If anyone saw the game last night, I have to say it was probably the best finals game I have seen since Game 6 of Jordan vs Utah to win his 6th and final championship during the year his father was killed. With 1 minute to go, the pistons had a 6 point lead and the ball. The lakers had been motivated to that point in the game by Luke Walton, a rookie who no one would have heard of had his dad not been a hall of famer. Walton Jr., a lanky white dude rookie, came out and ran circles around the best D in the league and had 5 plays that made my jaw drop. He would run around, and miraculously thread it in to Oneal directly under the hoop. The man who is a house would then just reach his arms up and put in a rim bending dunk 100% of the time.

Then, with 2 seconds to go, Kobe launches this shot from 3-4 feet behind the 3 point line that doesn't even touch the rim to tie the game. I understand these are the best players in the world, but that shot was closer to half court than the 3 point line. Sick. Def one of the best comebacks I have ever seen even though I was rooting for them to lose.

The question is why wasn't walton playing more? And how long will it take for Phil Jackson to bench Gary Payton?

Since we here at BHendrix.com believe in the truth, we must correct you sam. I'm quite sure that MJ's dad died at the end of his 3rd title run, which was part of the decision to retire and play baseball. It was certainly not during the seasons where they played the Jazz and Scottie Pippen gave the best smack-talking display when on a Sunday night game, Karl Malone missed a game tying free throw. Scottie said "Even mailmen don't deliver on sunday."
Also, did anyone hear the espn radio interview this morning that talked about Lance Armstrong. Some very interesting points that refer back to our conversation a while ago dealing with him as an athlete

Can you explain what the interesting points about Armstrong were?

Yeah, I was thinking of 96, when he was crying and hugging the ball to his chest after the first championship he won without his father being alive. His dad was killed in 93. But the shot over Russell was in 98. And bhendrix.com definately does not believe in the truth because the truth usually sucks.

you mean the shot over Russell after shoving Russell in the back. Great clutch shot, but cheap... i favor his shot over Craig Ehlo.

The fact that Luke Walton is playing major minutes in a finals game shows just how awful the lakers are other than shaq and kobe (especially with malone in full-fledged limp mode). The league really needs to contract a few franchises, and up the level of talent per team. Guys like Walton shouldnt be on teams, they should be at pre-draft camps. Being able to score on Luke should be the first cut.

That Cav's shot was totally awsome, but it was the first round of the playoffs vs. the shot to put the finals in the bag. In both cases everyone in the building knows it was going to MJ.

I personally think fisher's shot was bigger this year than Kobe's, but thats only because the Spurs were the champions last year and its was pretty much said that whoever won that series would win it all. Usually I would go with a last second shot in the finals being 10x bigger than any other time. And the jury is out on the push. It looks to me like his feet did most of the work by changing direction. The internet really does have random crap

Agreed Dmack, but the NFL is just as bad. As is MLB. And that pretty much covers them all except the NHL (if it even really exists).

That is a great site....very impressed that it is out there. Looks clean to me. When jordan looks like he is pushing, on the other screen, it doesnt look like he does it with a lot of force, b/c his hand has to be back immediatly for the crossover dribble. Malone is a redneck

I'll agree that Fisher's shot was bigger... it goes down as one of the best in playoff history, and thats a hard list to make (Bird's steal, Miller scoring like 15 pts in the last 8 seconds vs. the knicks, etc.). What made it even bigger was the ridonkulous shot that Duncan hit the second before to give the Spurs the lead.

Push or no push, that hoop isn't "cheap". Also, look at the second big picture. Even if MJ misses, the Bulls win with a streaking Steve Kerr putback. The breakdown of the Lance arguement is coming (they keep expecting me to work here)

The NHL is the worst off out of any sport as far as talent dilusion goes... i mean, what leage in their right mind expands to Columbus anyway? I forget the exact number, but over 20 NHL teams lost money last year (the Pens lost the least amount of any on that list). You know things have gotten bad when Arena Football is getting better ratings...

"A streaking Kerr putback"??? Please name one time Steve Kerr did anything remotely resembling "a streaking putback". Don't get me wrong, Steve Kerr is one of my all time favorite players (up there with Vernon Maxwell and Bill Wennington), but c'mon...

And maybe "cheap" isn't the right word for that shot if you take into account everything else that top notch NBA players get away with during games. I'll call it "questionable".

