Ambitionz of a Writer

Comparison revisited.

Only two people are important in the world’s greatest sports debate.

But for some reason, they both avoid addressing it.

Both Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant have shied away from the debate surrounding their careers, as the search for the next Michael Jordan continues to rage, especially with the recent fuel added by His Airness.

In a recent interview, Jordan commented that if anyone were ever to be compared to him, Bryant was the only logical comparison.

His Airness has spoken.

Many have tried and been met with utter disgust when presenting the notion that Bryant has actually surpassed Jordan as the greatest ever. Few Jordan fans embrace Bryant the same way the current generation has, they’re main argument residing somewhere between, “You never saw MJ in his prime, yung’n,” and “Kobe had Shaq.”

Yes, I never saw MJ in his prime on live TV, but I have ESPN Classic and NBA TV. I see him.

Yes, Kobe had Shaq. But a young Shaq had Penny Hardaway and a veteran Shaq had Dwyane Wade.

No three-peats with those guys.

But that’s besides the point. The point is there is really only one straight comparison that can be made between Jordan and Bryant, and that is that both men have an ego that couldn’t be contained within the Smithsonian Museum, let alone the nation’s capitol.

Besides ego, what do they really have in common?

It’s not accolades.

Yes, Kobe is approaching Jordan in championships and all-time points scored, but that’s pretty much it, save for a few All-NBA Team nods here and there.

Jordan has six NBA MVP’s as opposed to Kobe’s one. Jordan has six NBA Finals MVP’s as opposed to Kobe’s two (subject to change.)

MJ, six NBA scoring titles. Kobe has two (subject to change, goddammit).

Kobe can’t compare to Michael in the accolades department. No one will ever build the resume that the Almighty built during his NBA career, as LeBron is a little too far behind to make a legitimate charge at MJ’s success.

But what about basketball?

Not voted MVP awards, not All-NBA Defensive Team selections, not NBA Championships.

Is MJ really a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant? Is MJ really more gifted with a basketball than LeBron James?

In my opinion, the answer is no.

I believe that MJ has one edge on Bryant and this is in his explosion and power.

But that’s where the buck stops.

With that said, I am baffled as to why player comparisons focus solely on statistics and accolades. 

There is someone with more championships than MJ. Someone with more points, too. Someone averaged more rebounds. Someone is a better passer than the Almighty.

He just so happens to have been an incredible winner and competitor, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to being the best, it just means he presents the best package historically and nothing more.

So let’s call him the ‘greatest package presenter’ as opposed to the ‘greatest player,’ because that is more than debatable.

I saw MJ win six NBA championships with one sidekick. I never saw Jordan win without Pippen and vice versa.

But I’ve seen Kobe win without Shaq and vice versa.

I’ve seen MJ score over 60 twice in his career and I’ve seen Kobe score over 60 twice in a week.

And twice after three quarters.

Who’s the better scorer?

Debatable.

I know that Shaq could have been the league’s greatest scorer had he not missed thousands of free throws in his career. I also know that if Shaq and Kobe were BFF’s, they could have won six championships easy.

That’s right, circumstances come into play as well.

MJ was the first of his kind. He’s the mold for every guard that has come after him.

But because he was the first, does that make him better than the rest?

It’s a matter of circumstances, similar to Jordan’s competition.

People always tell me, “You can’t blame anyone for who they played against.”

Yeah, I can, and MJ never ran across the path of a LeBron or Kobe. Yet they run across each other.

Jordan played against Magic and Bird, but is Larry Bird better than Dirk Nowitizki? Magic more gifted than LeBron? Tougher, sure. But more gifted? 

No way in hell.

Who were the best shooting guards MJ played against? Clyde Drexler? Joe Dumars?

Does either compare to James? D.Wade? McGrady? Iverson? Kevin Durant? Paul Pierce?

I am a firm believer that MJ wouldn’t have walked over today’s competition.

By no means am I attempting to discredit Michael Jordan. I would slap myself before I ever did that. But I don’t subscribe to the belief that because he has six championships, he’s better than Kobe Bryant.

“MJ has six, Kobe only has five. And LeBron has none.”

And? I didn’t ask you who has more titles, I asked you who’s a better player.

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that in your mind, without a shadow of a doubt, Jordan has more tools on a basketball court than Bryant and James, I’ll be forced to give you a stern look.

Truth is, that assertion is patently false, and like my brother says when people tell him Tim Tebow is a good quarterback…

“I don’t like being lied to.”

pass the throne.

See, I believe that with every failure comes a lesson.

I can only hope the Lakers franchise believes the same.

With two preseason defeats under their belt, two remarkably meaningful preseason defeats, the Lakers are poised and ready for the shortened season.

That is, if they make one vital decision, a decision that has to begin with Kobe Bryant.

Bryant was unable to play in Wednesday’s loss to the LA Clippers due to a torn ligament in his wrist, which wasn’t as bad as I imagined considering we all got to see him sporting what I assume to be a Dolce & Gabbana ensemble on the Lakers bench.

But more important than that stone cold outfit was the fact that Bryant has always been considered a student of the game. And if he was living up to that reputation Wednesday, he took notice of what should be the Lakers new curriculum.

Today’s lesson: Feeding the big man.

Simple enough.

Me admitting that the offensive focus of the team should be shifted towards the 24-year old center and away from the 33-year old legend is equivalent to David Stern admitting he just might have botched the Chris Paul trade situation.

That’s how stubborn I am when it comes to Kobe.

But it’s time to step aside, for the sake of the Lakers and for the sake of his career.

Bynum can be a force inside the key if he gets the ball.

That’s a big ‘if.’

Kobe might be the greatest scoring force the league has ever seen, but along with that accolade comes the harsh reality that scoring opportunities for his teammates don’t arrive as often as I’m sure they would prefer.

Nature of the beast. 

However, Bynum has proven himself to be a different type of beast as well. 

When motivated, Bynum dominates the boards and is the best offensive center in the league now that Yao Ming has retired. Some might say Dwight Howard, but that would make some completely wrong.

Howard is by far the most athletic center in the game, but does athleticism necessary denote skill?

Bynum actually has post moves. It’s not just brute strength and jumping ability.

I mean, even Shaq had moves. 

The future of the franchise is with Bynum, who should not be traded for Howard. He’s younger than Howard, more competitive than Howard, and more of a natural center than Howard.

But the world won’t see that if Kobe doesn’t defer the reigns. 

Does Kobe care more about the franchise or more about himself?

I will choose not to answer on the grounds that I may spew blasphemous statements in the eyes of Laker fans.

But wouldn’t it be worth it for Bryant to give it a shot?

If Bynum became the first option, followed by Pau Gasol, would the game not be easier for Bryant? Wouldn’t it be ideal for Bynum to average 22 points, which isn’t a stretch for him, Gasol to average 22, and Kobe to average…22?

How beautiful!

If Bryant would relieve himself of the pressure to be “Kobe” and allowed his big guys to do a lot of the work for him, his career would be elongated and he would have the opportunity to lay claim to all of the records he so desperately and secretly pines to own.

It pains me to say this, but the Kobe I used to know never got hurt. The fact that he has had injury after injury after injury for the past few seasons shows me that this is not vintage Kobe. 

This is a king that needs to crown a successor.

What I have seen from Bynum, especially Wednesday night, is a guy that feens to be a superstar. I saw a guy that dominated another young, athletic center in the Clippers’ DeAndre Jordan. 

I saw a baller. 

I hope Kobe’s sideline seat allowed him to see the same.

He’d do us all a favor by taking notes.

O.K.

I’ve found the phrase.

Took me over a week to do it, but it’s done.

Organized karma.

Anti-climatic, much?

I never thought the Lakers would suffer the consequences of being the Lakers. 

Somehow, via trade or whatever the case was, I wasn’t alive yet, the Lakers swooped in on Magic Johnson in the 80’s. Fifteen years ago, they nabbed Shaq from the grips of the Orlando Magic. Soon after, LA traded Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant. Four years ago, Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol.

I’m no fool. Lady Luck has never abandoned the Lakers’ side. 

But now, David Stern, Dan Gilbert, the collective of NBA officials, have Ms. Luck in a headlock reminiscent of the McKenzietine, and they refuse to let go.

About a week or so ago (it’s such a blur at this point), the Lakers pulled off another blockbuster swap to bring New Orleans Hornets super-duper point guard Chris Paul to Los Angeles, before commissioner Stern so infamously vetoed the trade and sent the Twitter universe into a frenzy.

But, unlike the other jobs the Lakers have pulled in the past, this time, they actually acted in good faith. They didn’t use their bully power or Hollywood lights to trick the unsuspecting lesser markets.

They were prepared to give up Gasol and reigning Sixth Man of the Year, Lamar Odom.

The Lakers did it the right way and Stern, along with his minions, stuck it to them.

Not because the trade didn’t make sense, but as a means of exacting revenge on behalf of every small market owner in the league. 

Organized karma.

And if you think about it, nearly every organization has reason not to want the Lakers to get better.

Small market teams hate that superstars always bolt for big market teams. They hate the Lakers. 

Teams like the Mavericks, who are in big markets, don’t want the Lakers to get better because that affects their chances of winning. In addition, star players attract other star players.

Mark Cuban wants the Chris Paul’s of the world, he doesn’t want the Lakers to have them.

Is it possible that LA brought this on themselves, as they’ve spent several decades gathering the best players and best free agents from across the league? Using their Hollywood appeal to draw the likes of Shaq and possibly Dwight Howard or Chris Paul?

Child, please.

In any sport, from college basketball to international soccer, players want to play for the best teams in the best cities with the most money. 

The Lakers provide all three and will continue to do so.

However, in this instance, Stern and league owners finally see an opportunity to put a stop to it by not allowing the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul, the next player in a line of Lakers superstars, the man that would assume the responsibility of carrying on Kobe Bryant’s winning legacy.

Fact is, the league owns the Hornets and regardless of what the trade may have been, even if it were Kobe for Paul, the league would be against it.

Organized karma.

To be honest, I’m not upset that the trade didn’t go through. The Lakers need a point guard but they don’t need Chris Paul.

They need to not have Derek Fisher more than they need Paul.

What I am upset about is the fact that the league allowed the discussions to get to that point, then pull if off the table.

That trade wasn’t a rumor, it wasn’t in discussions…it was done.

The Hornets’ GM, who the league gave power to make basketball decisions on behalf of the Hornets, signed off on the deal and it was submitted to the league.

It failed to go through not because of failed physicals or money. 

It was spite, and that is evident to every individual in touch with the subject.

And that is what I like to call (get ready for this)…organized karma.

To further the injustice, after the trade was pulled off the table, the Lakers were left with a disgruntled Odom, who could not fend off the side-effects of being a stubborn athlete. 

Odom allowed his “feelings” to get the best of him and cause him to make what should have been a bad decision.

But then he landed with the Dallas Mavericks! The defending champions!

Not only did the Lakers not get Paul, they lost Odom, and their strongest competition got stronger!

The NBA has done the Lakers no favors this offseason, and the league could add insult to injury by trading Paul to the Clippers. 

Now, LA is in a position of panic, at least for its standards. Going into the Christmas Day game with Fisher at point guard, across from Derrick Rose, is a travesty in itself.

Metta World Peace at small forward isn’t much better.

Never has the pressure been greater on Lakers’ GM Mitch Kupchak.

It’s time to play Santa and deliver LA the players we so greatly desire.

#losing.

I’m big on comparisons

When John Calipari, Roy Williams, and Ben Howland graced the sideline Saturday, each of their teams in action, the thoughts began to swirl.

My thoughts right now?

That will be the last time those three names will be used together in one sentence.

Saturday proved that one doesn’t belong.

In a matchup of the top teams in the nation, the Kentucky Wildcats, and the nation’s fifth-ranked team, North Carolina, which we will all realize is really the nation’s No. 2, fans were treated to exactly what they deserve.

A matchup between two heavyweight coaches, two heavyweight programs, and some heavyweight players.

Kentucky won a back-and-forth battle in a game full of future NBA-ers, playing like their lives depended on it. 

The Wildcats’ crowd was wild. Last year’s No. 1 recruit, UNC’s Harrison Barnes, brought his A-game. This year’s No. 1 recruit, Kentucky’s Anthony Davis, made potentially the game-saving block.

The game exceeded the hype. 

The game also put college basketball into perspective. 

Anybody who doesn’t believe that college basketball is about recruiting and coaching, they have no choice but to be a believer now.

I can’t remember the last time that much NBA talent has been on one college basketball floor. Both Williams and Calipari have essentially transformed their programs into NBA proving grounds, a farm system for professional basketball.

Calipari has had five top 10 NBA Draft picks since 2008, including two No. 1 picks. That is not including Enes Kanter, the No. 3 pick in the 2011 NBA Draft who was supposed to attend Kentucky last season, but was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. 

Six top five picks in three years?

Needless to say, that’s impressive.

In addition, Williams and Calipari have outlined how to be successful with what could be considered college all-star teams. Neither coach promotes a system that revolves around a “star” player, surrounded by role players. Each team has a leader, Barnes for UNC and Terrence Jones for Kentucky, but there is no inkling that either player is more valuable than his highly recruited teammates.

In short, it was two incredible performances by two storied college basketball programs.

The same can’t be said for UCLA, formerly known as the greatest college basketball school in the nation.

I’ve called out players before. I’ve said it’s the recruits.

That’s not it. 

It’s the recruiting, done by yours truly, Howland.

Am I the only one that feels like Howland’s players aren’t motivated to play for him, case in point, Reeves Nelson?

I don’t think Nelson is a great player, even worth the headache that comes with having him on your team, but I have seen him play motivated. And when he does, he’s effective.

Howland has completely lost him and I wouldn’t be surprised if he transferred at season’s end, if not before.

In Saturday’s loss to Texas, Nelson played 12 minutes. He finished the game scoreless and grabbed only three rebounds. 

Howland commented after the game that Nelson was “fatigued” and had a “mental lapse” during the game.

Why is that his fault? You’re the coach!

It’s your staff’s job to keep players in shape and make sure they don’t have mental lapses. Don’t act as if those are solely Nelson’s issues.

Another issue that UCLA seemingly can’t escape is Josh Smith’s weight.

Let me guess…all Smith’s fault?

No, Howland’s fault!

What is up with Howland’s staff? Why can’t Smith lose weight? It’s beyond him at this point, there is something wrong with the system.

Or, just maybe, Smith isn’t motivated to work hard for Howland.

Do you honestly think that Calipari or Williams wouldn’t have Smith in the best shape of his life? Better yet, do you honestly think Smith wouldn’t want to be in shape for those guys?

Howland is simply not a likable coach. He’s defense-oriented, which is never fun for college players, and he blames players for issues that he helped to create, especially with Nelson and Smith.

More players have transferred out of the UCLA program in recent years than I can ever remember. 

In fact, when have players ever transferred out of UCLA?

That’s unfathomable.

So far this year, in seven games, Howland’s team has one win over a Division I team, Pepperdine. The other victory came against Division II Chaminade.

In five other games, five double-digit losses, yesterday’s by 10 to Texas in front of 6,000 fans.

Think fans aren’t taking notice of UCLA’s declining program?

Over 24,000 fans came out to see UNC play Kentucky.

UNC versus Kentucky draws four times the amount of fans that UCLA versus Texas draws?

Neuheisel’s firing was the first step on the path to redemption.

Now, there is one more step that desperately needs to be made…

Another one bites the dust…

I’m currently in a monumental state of confusion.

My impression when I sent in my UCLA Statement of Intent to Register was that I was signing up to be a fan of a successful sports program.

Far be it for Ben Howland and Rick Neuheisel to grant my wish.

Yeah, UCLA is extremely successful in all the small sports.

But the ones on TV, the ones that the nation sees weekly, those ones have become laughable.

Not only have the UCLA basketball and football programs been unsuccessful over the past four years, they’ve been utterly embarrassing.

And in my opinion, it’s safe to say that lack of success derives from a lack of great coaching, the type that our basketball program is used to at least.

So on this Monday morning, as I learn that Rick Neuheisel is deservedly fired for his mockery of a coaching performance during his tenure at UCLA, while Ohio State lands the biggest fish in the coaching pond in Urban Meyer, my thoughts are simple.

I want a big fish.

Four years ago, UCLA faithful thought that big fish was Neuheisel. But after amassing a record of 21-28 in four seasons, with none of those 21 victories coming against USC and only one coming against a top 10 opponent, we have learned that Rick is an undeserving guppy in a deep pond.

Why don’t we get the Urban Meyer’s of the world? 

It seems that every time UCLA is on the coaching search, which is about every five years, they’re either giving someone like Neuheisel a second chance or giving a guy like Karl Dorrell his first chance.

It’s over. No more first or second or third chances.

UCLA needs ‘the real.’

When I say ‘the real,’ I mean a proven winner with a big name. Someone whose hiring sends shockwaves throughout the nation. Someone that we can sign up to pay money we don’t have because we know they are going to generate money unforeseen in UCLA football history.

That last idea may be a bit of a stretch, but can you feel the drama in my sentences?

UCLA can’t afford to make another mistake when choosing its next coach. The program, more than anything, needs stability, and stability comes from winning.

Period.

You win, you keep your job.

You win, you garner respect.

You win, kids want to play for you.

Winning solves everything, and UCLA has a boatload of problems in desperate need of solving. 

I don’t care if Matt Barkley and USC are the best team in the world, losing 50-0 to your crosstown rivals, the university that has access to the same recruits that you do, is not only embarrassing, its horrifying.

That game was so bad that UCLA should forfeit its default appearance in the Pac-12 championship game. They don’t deserve to be there and furthermore, Oregon might win 100-0.

There I go with the exaggerations again.

UCLA should look to the NFL to for its next hire. I doubt they’ll be able to pluck any big names within the college ranks. 

Names that come to mind are John Calipari, Coach K, Phil Jackson…wait, that’s basketball!

My wires are all crossed!

I must say, it’s easy to confuse Neuheisel with Howland these days.

UCLA football has never been considered an elite level program, but basketball has been considered the most elite for decades.

Howland is doing his part to negate that vision of the UCLA basketball program.

I will admit, after a shaky start last season, Howland and the Bruins were able to put together a decent end to the season. They lost a game they shouldn’t have lost in the first round of the Pac-10 tournament, but they did make it to the NCAA tournament and win a game before losing to Michigan State.

The problem is, that’s not good enough for UCLA.

I’ve always thought, from an unbiased perspective, that John Wooden transcended college basketball, meaning his accomplishments lie outside the normal realm of college basketball.

Despite John Wooden’s 10 NCAA championships, UCLA has won one title since 1975. 

That’s 36 years.

Truly elite programs don’t win one title every 36 years, which is why the unbiased part of my brain believes schools like Duke, which I despise, have far surpassed UCLA on the college basketball totem pole.

The unbiased part of my brain believes that.

But as they say, there are two parts to every brain.

I don’t know who, but somebody says that.

My biased brain still has UCLA at the top of the college heap, but the Bruins status will continue to decline as long as Howland is in charge.

UCLA is 1-4 this season, including losses to Loyola Marymount and Middle Tennessee State, which is a good team, but should never beat UCLA in basketball.

The other two losses came against Kansas and Michigan, both of which are good, ranked teams. 

But every loss, even against LMU and MTST. has been by at least 11 points.

They lost to MTST. by 20!

What’s going wrong here?

You could say it’s our players, and I would agree totally.

But it’s not Lazeric Jones’ fault he’s the starting point guard, Howland recruited him.

In no sport are coaches more responsible for the team they assemble than in college basketball.

Look at Coach Cal at Kentucky. He gets the best players every year, every time. That program will never be down as long as he is there.

That can’t be said about Howland, which makes no sense, considering UCLA essentially sells itself. 

Come play basketball at UCLA, the most storied university in all of college basketball, based in the sunniest place in America.

Oh yeah, and we’re one of the best schools in the country.

What am I missing? Why aren’t we getting the best recruiting classes every year?

People always say, “Well, Howland took UCLA to three straight Final Fours.”

True, and that’s remarkable.

But let’s be clear, some of those players were recruited by Steve Lavin, not Ben Howland.

Kevin Love, although one of Howland’s recruits, chose to come to UCLA rather than being convinced, as it was well-known that Love had always wanted to come to Westwood prior to Howland’s arrival.

Howland did land Russell Westbrook, but did anybody really anticipate Westbrook being this good?

We didn’t see the Westbrook we see now when he was at UCLA. I’m inclined to believe Howland got lucky in that situation, as I’m inclined to believe luck played a big part in Howland’s Final Four trips.

That was undoubtedly more about the players and less about the coach, because since then, a trip to the Final Four has been a wish more than an expectation.

Now, not only is UCLA not getting the best players, the players they do get are either not as good as advertised or they’re transferring.

Did anyone catch that UNLV-North Carolina game the other night? The one where Chase Stanback had 28 points and 10 rebounds, and Mike Moser had 16 points and 18 rebounds?

Both former UCLA players, both of whom transferred.

Some big decisions need to be made surrounding both the UCLA football and basketball programs.

The players don’t look happy, the alumni aren’t happy, and the fans aren’t happy.

I hope UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero takes notice of what’s happening, because if not, people will turn their attention to him shortly.

My attention is already there.

And the winner is…

And to think, I actually told my brother to TiVo last night’s UFC fight.

It was must-see TV, so of course, I missed it. But, my plan was to whip out the old “don’t tell me what happened” line on anyone who even mentioned the fight before I saw it.

That morning, my thoughts were precise. I was immovable.

This is it, the coming-out party for our newest national treasure. People are going to see what I mean when I say UFC has superseded boxing.

As it turns out, Saturday evening was nothing more than a reiteration that mixed martial arts, in all its glory and all its might, will never reach boxing’s plateau.

Not in popularity. Not in excitement. Not in this lifetime.

Saturday was an evening of huge proportions for the UFC, and regardless of UFC president Dana White saying that Saturday’s Heavyweight Championship fight delivered, the only thing it did was give the sport the black eye it so hoped to avoid.

There could have been worse scenarios for the UFC. Cain Velasquez or Junior dos Santos could have gotten injured and no fight could have happened at all. 

The fight could have went five rounds and been a complete snoozer.

The worst scenario would have been a gruesome KO to end the fight, the kind where you knock a guy out and his body goes rigid.

But mixed in that bunch of negative scenarios is certainly the one that came about.

A 64-second fight?

Not good for a multitude of reasons.

Most importantly, the people who have never seen a UFC fight, the people who were using Saturday’s broadcast as their initial test run, they were left to say, “That’s it?”

As the enthusiastic and passionate UFC fan, I get it. I understand that when these guys step in the ring, the fight can potentially be over before either guy breaks a sweat. I’ve seen it countless times and am aware that that’s the nature of the beast.

But if I weren’t as passionate, and I looked down on the brutal sport, as many people in America do, last night just proved my point. 

It’s a caged bar fight between guys who are 80 percent in shape that requires no real technical or God-given ability.

If the UFC wanted to do itself a favor and attract fans, put the Anderson Silva-Chael Sonnen rematch on Fox.

Now I know that’s a huge moneymaker that the promotion is justifiably unwilling to give away for free, but that match will represent the art at its finest. That match will show the nation what the sport is really about.

Cain Velasquez is good, but he’s coming off of a long layoff due to a shoulder injury. To put him in there with a guy like Junior dos Santos on national television was a bad decision if the company was looking to promote itself.

When you want to promote yourself, you provide your best product. The UFC failed at that and gave the naysayers a reason to continue saying nay.

Oh, and it didn’t help that one of the best boxing matches of the year took place about an hour after that UFC dud. 

The UFC took a huge risk in showing that fight the same night as a Manny Pacquiao fight, and it hurt the UFC in a bad way.

I would hate to say Dana White is getting full of himself, but Dana White is getting full of himself. 

Never again do I want to see Mr. White allude to the idea that his sport can compete with the original combat sport, because it simply cannot.

Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez proved what boxing is about last night, and that’s two guys fighting with pride.

Skill, which both men possess an abundance of, was an afterthought in that fight. Those dudes were fighting for pride, and that’s what made it a great match.

Velasquez and dos Santos are the two guys at the top of the division, so it’s logical to pair them up, but that’s where the buck stops. The fight didn’t really hold any weight.

When you watch a Pacquiao fight, you feel something. Whether you want him to win or lose, you feel an excitement that MMA doesn’t provide.

ESPN put things into perspective just last week when they polled the nation with a question regarding megafights.

Would people rather see Anderson Silva vs. Georges St. Pierre, or Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao?

That means would you rather see the best that MMA has to offer duke it out, or the best that boxing has to offer.

Laughable. 

The truth is that boxers will always garner more respect when it comes to skill than MMA fighters. 

MMA guys might earn the edge in respect for toughness, but then there is a guy like Chris Leben, who you begin to think is more crazy than tough.

Is Chris Leben tougher than say, Bernard Hopkins, a guy who’s kind of crazy in his own right?

I think not.

This fight deal between the UFC and Fox has gotten off to a dastardly start, which puts pressure on the promotion to deliver in its next live effort.

The UFC will continue to grow and gain more fans regardless, but if it ever wants to seriously compete with the sport of boxing, it’s going to take more than 64 seconds to prove its worthy.

Oh, and Marquez won that fight!

what we talkin’ bout?

I’m sickened. 

This is one of the most surreal episodes I’ve seen in news history, not just sports history.

What’s the worst part about it?

The kids who were victimized in this episode are the least of people’s worries.

To see thousands of Penn State students rioting in defense of Joe Paterno is nothing short of appalling. I understand that Paterno is considered a God in his community, which encompasses the state of Pennsylvania, but have these students really grasped what happened under his watch?

They couldn’t have.

I mean, what are the worst crimes known to society? 

Murder and…this. 

A few others make the short list, but molesting children? There are no words to describe the extent of that act.

And it happened under Joe Paterno’s watch. Under his regime. He hired the perpetrator. He knew about it. He didn’t do anything about it.

Joe had to go.

One young girl, during last night’s riot, was quoting as saying, “Joe Paterno is Penn State football.”

Guess what else he is?

An accomplice to sexual child abuse.

I’m aware that Paterno touched the lives of thousands and thousands of students and players. I’m aware that Penn State football isn’t what it is today without him. 

But I’m more aware that the lives of those molested children aren’t what they are today if Paterno successfully accomplishes his moral obligations, aside from football.

Football?

That’s not even an afterthought. 

Here people are saying that Paterno should be able to finish the season or coach one last game.

Are people forgetting that Jim Tressel was fired because he knew that Terrelle Pryor was selling jerseys and accepting free tattoos and Tressel didn’t say anything about it?

That’s what Tressel was fired for.

Paterno was privy to child molestation!

Coaches are fired for losing football games.

Paterno was aware that children were being assaulted!

This is an open and shut case that should have never been opened. 

He should be able to coach one last game? There shouldn’t even be a game. In fact, the NCAA should consider imposing a death penalty on Penn State football.

That’s how abhorrent this episode is.

Yet, what are we talking about?

Was Paterno given his proper due? Should they have given him the respect of firing him in person, not over the phone? What about all the things he’s done for the university?

Were those kids treated with respect? Did Paterno perform his due diligence in controlling his regime? What about what he didn’t do for the children and the university?

Penn State students, this isn’t a Stephen King novel. You’re not living in a dome that shuts you off from reality.

Think outside of yourself and the university you’ve come to love. The same university where kids were being molested in showers.

The season should be canceled, at the least. In my opinion, if USC is on probation for players accepting money, Penn State should receive 100 times the penalty for committing an actual crime, the most heinous of crimes.

This wasn’t an NCAA violation, this is a violation of human life.

This is essentially taking someone’s life without killing them.

But all people are concerned about is if Paterno was treated fairly.

Above all else, this is a terrible reflection on society. To refer to Paterno’s inexplicable behavior as a “mistake” is a slap in the face to the over 15 kids who didn’t make a mistake, yet paid the price.

Save the riots for when they hike your student fees or when you get spanked by Ohio State.

Don’t disrespect the livelihood of those who will feel the effects of this scandal for the rest of their lives simply because you want to say you were part of a “cause.”

This isn’t a cause. This is a travesty, and anyone supporting Paterno could be called the same.

innovators, please!

If Steve Jobs taught us anything, it’s that one spark of the imagination can alter the course of reality.

Unfortunately, there are no Steve Jobs’ available to the NBA.

I guess you can say the lack of a Jobs has created a lack of jobs.

After meeting for what seems to be the 100th time, eclipsing their 1,000th consecutive hour of negotiations, the NBA and the players’ union are basically inept in coming to some form of agreement.

That means millions of fans are left without the game that they love. It also means that thousands of NBA employees are left without work, and that’s not including the few hundred players who will be missing out on the hefty paychecks that they’ve become accustomed to receiving.

My sympathy certainly does not lie with them.

My sympathy lies with the people from guest services, the concessions stands, the trainers, even the little boy whose dream it is to be a ball boy.

My sympathy also doesn’t lie with the multimillionaire owners who for some odd reason think they deserve more money than they are currently earning. 

Regardless if whether their team is losing money or not, you were rich before you acquired your largest investment. Greed is at the base of their argument, not that they’re in any danger of going broke.

Get out of here.

However, I do empathize with the NBA and players’ association as a whole.

Go on, ask me why…

Because as a whole, they are completely devoid of any semblance of an innovative mind.

You see, there are three options to choose from when a company runs into a work stoppage: the employees get what they want, the bosses get what they want, or someone thinks of the unthinkable.

A perfect example is the most recent NFL lockout, in which the players lost badly.

But in the players’ eyes, it was better to play having lost than to sit and possibly win, but probably still lose. 

In the case of the NBA lockout, there are two major factors that are separating the two parties: the revenue split and the salary-cap system.

The owners want a 50-50 revenue split. The players want 52.5 percent of revenue.

They can’t agree.

The owners want a hard salary-cap system, but are willing to ease up on that demand if they get a 50-50 revenue split. 

The players will not allow a hard salary-cap or a 50-50 split, therefore, they can’t agree.

So what’s left?

They brought in the same mediator that assisted with the NFL lockout, but he was unable to resolve the problem because no party was willing to lose.

So again, what’s left?

Remember that thought about the unthinkable? 

That’s all that is left. Someone has to come up with the unthinkable. Someone has to develop a new idea that changes the way the league and the players think. 

Their current way of thinking has led them to a dead-end with apparently irreconcilable differences.

I will commend the players for thinking somewhat outside of the box. Going to play overseas and this recent worldwide tour, set to include some of the league’s brightest stars, is a unique way to put pressure on the owners.

The problem is outside the country isn’t the ‘outside the box’ thinking needed to appease loyal fans inside the US.

Deserting your fans isn’t the way to solve the lockout.

Try again!

There are several basic options that the league has, yet are afraid to act upon, the most obvious being contraction.

Yes, contraction. Abolishing franchises that can’t seem to have success.

In the real world, because the NBA has to be a fantasy world where millionaires argue over extra millions, when a business isn’t turning a profit, they shut down.

That’s right; you go buy one of those ‘Going out of business’ banners, tell your employees that you’re sorry and to start looking elsewhere, and you sell everything in your possession for $5.50 plus tax.

Simple.

Why any different with the NBA?

What’s funny to me is that the richest franchises, the Knicks, Lakers, Mavericks, and a few others, their owners just want this thing settled. They’re making their money.

They want their business to stay open.

Why should their business suffer because the other franchises suffer? 

Sure, they have more money and can afford better players, but in what sect of the world do the richest companies not have the most benefits? I’m clueless as to why the franchises losing money are the ones driving the lockout. 

Why isn’t the NBA backing its breadwinners? Why does Starbucks have to suffer because Tony’s Coffee isn’t pushing its coffee beans?

Wait, bad analogy. I forgot that in January of this year, the average NBA team was worth $369 million, according to Forbes.

I wouldn’t say that’s suffering.

Certainly, not all teams are as rich as others, but that’s the way of the world. And if those teams have that much of a problem with it, don’t try to change the system.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Owners feel that if the salary cap is hard, that they will have a better chance to land better players and even up the competition in the league, as well as earn more money. 

But Golden State is the 12th most valuable franchise in the league, a team that hasn’t won in ages and has no legitimate superstars.

So these owners need to realize that a lot of it has to do with the basketball market in their city.

The least valuable franchise in the league is the Milwaukee Bucks. Among the bottom-feeders are the Minnesota Timberwolves, Sacramento Kings, and Memphis Grizzlies.

Would anyone really miss those teams if they were to close up shop? 

I bet the argument that “it’s for the betterment of the league” wouldn’t fly if the NBA pushed those teams to call it quits. So why does that argument fly as far as revenue-sharing and the salary cap?

This could be the worst idea in the world, but frankly, at this point, I bet that NBA fans would regard it as the best. That’s how frustrated fans are with the incompetence of the players and the league.

Bring in Bill Gates. Bring in president Obama. Bring in someone with no bias and brain cells to spare.

It seems to me those currently involved in the fray are brainless.

Skip Base-less?

I’ve heard his opinion enough.

It’s time for me to give an opinion on him.

I’ve watched the progression, or transgression, of ESPN2’s morning glory, currently entitled First Take, since its former identity as Cold Pizza.

First Take got its start as somewhat of a sports variety show, incorporating special guests from across the athletic landscape, both athletes and writers. But as the show has transformed over the past few years, inviting in musical artists and YouTube sensations, one aspect has remained constant.

The debate desk.

Now, the debate desk didn’t also go by its current moniker. There used to be a segment of the show entitled 1st and 10, which revolved around the personality that is Skip Bayless.

1st and 10 incorporated 10 daily sports topics, each of which would produce a lot of yelling and hand movement from Skip and his opponent.

Still, there were other aspects of the First Take program.

But as of recently, it seems the show has yet again taken on another identity altogether.

Allow me to introduce you to “The Skip Bayless Show.”

Albeit a joke, there is no denying that First Take has taken over the identity of its front-running persona, Mr. Bayless. No longer are there a number of segments. The show is entirely centered on Skip and his debating.

And if there is a separate portion of the show, Skip is involved with it.

Bayless’s qualities include bashing LeBron James, defending Tim Tebow as if Tebow were his own flesh and blood, and showing an undying loyalty to Tony Romo and the Oklahoma Sooners.

But just as the reaction to questions of affinity for sports figures like Kobe Bryant and Floyd Mayweather Jr., there are minimal areas of grey when it comes to expressing one’s fondness of Bayless.

You love the guy, hate the guy, or, you can maintain one of those wimpy love-hate relationship numbers.

Unfortunately, the latter fits me suitably.

But in most conversations I have concerning Bayless, I become aware of a strong judgment either way. Conveniently enough, my father is a fan of Skip’s and my brother is not.

And I can develop arguments to back both viewpoints.

Those in support of Bayless would more than likely argue that Skip earns respect with his consistency.

Regardless of the apparent absurdity that accompanies a number of Bayless’s viewpoints, Bayless never backpedals from his opinions. He stands by his thoughts and in most cases, is unwavering.

Strength of mind is to be admired, and Bayless is wealthy in that department.

Bayless is also fierce and fearless. He challenges other debaters, whether they are athletes, TV personalities, or journalists, possibly more than they’ve ever been verbally challenged before.

He is not afraid to put himself on the line to prove a point, or go up against those that may have more knowledge than him in a specific field.

Admirable.

But where the problem lies is that Bayless’s strengths can also be considered his weaknesses.

As far as his consistency, Bayless will stand by a personal view, regardless whether that view has been all but categorically disproved. In turn, it gets to a point where Bayless risks sounding foolish in order to remain consistent, instead of admitting defeat.

Pride may be admirable in the eyes of some, but not many.

As far as fearlessness and ferocity, Bayless is unable to temper either in lieu of circumstances. It wouldn’t surprise me if Skip approached an argument over wide receivers with Jerry Rice the same way he would approach an argument with a child concerning arithmetic.

He often fails in adapting his debate strategy for each specific debate. I find it hard to take Bayless seriously when arguing football with a professional football player.

Even if he made strong points, it is impossible for Bayless to have the insight that a professional athlete maintains.

Then, unfortunately, there comes the almighty issue: race.

What I do admire about Bayless is the fact that racial issues do not strike fear within him. I’ve seen him approach issues involving the perception of the black athlete in comparison to the white athlete very eloquently.

I’ve even seen him turn the table a few times.

One frequent debater, Rob Parker, joined the debate desk one morning, amidst the period of Brett Favre’s retirement and subsequent return.

Parker, a black sportswriter, railed on Favre for his indecision and egotism.

Instead of defending Favre, whom he greatly admires, Bayless used a different approach.

He asked Parker if there was something about a white guy from Mississippi who is the star of Wrangler Jean commercials that just doesn’t sit well with the common black guy. If there was something about Favre’s look, his demeanor, his scruffy beard, his country accent, that wasn’t endearing to the black man.

Parker admitted that Skip had a point.

By no means is Bayless a fool. He is intelligent and has a way with words.

But, and there is always a ‘but,’ I can’t help but think about race in a number of debate topics that cross the desk.

Never have I considered Skip a racist, not in the least bit. But what I have considered is if the argument Skip made to Rob could be used against Skip as well.

Case in point: LeBron James.

I think a majority of people in tune with First Take would agree that Skip Bayless is the largest detractor of an athlete, James, since as long as most people can remember.

Rarely does an episode pass without Skip making a negative reference towards LeBron.

But is there something about a young, rich, tattooed, somewhat flamboyant black athlete that just doesn’t sit well with the common white guy, such as Skip?

The argument goes both ways.

Skip rails on James for coming up short in big games and not performing in the playoffs, yet Bayless is the biggest fan of Tony Romo.

Anybody paid attention to Romo’s career? Safe to say it has been full of disappointment, particularly in big games?

Now, Romo has not referred to himself as “King Romo,” nor does he possess the ability in his craft that LeBron possesses in his. But if Skip’s argument is that he has nothing personal against James, that he bases his argument solely on his performance, how can he justify loving Romo, who is just as much a victim to failure?

Well, Romo is essentially a Favre clone, and a country boy who plays for the Dallas Cowboys, Skip’s favorite team.

I can’t help but see bias in that.

Bayless loves Tebow, who has started four NFL games, amassing a record of 1-3. Yet, LeBron has taken his team to two NBA Finals, has two MVP’s, scoring championships, All-Star MVP’s, and so much more.

Bayless won’t budge. Yet he’s sold on Tebow.

Skip needs work in some areas of his persona. Right now, he is a fad. He is what’s hot. He’s taken First Take and turned it into must-see TV.

But sooner than later, his popularity is going to run its course. His bashing of LeBron and continuous baseless arguments are going to wear thin.

And instead of tuning in, I’ll be Skip-ping the channel.

He is…

It took me awhile to gather all my thoughts on Saturday’s fight.

I knew before I sat down and expressed my thoughts, I should have at least three heated conversations with the fan of Victor Ortiz (synonymous with the despiser of Floyd Mayweather), acting as the Mayweather apologist.

I felt I had to have these conversations, considering there is rarely a grey area when it comes to Money Mayweather. I seldom run across the person who describes their feelings towards Mayweather with a shoulder shrug or any expression of indifference.

People love him or they hate him.

I happen to love him. His skill in the ring is unmatched.

But the discussion surrounding Mayweather, especially after Saturday’s soiree, now becomes more focused on respect.

We respect his skill, but do we respect him?

The question has become difficult. If ever my nephews expressed an interest in boxing, I would put on a Mayweather highlight tape.

But would I be forced to turn it off the second he opens his mouth to speak?

It’s a difficult question to answer, considering his prowess in the ring seems to have some connection to his demeanor outside of the ring.

He’s an asshole, undoubtedly. But how does his character play into his physical ability?

We learned Saturday that a lot of who Mayweather is away from the canvas square, makes its way into the ring.

Saturday was not a boxing match as much as it was a chapter. It was an interview. It was a moment to learn more about the most polarizing figure in sports today. 

Unfortunately for Victor Ortiz, he served as a small character in a biography yet to reach completion.

What are the two sides of the argument that have swirled around the nation for the past 48 hours?

One argument says Ortiz should have protected himself at all times while in the ring. The same argument says Ortiz got what he deserved head-butting Mayweather so viciously and inexplicably.

The other argument is that Floyd closed his most recent chapter in cheap fashion, as he decked an unassuming and helpless Ortiz. Some would say Floyd is better than that, that he did not win admirably.

I happen to agree with the former. Floyd has a legacy to protect, as well as a fight with Manny Pacquiao. Yes, he was winning clearly. But this is boxing. One punch could end everything, and that is not a risk Floyd wanted to or should have taken.

If the ref says fight, you fight. 

Floyd did. Ortiz did not. 

It was a rookie mistake that cost him against a veteran with bad intentions.

But each argument has valid points. The issue that interests me is why there is such a heated argument in the first place.

It was a huge boxing match. Every fight of Floyd’s is grandiose to say the least. But when I play role reversal in my head, Floyd head-butting Ortiz, then getting knocked out, I can’t help but feel the public would be happy.

Floyd got what he deserved.

Why is that?

That question is rhetorical. We all know why, and the answer is because Floyd is an asshole.

I would hope that no one is surprised that Mayweather punched a distracted Ortiz. If you’ve ever seen an episode of HBO’s 24/7, you know that Floyd is a selfish person, concerned solely with his success.

And that’s his prerogative. He’s in a one man sport, earning tens of millions of dollars annually.

His team caters to him. He’s the meal ticket.

In his world, it’s his world.

If you saw the Shane Mosley fight, you would know that Floyd will hit those who are not ready, just as he punched Shane in the face during the middle rounds as Shane tried to apologize.

I’m confused as to why people expect more out of Floyd, when outside of the ring, he does not portray himself as some positive community figure. 

Never has.

I mean, he was onstage, in the club, burning $100 bills. What makes people think he wouldn’t punch a guy looking the other way, as long as it was legal?

What makes people think that he wouldn’t say to an 80-year old guy, “You ain’t shit!”

I’ve been able to maintain my fandom for Floyd for the simple fact that I know who he is. I don’t expect positivity to spew out of his mouth. I expect foul language, abrasiveness, and cockiness.

And personally, foul language, abrasiveness, and cockiness, make me laugh.

I would not be a fan of Floyd if he portrayed himself differently on different occasions. That would be fake to me.

He is who he is, 100 percent of the time. In the ring. Outside of the ring.

Is that arguable? 

Yet another rhetorical question.