Archive

Posts Tagged ‘NCAA Hypocrisy’

5 Things I Could Care Less About

September 4, 2011 Leave a comment

Wait, didn’t I write a sports blog once upon a time?

Sadly, like the poor first child when the new baby comes home, Sports on the Brain has become neglected over the past three months, as my writing has been focused on baby, food, and all things Food and Fatherhood.  But, that doesn’t mean I haven’t been thinking about sports!

What’s unfortunate, is that while there have been things I wanted to write about since June 16th, I don’t really feel like I’ve missed out on anything.  I mean, honestly, hasn’t this been a particularly lame Summer for sports?  The biggest stories have involved two lockouts, 684 collegiate sports scandals, and a baseball season where the closest race heading into the last month is the Angels 3.5 back of the Rangers.  The whole summer’s been so (athletically) bleak it almost makes me long for the good old days of the Brett Farve retirement, unreitrement dance.

With that said, I figure the best place to begin is with a list of the five sports stories I care the least about:

Five:

Tiger Woods.  It’s sort of sad what’s happened to Woods, but it’s even more sad how much enjoyment people are taking from his demise.  It’s strange, I’ve never seen an athlete go from beloved iconic figure to pariah faster and that includes Kobe who was accused of raping a woman.  I know Tiger’s arrogant and controlling of his image, but the unadulterated joy over his demise is a little frightening.

Four:

The NFL lockout… and return.  I told my Father months ago that there was ZERO chance that the NFL would miss games and it’s not like I’m some master prognosticator; seriously, I can’t even predict whether I’m going to have breakfast every morning, but the NFL and the players settling was so patently obvious, the whole thing just felt like an arrogant publicity stunt:

Roger Goodell – “Hey Maurice, what should we do for fun this offseason?”

DeMaurice Smith – I don’t know?  Nothing to crazy, I mean we wouldn’t want to screw up our pubic support.

Goodell – “Screw up our support?  Don’t be daft we’re more popular than Charlie Sheen, the NFL could get caught in a hotel room with a bunch of hookers and blow and the public would still love us.  Hell, I bet we’re so popular that we can have a protracted labor dispute in uneven economic times and the fans will still run up to sniff our butts when we get back.”

Smith – “You think?”

Goodell – “Hells yeah.”

Smith – “I bet I could even de-certify the union and the public would lap it up.”

Goodell – “See, now that’s the attitude!”

Three:

The NBA lockout.  Sigh.  This lockout actually seems real, but it’s still just so banal I cannot bring myself to care.  I almost always side with players in labor disputes.  It’s one of the things I find most interesting about sports, the way that fans begrudge players making the money they make, when it’s either they make the money or the billionaire owners make it.  I guess it’s an economic misunderstanding, fans think that higher salaries drive ticket prices, when in reality ticket prices are entirely driven by (fan) demand.  Anyhow, in this case, I’m not quite as lefty leaning as I normally might be. The median NBA salary last year was 5.356; this is a system that has DeSagana Diop earning 6.925 million, there’s obviously something broken here.

If the NBA season takes place this year, the Orlando Magic’s payroll will be 74 million and just look at the breakdown:

G. Arenas 19.269 million
D. Howard 17.885
H. Turkoglu 10.6
J. Nelson 7.305
J. Redick 6.500
B. Bass 4.0
C. Duhon 3.46
Q Richardson 2.446
R. Anderson 2.244
D. Orton 1.105

So, basically they have an underpaid Howard and EVERYONE else is overpaid at best, or horrendously overpaid at worst. And yes, Orlando GM Otis Smith is a moron who’s spending money like a teenage socialite with her father’s credit card, but still something needs to be done.

What bothers me though, is that the solution to these problems is always, ALWAYS a salary cap.  And frankly, I hate salary caps.  They restrict market value for players, ensure greater profits for owners, and… restrict young, potentially great teams from keeping their players.  I mean really, imagine if the Celtics of the 80s had lost McHale because the Celtics couldn’t spend above a certain amount?  Or what about the Lakers without Worthy?  The Bulls without Bill Wennington?  Bad example?  There’s just no way that with a hard cap the Oklahoma Zombie Sonics are keeping Russ Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Kendrick Perkins, Eric Maynor together on a team with Kevin Durant over the next seven years.  And, I like dynasties.  I know the vogue thing in sports is parity and I comepltely understand why David Stern needs to sell to each of his owners the idea that anyone can win, but parity’s boring.  Give me the Lakers of the 80s, the Bulls of the 90s, the Spurs of the 00s, the Memphis Grizzlies of the 10s.

