the playoffs? What else can you do besides play better?

The nagging problem this year was that running game, the one Polian kept insisting was just fine, despite ample statistical evidence to the contrary.

It wasn't fine.

It was never fine.

Gotta give it to Kravitz here: he's right. The running game sucked all year. Can't argue with that.

However, this illustrates my biggest problem with this article, and with Kravitz. Where is the analysis of last night's game? There were plenty of things to examine about from the loss, including the fact that the Colts inability to run the ball almost directly cost them the game. Two series stand out: the first drive of the second half, when the Colts failed to convert on 4th down, and the 3rd and 2 play late in the game, when it was obvious the Colts believed so little in their ability to run the ball they tried a pass play that resulted in a sack.

Of course, nothing from Kravitz, because he a) can't do meaningful analysis and b) wants to be the first to declare the season a failure. Why couldn't this article wait until Monday morning's paper?

These were not just the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. These were the 8-8 Chargers without a reasonable facsimile of LaDainian Tomlinson, who didn't even play in the second half because of a serious groin injury. These were the 8-8 Chargers with Antonio Gates struggling with a high ankle sprain. And yet, there was Gates, maybe the toughest guy on the field, riding Antoine Bethea downfield for a monster first down on San Diego's game-winning drive in overtime.

Honestly, I wish Tomlinson had been healthy enough to play, because as good as he is, I think he was a better match up for the Colts than Darren Sproles. So I'm not sure that was as big of a setback for the Chargers as Kravitz does. And is it possible that the Antonio Gates ankle injury may have been a bit overstated? I'm not saying Gates didn't play with pain, but sometimes these reports get a little exaggerated. Gates certainly didn't look like he was hurting all that much, but that may just be a testament to the Chargers training staff and to Gates' toughness.

And the Chargers' 8-8 record may be a bit misleading. The Chargers were a last-second pass (vs. Carolina) and an Ed Hochuli blown call (could that be talked about any more than it has been, by the way?) away from being 10-6. This is not a typical 8-8 team.

Last year, the Chargers beat the Colts with backup quarterback Billy Volek, or as we came to call him, Billy Freaking Volek. This year, the Chargers beat the Colts with Mike Scifres, a punter, and a magical elf named Darren Sproles, who merely filled in for Tomlinson and produced 328 all-purpose yards.

No, it's Billy Fucking Volek. Don't refer to it if you're not going to do it correctly.

Kravitz acts like Sproles is someone the Chargers signed off the practice squad the day before the game, as opposed to the very capable backup that he is. As I mentioned earlier, Sproles was a match up problem for the Colts. But the 328 all-purpose yards stat is a bit misleading. Not to take away from what Sproles did, but even if LT had been completely healthy, Sproles still would have had 176 all-purpose yards, since he returned all of the punts and kickoffs.

And, oh yes, there was the San Diego defense, which held the Colts' underperforming offense in check, as is often the case in the playoffs. For all of Manning's greatness, for all the weapons the Colts have on that side of the football, the fact is, Manning is sub-.500 in the playoffs, along with his head coach. The running game was a cipher.

Kravitz is right about the offense. I don't think anyone would make the case that Manning & Co. played well. And yes, this has been a recurring theme for the Colts--the offense has rarely played a great game in the playoffs.

Marvin Harrison was invisible, as he usually is during the playoffs. Still think Harrison is coming back next season?

For fuck's sake, is now really the time for this speculation? Can it wait a few weeks, or at least a day or two? Marvin very well may not be back due to his salary cap impact, but can't this discussion wait?

And Marvin wasn't the only "invisible" receiver the Colts had Saturday night. Marvin had 3 catches for 20 yards--obviously not a great night (he did draw a pass interference call in the first half on a deep throw). Reggie Wayne only had 4 catches, though his totaled 129 yards. However, if you take away the 72-yard touchdown catch (which came when San Diego's defense wasn't ready), Reggie had 3 catches for 57 yards. Again, not a lot of production. Also, Kravitz-favorite Anthony Gonzalez had 6 catches, but none in the second half. Why doesn't Kravitz mention how Gonzalez was invisible after halftime?

