By all accounts, Rashard Lewis is a good guy (save for allegedly openly cheating on his pregnant girlfriend), and does a lot for his community.  My problem isn't with him as a person, it's with him as a basketball player (and I'm using that description very lightly) in this series against Boston.  If Delonte sleeping with Lebron's mom made James play so bad against Boston, who the hell is sleeping with Rashard's mom?  Gortat?  Redick?  Ryan Anderson? (google Delonte West and Gloria James for more info about that sordid encounter)

Here are some nice tidbits on how awful Mr. Rashard Quovon Lewis has been in the first 3 games of the seiries:

•  Lewis has scored 15 points this series (NOT 15 ppg), yes, 15 points. 
• This is less than Big Baby scored in game 3. 
• This is even less than Redick scored in game 2. 
• Rashard has taken 2 free throws in the series (way to be aggressive)
• Mr. Lewis has more turnovers than assists
• He has more fouls than made field goals
• He has made one more three pointer than I have made

Any way you look at it, he's been lousy.  It's too bad he's only making about 18 million per season.

You remember when Michael Jackson had an afro, not a perm

You ask people to turn the music down not up

You stop listening to new music

Either your kids haven’t heard of some of your favorite artists, or they call them oldies

You criticize the fashion of teenagers

When you do a strenuous activity you’re not sore the next day, its two days after

You learn about pop-culture phrases/words like make it rain, cougar, swag, and sexting from CNN

You remember OJ Simpson as a football player, not as a murderer

You still have cassette tapes, VHS tapes, and floppy disks

You remember when Ice Cube and Snoop Dogg were “gangsters”

You think about fuel economy when you’re buying a car

You’ve eaten a Whatchamacallit

You watch the news

You’d rather call someone instead of texting them

You’ve realized that Sade doesn’t age

You remember the Iran-Contra affair and “trickledown economics”

You remember when Clarence Thomas was relevant

You have no idea what twitter is or what it’s for, but you hear the word all the time

Not quite 18 months ago Arizona Senator John McCain was touting himself as a “maverick” and he chose an unknown wildcard as his running mate for the presidential election.  McCain stressed the importance of bi-partisanship, and his co-maverick running mate Palin would serve as his foil (she being the staunch conservative).  McCain lost the election for a host of reasons, but one of the primary reasons was that America did not think Sarah Palin was smart or experienced enough to be a vice president.  Palin was mocked by hosts of people, and essentially censored by McCain’s election advisors during and after the election was over.  They even forced her to give back clothes they bought for her to wear during the campaign!!!

Fast forward to today, and the shoe is squarely on the other foot.  McCain is in the fight of his life for his senate seat in Arizona again another conservative JD Hayworth.  Hayworth is, of course, saying that McCain is too much of a “maverick” to be a republican senate member in Arizona, and that the state needs someone more conservative (he coins it the “consistent conservative).  McCain has now dropped the maverick label (it worked to get him electoral votes, apparently it doesn’t help him get Arizona senate votes), and is trying to be as conservative as he can be.  He actually was quoted as saying, “"I never considered myself a maverick. I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”  Moreover, he has enlisted the help of former punching bag Palin.  Now he needs his much more popular “little sister” to help get him re-elected (even though his cronies made her look like a douche 18 months ago).  Palin is now one of the most popular people in America (she is actually the 1^st “Sarah” that pulls up in Google) Funny how things can change in just 18 months.  Maybe this is McCain’s comeuppance for voting against MLK’s birthday as a national holiday.

The beauty that is March Madness is fully upon us now (of course the conference tournaments had been going on for over a week also, and those are some of the most exciting games one could ever watch).   To commemorate this illustrious occasion, I’m going to highlight three of the most underrated best things and three of the worst things about the NCAA tournament.  I’m not going to discuss the passion, pageantry, and fans at college games, because those exist for any game (which is why college ball is so much better than NBA ball).  These pertain exclusively to the March (and early April) funfest.

The 3 best parts of March Madness

1.       Hearing the commentators all day long

o   I don’t know about you, but I can listen to Gus Johnson do a game all day long.  He is so excited and passionate about the sport, he can make any game exciting.   Even a 1^st round 30 point blowout between a 1 seed and a 16 seed has drama when Gus Johnson is prominently involved.

o   I personally NEVER get tired of Bill Raftery’s shtick.  He actually is a good color guy, but when you add phrases like “send it in big fella,” or “to the tin,” or “with a kissss,” or “a little lingerie” to a telecast, that telecast just got significantly better.

2.       Seeing unheralded players get some national exposure

o   For the most part, only power conferences get tons of national broadcasts (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big 10).  Even power conferences like the SEC and PAC 10 only really get significant air time when one of their elite teams is playing.  That’s cool and it makes sense for TV ratings, but if you’re one that follows college basketball regularly, and you know some of the underexposed players and teams, it’s quite validating when you hear the talking heads on the sports networks lionizing a guy you knew was great for the last two years.

3.       Getting to watch all of the games even if you’re married or have a girlfriend

o   Maybe the most underrated part about the tournament is that it gets everyone involved.  Get your leading lady to fill out a bracket (maybe even convince her to enter an office pool at work) and she’ll want to watch the games just like you want to!  Maybe even make a little wager with the misses, and it will be even that much more compelling for her.  Most guys don’t know that women are really just as competitive as we are … they just channel it in different ways.

The 3 worst parts of March Madness

1.       Bracket guy

o   Every group of friends or work place has this guy.  He’s the guy who tells you about every pick he’s made (I mean in his entire life).  He brags about all the upsets he's picked correctly (dating back to the 1996 UCLA vs Princeton game); he acts like his wife just asked for a divorce when he gets a pick incorrect; he tells you what percentage of picks he’s gotten right; he calls himself a bracketologist.  All of us love the tourney and lament our picks gone wrong, but when it interferes with your ability to carry out your daily responsibilities, you my friend are bracket guy.

2.       The tournament pundits

o   My #1 culprit is Greg Anthony.  I understand that Anthony was a very good college player, and a pretty good NBA player.  I also kind of understand that Anthony was an almost decent NBA analyst.  What I don’t understand is how he became one of the lead NCAA color guys.  He hasn’t played college ball in over 20 years, and he doesn’t even seem to really understand basketball.  He played for many years, so he probably knows more basketball than most people in America…he just doesn’t sound like he does.  Furthermore, does he even really know college ball?  Does he know anyone except for the elite teams and players?  It seems not.

o   #2 is Joe Lunardi.  I have absolutely no qualms with him or how he presents himself, it’s just what he represents.  He was the 1^st “bracketologist” and now countless slacks all over TV and the internet claim to be experts, even though they’re just as good at making picks as anyone who watches Big Monday or Super Tuesday.  It really makes you respect guys like Doug Gottlieb and Seth Davis (guys that know all the players on all the teams) that much more.

3.       The coinciding women’s tourney

o   This isn’t necessarily a knock on the NCAA tourney, but more on the NCAA itself.  For those who don’t know, the women’s tournament (also known as the UCONN Huskies Invitational) starts today, which is pretty ridiculous if the NCAA really wants anyone to watch it.  Why the women’s and men’s tournaments go on at the same time is a huge disservice to the female participants.  No one pays any attention to the women because of all the hype and gambling surrounding the men’s version.  These two tourneys can’t be concurrent if they want to showcase and grow the women’s game at all.  Can anyone name a female player that didn’t play for UCONN or Tennessee?  Can anyone name a coach other than Geno Auriemma or Pat Summitt?  Can we get a 2-4 week separation between the two tournaments?  I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

When did men stop being men? There was a time when men gathered together in fellowship, simply to fellowship. There was a time when men were expected to have a few too many, pass out, and amble home when the proper level of sobriety allowed it. There was a time when feelings weren't worn on sleeves and good-natured ribbing was part of a good time. There was a time when men didn't gossip and things said to a man never moved past his ears. We need to return to those days when machismo wasn't ostracized. We need to be men again. 

 It may seem sophomoric and reckless, but I'm not calling for binge drinking and womanizing. I realize a lot of us have grown up, gotten married, and started families. I know that new responsibilities change people's perspectives on life and rearrange priorities, but does the very essence of manliness have to dissipate in order to co-habitate? 

 I'm calling for a reprisal of the long-forgotten man code. We need a return to the time when men didn't screw each others' spouses and /or stab each other in the back verbally. Let's get back to stoicism and reliability. A man's worth was once measured by how he followed through on his promises. We need to get back there.  Men need to be men again.

This question has been repeated by women for as long as men and women have been dating. The answer, hopefully without sounding too contrived, is "he's just not that into you." The reason why differs and is easily answered. Did you recently sleep together? As archaic and possibly misogynistic as it sounds, after you sleep together the power in the relationship shifts. Prior to intimacy, the man is usually on his best behavior, but afterwards his attitude may change. Are you becoming one of the guys? If you used to wear makeup, and used to dress up, and used to cook and/or clean for him, but don't now, he's getting used to you being just one of the guys.  Are you becoming his mom? If you're spending more time nagging and scolding him than loving him, then he's tired of talking to you. Would you call your mother just hear her nag?  Finally, the answer could just be you're not the one. Don't take it personally, it is what it is.

So the popular belief by many football pundits (by the way, when did the word pundit become essential to American vernacular) is that if the Colts win the Super Bowl tomorrow, Peyton Manning will be considered the best quartback and football player ever.  I'm sorry if I have to vehemently disagree with that assessment.  Peyton is a GREAT quarterback, and one of the best ever, but he plays in a time where the qb cannot be touched, and neither can the receivers.  The current state of the NFL is more similar to arena football than 80's or 90's NFL.  Peyton will more than likely finish with every single passing record when he retires, but I liken it to how all the guys who played in the steroid era in baseball will finish with all of the hitting records in baseball.  At any rate, here are some guys who I think are in the discussion of being better than Manning, whether he wins tomorrow or not.

• Joseph Montana- If anyone every doubted this, QBs more than any other position in football are graded based upon their rings.  Joe, has 4 of those, and 3 superbowl MVP awards.  This isn't to say that he doesn't have great stats, because he does (see over 270 tds and 40,000 yards in his career).  Peyton already has more yards and tds than Montana did in his career, but he's only got 1 ring and 1 SB MVP.  If anyone remembers, Manning actually didn't have a great SB statistically: 25-38 for 247 yds, 1 td and 1 int, and 10 of those completions were to Joseph Addai.
• Jerry Rice- He holds every receiving record that exists, and holds the all-time td record.  Furthermore, he does have 3 SB rings
• Jim Brown- although he retired at the age of 29, Brown retired with almost every rushing record, and averaged 5.2 yards per rush.  In addition, he played 9 seasons, and led the league in rushing in 8 of those seasons.  It wasn't just that he was great, and he was (3 MVPs), he totally revolutionized the position.
• Tom Brady/Johnny Unitas- I list them together because Manninng totally blows both of their stats out of the water, but the thing they have that trumps him are championships.  Brady's got 3, and Unitas has 2 world championships and a super bowl.  Brady and Manning are contemporaries, so we can compare them favorly, Unitas truly modernized the passing game, and that cannot be overlooked.
• Reggie White/Lawrence Taylor- no one thinks about defensive players being the best, but these two were beyond special.  Reggie White was easily the most dominant defensive lineman in NFL history, and maybe most dominant player period.  He retired with the all time sack record, and only Bruce Smith hanging on for several more years past his productive years was able to pass it.  LT changed the game.  Protecting the qb wasn't the most important thing in football until he came along, and basically made the position of left tackle what it is today.  Don't forget he was doing all of this while using cocaine.  Imagine how good he would have been if he was sober?

Those guys are tough to beat even if he wins tomorrow, but he's still got to battle with guys like Otto Graham, Brett Favre, John Elway, and Dan Marino (the 1980's version of Manning.  If he came along when Peyton did, he'd have the same #'s Peyton does...he just never had a RB or a defensive, thus, he never won the superbowl).

I was inspired to write this by the song of the same title.  It's pretty easy to go from lovers to nothing, or from friends to nothing, but how does one go from lovers to friends?  I implore you, don't pull out Seinfeld lines like, "its not you, its me."  Don't try contrived excuses like, "we're just moving in different directions."  Don't pull out the classic, "I'm just not ready to date right now."  All that means is I'm not ready to date YOU right now.  These lame excuses simply make you seem like a liar, and add to the army of misandrists. 

 I have the easy answer for you men...make it a joint venture.  When you have "the talk" with her, make sure you utilize the God given pronoun "we."  Whatever reasons you give her for breaking up, ensure that you emphasize that BOTH of you believe it.  For example, "we both know that a long distance relationship is too hard with all we both have going on right now."  Moreover, you could say, "with me in school and you getting your career started, we both know its going to be too hard for us at this point."  Even if she doesn't agree with you internally, she probably won't disagree with you verbally because you made it seem like you both believed it!

 Lastly, another thing you must do is not make things seem like they're over forever.  If you refer to my above examples, notice my use of "right now" and "at this point."  Even if you personally never plan to see her romantically again if your life depended on it, you don't want to embarrass her by "dumping" her or establishing finality.  Throw out the "right now" thing knowing that eventually she will get over you, and you can easily slide into a friendship if you so desire.  You may want to do it anyway for a while in the event she has attractive friends that she may one day hook you up with if you're simply friends. 

Your welcome guys.

Not to be a Duke hater or anything (cos I actually root for the Blue Devils), but I've been bothered by the fact that Coack K seems to stifle his players quite a bit.  Granted his top 2-3 guys on the team can shoot whenever they want (see Redick, Jason Williams, Scheyer, Singler, Smith, etc), but it seems like his non favorites get muzzled.

My 1st example is recent transfer Taylor King.  King got basically no playing time at Duke in his one year there, so he transferred to Villanova.  On the Wildcats, he averages 9.6 points/game and 6.2 rebounds/game, while shooting 42% from 3pt.  Are you telling me that there was so much talent on Duke that this guy couldn't get off the pine?

2nd example is Elliot Williams.  He started the last month of the season for Duke (out of absolute necessity), but before that, he basically only played in the blowouts.  Most importantly, he only attempted 56 shots all season!!!  With those 56 shots, he only scored 4.2 points per game.  Now on Memphis, he is their leading scorer with 19.8 points per game on a robust 49% from the field (for a guy who basically wasn't allowed to shoot).

Lastly is Jamal Boykin.  This isn't so egregious, because he's not that great, but at Cal, he averages 11.3 points/game and 6.5 rebounds/game on 58% from the field.  I know those numbers don't wow you, but they sure would be nice on a Duke team that only has 3 players who's scoring average is in double figures.

So does anyone know the answer...why does Coach K seemingly stifle his players so much?