I just want to watch greatness.

Two:

The MLB all star game.  It was a few weeks back, but remember the hullabaloo about the MLB all star game?  God, it’s just stupid isn’t it?  The first problem is that leagues want their all star games to mean something.  MLB’s the worst for this, because everybody remembers Pete Rose destroying Ray Fosse at the plate and wants that sort of intensity in the modern games.  This of course ignores three things:

  1. Not all the old allstar games were like that.  Rose was a hyper competitve arse
  2. Fosse was never the same player after that play.  People hold that up as though it were a good thing, but it wasn’t.  We should never want that play to happen again.
  3. It actually DOESN’T mean anything, so for a team to lose a good player for the rest of the season because of a collision in an all star game is actually asinine.

At this point, the all star game is so bloated, with 389 players being selected from each franchise by everyone from the fans, the players, the managers, the commissioner, my Aunt Mildred, and her pet monkey Reginald.  It’s so dumb it could have been concocted by government.  And, speaking of dumb things that baseball’s doing, what about this extra wild card?  I know that as a Jays fan, I should be in favor of this move, but… m’eh.  I hate it when sports leagues have a freak occurrence happen one time and then react like the sky is falling.  Trust me, I wish there were pennant races this year too, but this is the first time in the Wild Card era that there haven’t been any races and really it’s just a big fluke.  Get over it.  If it happens again next year and the year after that, then worry about the state of the division races, but lets not get hysterical here.  Having said that, it’s inevitable.  There’s a lot of money in playoff games and they will add another team, perhaps two, or four.  After all, what can we learn over 162 games that we can’t learn in a single elimination game?

One:

The NCAA.  Is there anything worse than this greedy, self serving, inherently hypocritacal organization?  I could write a 1,000 words about why they’re so ridiculous; actually, I think I’m going to do just that…

A Stocking Worth of Sports Stories

December 27, 2010 1 comment

Well, the big Holiday is over and with it the little holiday as well, which makes this something of an exhale slowly moment. Between the end of the school term and preparing for the arrival of the Jolly Man in Red, it seems like a thousand sports stories have passed me by without an opportunity for me to yodel on their significance. So, I think we’ll blast through some stories, stocking style. Small sweet little packages, which include some underwear, socks and, probably, a little coal…

LeBron wants to return to the 80s:

Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the ’80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team,” James said. “The league was great. It wasn’t as watered down as it is [now].”

So, LeBron wants to return to the 80s, why? I don’t know, maybe he’s a fan of Wham? Seriously, I love the King’s comments on returning to 1980s basketball when the league had two or three Hall of Famers on every team. There’s so many levels of absurdity on this topic, so let me just pick a couple off the top: I guess most obvious that I haven’t seen anyone else discuss, is that the notion that there were three or four all stars (let alone Hall of Famers) on the same team is ridiculous. In 1986 Boston had three all stars, as did the Lakers. Of course, last year Boston had three all stars and the Lakers had two, so… yeah, the league has really altered drastically over the last 25 years.

The Hall of Famer thing seems different, I mean we all remember those Celtics and Lakers teams. Bird, Magic, Kareem, McHale, Worthy, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton… They were loaded, but two teams does not a league make. Most teams were not so fortunate. The 76ers of course had three Hall of Famers, but one was a 35 year old Dr. J in his second to last season and the other was a 22 year old Charles Barkley in his second season. The Milwaukee Bucks won 57 games that year. They had no Hall of Famers. The New York Knicks lost 59 games that year and they had a Hall of Famer. Granted, Patrick Ewing was a rookie, but you get my point. It’s easy to think of the Lakers and the Celtics and believe that the 80s were a time when every team had an overwhelming abundance of talent that made the NBA a richer, better league, but that’s the sort of hyperbolic nostalgia that makes people think that the 1950s were a better time for everyone.