Predictably, the Colts defense will get pounded this morning and for the rest of the week, and those three defensive penalties on the game-winning drive don't speak well of their discipline down the stretch, but they did force two San Diego turnovers in the end zone on potential game-tying or go-ahead drives.

They played well enough to win.

I agree. That's been the story here in Indy for awhile now--someone else usually gets blamed after a playoff loss despite the shortcomings of the offense. Message to Kravitz: you do know that the paper for which you work helps perpetuate that trend, right?

Bottom line is, when the Colts needed a third-and-short conversion, they couldn't get it. You can't win in the playoffs if you can't run the football.

It's pretty elemental stuff. The Colts couldn't run it. Couldn't run it all season, couldn't run it all night, couldn't run it when one conversion on third-and-2 with 2:30 left in regulation and San Diego out of timeouts could have put this game away.

See above on Kravitz's inability to provide meaningful analysis.

One and done.

Or, should we say, one and Dungy.

Yes, it's clearly all his fault. Not the players' fault at all.

If (when) Tony Dungy decides to retire sometime next week, will there be a great hue and cry for him to come back and give it another shot? As much as this town loves and reveres him and appreciates him for everything he's done on and off the field, isn't it time for a new face, a new voice, something different?

I don't know--maybe? I really don't know how coaching style plays into this. I suppose that you could make the case that Dungy's even-keeled style is better suited for the "long haul" (i.e. regular season) and less suited for the challenges and intensity of the playoffs. But I don't know--the Colts have won a Super Bowl under Dungy, right?

Again I ask, is the article that's supposed to reflect on the game that was just played the best time to ask these questions?

At this point, it's going to be tough selling fans on Jim Caldwell who, at least from a distance, promises to bring more of the same.

Ditto.

Overtime?

Where the fuck did that come from? Now all of a sudden Kravitz is talking about the game?

Of course it went overtime.

Because they're the Colts and the Chargers. Because they don't know how to play football games that don't end on the final drive, the final play, the final gasp. Because they've developed as good of a rivalry as you will ever see between two teams who aren't in the same division.

More meaningless, nothing analysis. Why didn't the last 3 Colts/Chargers games go to overtime then?

It took more than 60 minutes to decide, but the deserving team won.

True, sadly.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

Paper tigers.

Folding again.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

You suck.

At writing.

2008 Fucktard of the Year Nominations

Welcome everyone to the inaugural Fucktard of the Year nominations for 2008. We here at Lom Henn have blasted and lambasted several worthy candidates this year and now it is time for us to pick that person, group, team, etc. who most deserves the distinction of becoming the first Fucktard of the Year.

All of us at Lom Henn will have a say in the voting and I will make the final call on the ultimate winner. For this year, we will just have a straight vote for the most worthy nominee. Perhaps next year we might try a bracket system to add a bit of flavor. So on to our nominees...

1. Bob Kravitz

Our first nominee and front-runner is our favorite hack, Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star. Bob was the object of our first post and leads with the most entries for 2008. Bob has an atrocious writing style and has a flair for stating the obvious, backing up his opinion with hot air and writing as many words as possible without actually doing any research on a topic.

I could go on hours about how I feel about Bob, but that is not why we are here. Suffice it to say that we do not think much of his writing or now, thanks to WFNI, co-hosting a sports talk show. Now he gets to annoy us even more!

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Bob Kravitz is supposedly a journalist

Bob Kravitz Is Wrong Even When He's Right

Remain Calm. All is Well!
This Explains Everything

2. Tony Kornheiser

I don't think any of us can write exactly how much we think Tony Kornheiser sucks. Slut and Zinglebert even went to the upper deck below the announcing booth during a MNF game last year and shouted, "Kornheiser sucks!" repeatedly. Security was not called because everyone agreed that the statement was true. Pretty much anything out of this man's mouth is worthless crap and the NFL nation is unfortunately forced to put up with it. At this point, a blind, deaf mute would be more knowledgable and literate commentator than Kornheiser.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Why Kornheiser Sucks