JT's comment about the NHL is dead on. Hopefully the league will emerge from the pending lockout with 10 fewer teams. Or even better the whole damn thing can fold and be replaced by a league that plays with international rules on olympic size rinks. Stupid two line pass. Don't know if more people would watch, but I wouldn't mind seeing hockey on a level comparable to what we saw in Salt Lake 2 years ago on a regular basis.

Pistons choked last night, Wallace's half assed foul on Shaq cost them the game. But Kobe is ridiculous.

I think they would be more willing to switch to Olympic sized rinks if they didn't have to drastically alter every NHL venue to suit the increase in rink size.

Oh, one other thought i had last night - Ryan, when you watch the pistons play, do you wear your Corliss "Big Nasty" Williamson T-shirt that you used to bust out for pick-up ball at school?

I know what can solve hockey and baseball's whoes: Combine them. Have players play baseball on skates, hitting hockey pucks with baseball bats. How cool would that be? Think of players sliding into second base, blade first! Shortstops could hip check runners on their way to third! And when a batter gets beaned by the pitcher, he would charge the mound, pull the pitcher's jersey over his head and start pounding him. Players would smack homeruns and instantly kill fans in the stands. This would turn the two most boring tv sports into one of the most entertaining. I'd call it "Hockeyball" or "Basehockey" or "Basehockeyball."

you mean like BASEketball?

Yes, exactly like BASEketball. Except instead having anything to do with basketball, which doesn't need saving, it will incorporate hockey, which will add much needed violence to baseball.

Not a tshirt JT. We are talking jersey baby. But no I don't bust it out. However, there is a part of me that takes satisfaction in knowing that he sucked in the pros before I got that, and now he is good. I won't take all the credit for that, but at least most of it.

You're using the term "good" quite loosely...

Does gooder work for you? Also, I don't know if I'd have the word "loosely" anywhere near that jersey

Yes, "gooder" seems oddly appropriate for explaining Big Nasty's "game".

After careful consideration, I must place darvin ham right next to williamson and "gooder"

I know I rambled and maybe it wasn't clear, but I didn't make a correlation between watered-down talent and ratings. I made the correlation between scoring and ratings, saying both were down in basketball and hockey. I said talent was not watered-down, except for pitching.

Decreased scoring is one of many direct results of watering down the overall talent, doesn't matter what the league is.

Steve, you make my arguments for me. You said NBA and NHL are "boring." I just tell you why. "MLB can be exciting"? That's because you like to see steroid-jacked freaks hit 500-foot homers. "Except when a new pitcher comes in every at-bat." Sorry, pal, that's part of the strategy of the game, which, if you actually appreciate and/or enjoy the game, should be entertainment enough. I'm saying a sport, any sport, can be entertaining, can have many aspects that are entertaining. But the vast majority of Americans are only entertained by the scoring aspects of sports.

Decreased scoring is not necessarily because of watered-down talent. Dave's article presented many reasons for the decreased scoring in basketball, and none of them were because of watered-down talent.

Only true fans care about anything other than scoring. These fans appreciate the game, and would watch the sport no matter what. Try explaining to a non baseball fan why a sacrafice bunt is so awsome. Or why an incomplete pass is "a thing of beauty".

Watered-down talent is evident because teams have 1 superstar and they surround them with chumps. Try saying there are 20 teams in the NFL with a salary cap of 85 million and see if payton manning will still get a contract worth 20 million a year. My Ass.

One argument against watered down talent is that more people around the world now play all of these sports, possibly with the exception of hockey and football. Baseball has spread from North America to South and Central America as well as Japan. Hell, in baseball's heyday, blacks weren't even allowed to play. That was clearly watered down talent. The level of basketball play has skyrocketed in Europe and Asia since the original Dream Team played in the 92 Olympics. When millions of more people play these sports, I don't think that adding a few more teams "waters down" the talent level. In basketball, teams are favoring athleticism over jump shooting. And these players tend to learn more about basketball on the playground than on organized teams and are usually more focused on driving to the basket then jump shooting or passing.
Baseball is a radio sport. That's how it became the national passtime. The pauses in the action allowed for announcers to to talk constantly about stats and strategy. On tv, those pauses in action are boring. TV is a visual medium, and the lack of action takes a lot of patience. Hockey is a little better paced, but I also agree that Americans like to see scoring (which is also a reason that soccer is having trouble here). Both hockey and baseball games are fun to go to, but they suck on tv relative to football and basketball.

I think the most clutch shot in basketball history was my 10 footer to win a regular season game for PiKA C my sophomore year in Minors. My two cents

I didn't say decreased scoring was directly a result of to watered down talent, but you have to admit that watered down talent certainly contributes to the decrease. And probably in the future, World players will fill the void in talent that i see right now, but IMO they haven't done so as of yet.
.
Aside of that, I'm not sure that scoring really is the solution to higher ratings. Lets compare the "exciting" NFL to the "boring" NHL. Your average NFL team will score between 20-23 ppg, which is approximately the equivalent of 3 TDs and a field goal or something along those lines... and people love the "scoring" in the NFL. Now compare that to the NHL, where a team will average around 2.5-3 goals per game. When you take the scoring value out of the equation, there is very little difference between how many times an NFL team scores per game versus how many times an NHL team scores per game. Thus, is it more a result of the constant potential for scoring or big plays?
.
When comparing big play potential, the NFL has a far greater big play potential on a play by play basis. When you're team is on O, any play can directly result in a score without any buildup. Every play basically an isolated event. When you're team is on D, you can steal the posession on any play, which is FAR more important in football than any other sport. I'll stop rambling - my main point is that scoring does not directly result to excitement and thus does not contribute to ratings as much as we think it would. The potential for big plays is what draws ratings...

your, not you're (twice)

Hey bean, the next time you have a site that is blocked. See if you can get it to come up on google and then hit the "cached" link next to it. This will only work in very limited capacity, but its better than nothing.

Baseball should change to 1 strike and you are out, or 1 ball and you walk. 4 outs retires the side. This would also get rid of pitchers fatigue since its unlikely they would be throwing 100 pitches a game. Thus, Pedro could pitch like every other game. Booya, no more watered down talent either.

JT's post at 1:03 pm: "Decreased scoring is one of many direct results of watering down the overall talent". JT's post at 1:38 pm: "I didn't say decreased scoring was directly a result of to watered down talent". Well, which is it? And I don't acknowledge that there has been a watering down of talent, so I won't acknowledge that it's a cause of decreased scoring. Perhaps it's an increase of talent on defense. Dave, thanks for bringing up the lack of interest in soccer here. Another case in point.

s, I have no idea what you meant with that salary cap comment....but I don't really care. Back to the boredom...true, unless it is close at the end of a game, I hate watching basketball or hockey. In fact, in the case of the NBA, I hate scoring. Back and forth the whole time....it gets boring. PLus, fouls are gay, and anyone who calls them excessively in pickup is the same. NHL is too much skating around in the middle of the ice trying not to makeout with each other.... I'd rather watch Ryan Jackson plow into some dweed back in IMs. But, I love baseball. I understand the whole strategy thing (obviously Grady Little did not), but when the game is 8-2 in the 8th inning and the winning team uses 3 pitchers in an inning it takes away from the game. As for the NFL, did I mention Superbowls XXXVI and XXXVIII.....Red Sox WSC 2004

I see your confusion - the use of result versus contribution are the source of this confusion. The first statment should have read "watering down the talent directly contributes to decreasing the scoring". Although this is a "result", result probably wasn't the best word to use in my first post.

Lets just agree to disagree on whether or not the talent has been watered down, and move on to bigger and funnier things, like NJGuido.com.

Ok. This will clear up all confusion in the world. Ever. We are not arguing about if the NFL reduced the teams, the talent would increase. That is a given. Its called economics.

The question is: Are these sports entertaining enough as they are, or not? If the answer is yes, then wipe your hands - done deal. If it is no, then everyone is going to have suggestions to make it better. Such as: decrease the teams, implement zone defense, make 1 strike be an out, use instant replay, make overtime 4 on 4, make baseball players wear skates and hit hockey pucks.

If you disagree with the first statement, think of fantasy football. Think of a league with 10 teams vs a league with 15. Think of the caliber of player available on the free agent wire. Now punch yourself in the face for being stupid.