The real difference between the so called Golden Age of the NBA and the league today isn’t the number of players, or a watered down product. The growth of the game in other countries (namely Spain and Argentina, but also Russia and Eastern Europe) has seen an influx of foreign talent that ably fills in the rosters of those seven extra teams.  No, the real difference is free agency and salary caps. The Lakers and Celtics might be able to draft and assemble a team with as much talent as their mid-eighties teams, but they’d never be able to keep them together any longer. James Worthy, picked number one in 1982, would play out his rookie contract and want to be paid as the number one pick he was, only the Lakers already in the luxury tax because they’re paying max money to Magic and Kareem would have to watch as he took the big offer from Golden State. In 1986, the NBA was only in the second year of the salary cap era and the effects had yet to be fully realized. Now, however, it looms over every basketball decision. So, perhaps instead of politicking to contract teams, LeBron should try campaigning to get rid of free agency and the salary cap…

Speaking of James, his statement is so outstanding coming from a man who dubbed himself “The King.” Like most monarchs, LeBron clearly is unconcerned with how a return to the 80s might affect the NBAs commoners. Sure, LeBron, like his princely friends Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh might love combining their principalities, but what of the peasants? NBA teams have 15 players on their roster. That means that if he went back to the 80s, when the NBA had 23 teams, 105 players would be out of work. Of course, they could probably find someone in Europe or Asia who wanted to pay them to play basketball, but players aren’t the only people employed by teams. There’s also administrative staff, coaches, trainers, scouts, communications, public relations, dancers, financial officers, and oh yeah, hundreds of arena workers.

Yes, I realise that it’s unfair to criticize LeBron for not thinking about the thousands of people who would be out of work if the NBA returned to the 80s, he was after all making an offhand statement, but the perception problem that LeBron created for himself with “The Decision” is only exacerbated by his voicing an opinion on contraction. LeBron is battling an image as a narcissistic, self involved, prima-donna with a king complex. I’m not saying it’s fair, I’m also not saying that it isn’t fair, I’m merely saying that talking about eliminating thousands of jobs for people who aren’t part of your principality is not going to help you sell sneakers.

Phil Doesn’t Want to Play on Christmas

It used to be two (games),” Jackson said Tuesday. “It used to be Phoenix and LA and New York and Boston, or New York and Philly or somebody on the East Coast… Now I see they’ve got like six games on Christmas. (It’s actually five, with the first at 9 a.m. PST and the last at 7:30 p.m.) It’s like Christian holidays don’t mean anything to them anymore. Just go out and play and entertain the TV. It’s really weird… But it is what it is. We’ve got to go to work and we’ll do what we have to do to make the best of it. I don’t think anyone should play on Christmas Day. Soccer teams don’t play. They take a break. No hockey. I don’t understand it.

Yes, until recently, the NBA only had two games on Christmas Day, which meant that only four teams actually had to give up their Christmas days, so this isn’t really an issue that affects most teams. I mean, Lionel Hollins and the Memphis Grizzlies don’t really have to worry about going to the arena on Christmas Day. Of course, unfortunately for Phil, he’s only coached two teams in his NBA career and they existed in the second and third largest markets; plus, in ten of those seasons he was coaching the defending champions, so yeah, I can see how he might want the occasional Christmas day off, but…

I don’t really have a lot of sympathy for Phil. He is paid a lot of money because he’s in entertainment. I’m not breaking any new ground here. Sport is entertainment and athletes are paid millions of dollars for playing games, because they play them in front of people who want to watch. And amongst all the other things people do with their families on Christmas Day, a lot of people want to watch basketball. You know what else thousands of people like to do for entertainment on Christmas Day? They like to go to the movies. Amazingly enough, those movie theaters don’t just run themselves. And I think we can be fairly certain that the people who run them aren’t being compensated quite as well as the Zen Master.

Of course, Phil is complaining on religious grounds, which seems to make his case stronger, except that something about that strikes me as disingenuous. I mean we are talking about the Zen Master. A man who named his book “Sacred Hoops” and who to this point has spent most of his career presenting himself as a spiritually enlightened Native American warrior crossed with a Buddhist monk. Even if he is a practicing Christian worried about missing out on his prayer time, this isn’t a new trend. When he was a player, Phil’s team played on Christmas Day ten times. As a coach, he’s now coached 18 Christmas Day games. So, while I can see that he might want to take a Christmas Day game off for once, his proclamating that the NBA “It’s like Christian holidays don’t mean anything to them (the NBA) anymore” is just asinine. Of course, this is Phil Jackson we’re talking about, so he probably was just trying to keep David Stern’s blood pressure from getting too stagnant.

