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.

Indiana Won the NCAA Tournament In 1987, So They Should Be In This Year

It's an exciting time for college basketball right now, with all of the conference tournaments this week. For many, this is as exciting or even more exciting than the actual NCAA Tournament, which begins next week.

Nothing like a fetid pile of feces courtesy of Gregg Doyel to ruin all of the fun.

Pssst, selection committee: In case of Davidson, break rule

The NCAA tournament selection committee needs my help. That's one of the things I learned during a mock selection exercise last week at the NCAA offices in Indianapolis. The selection committee needs my help.

They do? I would imagine they have plenty of people on the committee.

Not a lot of my help. The committee is hooked up better than I dreamed. Even before arriving for the annual media exercise, which in Year 3 finally got around to inviting me, I knew the committee had access to reams of stats and notes and updated information. What I didn't know was the level of electronic sophistication it had reached. The Internet search engines designed specifically for the committee. The high-speed voting they do online for each team, each seed, each little line in the bracket. Electronically speaking, and this is a little bit humbling considering my place of employment, the selection committee is more hooked up than I am.

Dude, you work for CBSSports.com, not ARPANET or SkyNet. I'm sure what you have access to is great, but the NCAA has been doing this for quite some time now. And since it's for a specialized purpose (i.e. selection of the NCAA basketball tournament field), it's not too hard to come up with specialized software.

And I hope you're kidding about the NCAA "finally getting around to inviting" you. I know you work for CBS, which thinks it runs the NCAA Tournament, but I'll just assume you were kidding.

But the selection needs my help nonetheless.
It needs my help with Davidson.

Oh? Really? Do you have SSS (super-specific-software) about Davidson that no one else could have? I'm guessing not.

See, I know what the selection committee knows. I know what information the committee will consider, and what information the committee will ignore. So I know the committee will be instructed to ignore one of the most vital pieces of information available.

Maybe Doyel has a scoop here: what vital piece of information could the NCAA Tournament Committee be ignoring? What a huge story--that the committee will knowingly ignore vital information about a mid-major school. What a conspiracy! It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma!

The committee will be instructed to ignore last season.
When Davidson reached the Elite Eight.

Oh. Never mind--it's just stupidity.

It didn't happen, as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned. Davidson, which is perched dangerously on the bubble unless it wins the Southern Conference tournament, didn't reach the Elite Eight in 2008. Didn't beat Gonzaga in the first round, Georgetown in the second, Wisconsin in the Sweet 16. Didn't almost beat eventual national champion Kansas in the Elite Eight.

Actually, Davidson did do those things, and it was wonderful. How exciting would it have been for Davidson to reach the Final Four? Even so, Davidson again showed how mid-majors should be better considered for the NCAA Tournament than they have been.

Didn't happen, selection committee. Don't consider it. That's a guideline, and not just an implied guideline. So it is written, in the inch-thick folder given to every selection committee member upon arrival in Indianapolis:

Materials not influential:

Performance by a team in a previous NCAA Tournament.

To which I say: You must be joking.

To which I say: you are a Fucktard. Why would last year's performance be a consideration for this year's tournament?

Last year happened. Last year was real.

Yes, I already said that.

And while college teams do change from year to year, Davidson didn't change that much. The Wildcats return three starters from their 2008 Elite Eight team, and they return 10 of their top 13 scorers

Good for them. They should have been very good this year, with a successful team returning so many players. Making the NCAA Tournament really shouldn't be a problem.

Those numbers are all well and good, but in reality, this is all the selection committee needs to know:Stephen Curry is back. And so is Bob McKillop.

Okay...their best player and their coach is back. See above.

Curry was the humble star who put Davidson on his back and damn near carried his team into the Final Four. He had one of the most prolific four-game scoring totals in NCAA tournament history, and he's a better player this season. McKillop, meanwhile, is the coach who made it happen. Designed the offense to free up the heavily guarded Curry. Designed the defense to stop Davidson's bigger opponents. Gave his team the confidence and toughness to believe it could do things logic said couldn't be done.