Of course the aggregate talent level would increase if the number of teams decreased. But the talent level does not necessarily have to decrease with a rise in number of teams, provided that there is talent available to fill those spots. Dave gave some excellent examples of how and why that talent could be or is available. Sports leagues consider two main things when deciding to expand: whether or not it will make money, and whether or not the talent is available to support expansion. Now granted, they've not been perfect, as in the case of baseball expanding beyond the pitching talent. But usually they won't expand if the talent's not there. Probably the reason for all the expansion of the four main sports in the past 10 or 15 years is because that time frame is approximately one generation after these sports really came into the mainstream as regular TV entertainment, e.g. the first generation of kids who grew up watching alot of sports became professionals about 10 or 15 years ago, and the aggregate talent level was higher because vastly more people were playing than ever before. Some of you were just suggesting that these sports are less interesting to watch because of the drop off in, or watering down of, talent. And I say, with example, why the talent has not dropped off, and for the most part why expansion has not hurt the sports in this way. Instead, it's because of the reduction in offense. To be honest, the NBA adding zone defenses baffled me. Even though Dave's article does not accredit it with causing lower scoring, the reasonable conclusion to more efficient defense would be less scoring.
.
When suggesting how to make sports "better" or more "entertaining," there wouldn't be as many varying serious ideas as you think. Most Americans would want changes that increase the chance for scoring, i.e. making the guy shoot the ball at least once every 24 seconds, or getting rid of the worst batter on the team and replacing him with a guy whose only job in the world is to hit the ball. Or in the case of the American soccer council, suggesting that the goal be made larger so as to facilitate more scoring. FIFA rightfully told them to go screw.

Wow, this topic now has 52 (this should make it 53) comments on it, which is probably a bhendrix.com record. More impressive is that Hendrix himself hasn't chimed in once. It's probably because we're talking about major sports, so let me declare without hesitation that the freestyle ski jumping talent pool has become much too watered down and has really hurt the ratings of the X-Games.

Bean-Let me give you my guess as to why they brought back the zone (I didn't read Daves article but here is my guess). The real question is why did they take it away in the first place (where college still uses it). At one point, the league was run by the big man up until around 10 or 15 years ago, this was the case. So in order to compensate, teams would just sit in a zone designed to kill the big man. So it was something they did away with. Now, this isn't the case. Its up for debate, but now you really only have two big men (Shaq and Timmy D) with a third star rising (Yao). It is now a leage run by guards and as previously mentioned, by athletes who can leap out of the building. My honest opinion is the zone does not do much to deter that kind of play, which is why you haven't seen much movement in scoring since it became allowed.

Disallowing zones was a silly rule. Illegal defense was one of the most inconsistantly and arbitrarily made calls in the NBA. I can understand defensive 3 second calls to combat offensive 3 second calls, but judging the distance between a defensive player and the man he was guarding was crazy and has no place in basketball.

Lets not get into technicalities, but you're both possibly right about the increase in teams = decrease in talent. Mathmatically/economically speaking, assuming that the best talent is already participating, increasing the pool of participants will decrease the overall talent level. If you agree that there is equal talent outside of the USA not playing in the NBA, then expanding the teams and bringing these players to the NBA could avoid lowering the talent level. My opinion is that Foreign basketball is not anywhere near the level of US Basketball YET, except for a very few select players (Dirk, Peja, Gasol, Yao, Kirilenko). This could, and probably will, change.
.
I think the NBA added zone defense in an attempt to get back to "real basketball". Previous rules required you to play man-to-man D and limited a team's ability to double team a player. So, the 76ers for example would put 4 players on the other side of the court and let Iverson go 1 on 1 against his man, which is "bad basketball". Allowing defenses to play a zone defense forces a basketball team to run a proper offense, which some NBA teams have had a hard time getting accustomed to. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that most NBA teams still ran something close to man-to-man defense even though zone defense was permitted.
.
Did the American soccer council really suggest that?

Yeah. Zones also don't defend that well against the outside jump shot, and everyone in the NBA can hit it. Actually, teams sparingly use the zone for this and other reasons.

Second, Dave, I'd also like to point out that not one post deals with the original article. I just put my original comment there since the pistons are the boys in blue.

third, i probably have like 20 of the posts because i am a loser.

The advantage that re-allowing the zone D bring for a defense is that they can double team at any time, instead of having to do it within 3 seconds of a player receiving the ball. You don't have to be within a certain distance from "your player" and there aren't any more "illegal defenses", thank god.

Also of note Dave, while almost everyone of these comments deals with basketball, everyone who views this site, or should I say everyone who made a comment, is "white" enough to make Luke Walton look like another brother

...except for me of course!

I agree that NBA talent is difficult to measure right now against past generation because the style of play has changed so much. I don't think that European, South American, and Asian basketball are near the level of the United States, but clearly they produce a significant number of NBA caliber players, enough to heavily infulence the draft. Of course the NBA also takes in a great number of high school players which lowers the overall talent level (LeBron, Amare excluded).
Clearly to me, the talent of baseball players has improved. There are just so many more people playing baseball now in many countries, the talent pool is loaded. It may take awhile for players to match Ruth's numbers, but he also was only playing against white guys from the U.S. Baseball's problem isn't talent, it's that the best talent goes to too few teams that can afford it. That and as I said before, it's a relatively boring sport to watch on tv.
My guess is that the NHL's talent probably has been watered down a bit, becuase I don't think hockey has expanded to any new geographic regions, yet it has expanded a few times (correct me if I'm wrong about that statement). But since no one watches it anyway, the talent level really doesn't seem to affect anyone.
And yes, of course if you eliminated teams from any sport that would increase the talent level on each team (except those that were folded). The question, as Sam points out, is which sports need it from a financial and talent standpoint?

Well, FIFA considered increasing the size of the goal at one point. I'm not sure who initiated it, but it was eventually shot down anyway. The only article I could find remotely related is this.

WAIT!!! That shot I made didn't win the game. It only covered the spread. Sorry for the confusion.

Basketball is generating enough interest with Kobe alone

And speaking of that, this lawyer says that the judge overstepped his bounds by asking the prosecution to have an expert present at the testing. How many judges like it when a prosecutor tells them that they are wrong in interpreting the law? Bryant is walking. My prediction.

The NHL needs to figure out how to make regular season hockey more like playoff hockey. I'm sure Rob can add his 2 cents about this, but playoff hockey is awesome. That said, i can't really figure out why regular season hockey sucks as much as it does. Maybe they should shorten the season? 80-some games are a lot of hockey games.
.
That brings up another point about why NFL games have such high ratings. There are only 16+ games to watch, and 99% of them occur during the day on a weekend. It makes the league much easier to follow and much more convenient to watch.

did you just say that rob should be on the two cent piece? or am i confusing two articles

Eddie Merckx got a mention in this article ranking the greatest Tour riders. And he has a cool nickname, the Cannibal (future foads, are you listening?), and he's Belgian. He's easily the best of all time. This site breaks down each race into points and awards them to the winners. I would love to see Lance pull the Giro/Tour double sometime, but he may be past his prime, and unfortunately, he was not competing during what may have been his true prime.

Eddie Merckx was a beeeeeast... i've watched a few documentaries on him. Bethume was right in mentioning that no one would touch him (probably). Brian, if LA raced the Giro, do you think he could still compete/win the Tour? Every year there are riders in the Tour that "did well (or won) the Giro", yet they often struggle due to the Giro taking place shortly before the Tour. Also, I'm pretty sure the other "top riders" mentioned in that article skipped the Giro as well. Also, Indurain was a crackhead.

I seriously doubt (bordering on 'no chance in hell') Armstrong could win the Giro and le Tour in one year. It's just too demanding. I don't think anyone else will do it for a loooong time. Maybe he could have done it a while back, but then again, he wouldn't have had the apparent focus on racing that cancer gave him. Incidentally, the show about him on OLN on Thursdays is pretty good. It's called the Lance Chronicles. After watching that, I can see why it's tough for him to mount a Tour effort every year, as his celebrity and other causes take up so much of his time.

I remember watching pre-cancer Armstrong race in the "Tour de Trump" which was televised (and i could see in person since it came through Allentown). He was largely a one dimensional rider that had potential and a huge upside (i'm talkin in NBAdraftese)... i guess it took cancer to focus him, but he's a completely different rider now. Brian, i think we've discussed this over carbombs once or thrice.

It's not like he sucked before. He was World Champion. I can't believe I found this article. It was the first time I'd ever heard of the guy. The NSX tidbit stuck in my mind so clearly. Weird.

Brian. Nice to hear from you. I was worried that something had happened to you. My question then to you, and Oof, and maybe JT (I can't remember) is when we were discussing Best Athlete, were you actually arguing that a cyclist could be the best athlete or were you arguing that LA was the best. Sounds to me like you agree he isn't the best in his sport, so it’s tough to be the best all around then. Am I understanding this or not?

Bill Mawrongaboutbaseball is wrong about baseball. Baseball has taken steps in the right direction recently (wildcard, 3 divisions/league, interleague) but they are far, far from doing well. They are even farther from any idea of parity. The labor agreement was a joke which shows the biggest problem baseball needs to overcome is the incredible strength of the union (or it could be the stupidity of the owners). As the CBA stands now, there is just about no revenue sharing which we have learned from the NFL is the key to parity. As it stands now, a team has to spend an outrageous amount of money that only a few can even dream of touching in order to be "taxed" on what they go over. The small revenues of the tax are then distributed to the bottom feeders. So the difference between the halves and the have-nots is always growing. This isn't a sob story because I'm from Pittsburgh either. As we have seen recently, small market teams that make intelligent moves can in fact compete (the Angels of 2002 and the Marlins of 03) and that is my current frustration with my Buccos. However, the window of opportunity for these teams is always shutting so making a run (anything that resembles what the Yankees have put together) is next to impossible for these teams.

Yes, and before I can take Maranus's sports comments seriously, I must wipe away this memory first:

Sam (on Bill's couch): Holy crap, the Jets and the Patriots (I forget the teams) are 2 points apart going into 2 minutes in the fourth! This game (that we have watched in its entirety) is finally getting good!

Bill: Yeah, lets see what else is on. Oh yes !!! womens volleyball. This is awsome.

Sam: Bill. Change it back

Bill: No. We are watching this

Sam:....

Bill:....

Sam: Bill if you don't change it back right now before I miss the ending I will tear out your nutsack.

I would not agree with the argument that talent is watered down in the NBA and NHL. Both of these sports have seen a decrease in scoring in recent years, which is the primary reason TV viewership in this country is down for both of them. Take note that this year's hockey playoffs were among the highest rated ever in Canada. I'll concede that Canadians are born with a stick in their hand and know no other sports. Except curling. We fat, dumb, lazy Americans don't appreciate a sport unless it's bigger, louder, faster, and higher-scoring. Which is why basketball did away with zone defense (back in the day, the recent re-addition of it is the main reason for the lower scoring) and added the 24-second shot clock. Which is why the American League added the designated hitter. Baseball is not watered down for talent except for the position of pitcher. That's because of the way the game is marketed - "chicks dig the long ball." When kids start playing, they don't want to be Sandy Koufax, they want to be Mark McGwire. Which is why the league (up until now) has looked the other way on steroids. Here's a couple predictions: the NBA, after losing ratings, will again do away with the zone defense; if baseball actually gets really tough on steroid usage, run production will suffer and ratings will go down. The NFL is not watered down. The talent is more evenly distributed - ah, the buzzword "parity." This is not the same as less talent.

Scoring was declining before zone defenses were reintroduced to the NBA. Here is one theory of why scoring has declined in the NBA. In fact, one quote from the column: This is the third season since zone defensives have been legalized and no changes in scoring or game pace occurred during the first two years.

The Lance argument went like this. Mike and Mike had Steve Berthume on. He is an anchorman for Sportscenter as well as the cover guy for the Tour De France, so he obviously knows more than me and my guess is he knows more than anyone who reads this site. He said that there is no way Lance should be ranked as the #3 athlete in the ESPN age (a new poll taken out that covers the athletes to play from 1979-present, which has him ranked behind Jordan and Gretsky) because he isn’t even the best cyclist today or ever. That obviously caught my attention. I took the liberty to assume then that he would disagree with the earlier espn.com pool that said Lance was the Best Athlete. Here is why. Lance wins the TDF so we as Americans think he is the best. But that’s the only race he truly races in. There are many more (I didn’t know that) that he doesn’t race in. Some races he does race in but he doesn’t put much into them and uses them as “training” and doesn’t win. Basically, Lance specializes in this one race and that some (or maybe even a lot) of credit goes to his strategy and his team. This guy sited a racer named Merks who was a more complete racer (I think this guy was from the 70’s). I guess this guy would just take off from the start of a race and win every stage by 8 minutes or so (his words, not mine). He didn’t need a team to help because nobody could keep up with him. Not only did this guy win this race in France, but he also won the others as well (some big race in Italy and a few others were mentioned). He then made this comparison: If Tiger Woods only played the Masters and won it, would we consider him the best golfer in the world? There is the argument that if Tiger only plays the Masters and always wins, then he would win all the others. The counter to that is that can’t be true (we know that is not the case with Tiger) and if it was, why doesn’t he go out and prove it. So I guess this won’t do anything for our argument over if a cyclist can be the “best athlete” but it doesn’t throw a hitch in the idea that Lance is that athlete.

I don't see a big correlation between watered down talent and ratings. There are a few more entertainment venue's today than there were at any other time in history. To name the big 3: Thousands of cable channels, the Internet, and Playstation. Others that come to mind are DVD's. Compare that to Sex, Books, and Network television and I think you see a pretty good case for why ratings will go down from now on unless I get to see some freaking basehockey. If the NBA was 2 teams and had all the talent in the world, would ratings go up or down?

the funny thing is, the two semi-final game 6's were the most watched ever. Det-Ind was the most watched game nba game ever on espn, and Min-LAL was the most watched nba playoff game ever on cable television.
At least no one here is bitching about Larry Bird's whitening the NBA comments.

Yeah, to the lance armstrong comment. Those Shirpa's who keep breaking each other's records up the ridiculous to climb mountain should be high on that list. Just because they don't get paid millions doesn't mean they aren't great athletes.

And Mark McGwire is the greatest athlete since he could hit basketballs out of the park with those ridiculous looking forearms.

The NBA is boring. The NHL is boring. MLB can be exciting. Despite the fact that games become extremely annoying to watch when a new pitcher comes in every at-bat or nobody moves for 10 minutes, MLB will always have their fan base. Basically, with the exception of the playoffs, the only sport that should be televised is the NFL. And if you wonder what to watch the other 7 months of the year, just hop down to Best Buy and pick up your copy of Superbowls XXXVI & XXXVIII.......

would you still watch football if they all had little penises stickout out of their helmets?

"All the strong riders, all flat-out, going straight up the Wall. We all knew what was going on, but nobody could cover his breakaway. You're always tempted to say, 'I could do that if I wanted.' But the fact is, I really couldn't. For me it was one of those shining moments of illumination—I'd seen the future, and I wasn't a part of it."
I remember watching this, it was ridiculous...very similar the Tour stage win that LA had over Ulrich a few years ago on L'Alpe D'Huez (sp?)... uncounterable.
.
This quote is pretty cool also: "Up on the Ekeberg, teammates Frankie Andreu and Andy Bishop had gotten word that Armstrong was moments away from winning. "I was just like, 'No way,'" says Andreu. As they reached the top, they glanced up at Big Mo, the billboard-size television that was carrying the live feed, hopped off their bikes, and like the thousands of others in attendance watched with amazement as Armstrong broke the finish line, hands held high. Then they got back on their bikes and finished the race. "

You know what i prefer over volleyball and baseball? People that dress like He-Man. And not just any He-Man. I'm talking missing member of the Village People He-Man. The He-Man you'd see at the Blue Oyster. I could just see it now. I'm grinding on a hottie at a party and freakin He-Man comes up and starts grinding her from behind. Now how the hell am I supposed to compete with that.

Listen naj, I'm sick of your complaining. If you think that chix are just into looks and rich dudes, well, that's where you're right. But look at skeletor...he's not the best looking guy, but he still gets mad crazy chix. It's what's inside that counts. Remember what I told you...it was just vaporlock

Well, He-Man can be pretty intimidating... anyone that can kick Lion-O's ass can get mad play. Click the links in the middle of this page for more He-Man hilarity.

filling kobra khan with rubbing alcohol is a brilliant idea, and possibly the greatest justification for developing time travel that i've heard today

You forgot wood shek. And the best part about those toys was that it was they would make 3 of the same exact figure and then put a different little hologram on his chest. We were exposed to ROI at an early age here in the states. Who are the ad wizards who came up with that one?

back to the scoring in basketball thing
this article blames most of it on dunking and the 3 point shot, along with people being bigger than they used to be.

Back to toys, I agree that Hasbro (I think it was Hasbro) defintely duped us when we were kids. I remember seeing in the toy store the beaver guy with a wood and a fire hologram. Even as I child I knew that beavers had no business being near fires. Of course out of context, it depends on the beaver and it depends on the fire, but you get the idea.

I really need to install a system with threaded comments...
Anyway. My main points during the 'best athlete' thing were that a) Lance could beat Vick in events that require extreme endurance and high strength to weight ratio, which depending on which sports you pick (anything without a stick or ball), he might, possibly, barely, squeeze into the role of 'greatest athlete' of those they included in the polling b) LA is a sentimental pick for a number of reasons, and if you just vote, gut instinct, on who is 'greatest' without really thinking about it, you could vote for Armstrong. It would involve taking into account his comeback and his relative dominance over cycling's premier event (and a few smaller races). This line of voting would be the same as someone asking me who I think is 'great' and me saying Shaun White or Bob Burnquist. c) I don't think I ever made the point Lance is the greatest ever, but if I seem to infer it, my bad. I think he's far and away the best right now, but that's another story. In the same manner, it would be a tough argument to say Vick is the best ever. Not that he won't be seen as such in the future, necissarily, but probably not right now. But the espn thing was among the field they picked, so that's how it panned out.
Incidentally, I started a new project this week and my hotel has no internet access, so I've been updating in fits and starts. Sorry about the lack of info. Back on track next week, though.

But what about battle beasts?

Is this thing on?

HELLO!

see, lance is ok. he's no john kruk, be he's ok.

Ray Charles Dies

washpost
Charles was no angel. He could be mercurial and his womanizing was legendary. He also struggled with a heroin addiction for nearly 20 years before quitting cold turkey in 1965 after an arrest at the Boston airport. Yet there was a sense of humor about even that -- he released both "I Don't Need No Doctor" and "Let's Go Get Stoned" in 1966.
How funny would it be if Ray Charles was womanizing with ugly chicks the whole time and didn't even know it. Get it? ...cause he was blind.

Fine, Lion-o may lose, but the eye of thundera and lion-o's sword is a way cooler weapon than the sword of greyskull. The eye gives you sight beyond sight (how many times do you think he used that on Cheetara speficially, yeah thats what I thought) and you can call your fellow homies and chics to do whatever you want...see previous cheetara comment. I will give He-Man some credit though. He had the sorceress (a hot chick dressed only in feathers) while Lion-O had Jaga and old senile ghost who never made sense. He-Man had Orko who was not gay because in the episode when they traveled back to Trolla we found out Orko left his bitch there. Lion-O had snarf...nuff said.

If it were up to me though, I would have to say Thundar the Barbarian was pretty cool as well as the Visionaries (short lived). Collectively, that crew could kick anyone's ass!

ohh yeah, I was a fat kid growing up...I watched a lot of TV.

OHH YEAH and does anyone remember BATTLE BEASTS!!! The greatest toys ever!

FIRE! WATER! WATER PUTS OUT FIRE!!!

Love that shit!

Jesus shek, how many times must you be told that the internet contains everything?:-) Wood beats water. Fire burn wood. Water put out fire.

I like 11.) the Grizzly Bear. The ad wizards couldnt come up with ANYTHING better than Grizzly Bear? Sure, you got Blitzkrieg Bat, but when it comes to bear, all you can come up with is Grizzly? Sheesh! I would also like to point out 7.) Horny Toad

Or 28, Crusty Crab. Whoever came up with that one habitually trolled for skank.

I also like "Rubberneck Giraffe" - there are some pretty mean/intimidating animals out there, and all they can come up with is the Giraffe? And what about the "Killer Carp"... man, if anything strikes fear into the depths of my soul, its a Carp.

Rubberneck Giraffe went on to become the spokes-giraffe for Toy'r'us before he was replaced by a live giraffe.

Nice try, we all know the toys R' us giraffe was named goeffry...

ouch....

He also struggled with a heroin addiction for nearly 20 years before quitting cold turkey in 1965
Damn, he was doing heroin before it was cool. That's how cool he was.

Who was?

Rubberneck Giraffe? Grizzly Bear? Killer Carp?

Wait, I dont think Battlebeasts were around in the 60's? Do you have a source on this?

Hey Shek:
"Even as I child I knew that beavers had no business being near fires"

I think Ryan would definately disagree with you there...

Think about it.

Watching some of the Ray Charles coverage this past weekend, this thought dawned on me: How does a blind guy administer heroin to himself?

Jim and I watched the Lewis Black HBO special this weekend. It is a must see for everyone. Seriously, I was crying at some of the parts it was so funny.

There's a new book alleging that Armstrong used banned substances. These allegations have been around for years, especially in Europe, but these allegations are made by a former U.S. Postal cycling team physiotherapist.
Also, check out the Sports Guy's take on the OJ trial, 10 years later. He's right on about idiocy of jurors and how the DNA evidence was just a little too ahead of its time for jurors to understand what it meant.

Yeah, i sent bhendrix a link or two about that, but he hasn't posted it yet - armstrong also said that he would sue if the book came out... doesn't sound like he's too scared...

EPO is also extremely common in the treatment and recovery of cancer patients. Even if they are a few years removed from it. And it is injected, usually by the patient themselves at home.

The Burgh is the least expensive American city as far as cost of living.

My problem with most modern Rock and Roll... except this is one band copying itself instead of someone else... i give you Nickleback (via Fark)

Ralph Wiley, ESPN consultant died today. Very Sad. His columns were great. Beyond great. He was a man among boys. Read some of his smack talking columns if you are looking for a great laugh.

Take that oof.

have some integrity folks. sam, you're like me, only 3 1/2 hours faster.

derek, that's a cool picture