This Explains Everything

3. ESPN NFL Analysts

Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Trent Dilfer and John Saunders have been NFL football players and/or analysts for many, many years. So why is it that the do not seem to have a clue about the sport? They either do not know what they are talking about or they are spouting off some drivel that the other talking heads follow along. Berman has gone from likable to 'I will turn you off automatically' status. The only reason many of us can put up with him and the others is so that they can end up here.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

4. Bowl Championship Series (BCS)

There is a split at Lom Henn between those who want a college playoff and those who do not. However, we all agree that the BCS does not work as it is currently structured. There is too much emphasis on the "human" polls and teams that lose early in the season have too big of an advantage versus teams that lose late. It also penalizes teams like Ball State (before they lost to Buffalo in the MAC Championship) if another non-BCS team (Utah) goes undefeated. Meanwhile, slightly above average teams like Cincinnati and Boston College get to go to a BCS Bowl game because they were able to "win" their conference championships. Then you have the issues of which two teams get selected for the championship game. The list of problems can go on and on and on and on and...

Yes, we know that there will probably never be a perfect solution for college football and, yes, we know that the BCS is better than the before the BCS started. Yet, it is still a piece of shit and smells worse than one of Hildegard Bembledack's diapers.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Playoffs...we don't need no stinking playoffs!

Let's All Pile On Bob Kravitz And the BCS

College Football Potpourri

And lastly we have...

5. Murray Chass

There is debate as to whether Murray Chass' website is actually written by Murray Chass or by someone else. Regardless, it is a testament to why there are editors at newspapers and what happens at newspapers when the editors are either asleep or drunk in their offices. We have not picked on Murray lately, but I think that will change after talking to Slut and Zinglebert this week. Murray is obviously a Red Sox fan and will go to almost any extreme to make sure that he can fit "Boston Red Sox" into every post, regardless if the article has even a remote connection with them. Not to mention that he has great difficulty in getting to the point and getting that point across. It sometimes barely passes for English...kind of like this site sometimes.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball

Trading for Dummies

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

There you go, folks, the 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year Nominees. I will also allow write-in candidates for this year in case I missed someone I should not have. You can either email me your selection(s) and why or you can post them on the site. The winner will be announced on Wednesday, January 7th.

Bob Kravitz is probably the Vegas odds favorite at the moment, but there are some definite dark horses in the mix. Good luck, I think, to all of our nominees and our voters here at Lom Henn. I look forward to seeing all of the responses.

It the End of the World As We Know It

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Prepare for plagues of locusts and the four horsemen of the apocalypse! Prepare for the Detroit Lions to actually win a game!

OK, so it is not the end of the world, but the world is just not right when this happens.

HSPA announces annual contest winners

Indianapolis - The Hoosier State Press Association on Saturday named The Noblesville Ledger the state's top daily newspaper in its annual journalism contest. The Dearborn County Register of Lawrenceburg was the top nondaily newspaper.

The newspapers joined other winners of the HSPA's annual contest honored at a luncheon in Indianapolis.

Under the Best Sports Columnists division for daily papers with circulation of 40,000+ your winner was:

Bob Kravitz, The Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly

See what a sad state our sports writing in Indiana is. How the hell does Bob Kravitz win this award let alone any award other than Fucktard of the Year?!? (FYI - Voting for said award to be held later this month.) I feel for the two guys from the Post-Tribune in Merrillville who lost to Bob. I guess the Hoosier State Press Association must really hate you guys to put Bob ahead of you.

I am curious as to which column(s) that the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly sent in for this contest. I know that not every Kravitz article is usable only as the lining of a bird cage. Yet, I am perplexed as to what he could have written that actually won an award. The man is a hack journalist that half-asses his articles and somehow co-hosts a sports talk radio show, which also explains why most sports talk radio shows suck nationally and locally. We do not bash every Kravitz article but we have pointed out way, way, way too many issues with many of his articles, if you can call them that.

I'm not saying that we should run right out and start building shelters and stocking up on supplies, but this cannot be a good sign of things to come!

BTW - No, it not Bash Bob Kravitz Week or Month or even Year. We are hear to point out bad writing and Mr. Kravitz is the local epitome of bad writing. He just seems to get most of the focus because we see more of his "work"...unfortunately.