But as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned, none of it happened. None of it can be considered. When the committee convenes next month, Davidson -- which has lost two consecutive games -- will clearly be on the far side of the bubble with its CBSSports.com RPI of 54. Davidson would be behind, presumably, Michigan (No. 48 RPI), Miami (49), Cincinnati (50), Boston College (51), Creighton (52) and Baylor (53)...

This article is a bit old, so I'll update: Davidson is 25-7, but its CBSSports.com RPI is now 73. This is a team that likely needs to win its conference tournament to get in.

Which would be a travesty. None of those schools has done a damn thing in the NCAA tournament in years.

And that has what exactly to do with this year's tournament? Oh, yeah--nothing!

The primary duty of the committee, if I'm not mistaken, is to put together the strongest NCAA tournament field possible. With that as the most important guideline, this Davidson team -- one year after that Elite Eight run -- gets in. Simple as that.

The RPI and the strength of schedule and any other bullcrap statistic the committee considers won't take into consideration this: Davidson did it last year, and its most important pieces -- the star and the coach -- are back.

Yeah, RPI is a "bullcrap statistic." All it does is try to rate teams objectively based on strength of schedule, wins over quality opponents, etc. Objective measures are bullcrap, man!! Let's use stuff that has nothing to do with this year instead, like last year's performance or the number of players with size 12 1/2 shoes. Fuck yeah!

This isn't even a Davidson argument. This is a common sense argument. Three years ago, underdog George Mason reached the Final Four. If the Patriots had entered the 2007 selection phase on the bubble (they didn't), and then been left out without the committee even considering their Final Four run from 12 months earlier, that would have been imbecilic bordering on irresponsible. Whoever the darling is this year -- and there will be a Davidson-like darling this year -- that team will deserve this same consideration if it's on the bubble in 2010.

So let me get this straight--you're saying that if a team is on the bubble (which at the time Doyel wrote the article Davidson was), if it had a good performance in last year's tournament, it should be automatically included in this year's tournament, even if its not as deserving as another school based on this year's performance?

This makes absolutely no sense. As you said already, the job of the selection committee is to put together the "strongest NCAA tournament field possible." How would rewarding a team for last year's performance accomplish that?

This is common sense, people. Let's assume Davidson doesn't win the SoCon tournament. Upsets happen, so let's assume one happens to Davidson. Even so, Davidson already has played its way onto the 2009 NCAA tournament bubble. This isn't a below-average team needing a sentimental gift from the selection committee. This is a team that has earned its way onto the bubble thanks to its 2008-09 victory total and its RPI.

And from the bubble, Davidson played its way into the 2009 field by nearly playing its way into the 2008 Final Four.

Yes, Davidson has played its way onto the bubble--not into the tournament. Playing its way onto the "bubble" just means Davidson should be considered. Lots of teams are on the proverbial "bubble." How will the selection committee decide who gets in and who doesn't? By using objective measures such as RPI and strength of schedule.

Look, I love mid-majors. I want to see Davidson get into the tournament. And I would agree that it's a legitimate criticism to say that the NCAA often rewards big conference schools over small conference ones. The fact that there was legitimate discussion about the Big East possibly getting 10 teams into this year's field shows how ridiculous this can be.

And I'd say it's a valid complaint that the RPI favors big conferences. It's been well documented the troubles mid-majors have had scheduling schools from big conferences. Since teams like Davidson, Butler, or Gonzaga play in weaker conferences, their strength-of-schedule suffers because of the conference games. Since schedule strength is a factor in RPI, this gives the big conferences an advantage in RPI.

But you can't use last year's performance as a criterion! And even if you did, you'd have to apply it to everyone. What happens if you have two teams left on the bubble that both performed well last season? Do you go back two years? Five?

Why stop there? Why not reward teams for all-time performance? Indiana has five national championships. Of course IU is having a dreadful season this year, but shouldn't its history of providing exciting and memorable tournament performances be taken into account?

How about Loyola Marymount? CBSSports.com RPI is 319. But remember Bo Kimble and the 1990 Loyola Marymount team that got to the Elite 8, losing to UNLV? The team that dedicated its tournament to fallen teammate Hank Gathers? Why not reward them?