The Pats Are Awesome:

I know this isn’t breaking any news or anything, but… God Damn is Tom Brady good. Last year I couldn’t imagine anyone playing quarterback any better than Peyton Manning. He just had so much command of the game and he was making heroes out of guys who’d basically walked off the street look like Marvin Harrison. Yet, this year (albeit with slightly more talent around him), Mr Gisele is reminding me of why he is actually the best quarterback of this generation.

Likewise, in his column this morning, Peter King posed a question to his readers about who he should choose as coach of the year. Maybe I’ve watched too many Patriots’ games over the last month, but this really was a D’uh moment for me. Sometimes I think that with coach of the year awards, we try to get too smart. Awarding the coach of a team that we expected to be bad, who finished .500 or better, instead of someone who actually is the best coach in the game. It’s why in the NBA Mike Brown, Byron Scott, Sam Mitchell, Avery Johnson, and Mike Dunleavy combine to have as many coach of the year awards as Pat Riley (3), Phil Jackson (1), Greg Popovich (1), and Jerry Sloan (0, or “WTF” as it’s also known). Unlike an MVP award, where writers generally try to award the best player (sometimes errantly, but that’s another issue), with Coach of the Year awards, they often award the best “story.” It’s why Todd Haley and Raheem Morris will get a lot of consideration for the award this year. And yes, they’ve done a phenomenal job in coaching Kansas City and Tampa to 10 and 9 win seasons job, but there truly is only one answer to this question.

The best coach in the NFL this year, last year, the year before that, or for most of the last decade was Bill Belichick.

Who is the coach of the team that is 13-2 and looking like it might be more dominant than the undefeated 2007 Patriots? Who’s the coach whose team has now gone seven games without a turnover (and have only turned it over nine times all year)? Who’s the coach whose playing two undrafted running backs, guys who by the way have rushed for nearly 1500 yards on an average of 4.79 per carry. Who’s the coach who saw trouble brewing in his locker room and decided that he didn’t need one of the five greatest receiveers to win games? Who’s the coach who got better production out of Deion Branch the rest of the season than the traveling Randy Moss show? Who’s the coach of the team that has won seven straight by an average score of 37.3 to 16.9? Oh and by the way that stretch of games included wins over the Steelers, Colts, Jets, Bears, and Packers…

The answer, the only answer, is Bill Belichick.

The NCAA Suspends Six Ohio State Players for Rules Violations… Starting Next Year.

And there it is, the coal at the bottom of the stocking. Thank you NCAA for once again wearing your greed and hypocrisy like a crushed velvet suit for all the world to see. You guys are special, and coal might actually be too good for you this year.

NCAA Madness and Dolla, dolla, bills Y’all…

April 3, 2010 Leave a comment

In honor of the start of the MLB season, I was planning on making this a baseball only weekend for the blog, but then two things happened, one stormy weather knocked out power and internet for most of yesterday, essentially disabling my efforts to write multiple baseball columns, and two… the NCAA (seemingly) made another money grab decision.

I could, and at some point probably will, write a column all about the hypocrisy represented by the NCAA, which exploits young men for incredible profits, while also hanging those same meal tickets out to dry for the slightest violation (for more see James Paxton’s situation with Kentucky). The absurdity of the league banning student-athletes from hiring representation actually strikes me as a violation of the student’s rights. On top of which, while I’m all in favor of amateur athletics, I can’t for the life of me figure out why a player can’t put his name into the NBA draft, hire an advisor to ensure that his interests are being met, be drafted 36th, negotiate with a team, decide that economically it makes more sense for him to return to school, and come back to play college hoops again. Until he steps on a court, or field, to play professionally, his amateur status should be maintained.

Anyhow, that’s an argument for another day. What bothers me here and now, is this “proposal” to expand the field of March Madness to 96. Without mincing words, I hate everything about this idea. I hate that the coaches are in favour of it, because they believe it will create more job security. Uhmmm… no Frank, it just makes reaching the tournament less meaningful. Suddenly your bosses will require you to be something like a top eight seed instead of just qualifying. It doesn’t lessen your job expectations, it just changes the parameters.

