I've Got Another Confession To Make

I think Zac Efron is awesome.

Is it weird for a 35 year old dude to think that? Probably, but I don't care because I think he has the potential to be a great actor.

Many of you probably don't know much about Zac other than 12 year old girls really like him. My adult female readers (and I would hope all two of my female readers are adults because I'm not too sure my rants apply to Miley Cyrus fans) probably hate Zac Efron and think that he is far too effeminate to be considered good looking and that he is more pretty than sexy. But have you ever happened to see the guy a) act or b) in an interview?!? Because if you haven't, he's great in both. I'm serious.

I first saw Zac on a random episode of The Jimmy Kimmel Show two years ago (this is what you do as a teacher in the summer... Stay up late and watch TV, usually while drinking) and like any adult, I said to myself "Isn't this that High School Musical tool?!? And what's up with his hair?!?"

But then Zac started talking. And I found him extremely likable. He had this great self deprecating sense of humor, while also seeming quite bright and thankful of his superstardom. I remember him saying that while fans can get out of hand, they are always great and he really enjoys them. He described to Jimmy how he had not had any negative run ins and that people were very respectful of him. So after listening to twenty minutes of Zac Efron, I came to the conclusion that everything I thought about him was wrong and from there, I developed a secret liking for all things Zac.

Like a 12 year old girl, I then started tracking (only occassionally- nothing Pittish or Clooneyesque here) Zac. I would read about him when one of my students brought in a Teen Beat. I would keep TMZ on when I saw him parading around with his hottie (although poorly shaven) little girlfriend. I watched his Ellen appearance on YouTube and even paid attention to the VMAs long enough to see him present. And every time I saw him, I liked him more and more.

And it all came to a head this week when I went over to YouTube to watch the Yeah Yeah Yeahs on SNL and who did I see was hosting the show? My boy Zac. So, like watching the Headline News sports ticker back in college (we had to do this for betting purposes as there was no internet or constant score updates anywhere else) and getting hooked by a story of a grizzly bear attack, I got hooked by Zac when I should have been watching the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. And again he was awesome. He was self deprecating, while at the same time being extremely likable and bright. And where else did Zac show up this week? Why Letterman of course. Did I watch it? Of course. Was he awesome? Yes he was.

So, I'm officially out of the closet. I'm a Zac Efron fan. A big one. And you should be too because he is both talented and likable, yet not fake likable. He is, in fact, not a tool.

Like many easy targets, it is not difficult to hate on Zac Efron. In fact, it is pathetically easy. It always bothered me when, in my mid twenties, people my age would hate on boy bands. I mean, really, how hard is that? As a recent stuffwhitepeople post said, agreeing to hate something is easy and what is easier to hate than a group of five guys who rose to musical stardom without playing an instrument or toiling in clubs trying to get that record deal? Hating on Lance Bass and Nick Carter was as easy as hating on ARod. Of course *Nsync and Backstreet Boys sucked and of course they were going to last as long as parachute pants, but if you say you didn't keep "I Want It That Way", "Backstreet's Back", or "Dirty Pop" on when they came on in your car and you were alone, then you're just a big fat liar.

And the same goes for Zac Efron. Hating him is the 2009 version of hating The Backstreet Boys. But I'm here to tell you that if you hate him, then you are stupid because really, you know nothing about him.

Think about it. He hasn't gotten into any trouble publicy. No Chris Brown slaps, no Shia LaBouf DUIs, no Britney head shavings. He doesn't think he is important or anything bigger than he is like Tobey Maguire or Val Kilmer did in their youth (and I loved Val back in the day). But at the same time, he doesn't try to put off a squeaky clean, I'm-really-likable-even-though-this-is-so-forced image like Kobe Bryant does. In the words of one of my least favorite humans, he is what he is. And what he is is pretty damn likeable, without seeming like he is just strictly "a nice guy." He might actually bring something to the table.