What about Indiana State? Their CBSSports.com RPI is a whopping 200. But remember Larry Bird carrying ISU to the final game against Michigan State? If ISU gets in this season, it could set up an ISU/MSU rematch! Who wouldn't want to see that?

It's a ridiculous idea to use last year's performance--or any other year's performance--as a criterion for selection into this year's tournament. I'll definitely be rooting for several mid-majors who are on the bubble to get at-large berths, and I'll know if they do indeed get in, it will be because the NCAA selection committee thinks they deserve it for this season...period.

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 Die

"It's not my fault!"

This phrase has been declared many times throughout antiquity. Reportedly, Custer said it at Little Big Horn. Han Solo said it when the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive wouldn't work trying to escape the clutches of the Empire after leaving Hoth. And now, this fucktard has said it:

Is it too early to give the 2009 Fucktard of the Year Award?

Anyway, on to the Wallace Matthews article in Newsday:

Commissioner Selig defends his record

Bud Selig to baseball fans: Don't blame me. In a lengthy telephone interview yesterday, the commissioner of baseball strongly disputed the widely held perception that he was in any way complicit in the proliferation of steroids in major-league baseball during the past 15 years. "I don't want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn't care about it," Selig said.

"That annoys the you-know-what out of me. You bet I'm sensitive to the criticism. The reason I'm so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we've come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible."

Yeah, why would anyone say that the commissioner "turned a blind eye" to the steroids issue? Are you kidding me?

Selig pointed to the reduction in the number of positive steroid tests among major- and minor-league players during the past three years, as well as the institution of amphetamine testing as evidence that baseball's 2005 drug policy is working.

Sure--Major League Baseball has had a testing policy since 2004. I think it's reasonable to say testing is a huge success after a three-year decline in positives. Of course, by "reasonable" I mean, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND????

MLB has made progress, sure. The fact that there is even testing now is a progress compared to five years ago. But come on. Even the commissioner can't say that MLB's program has been a success, right?

He also defended his efforts to stop the use of performance-enhancing drugs as far back as 1999, the year after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, two now-suspected steroid cheats, staged a seasonlong (sic) home run derby that helped pull baseball out of the tailspin it went into after the work stoppage of 1994.

Selig's "efforts" included waiting for a report on the effects Androstenedione (what McGwire was taking during the 1998 season) and doing nothing else.

You remember 1998? Sosa/McGwire? In case you missed it, McGwire and Sosa both eclipsed Roger Maris' single-season home run record of 61, set in 1961. McGwire ended with 70 homers, Sosa 66 (Barry Bonds then set the current record with 73 homers in 2001). In '98, an Associated Press reporter noticed a bottle of Andro- supplements in McGwire's locker and asked Selig about it. Selig's response? Wait for a study, then do nothing.

"I'm not sure I would have done anything differently," Selig said. "A lot of people say we should have done this or that, and I understand that. They ask me, 'How could you not know?' and I guess in the retrospect of history, that's not an unfair question. But we learned and we've done something about it. When I look back at where we were in '98 and where we are today, I'm proud of the progress we've made."

Proud. Of the progress that's been made. Like this progress?

Selig said he pushed for a more stringent drug policy during the labor negotiations of 2002 but ultimately settled for a watered-down version out of fear that the players association would force another work stoppage. "Starting in 1995, I tried to institute a steroid policy," Selig said. "Needless to say, it was met with strong resistance. We were fought by the union every step of the way."

Yeah, blame it on the union. It's all the players' fault.

In fairness, the MLB Players' Association is the most powerful union in sports. Since the era of collective bargaining began in sports in the late 70s, the MLBPA has seldom had to give in on anything. When the owners have tried to stand firm and make the players break, it hasn't worked out well for the owners.

But Selig admits that he "settled for a watered down version" because he was afraid of another work stoppage. Even if that were true, why would he have worried? The players would have had to publicly say that they were against testing, which would have given MLB the moral high ground. Selig at least could have tried!

Also, note that he pushed for a more stringent policy in 2002--four years after McGwire/Sosa. Why not push for it before then?

As bodies expanded and home run totals ballooned in the late 1990s, Selig said he consulted with baseball men he knew and trusted, such as Diamondbacks manager Bob Melvin (then a coach with the Milwaukee Brewers), Braves president John Schuerholz and Yankees general manager Brian Cashman to gauge the extent of the problem. "They all told me none of them ever saw it in the clubhouses and that their players never spoke about it," Selig said. "[Padres CEO] Sandy Alderson, as good a baseball man as you'll find, was convinced it was the bat. Others were convinced it was the ball. So a lot of people didn't know."

Except all the players who were using. And the trainers who were injecting. Did Selig or anyone else in his office ever think to ask players or coaches--you know, people actually close to where the drugs may have been used? I mean, there was no evidence of anyone using steroids before 2002, right?

Selig said that although only eight major-leaguers have tested positive for steroids in the past three years, he continues to be concerned about the possible use of human growth hormone, for which baseball has no approved test. "On HGH, I'm as frustrated as anyone," he said. "Right now, we're funding a program at UCLA with Dr. Don Catlin to come up with a test, any test, that's reliable."

That's good--it's needed. Then again, MLB could just talk to these people, who may be pretty close to offering a test up for widespread use.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person criticizing Selig today. However, this article shows how much of a fucktard Selig is.

This website does a pretty good job of explaining the role Selig has played in this whole steroid mess and his lack of action throughout the years. To sum it up, Selig did nothing when McGwire was linked to Andro, mainly because Selig was too worried that any noise about it would ruin the attendance boom baseball enjoyed in the late 90s. Then, he ignored all of the allegations and stories (Jose Canseco, Ken Caminiti) from former players who said steroids was a problem. When MLB was finally pressured by congress to have a policy with teeth in it, he first instituted a weak program, then modified it after widespread criticism (and more pressure).

One thing that's sad is that Fay Vincent, baseball's commissioner until 1992, was working on a plan of random testing that he outlined in a 1991 memorandum. So if Selig did "all he could do" to try to combat the steroid problem, why did he do absolutely nothing until 1995 (if you believe Selig, though there is little evidence to support that he did anything of consequence before 2002)?

This whole thing needs to go away. MLB now has steroid testing (with penalties) in place, and presumably a test for HGH is on the way. It should be a dead issue. However, with Selig saying stupid things like he might alter the record book in regards to players who are associated with steroids (statements which he has since backed off of), Selig is showing how much he doesn't want to get blamed. Suggesting to alter the record book is idiotic, since the players who have admitted to or accused of using weren't breaking any rules in using steroids! Oh, sure, there were rules against using steroids in place before 2004, but there was no testing, and no penalties! Even if a player had injected right in front of Selig, there was nothing he could have done to penalize the player. So why threaten belated punishment now?

Yes, the players are the ones who used steroids, so they are the most responsible (those that did use, anyway). But for the commissioner to say that he and MLB are not at least partly responsible is just stupidity and arrogance on his part. Bud, you are a fucktard.

And to the media who keep rehashing the same goddamn story: enough! Let the fucking thing die already!

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!

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.

Bob Strikes Again

And the Lom Henn Empire strikes back!

Our resident douchebag has written another one of his classic articles that drive Slut and I batty. I have nothing against the topic of the IHSAA and the cost to hold the state football finals at Lucas Oil Stadium. It is actually a worthwhile topic. However, in grand ol' Bob style, he half-asses the facts of the story and only gives you a partial view of the story, i.e. his side.

We really do not pick on Bob Kravitz just to spite him. Its just that his articles are crap and we feel it is our duty to point out they are crap and why.

State finals have to stay at stadium

So I'm reading how Lucas Oil Stadium might be too expensive for future Indiana High School Athletic Association football championships, and this nagging question keeps popping into my head:

Who paid for our little Taj Mahal?

Wasn't it the taxpayers, for the most part?

Well, technically the State of Indiana and the Colts PAID for it. The 1% restaurant tax for Marion County and the doughnut counties (except Morgan County) are paying the state back for the bonds they sold.

Weren't a lot of the donors the mothers and fathers of the kids who either hope to play at Lucas Oil Stadium or support their school's teams once a year if they are fortunate enough to reach the state finals?

Only for those teams from Marion and surrounding counties, which were five of then ten teams in the finals (Sheridan, Heritage Christian, Ritter, Cathedral, Center Grove and Carmel).

This is like buying a beautiful new house on Geist and being told we can only use it once every three months. As long as we pay for the privilege, that is. What a deal, right?

No, it is like building a state-of-the-art stadium that charges a fee to use its services.

This is a community project, except the community can't afford to use it.

No, no, no, no, no. This is a commercial business venture. Lucas Oil Stadium is not a not-for-profit entity. They have a right to charge ANYONE a fee that wants to use the stadium.

The IHSAA said it paid $261,000 for a high school football weekend. That's more than $100,000 more than the cost to use the RCA Dome. This isn't about the IHSAA trying to make money. It uses whatever profit it makes on football to help support its non-revenue sports championships. Every additional dollar it spends on football is one fewer available for girls soccer.

This is the first valid paragraph that Kravitz has made in the article, mostly. The IHSAA paid a lot more for the new stadium than for the old RCA Dome and that they use the profit from football (and basketball) to help support the other boys and girls sports. I would argue that the IHSAA isn't about trying to make money and we'll discuss that a little later.

Unless the Capital Improvement Board and the Indianapolis Colts want a major public relations catastrophe, they will find a way to cut the prohibitive cost they charge to use the stadium for the IHSAA finals weekend and ensure all future IHSAA finals are at The Luke and no place else.

The Capital Improvement Board is charging 12 percent of the gate receipts for rent (and the IHSAA increased prices from $10 to $15 a ticket) and an additional fee for extra security.

Question, Bob. What did the CIB charge the IHSAA in previous years?

Did you think to ask or provide that information? Or whether they had to pay for extra security in previous years?

Somebody needs to step up here, and yes, Jim Irsay, I'm looking long and hard at you to do the right thing, as usual. Understand, half the money goes to the board and the other half goes to the Colts, who keep non-football-related revenue up to $3.5 million a year. The board needs to cut the IHSAA a break. Or the Colts have to cut a check. Or both. Something.

If the board cuts a break to the IHSAA for football, how can they say no to lower the costs for the State Marching Band Finals or other high school events that could be held there? You might be able to get something from the Colts since it is football-related.

Because if future IHSAA state finals are held anywhere other than The Luke, it will be a regrettable shame and the tone of this column, which would be an annual offering, would become more mean-spirited than ever before.

I know you've been told this before, Bob, but it is called Lucas Oil Stadium, not "The Luke", you 'tard! Mr. Lucas did not pay $121 million for you to call it The Luke.

It was interesting to listen to Bob Grand, the head of the Capital Improvement Board, recently tell a TV reporter how much he enjoyed watching the faces of the kids as they ran onto the stadium field and created tunnels through which their football-playing mates could run.

Very moving.

Until the bill comes due.

Bob has to help pay the bills of the CIB. As far as he sees it, everyone pays. If you can show me how the CIB reduced the fees for another group/event and not for the IHSAA, then you have something. Otherwise, I see it as fair treatment for everyone, albeit a costly treatment.

Think the kids will get all excited next year when they're doing that at Bloomington's Memorial Stadium? Or up at Purdue? What kind of crowds you think you'll see if it's typical late November weather in Central Indiana? Think we'll break records like the one that was just broken at The Luke, when 56,050 attended the games?

Sadly, I have to agree with Bob on this one. Owww, I think my head is going to explode.

Moving the finals to an outdoor stadium would take a toll on the attendance and even though IU, Purdue and Ball State are all within roughly an hour of Indy, that would affect how many people might go to the games.

For kids and for fans who might not otherwise get to this stadium, playing at The Luke is a special thing. It's where the Colts play. It's the center of the football universe. It's like going to Conseco Fieldhouse for the state high school basketball championship. It's Mecca, a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

So is Hinkle Fieldhouse and I think many would call Hinkle the "Mecca" of Hoosier basketball-dom.

And we're going to deny these young people because the cost can't be negotiated down to a more manageable level?

Mike Fox, the Lucas Oil Stadium director, told The Star the IHSAA was charged the same amount any nonprofit is charged for using the stadium.

Fine. Charge that fee to the religious conventions that come in or any other nonprofit. This, though, is different. This is local. These are our kids.

This is not local, this is statewide. Only the tax is mainly local. Why is it that people did not have a problem when the fee was lower? I'm assuming that the IHSAA was charged the same as other non-profits at the RCA dome, correct?

And never forget, we paid for the vast majority of that stadium, which comes with a lease that is extraordinarily friendly to the Colts. And we're paying for part of its upkeep. Don't our kids get a break when it comes to getting a chance to play on the floor of Indy's prized pleasure palace?

Yes, the lease is friendly to the Colts, but you can thank Bart Peterson and friends for negotiating that "friendly" lease. They also paid a decent chunk of the construction costs ($100 million) for the stadium.

I'm not saying they're required to open the place to my next Christmas party, but this is grass-roots high school sports, our kids, and, again, we paid for the darned thing. If we can't give our kids a break on the price, if we can't get past our budgets and our it's-just-business posturing, what are we saying about ourselves and our priorities?

It says that Lucas Oil Stadium and the CIB are in the business to make money and they are charging what they would charge anyone else.

It doesn't help that the CIB needs to tap into a contingency fund in order to help cover the operating costs.

Somehow, I can't imagine a vote on a stadium would have passed if we were told, "Yeah, it'll be nice, but it will be too expensive for the high school state football tournament."

If it had been put up to a voted, it very likely may not have passed because of the overall cost. Football fan-wise, most people would have voted for it because of the Colts and would not have cared about high school football.

Of course, in this part of the world, we don't get to vote on these kinds of things.

Movers and shakers simply make things happen and then stick the rest of us with the bill.

Welcome to real life, Bob-o! Of course, without these "movers and shakers" we may not of gotten the Hoosier Dome back '84.

The city gives conventions all kinds of breaks to lure them, and while the sum isn't extraordinary, the IHSAA finals produce money for the city, roughly $36 million worth, according to one study.

The city is not Lucas Oil Stadium or the CIB!

Somebody needs to step up and do the right thing.

The high school state football finals belong at The Luke.

Now and forever.

Yes, I would agree that the high school state football finals need to stay at LUCAS OIL STADIUM.

Now, Bob, why don't we go over some of the topics you failed to address.

Yes, the IHSAA had to pay more this year than last year, according to you. I have not been able to get a second verification on that yet. Even so, let's do a little bit of math. I like math.

In 2007, the state football finals two-day attendance was 51,217. Tickets cost $10 a piece. And we will go with the assumption that everyone who attended the games had to pay for their tickets.

51,217 tickets x $10 per ticket = $512,170.

$512,170 less costs of $161,000 = $351,170 gross profit (assuming 2007 cost was $100K less than 2008)

In 2008, we had a record attendance of 56,050. Tickets prices increased to $15 each.

56,050 tickets x $15 per ticket = $840,750.

$840,750 less costs of $261,000 = $579,750 gross profit.

So even though the IHSAA had to pay an additional $100K this year, not including other costs, they took home over $228K more this year! I know that there are other costs the IHSAA has to pay and some of the tickets may have been given away or comped to schools/students.

It is also interesting that this is just coming out now. The IHSAA should have know for a while that the CIB would charge them the 12% rent fee on ticket sales and the other costs that they would incur, so the total amount should not have been a true shock. Why did the IHSAA not publicly ask for a lower fee or start drumming up public support to lower the cost earlier in the year?

I'm pretty sure that the IHSAA is not going to go anywhere else for the state football finals. If they try to move it to Memorial Stadium, Rose Ade Stadium or even the Butler Bowl, they would not have the attendance they do now and would lose a lot more revenue than the costs they would save. I am curious to know how much IU or Purdue would charge the IHSAA to host the finals?

I did not hear any griping about the ticket increase from $10 to $15 per day? I think that $15 is still quite reasonable to see two or three games at the new stadium. The concession prices may kill your wallet, but the ticket price is quite acceptable to me.

Once again Bob has presented us with a valid article topic, but does his usual half-assed job and presents only some of the facts to back up his point. I'll try and let our resident Jedi, Slut, return for the next Bob-o article.