I hate that whenever a playoff is discussed in NCAA football, one of the excuses against such a construct is that it would impact student education, but here the NCAA is about to implement a change that would keep more than 500 students out of classrooms for much of the second half of March. On top of which, I hate that NCAA senior vice president Greg Shaheen is seemingly so smugly dense that he cannot pick up the nuance of John Junior Feinstein making just that point.

I understand that the tournament has gone from 16 to 32 to 64 and that each time opponents of expansion complained that it was diluting what was a perfect field, but I hate that the proposed expansion is diluting what is a perfect field. I know that this season is one shinning beacon of how parity has come to NCAA basketball, but lets hold our horses here for a second. We have still yet to watch a 16 seed upset a one seed, only four 15s have knocked off twos, only two 14 seeds have made the Sweet Sixteen, and no team lower than an twelve has made the Elite Eight, where they promptly lost.

LSU in 1986 and George Mason in 2006 are the only 11s to break into the Final Four and they were twenty years apart. Finally, Villanova, an eighth seed in 1985, remains the lowest ranked team to win the whole enchilada. So, lets go a little easy on the parity talk. If you think about it, the Final Four this year is actually pretty chalky, you have perennial Michigan State, Bob Huggins coached West Virginia, and a little heard of basketball institution known as Duke. So, uhmmm… yeah! Yes, Butler is a surprise Final Four team, but they’re a five seed, which means that they were no worse than 20th in the country. So it’s not really as though we are talking about Arkansas-Pine Bluff here.

Finally, I hate that whatever sugar they coat this decision with, the only reason for the NCAA to make this move, just like the only reason that the NFL would expand their regular season from 16 to 18 games, is the big shinny dollar. And, because they are running the biggest monopolized racket going, it’s all money that will be funneled straight into the pocket of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. So, please Shaheen, just stop. Stop talking. Stop planning. Stop bullying student-athletes. Stop counting your money under the table with one hand while holding a microphone espousing the virtues of a virtue-less idea in the other… but mostly, just stop this expansion, because it truly is madness.

Arne Duncan, David Stern, and a College Hoops Education…

March 20, 2010 Leave a comment

The NCAA tournament always brings a litany of stories relating to education, often in the form of how long NBA prospects should be required to stay in school and occasionally related to the graduation rates of top college basketball programs. This week’s tournament is no different.

On ESPN, two of their NBA columnists are going head to head over the NBAs age restrictions (sorry, requires ESPN Insider), meanwhile early last week the Secretary of Education made headlines by proposing (to the media) that college basketball programs with graduation rates below 40% should be banned from postseason play. Since these issues are on some level related, I’m going to tackle them together, starting with the latter and then tying it back in to the former.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is a former college basketball player from Harvard, which superficially gives him credibility when he discusses college hoops. He’s using that supposed insider status to attack the institutions whose graduation rates are floundering, which would be fine, except that in doing so, he shows an absurd ignorance about the purpose served by big time college hoops.

Right off the top, I am in no way arguing that education isn’t important, or that collegiate athletics shouldn’t be structured such that athletes have every opportunity to achieve a real education from their talents, but that has very little bearing on the majority of top flight basketball players who attend institutions like Kentucky, Louisville, and Maryland (three of the twelve schools that would be expelled from this year’s tournament under Duncan’s proposal). Most young men who attend these schools are doing so for one reason, to further develop their basketball skills in hopes of landing an extremely profitable career in professional hoops.

That’s their purpose, a basketball education. They aren’t there to earn one of those exceptionally useful History degrees, or to develop their math skills. They are there to develop their post-up game, to impress scouts, to hopefully be drafted to the NBA, but failing that to impress an overseas’ professional league. Is this any different than a world class cellist who attends university and earns a music degree? And what is the purpose of college? Is it the pursuit of academia, or is it to prepare young men and women for future employment? One could easily argue that the problem currently facing many educational institutions is that too many people believe it to be the former, when in reality it is, and should be, the latter.

Top flight college basketball, as opposed to say Ivy League basketball, is all about preparing kids to play professionally. In return for allowing athletes to hone their talents and display their abilities in a highly competitive atmosphere, the schools receive millions of dollars in revenue. This, of course, makes it an absurdly poor deal for the students, but that’s another fight for another day. Some kids earn professional contracts and most don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that from the athlete’s perspective, that’s the purpose of college. Thus, when considering these graduation rates, Duncan has to include how many students left school to professional jobs in basketball, either nationally or abroad. Otherwise, you’re punishing the schools for doing what they are supposed to do. After all, nobody complains when technology geniuses drop out to pursue millions developing software, creating video games, or online social networking sites.