Will his career amount to Kirk Cameron's or Fred Savage's? Maybe, but the heat he is taking for not taking a "deeper" role than the one he is taking for his new film 17 Again is just plain stupid and ignorant. Know all those "serious" actors you love these days like Sean Penn and Tom Hanks? Always remember that they were Spicoli and a dude in love with a mermaid. Leonardo DiCaprio was in Critters 3 and Matt Damon was just your bigoted high school bully in School Ties before he was Jason Bourne.

Careers sometimes take time and they sometimes fail, but I'm here to say Zac's won't. He has the talent and likability to do good things and he is picking roles that work well for him. 17 Again, while not French Cinema, is a good in between move at this time in his career. He is stepping away from his High School Musical chracter andt popping up in a somewhat lewd (by critics acoounts) PG-13 comedy. This will keep his fan base happy and maybe turn him on to a few new fans who will think that he can actually act. Remember, Tom Hanks got a Best Actor nomination for his role in Big and Judge Reinhold got rave reviews for his role in Vice Versa. If Zac can pull this off a little bit, it will open some new doors for him. And from there he can take his Shakespeare in Love or Requiem For A Dream (he actually reminds me a lot of Jared Leto, only without the god awful band) role and become that "serious" guy that people so desperately want him to be. He just seems too smart to pick bad roles and he's definitely talented enough to be offered some really great ones.

So best of luck Zac. I'll be rooting for you because I like you and because you'll prove me to be one, wise sage if you are successful. Oh, and if you happen to read this when you come across this blog after google searching yourself, can you put in a good word for me with your hottie GF? I bet she'd like me if she met me.

Thanks kid.

Do the Red Sox Stink?

I know I sound like a cross between Shaugnessy, Lobel, and every chuckah Red Sox fan pre-Dave Roberts steal of second, but this team has holes. In the words of Chucky, I don't know much, but I know that. And I do have a history of calling these things as evidenced by my Rays blog last year before the All Star Break. I took heat for that, but it turns out I was right (what's that thing about the sun shining on a dog's ass every once in awhile?).

But I know what you're saying. "That was eighty games big mouth, not seven."

And you're right. It has been only seven games. But I've got to say. I already see this thing going badly. I do. And I have the history to back it up because this stuff happens all the time in baseball. Rewind to the 2008 pre-season and think what was written about a team that pushed the World Champs to seven games in the ALCS just six months before.

The league was talking about a team that could be a potential dynasty. This team had two young studs at the front of their rotation, a bopping designated hitter with a cool nickname, a five tool centerfielder, a bunch of solid 5,6,7 hitters who could jack 20 homers a piece, and they had a bullpen that had a bunch of fireballers. Oh, this team also happened to have a catcher who could hit .300 with 25 homers and 100 RBI, something this current version of the Red Sox definitely doesn't have.

That team was The Cleveland Indians. And by the end of the year, one of their young stud starters (CC Sabathia) was gone, the other (Fausto Carmona) was walking more people per game than Matt Young, their bopping DH (Travis Hafner) cool nickname (Pronk) hit .197, their five tool center fielder (Grady Sizemore) was striking out too much and hitting below .270, some of their middle tier boppers bopped (Johnny Peralata)... But other's did not (Asdrubal Cabrera), their bullpen was in disarray and that catcher? He hit two home runs. I know this because he led my pretend baseball team to a second to last place finish.

While the Indians did not tank (they finished 81-81), they were certainly considered a disappointment and when I saw them late in the year on the MLB Network, I did not see a lot of Pink Indian Hats sitting in the bleachers. Instead, I saw a lot of seats that were unfilled. And this exact thing can happen to the Red Sox because well... This thing happens in baseball. A lot.

Sometimes, no matter what the match ups look like on paper, they just don't translate to the field. Be it a rash of injuries, bad chemistry, untimely hitting, or just untimely luck, these things can happen. And right here, on April 14th, I am telling you it is going to happen to the Red Sox. Here's why.

1. Ortiz Might Be Done: Be it a clicking in the wrist, age, weight, no Manny, or a combination of all of those things, Ortiz is not what he once was. Again, there is a history of this in baseball from Cecil Fielder to Mo Vaughn to Greg Vaughn. Big, power hitting, lumbering first base types don't fade away, they burn out. Ortiz is clearly not the same guy he was two years ago and even then, did any of us believe it was going to last?!? When he carried the Red Sox through the 2004 post season and then hit 54 homers after that, I STILL didn't think he was a good player. I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop and while he proved me wrong for three years, I'm here to tell you that the other shoe has officially dropped.

2. Jon Lester Strikes No fear In Me Because He Has Absolutely No Out Pitch: I love Jon Lester. I really do. But even when he was dominating last year, didn't you always say, "how is he doing this?" Granted Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine did the exact same thing as both are first ballot Hall of Famers, but Lester just doesn't do it for me and it is because he isn't that dominating guy. He'll likely prove me wrong and probably have a phenomenal big league career, but these seasons happen to even really good pitchers. Andy Pettitte (who might be a Lester clone- not a bad thing by the way) burst onto the scene and had a sub 3.80 ERA in his first four years (in a hitters era). He then threw up a 4.70 ERA in his fifth year. Not because he's bad, but because this stuff happens and it could happen to Lester this year.

3a. We In Boston Way Overrate Our Young Guys And These Particular Young Guys Might Have Some Problems: No matter how cute you think they are or how much you hate Julio Lugo, Jacoby Ellsbury might not be that good and Jed Lowrie certainly isn't that good. Ellsbury is the type of exciting player all baseball fans love, but he is not an on base machine and the power certainly isn't there right now. He may be good and I want him to be awesome, but similar leadoff hitters like Hanley Ramirez, Johnny Damon, Jose Reyes, and Carlos Beltran were all better at Ellsbury's age and certainly had better tools than Jacoby does. He might just be what he is... A slap hitter with great speed who will run down balls in center. He will likely be closer to Dave Roberts and Darren Lewis than Johnny Damon. And Lowrie? Stop it people. He's a utility guy. The clutch doubles were nice when he first came up last year but he cooled off and water seeks it's level. Pedroia he is not.


3b. What's The Backup Plan When These Guys Tank?:Nick Green (while super dreamy ladies... Check him out to the right) and Rocco "I can't play two days in a row" Baldelli? Ouch!

4. Pedroia and Paps Can't Keep This Up: Aagain, they could be Craig Biggio and Mariano Rivera and walk into the Hall of Fame twenty years from now, but like Lester, baseball doesn't allow for flawless careers. What's Pedroia's ceiling?!? Can he be better than last year? I say no way. He can be as good, but you need good players around you. And Paps? With the exception of a few closers (Rivera, Hoffman, Wagner), these guys can't do it for even three straight years. Playoff hero and team MVP Brad Lidge of last years World Champs lost his job several times before regaining it last year. Again, I'll likely be wrong, but I'm just saying.

5. Bay, Drew, and Lowell: Remember those middle tier Indian guys I said COULD hit 25 bombs and drive in 90? Well, they could also play 150 games and hit .236 with 8 homers (Don't believe me? Go to baseball-refernce.com, type in Mike Lowell, scroll down to his 2005 year). For a team to win, guys like this have to play well SIMULTANEOUSLY. If just one plays well and the other two don't, it becomes a major problem. They are certainly all solid players and CAN have great years, but one guy is coming off major hip surgery, one is playing his first full year in a new league, and the other has a... How should I put this..? History? This trio doesn't worry me as much as some of the others, but they are certainly not Hall of Famers.

6. Daisuke: He's my favorite player on the Sox, but there is no way he gets the league to go 0-16 with the bases loaded as he did last year. And not to get too basbeall statistic technical, but the statistics say that a pitcher cannot put as many men on base and get out of as many jams as he did last year. For those of you less statistically savvy, I'll use these two words: Hideo Nomo.

7. The Red Sox Have The Least Frightening Bunch Of Supposed Superstars I've Ever Seen On A Team Picked By Many To Go To The World Series: They need an intimidator like Chewie out there. For real. Okay seriously, I know what the statistics say. And I love statistics. I know that Youkilis and Pedroia are awesome. And Beckett too. But for some reason, no one on this team instills the utmost confidence in me. No one's at bat or start is an event. If I were dating a Yankee fan (actually, I am!), I would tell them to be scared of NO ONE on this team. I know that a lot of them are young and will have a chance to develop that pedigree and I also know that workman like "teams" from the Twins to the Angels have produced winners, but who on this team would you want up at bat or on the mound in a "must" situation? There is no Pedro in his prime or Pujols or 2004 Papi or 1989 Dave Stewart on this team. In fact, there isn't even a Josh Hamilton or an A-Rod (shut up people... He's carried teams before). There are just a bunch of... Really boring guys who at the end of the year may wind up winning 81 games. And that's not good enough.

Or, they will win 96, capture the East, and roll on into The World Series as the anti-2004 Idiots.

And maybe that's part of my problem.

I had The Idiots. I want The Idiots. I need The Idiots. I love The Idiots.

Because not only does this team bore me, but I think they have the potential to be boring and to suck.

Not a good combination.

You Had Me At Hello

I mean that seriously Boston Globe. You really did have me the second I met you.

Half the reason I write is because of The Boston Globe, specifically their sports section. I'm not sure when I began reading The Globe as I'm sure I had to be a bit older, but I can clearly remember the Sunday baseball notes section written by Peter Gammons was the first in the history of my required readings. We'll get back to Gammons in a second, but before that, a few other thoughts.

There are those older than me that absolutely shudder at the thought of the Boston institution known as The Globe potentially being shut down. But for those of us right around my middle aged 35 years, it is equally devastating.

If you are 32-40, you are a media tweener like me. I text, I read all sorts of online publications, IMDb has literally changed my life (I know no longer have to scroll through the credits to who sang a catchy song I loved... I can just look it up in the IMDb Soundtrack Listing). But I also have five magazine subscriptions, would die before I used a Kindle, and love, love, LOVE my thirty minutes at night where I get to read The Boston Globe.

I know I can get all the same stuff online, but I'll never be able to make the transition. Reading boston.com seems like work. The real, actual, physical paper still seems like enjoyment and leisure. There is nothing better than perusing every section of The Globe and stumbling across a great story. As Dan Shaughnessey (we'll get to him in a moment too) said on FNX yesterday morning, you can't do that with boston.com and I completely agree with him. An online newspaper is not friendly to surfing and finding something you would have never found. And there's something to be said for that because when you find and read about something that you were absolutely clueless about you... You know... Learned something.

And that is something else I owe to The Globe: Learning.

As we get older, it seems like we get dumber. We don't have much to challenge our minds and we become specialized at our jos. But if you read the paper everyday, you can learn that Somalia is even worse than it was post Black Hawk Down , you'll be reminded of how wild The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museuem robbery was, and there is a drinking problem at UMass (actually, maybe I didn't need The Globe to get that info).

And every part of The Globe brings something to the table. Everyday, I have something to look forward to, be it Coupling on Sundays, Luke O'Neil's Barcode on Thursdays, Devra Frist's salty restaurant reviews on Wednesday, the ease of the Monday crossword puzzle, and Wes Morris's hilarious film reviews on Friday. I don't know if I'd enjoy these that much if I read them online and I'm serious.

But what really always made me a loyal Globie (can I make that happen?) was the sports section. As I've aged, I've become far less interested in sports, never more so that now. My football aversion is well documented, the Sox are painfully white, Cam Neely is now President of Player Personnel (when the hell did he stop beating the shit out of Ulf Samuelsson and move up to the front office?!? I guess I missed that.) and any BC coverage has always and will always make me want to vomit.

But I have still always found a place in my heart for The Globe sports section. They have run out a bastion of all stars over the years. Will McDonough virtually made the NFL. I hated boxing, but read the boxing notes because Ron Borges was so awesome. Michael Smith and Michael Holley got their starts their. Kevin Paul DuPont and Peter May cover hockey and basketball as well as anyone. Back in the day, Leigh Montville was as good a columnist as their was (I still clearly remember his final article, titled "I Remember," which I once went back and read on microfiche because I wanted to see if it was as good as I remembered. It is.). And their is nothing funnier than the dude who writes "The Picks" section on Friday's during football season.

Then, there are Bob Ryan and Dan Shaughnessy. Hating these two has become a right of passage for any Bruschi shirt wearing, PJ Stock loving, Pedro hating, Masshole. If someone tells me the hate one of these two (particularly Shaughnessy), I immediately want to fight them. Ryan has created more tangible controvery over the years with his slightly racist sounding use of the word punk to describe Antoine Walker and his dispicable and idiotic comments about Juwanna Kidd. But the guy always brings it. He is still super relevant and may be the best NBA writer in the country. Even as he ages, his connections, opinions, and stories are still always relevant. And there's no better writing than his emotying out the sports desk drawer of the mind.

Back to Shaugnessy. The never ending hate is quite simply lunatic. Especially annoying is when half wit, wannabe bloggers (I'm talking to you El Pres of Barstool Sports) who can't write for shit dump on Shaugnessy. Even more annoying than that is when The Big Show dumps on Shaughnessy. Didn't he leave WEEI like, ten, twelve years ago? Why you still hating Big O? You sound like a scorned ex-boyfriend. Let it go. Like my girl Emily Giffin said, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.

Hate all you want you fools, but Shaugnessy is awesome. And it boggles my mind how people continue to not understand him. Almost everything he says is toungue in cheek and as a columnist, you are SUPPOSED to have an opinion. Well an opinion, he's got. You don't always have to agree with him (I often do, I must admit), but you cannot disparage his writing. Does he mail it in from time to time and write a puff piece? Most certianly. But how many times did you mail it in this week at work? Rip his opinions and shred his ever growing cynicism, but do not discredit his writing. Between blogs and message boards, EVERYONE thinks they are a writer, but few are as amazing as my boy Dan. And if you disagree with me, then you are a moron who knows nothing about the art of writing. He's the second best Globe writer there ever was.

The best? Well that's easy. Peter Gammons.

Peter Gammons virtually created everything that we love about baseball. Hisstatistical analysis and trade coverage are the reason why fantasy leagues exist and why there is omething called The Hot Stove. He is responsible for countless front office jobs throughout the game (don't believe me? Google "Theo Epstein on Peter Gammons" sometime) and his name is attached to a baseball sub culture: The Gammons Youth.

Before there were Fantasy Baseball magazines, the USA Today and Sports Illustarted Baseball Previews, holds, WHIP, fnatasy baseball sights, Baseball Tonight, and Bill James, there was Peter Gammons.

As I wrote above, he was must reading on Sundays between the ages of about 8 and 28. In fact, the two worst words in the history printed media occured when you opened the Boston Sunday Globe and saw the byline in The Baseball Notes column read: Gordon Edes (I like Gordon by the way, just not as much as Gammons). And while Gammons seems old and often has weird love affairs with young guys who aren't that good (I kept drafting Bobby Fuckin Crosby in fabtasy leagues because of you Peter!!!), he is still a must listen or a must read. While roughly 92% of the trades he has proposed in his thirty year career have not come to fruition, you ALWAYS believed them and thought about them when he brought it up. And in a time before the internet, he was the only guy you could get SPECIFIC information from. What I mean by this is the back of a baseball card always gave you the stats of a guy, but they never gave you who had the best outfield throwing arm (Mark Whiten back in the early 90s) and who had the best breaking ball (Tom Gordon when he first came up with the Royals). Gammons came along and told us this on a weekly basis. And when Sportscenter starting hitting it's stride in the late 80s and early 90s, he would give us his Diamond Notes and that two minute clip was pretty much a televison orgasm.

It's more than the nostalgia I have with The Boston Globe though. It is a tremendous newspaper with great reporting. And as I said before, I am convinced that reading the paper makes you smarter. Is this a certified scientific fact? Absolutely not. But I feel that pushing yourself to gain multiple views and potentially learn new words and stay up to date on the issues HAS to make us smarter, doesn't it? And that's why I find it so important to having a paper in this city that I love.

These days, it seems to be the cool thing amongst conservatives to hate on The Globe and hope for it's demise. Strangely, the most positive articles I have read about The Globe have come from The Herald, which has been wildly refreshing. But for those conservatives laughing at The Globe, it is one more reason to hate you. Why would you hate something that makes you smarter? And that is good? Forget the politics for a second and ask yourself, what would you read? The Drudge Report and Fox News can only give you so much. Don't your prefer to have a bit more diversity to your learnings (since you're conservatives, probably not, huh?)? And is there sports page about poltics? How about the G Magazine and the Help Wanted section? They political? While we can get all sorts of information in all sorts of places, it is difficult to argue that for less than a buck a day (with subscription) you can basically get the whole world.

I know The Globe has fucked up and I know the newspaper industry is in flux to say the least. The whole industry seemed to be painfully behind the times with the transition to the electronic world. But not everything can be blamed on something as simple as that. As a society, we are reading at historic lows (This is true, believe me. The book industry is getting shellacked if your title does not contain the words Harry, Potter, or Twilight in them) and we have less time to read the paper (the number one reason subscribers cite as their rationale for cancelling their subscription). I also think that people read more online because it is easier to get away with at work. If I'm on hall duty, I look like far less of a slacker if I am in front of my laptop as opposed to thumbing through the sports section, even though I'm doing the exact same thing on the computer. Also, young people haven't embraced the paper. Yes, I sound like an old bag, but when's the last time you saw a kid reading the paper in class or on the T? Remember those days in collge? Everyone killed time by reading the newspaper. Now, they listen to their iPods and surf their wireless Macs.

God did that sound old.

But if The Globe really does go the way of New Coke, I'll miss my paper.

It completes me.

Ladies, Under No Circumstance Should You Be Doing This

Yes I still blog.

It's been a while, I know. This new job is KILLING my blog time. As are my incredibly busy weekends consuming alcohol, drafting fantasy teams (THAT preparation sucked up a good bit of my blog time!), eating buffalo wings, seeing bands (House of Blues might suck), getting smoked on college basketball bets (you gotta hit that wide open three to cover, you Louisville scrub!), and arguing with my friends on email (most of my writing time has gone there). But anyways, I'm back and I've got loads to talk about, so be ready for a rash of posts.

But even with all of this going on, I did find some time to watch women's basketball on the treadmill the other day and you know what I figured out?

It is awful.

Like, sour milk, frizzy hair, Caddyshack II, Christmas Fruit Cake awful.

In fact, it is more awful than all of those things put together.

I wish that my liberal, Title IX LOVING, smash through the glass ceiling side of me could come out on this one, but it cannot. I wish I could lie and support these surely wonderful ladies. I wish I could say I want to go to a game or wax poetic about the greatness of the game.

But I cannot.

Because women's college basketball is just sooooo bad.

I may be offending a female reader or two with this one (does this bother you Gees?), but c'mon. It's awful and you know it. Search your inner feelings young Skywalker; you know this to be true.

I mean, really what's to like?

Do you like the ugly set shots, or the painfully slow developing fast breaks? Do you like Pat Summitt's face or Gino Auriemma's skeaziness (BTW, when is a woman going to coach a men's sport? Imagine Jenny Finch strolling out to the mound to yank CC Sabathia from the game after 5 2/3 innings? Does he hand her the ball? Does he even look at her? I mean, she'd probably be better than Grady Little at knowing when to remove pitchers from the game and bring in a reliever, no? We will truly know the glass ceiling has been shattered when I see a woman grab the ball from a pitchers hand on the mound at Fenway and slap him on the ass.)? Maybe you like the fact that you can follow your favorite Stanford Lady Cardinal to the WNBA or the weird screams that permeate the audience after a "big" shot goes down. Or perhaps you like the awkward chest bumps (these creepy celebrations make Phil Mickelson's victory leap at
The Masters seem hip and cool) or those high flying slam dunks? Oh wait, those don't exist.

Interlude: I mean really, have you seen the chest bumps? They do this in women's college basketball. A lot. The chicks who do this make two women tits touching as sexy and hot as The Barefoot Contessa and her husband kissing.

What makes women's basketball even more painful to watch is that I am pretty sure me and four members from either my 1996 UMass Intramural team or one of my Melrose High Faculty teams (Brennan would be a must. You too Wall and Turner) would defeat Oklahoma. In fact, it pains me to watch these women so much that I'm pretty sure I could beat them at anything. I know I sound like a younger, but equally ignorant version of Bobby Riggs, but I'm not letting these women beat me. At anything. It can be a three point contest, a speed skating race, a table tennis game, Boggle, a free throw shooting competition, Name That Tune, a hot dog eating contest (although that linebackery chick on Oklahoma could probably take me down), or even a sprint. It doesn't matter what we play, but I gotta say, I'm not losing to these chicks. At anything. I mean c'mon, imagine losing to Rebecca Lobo at ANYTHING?!? I'd have to let one of you kill me after that (no shortage of volunteers there, I'm sure)!

I know this sounds outrageous, but I feel this way. I really do. I wish it weren't, but it is. Part of the problem is that the media is shoving women's basketball down our throats and TRYING to make it happen. It's like Gretchen Wieners in Mean Girls trying to make Fetch happen. It's just not going to work. I have a hard enough time watching mens college basketball (I'll save that for a March 2010 post. But seriously, take the brackets and gambling out of mens college basketball and what do you have? Lots of guys who can't shoot and turn the ball over way too much) as it is painful to watch any sport that is NOT played at the highest level. Yeah, I like they they play with "heart" and for the love of the game, but when you have the NBA to watch on another channel, why would I watch a lesser brand of the same game? I know people hate on the NBA and that's fine, but you hate on it for all the wrong reasons. I want to watch something played at the highest possible level. Why do you think no one goes out to Hillview to watch a bunch of old guys hit worm burners from the first tee?!? Because it sucks. Just like women's basketball sucks. And you want heart? Go watch a little league game.

I wish women's basketball would take a cue from the MLS and realize that they have a niche audience (although, apparently, that "niche" audience is made up of 138 people because word is the WNBA is officially done) and stick with that. Let the folks at Stanford, Tennessee and UConn enjoy their women's hoops, but for the love of god, stop shoving it down our throats because we just don't care. And ESPN, just stop it. Please. No one who lives outside Storrs, CT cares about the UConn perfect season.

I really want to support it, but I feel like I'm saying (writing) what so many people feel, but are too afraid to say. And as I write this, I realize it's not solely about the fact that it is women's basketball so much as it is a game that is played at an inferior level (it's the same reason why I don't watch Sci-Fi Channel horror films like Sasquatch Attacks II). I might like it more if it wasn't so in our faces. I mean, we got a woman Speaker of the House. Isn't that enough for you chicks?

Well, there goes my three female readers. Thanks for supporting me ladies! It's been a trip!