Then there’s is this, at some point each of these kids makes a choice about whether or not they want to continue their education. While the programs should probably have better support systems in place to ensure that the students have every opportunity to finish their degree, at what point does it stop being the school’s responsibility and become the players’? Without getting too personal, a few years ago I became disenchanted with the university experience and dropped out. While I eventually returned and finished my degree, because my graduation was more than six years after the start of my schooling, the qualifications used in the report that Arne Duncan is basing his proposal upon would not consider me “graduated.” Leaving school was nobody’s decision but my own, and despite the protestations of those authority figures in my life who would have encouraged me to continue with my studies, like Keyser Soze I was gone.

Complicating this problem is the NBA’s age restriction, which forces the very best basketball players in the country to attend one year of post-secondary school before being allowed to graduate to the NBA. This has created the hated “one and done” system. So, what should top college programs do? Ignore these kids who are talented enough to pursue professional employment directly from high school?

If you read my column from Thursday, you know that I have nothing but disdain for John Calipari, but his success is predicated upon the fact that he is upfront with kids about his goals. He wants to produce the very best basketball team every single season, and he believes that the surest way to accomplish this is to have preeminent talent every single season. So, he recruits young men like John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, and Eric Bledsoe. Both coach and player understand from the very beginning that this is a one year relationship. Calipari will teach these kids what he can, promote them as widely as possible, and give them his blessing when the declare for the NBA draft in June. In return, those three gave him a 29 win team that earned a number one seed in the tournament. That’s three guys who will not finish their degree, but who will find six figure employment before virtually every other student enrolled at Kentucky this year.

Duncan’s proposal puts these ‘one and done’ kids into professional limbo. If he is serious about his better than forty percent claims, then he needs to address the NBAs age restrictions. Ten years ago, I would have argued that David Stern was right that the NBA needed an age requirement. Now? With the success of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnett, what logical argument is there that allowing high school graduates to turn pro hurts anyone?

Who are the best basketball coaches in the world? Are they the college coaches who routinely flame out in the NBA? Or are they the world class, highly paid coaches employed by NBA teams? The answer, of course, is the latter. The players receive better instruction going pro, especially given the creation of the D-League, which allows NBA teams to send players to a development team for more playing time and closer instruction than they might receive with the big team. By contrast, consider that Duke is probably the top college program of the last twenty years. Yet, despite recruiting top flight talent, winning the majority of their games each season and having the great Mike Krzyzewski as their coach, Blue Devil players have a reputation as being professional busts.

Honestly, was the league worse off for having LeBron James drafted as an 18 year old? Was the league in some way more adversely affected by high schooler Darius Miles flaming out, than say sophomore Stromile Swift? Were the injuries that ruined Jonathan Bender’s career caused because he missed out on the “college experience”? No, no, and no. On the flip side, if Bender had suffered those injuries in college, would David Stern have paid him the roughly 30 million he earned in his star crossed career?

The NBA wants guys to go to college so that they can play at Kentucky for a year (or preferably two), become a star and then join the league. That’s it, that’s the reason. The NBA doesn’t have an age limit to benefit the players, nor to improve the skill level of teams, it has an age limit because it benefits the NBAs marketing machine.

David Stern might give lip service to how forcing athletes to attend two years of college better prepares them mentally to the off court challenges faced by professional players, but come on… Have Garnett, LeBron, TMac, or Jermaine O’Neal been hurt as people by missing college? Hurt financially? From a marketing standpoint? Really? How? Did Allen Iverson learn at Georgetown that excessive gambling was a surefire way to plummet into debt? Yes, Kobe Bryant was accused of sexual assualt, but then Ben Roethlisberger went to college and he’s been similarly accused. Besides, Tiger Woods went to Stanford and last I checked, that didn’t teach him that infidelity was wrong.

Finally, there’s this, Duncan is proposing to ban teams from the tournament whose graduation rates are low, which penalizes the kids who are still in school and could still potentially graduate, as opposed to the kids who failed to graduate. Exactly what purpose does that serve?

%d bloggers like this: