It Takes Money To Make The Monkey Dance

That's probably not the most accurate title for this post, but it's catchy as hell, so I'll go with it. By now you probably know that Arizona gave up a starting Pro Bowl corner, a 2nd round pick in next year's draft, and $20 million in guaranteed money to put Kevin Kolb in a Cardinals uniform this season. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, given how any sports pundit with access to a computer has written about it these last 4 months. The question is, did Arizona pay too much for an unproven product?

Let me first say that anyone they brought in would've been an improvement over last year's quarterbacking debacle. Hell, Jim Abbott could have at least gotten a start or two. But all summer I've had my doubts about Kolb, especially given the cost to acquire him. My choice was Carson Palmer,since he is a talented, proven veteran who probably wouldn't have cost as much, and could bridge the gap until John Skelton is ready to take over in a year or two. But, since Bengals owner Mike Brown has no interest in improving his team in any way, the idea of Carson Palmer coming to Glendale was just a pipe dream.

Which brings us to Kolb. As I said, I was against it from the get-go, if for no other reason than he is unproven, and I think John Skelton can be a solid quarterback. But it wasn't until I wrote the previous sentence that it occurred me how hypocritical my thinking is. Skelton doesn't even have the resume that Kevin Kolb does, but a lot of us have talked about how good he will be. Did I miss something? If we can see Skelton in 4 games and predict his future, how can we be so unsure of Kolb after 7 games? What I'm trying to say is, this is a total crapshoot. Kolb will be one of three things: a superstar, a solid QB, or a turd. After stepping off the ledge and drinking some red Kool-Aid, I honestly believe he can be a solid QB, especially in the NFC West. And if he doesn't pan out? Then John Skelton gets a chance to be the perennial Pro Bowler we all know he can be.

Now, as for the farm Arizona had to mortgage to get Kolb to the desert, I'm looking at it a couple different ways. As Mike Sando so perfectly noted in his blog earlier today, the price of the deal is "highly overrated. If the Cardinals are right on Kolb, the price won't matter. If they're wrong, the damage done will far outweigh a 185-pound cornerback and the draft pick Arizona included with the deal." I tend to agree with this assessment. The team needed a signal caller, and they went and got one. To be honest, DRC didn't look very good last year, but neither did the defense in general. All told, I guess I can live with this trade, especially if the team wins the West.

My bigger concern in this matter is the rest of free agency. While the Cards have made a couple solid pickups already, there are a couple holes to fill and a couple linemen to re-sign. I like the Daryn Colledge and Jeff King signings, but if the team doesn't bring back Deuce Lutui and Lyle Sendlein, they haven't gained a single thing. Also, regarding the hole left by DRC's departure, I'd be happy with Antonio Cromartie or Nate Clements. Unfortunately, I don't think the team is looking that route. While Patrick Peterson has stud written all over him, he has a steep learning curve ahead of him. And Greg Toler makes me nervous as a starting corner. A good FA pickup fills the roster here well.

As for WR, there is a less pressing need there. Since Steve Breaston isn't coming back, we are looking at Andre Roberts as a number 2 WR, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's still a bit early for him. I'd like to see Malcolm Floyd or James Jones come in, but I'm guessing the front office will find a serviceable veteran to bring in at a reasonable price. Given a probable commitment to the ground game this year, I don't really see the need to overpay for a number 2 WR, when there are some good options on the roster already.

As for my opinion of it all, I think the Kolb trade will work, especially if the Cards pick up another CB in free agency. We have no choice at this point but to think it will.

Thoughts?

No, I Didn't Lose A Bet (or "How I Became An Arizona Cardinals Fan")

People who know me know I am a huge fan of the Arizona Cardinals, possibly even moreso than I am a fan of the Kentucky Wildcats. It’s debatable, at best. Given that I live in southeast Kentucky, which is a 1,884 mile hop-skip-and-jump from Glendale, Arizona, a lot of these same people have asked me why I chose to root for the Cardinals.

It started in the summer of 2006. I had been following the NFL for about 14 years, and had never declared allegiance to a team. The “local” team is the Bengals, since Cincinnati is about 2 hours north of us; Nashville and Indianapolis are both within 3 hours. There was a brief period from 1999-2003 where I followed the Cleveland Browns, since the quarterback was Tim Couch, of UK fame. It wasn't so much being a huge fan of the team as it was being a huge fan of Couch. The downside to this, besides being a Browns fan, was watching the team shit all over everything Tim Couch did. He had no offensive line, only one good receiver, and a mediocre (at best) running back. Despite all this, he still managed to get them to the playoffs in 2002, breaking his leg in the process and being replaced by Kelly Holcomb.

So, Cleveland was out, and I needed a new team. I had one stipulation for myself: no good teams. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t going to be considered a bandwagon fan, especially given the overwhelming presence of Red Sox caps after the 2004 World Series. I called a friend to help me, and we made a list of all 32 teams, immediately crossing off all the good ones. Just for good measure, I also eliminated the Bengals and Titans. After this, the Eagles and Dolphins went, since I had other friends who followed them. We eventually narrowed the list to four teams (two from each conference): the Saints, Chiefs, Jaguars, and Cardinals.

The Saints were scratched off the board first, if for no other reason than the hideous logo and color scheme. Granted, I did feel a bit guilty about that, since this was just months after Hurricane Katrina. Next to go were the Jaguars, because they don’t have any fans at all, and I didn’t want to be the first. That left the Chiefs and Cardinals. A buddy of mine from Oklahoma was a big Chiefs fan, and I’ll admit there are few scenes as pretty as Arrowhead Stadium on a sunny afternoon, when the entire crowd is wearing that brilliant red. But that still didn’t do it for me. Wanna know what did? Matt Leinart.

Yeah, that guy. And I’m wincing as I write this. But Matt Leinart is the main reason I’m a Cardinals fan. Here was my logic: the guy was All-everything in college, had the skills and the pedigree, and a long-sucky franchise drafted him to be their man for the next several years. I was thinking I could get in on the ground floor, watch him make Arizona a winning team, and not have to worry about being a bandwagon-jumper. Now, I wasn’t a big fan of Leinart in college, but I really enjoyed watching him play, and I honestly thought he could win at the next level. But more than anything? We are both left-handed. Yes, my allegiance comes from the fact that I write with the same hand as a guy whose NFL career is best known for pictures involving a hot tub, a beer funnel, and several gorgeous women.

While Leinart was the tipping point for my decision, the new stadium had a lot to do with it as well. I was familiar with how miserable Sun Devil Stadium was for the team, and thought indoor facilities would make a difference. Thankfully, I was right. As a throwaway point, my favorite NBA team of all-time is the ‘92-93 Suns, so I figured what the hell, let’s go with Phoenix again. It also helps that I have hated the Cowboys since the early ‘90s.

Looking back, I don’t regret my decision a bit. That first season was a bit rough, as it included an 8-game losing streak, as well as Dennis Green’s infamous meltdown after the team blew a 20-point lead to the Bears on Monday Night Football. Next year was the first for Ken Whishenhunt, and it was readily apparent that the mindset in the desert was changing. As for Matt Leinart, I hate how things turned out, and I even resented Kurt Warner for a short period of time. Thankfully, I only gave about $40 for my Leinart jersey on eBay in 2007.

There are also some other things to be proud of, first and foremost Pat Tillman. While the circumstances around his death are cloudy at best, it takes guts and principles to do what he did, and I almost feel guilty that I wasn’t a fan of the team when he made his decision. Hell, I feel guilty just using his patriotism as a reason to be proud. On a much less meaningful note, the Cardinals are also technically the oldest team in football. And aside from Leinart's shenanigans, no negative behavior is associated with the team. On the contrary, Larry Fitzgerald is one of the finest citizens the league has. Kurt Warner's philanthropy also speaks for itself. Even Darnell Dockett gets in on the action. I'm sure every team has a few upstanding guys, it's just nice to not have any dumbasses on mine getting arrested.

It sucks that I’m 1,900 miles away from my team, but I’ve been able to see them play every couple years. They won in Cincinnati in ’07, when Antrell Rolle had 2 interception returns for a touchdown, and would’ve had a 3rd had it not been for a penalty on the return. In ’09, they lost in Tennessee, when Vince Young led the Titans on a 99-yard drive in the final two minutes, hitting Kenny Britt in the endzone for the winning touchdown. The team plays in Cincinnati again this season, but the game is on Christmas Eve, so unless I convince my family that football is more meaningful than holiday traditions (it is on certain levels, but that’s a different post), then I will be watching that one on TV.

I guess I got lucky. I picked a crappy team to root for, and they made the Super Bowl 3 seasons later. The Cardinals are just good enough to enjoy rooting for, and just bad enough to make each season a roller-coaster ride, and isn’t that suspense one of the best parts of being a fan?

ENOUGH WOOD TO KEEP A FIRE RAGING

"Tony Woods is a punk and Louisville deserves him." I remember thinking that last year when I heard about him, and the drama that was associated. I even made a couple smart-ass tweets. That was then. In the last day or so, Tony Woods has met with all the big shots at UK, with the obvious possibility of a basketball scholarship for the upcoming season being thrown around. Now, it seems no one in the UK sports universe wants anything to do with him, and thinks the school is crazy for even being mentioned as a potential destination.

We all know what Tony did: he hit his girlfriend and broke her back. Or did he? Earlier today, I read Jason King's wonderful article about the incident.Here's what it boils down to: minor incident, no proof of harm, simple misunderstanding. (Doesn't that sound like a UK fan's familiar defense?) Even the victim said as much. Read the article, if you haven't already, and come back to me. I'll wait.

After I first heard the news of a UK-Woods wedding, I didn't have an initial reaction. Wanted to see how it played out. After some thought, and a few eye-opening events, here is my reaction:

The University of Kentucky should absolutely give Tony Woods a scholarship, and feel proud that they did.

Why? Because just a few hours ago, I saw the body of a 28-year old woman lowered into the ground. A 28-year old with four small children, children who will spend the rest of their lives wishing they could see their Mommy again, and not knowing why she had to die. I don't know why she had to die, and I'm not here to get into religion, or death, or any of that. We all suffer grief at some point in our lives, and we all deal with it and go on. But what I saw today made me absolutely sure of one thing. In the big picture, sports is absolutely meaningless.

I say that hypocritically, because I used the Tony Woods-UL fiasco as a reason to feel superior to Louisville fans a few months ago, and every fan around has used someone's past as a reason to look down; it's the nature of being a sports fan. Now think back to the funeral I mentioned. Several people who attended will watch baseball tonight, or go play basketball in the morning, as a way to keep their minds off the bad parts of life. But that's all sports is, an escape. There are sportswriters and coaches and personalities and athletes who feed their families through sports. For them, it's a means of survival. But for the fan? It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

After reading King's article, I immediately thought of second chances. I thought of Tony Woods' young son. And now I think of the four motherless children. I'm not at all trying to say that someone getting arrested and getting a bad reputation is anywhere near as serious as death; I'm not that shallow. But I am using that for perspective.

Here is the perspective: Tony Woods made a fairly serious mistake. Therefore, UK fans (and I include myself here) are saying "this guy is trash, we don't want him. Look at what he did!" How many fans who are saying that have ever been arrested for DUI? Anyone that has has no right to say anything judgmental about him. I've had a DUI, six years ago; blew nearly twice the legal limit. What Tony Woods did is no worse than what I did. Granted, I didn't cause anyone harm, but that is only because I was fortunate enough to go to jail before I hit another car on the interstate. Now, how many people have missed child support payments over the years? Those people need to shut the hell up as well. How many people have ever been consenting party to an abortion? Those people need to shut the hell up as well. How many people have ever screamed at someone, made fun of someone, turned a blind eye to someone's misfortune? Those people need to shut the hell up as well. We are so quick to throw stones at others, but at some point in the rock-throwing, we broke the mirror we need to be using to look at ourselves.

What Tony Woods did was wrong, but it wasn't anymore wrong than anything I listed above. Remember Tony's son? If his father doesn't get a second chance, what message does that send to the boy? That mistakes aren't allowed? That remorse and regret aren't acceptable? What kid needs that pressure on him? I like to think this is a world where second chances are allowed, and given. UK should absolutely take a chance.

I've given the emotional reason for this, now let me give the sports fan reason: If Tony plays at UK, it doesn't change a thing. In twenty years, no one will care, and it won't affect gas prices, or world hunger, or domestic abuse, or drug use. Some talking heads are going to spew ridiculous derogatory bullshit, even if John Calipari signs a homeless quadriplegic deaf-mute who comes from a family of third-world nuns. A Tony Woods signing would only serve to give the snipers more bullets. I've said before, people are going to believe what they want, regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary. This situation is proof of that. I also say that, at the end of the day, who gives a damn if the media thinks UK is the epitome of evil? The media can kiss my ass, and hopefully yours. If Tony doesn't come to UK, people are still going to find something to bitch about. Personally, I think Calipari, and for that matter the school itself, has much more to gain than lose. If he messes up again, it was to be expected and UK keeps hearing the criticism it has always heard. But if he succeeds...Oh man, think of the possibilities! For starters, it would put the school in a positive light for once. It would also take some heat off Calipari, a man who himself is all too familiar with having molehills made into mountains in the press. He is also familiar with making success stories out of questionable characters. And least of all, it would give UK a talented big man with something to prove. But honestly, the team's needs are the furthest thing from my mind. I could care less about whether the team needs him, I care that Kentucky fans lower their collective heads enough so that they no longer have to look down their noses at a human being who made a bad decision.

Want proof UK fans are looking down their noses? How about this one: "Tony Woods deserves a second chance, but not at UK. UK is an elite program." Oh, I'm sorry to interrupt your caviar and champagne, Chauncey Fitzpatrick Pendlethorpe IV. I must've forgot that none of us have ever been appalled at a rich person ignoring the less fortunate. That wasn't us! To me, that's just another reason to bring this young man on board. Set the bar. Show the world that UK isn't too big and precious to take a chance on a guy with a checkered history. I bet all you self-righteous, elite program snobs rooted for the sheriff of Nottingham instead of Robin Hood.

Regardless of what I, or you, or ESPN, or Jason King, or anyone thinks, UK and John Calipari are going to do what they see fit. Here's to hoping they see fit to give a young man with a bad name a second chance. Practically all of us have had them; who are we to tell someone else they don't deserve one?

KNIGHT TIME ISN'T THE RIGHT TIME

I thought I knew how to approach this. When I first heard of Bobby Knight's allegations regarding the entire 2010 UK starting five not attending school the second semester that year, I laughed a bit at the absurdity of it. Then I thought about it, which got me aggravated at what an egregious asshole he is. Next thing I knew, Matt Jones tweeted that it is the goal of Kentucky Sports Radio to force an apology from ESPN on Knight’s behalf. Then I wondered, if KSR was focusing on Bob Knight, who would tend to the children and young adults that aren’t reading? That’s when blog ideas started churning through my head.

Initially, I thought there is no reason to force an ESPN apology regarding Bob Knight. For starters, the comments weren’t even made on ESPN, they were made at a speech in Indiana. Secondly, everyone knows Bob Knight is a grumpy bastard on a good day. My thought process was this: Bob Knight is not senile; he knows what he says. The question is, who heard him say it? If a UK fan heard it, they know it isn’t true, and just another example of “haters hating”. If a non-UK fan heard it, that means one of two things: either they are impartial to UK and don’t care about the remarks, but perhaps frown on the negative happenings of college basketball, OR, they already hate UK, so it doesn’t matter whether the negative remarks were true or not. Therefore, I concluded that his words have no lasting effect either way, with the possible exception of being used against the school in recruiting battles. But then, recruiting is a slimy business anyway, and it’s hard to separate bullshit from lies in a recruit’s living room. So I didn’t think any more about it, other than to think that UK fans shouldn’t worry about it too much, because who cares what Bob Knight says?

But then I started thinking about it again.

And I realized who was saying it. Bob Knight. Class A, USDA-certified steaming asshole. Thrower of chairs, kicker of shins, cusser of students in grocery aisles. As CBSSports.com columnist Gregg Doyel put it, “Bob Knight is a bad guy. Great coach. Valued education. Didn't cheat. But a bad guy.” Pretty much sums it up. It also isn’t the first time Knight has had misgivings about John Calipari-related items. Plus, he got his lunch eaten by UK for the last 10 years or so he was at Indiana. And he had his undefeated season ruined in ’75, causing him to hit Joe B. Hall in the back of the head. He has good reason not to like Kentucky. But he has never done anything so blatant as to outright slander the school.

Yes, he slandered UK.

We all know what slander is: a lie, usually spoken, with the intent of character defamation. This is opposed to libel, which is basically slander, but in a more permanent, tangible form, such as print or recorded audio. Bob Knight defamed the character of John Wall, which is bad enough. But his remarks also defamed Patrick Patterson, who gave his sweat and blood and tears to graduate in three years while being a stud on the basketball court. That’s when I started getting pissed. (Patrick Patterson didn't seem to care for it either). Being slanderous is easy. Just say this out loud: “Bob Knight molests orphan children.” Did anyone hear you? If so, you just slandered Bob Knight. Now, a libelous statement would be if I said

BOB KNIGHT MOLESTS ORPHAN CHILDREN.

See what I did there? That was libel, because we know he doesn’t molest orphan children (or do we?), just as we know that 100% of the 2010 starting lineup went to spring classes. Here, I’ll give you another example of libel:

BOB KNIGHT HAS A TINY PENIS, AND THUSLY FEELS COMPELLED TO RUN DOWN ANYONE WHO DOESN’T LIKE HIM.

Got the hang of it yet? Good. (Bear with me, I have a point in here somewhere). Now, would you like to read a non-slanderous statement?

BOB KNIGHT ONCE SHOT A FRIEND IN THE BACK, AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP. THAT'S THE KIND OF ASSHOLE HE IS.

I’ve pretty much always been of the thinking that peoples’ minds are going to be made up about something, and outside evidence won’t really affect their opinion; that is, if I think Bob Knight is a shitbird, his donating $50,000 to an orphanage (not that he did, but if he does, it's probably to hide the molestation) won’t change my opinion of him. Likewise, anyone who is looking for a reason to dislike Kentucky and Calipari will latch onto the first thing they can, not letting the fact that Calipari and his team washed the feet of underprivileged children in Detroit tell them otherwise. As Jerry Seinfeld (I think; it was either him or George Carlin) once said, “You can take away all the drugs in the world, and people would spin around on their lawns until they fell down and saw God.” That applies here, since we are dealing with reality vs. perception, through the eyes of a man who obviously needs some kind of medication to even his bitter, delusional ass out.

Still with me? Wow, I’m surprised. Now, after all that, here’s the deal: ESPN should either force an apology from Knight or send him packing, if for no other reason than it has to be a serious conflict of interest regarding the SEC TV contract for mouthy pricks such as himself to go around spewing derogatory nonsense. I’m glad Mitch Barnhart got in on the action, because that may help force the network’s hand. At best, Bob Knight is eaten up with petty jealousy, and can’t help himself trying to piss off Kentucky alumni and fans. At worst, he is a hypocrite and a coward, an old man trying to tear down one coach with nothing on his record, while building up another who is serving a suspension next season. He is a coward because, for starters, he won’t set foot in Rupp Arena, since he knows that would be the equivalent of walking into a lion's den wearing pork chop pants. And for this: someone on Twitter noted that Bob Knight has never said anything negative regarding UK unless he is in Indiana. This means he doesn’t have the enlarged guts to go with the enlarged asshole.

Here is my advice to Robert Montgomery Knight. Go away, while you are still at least somewhat relevant. Go away, and spend the remainder of your years shooting friends on hunting trips, and wondering why your eyebrows didn’t grow all the way across your eyes. You aren’t willing to say anything (truthfully) useful on TV, and apparently your speaking engagements reek of shenanigans and bullshit. As much as you have to offer the world, with your coaching intellect and storied past, you instead choose to continually take the low road by being a yellow-bellied coward, a hypocrite, and a shit stain on the silk underwear of life. Oh, and you are a pompous, arrogant asshole. Have I said that yet?

Bob Knight was once lauded for getting a high percentage of his students to finish classes. It’s just too bad that class isn’t a word he knows anything about these days.

LODI DODD-Y

I guess most of you have heard by now about the question asked of John Calipari at the Final Four, which went "How does it feel to coach in your first Final Four?" Once you quit slapping your knees at the overwhelming originality and humor of the question, you may have gotten pissed off. Well, the man responsible, Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com, has written a post about it. He basically says he stands by the question. I decided to comment, since I'm trying to get out of writing an argumentative essay for an online class, and was somewhat proud of what I wrote. If you don't feel like reading the article, here is my comment:

I'm as big a Kentucky fan as any other, so I've heard pretty much every insult, slight, and "he said she said" there is to hear, especially regarding the ethics of John Calipari, and for that matter, the University itself. Honestly, I'm past the point of caring or getting upset at someone trying to ruffle the feathers of a particular fan base, be it for hits in an online column, or any other reason. In that regard, I have no problem with you asking, facetiously or not, Calipari about the vacated Final Fours. What bugs me is that you chose the most sophomoric, frat house, "that's what she said", beaten-like-a-dead-horse phrase about it, and tried to pass it off as professional journalism. Hell, I have a nephew in 6th grade who could've come up with the same thing. I get that you guys are paid to be a watchdog of sorts, and that's all fine and good. But I also thought you were paid to tell me something I didn't necessarily know before. In this case, you failed miserably. To me, that particular question, in that format at least, was the equivalent of an average Joe meeting someone whom they had always wanted to meet, just to ask them a burning question. Then, once they meet that person and have a chance to ask, they make a fart noise with their mouth and run off laughing, saying "Haha, I got you good!" It also makes me wonder what kinds of chuckleheads are writing the things I usually enjoy reading, because apparently enough of them agree with you for it to warrant a mention in this column. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to make a point, and aren't terribly concerned about taking the high road to make it, at least come up with something better than "How does it feel to coach in your first Final Four?" Surely there is a journalism degree somewhere in your office/den which proves you are capable.

THAT WAS FUN

Wow, what a game. A bit closer than I would've liked, and it should've been played in the Elite Eight or Final Four. But for a start to finish barnburner, it was hard to beat. Now, it's on the next one against UNC.

I figured Kentucky's defense would be solid, but damn, that was good. Josh Harrellson continues to force his way into our hearts, not unlike how one would enter a bathroom stall as halftime punishment. I honestly cannot get enough of watching Jorts play right now, and the line drive off of Jared Sullinger's chest added another chapter to his story, and probably sealed his legend at UK. The guy simply refuses to lose, and you can tell it has rubbed off on the rest of the team. I could think of different ways to say the same things over and over again, but it would get cheesy and run a bit long, so I'll sum it up with this: if UK wins it all, I am very likely to cry tears of joy and pride over how far Josh has come this season. I'm sure he realizes how proud he is making the BBN, but it is still hard to put into words. Hopefully I can find a way to sum it up in the next few days.

As for the rest of the team, I'm glad guys have finally decided to step up. I've never been happier to be wrong about something. Brandon Knight continues to amaze me; he has had a huge impact on every game UK has played in the tournament. Not too long ago, I felt pretty good about him returning to school for one more year, due to the likelihood of him being able to graduate as a sophomore. But with the way his play has skyrocketed, I couldn't blame him a bit for leaving after this year, as long as he gets fitted for a ring before he goes.

Now, about tomorrow's game. Early lines have the Cats favored by 1.5, but we all know that Cal is gonna be in his team's ear about the December loss in Chapel Hill. Carolina dominated Kentucky inside in that game, but that isn't gonna be the case this time. The only player I am worried about is John Henson, and that is because he is so long. The Harrellson-Zeller matchup will be a wash, and I believe team defense can keep Harrison Barnes in check. If UK keeps Henson contained, especially on the offensive glass, they win this game. Although, Kentucky's guard/wing play trumps Carolina's, so it may just come down to which team wants it more. Something tells me that team is Kentucky. Josh Harrellson will not let this team go home yet.

Cats by 6.

WE GOT THIS

I'm not worried about the Ohio State game. Yes, I just said that. It's only Wednesday, and already I've heard oodles and boodles of analysis regarding who will win this game and why, with reasons ranging from the players to the fans. I've even heard how Thad Matta is one of the classiest coaches in the game, but how classy is a guy who, in 2007, made a gimpy 42 year-old man carry them to the title game? Greg Oden still hasn't recovered. Here's something I haven't heard yet, and it's my reason why Kentucky will de-nut the Buckeyes: John Calipari.

You read that right. I think John "Roll The Ball Out" Calipari is the reason UK moves on to play Marquette (probably not, but the Big (L)East has to have something go their way, right?) and here's why: the man knows how to prepare his teams. I winced a little bit typing that, due to UK having lost six conference road games this season, but at that point he was still tinkering with the team's identity. Since the Arkansas loss, these guys are on a tear, and are as hot as any team still playing. Calipari is a great coach, but more than that/owing to that he is a brilliant salesman. He could talk the chicken off the bone. He could sell ice cubes to an Eskimo. He could motivate a team of 19 and 20 year olds to knock off the number one overall seed in the tournament. He is a master motivator, and he will have his team ready to play Friday night, especially because Kentucky is the underdog for once. Don't be surprised to see these guys come out angry.

However, that is not my main reason for this devout faith in John Calipari. This is: in 12 NCAA Tournament appearances prior to this season, a John Calipari-coached team has lost their first game of the weekend only four times. Of those four losses, two came against UK, one of these being the Final Four rematch in 1996, at the hands of a Kentucky team that God Himself would've needed overtime to beat. Of the remaining two, one of those was in 2009, when UK just so happened to have a coaching vacancy, a vacancy that would be filled by Calipari a mere 5 days after his team lost. That tells me his mind was on the UK job, whether it actually was or not. I'm not here to let facts get in the way. This leaves one loss, and it came in 2003 when 10-seed Arizona St. beat 7-seed Memphis in the first round. Want a caveat? That was Calipari's first NCAA team at Memphis, in his third season at the school. In fact, Cal's teams lost in this fashion twice. The other occasion was his first NCAA team at UMass.

What does that say? That says if a Calipari team has several days to prepare for a tournament opponent, they likely aren't going to lose. Now, add this little nugget into the mix: In 38 Sweet 16 appearances, UK is 28-10 overall. Coach Cal is 8-2 lifetime in the Sweet 16 himself. Add these together and you have a cumulative 35-12 record (I only counted last year's game once) in the Sweet 16.

Look for UK to come ready on Friday. They will hold OSU to under 40% 3-point shooting. I think Josh Harrellson and Eloy Vargas(!) can and will do a respectable job on Sullinger. Terrence Jones may have some defensive input there as well. On offense, I don't think the Cats will be as perimeter-oriented as everyone says, at least not early. I think they try to get Darius established early, and maybe get Doron a couple open looks as well. Brandon Knight may not have the game he had against West Virginia, but he will be a difference maker.

Cats by 5.

UNLEADED

Last night sucked. Kentucky lost at Arkansas, the same way they lost at Vanderbilt, which was the same way they lost at Florida, which was the same way they lost at Ole Miss, and Alabama, and maybe Georgia, although Georgia wasn't really a bad loss, and neither was Florida or Vandy. The thing that sucks about it is how they lost, and how repetitive it's all getting to be.

I'm talking of course about the fact that Kentucky comes out flat, gets down big, makes a second half run, takes a late lead, and loses at the very end. Seven times this has happened, and seven times it's been hard to watch. For some reason, none of the losses really bothered me until last night. I don't know if it's because they probably pissed away a chance at a 2 seed in the SEC, or because Terrence Jones shat the bed for most of the game, or what, but the Arkansas loss struck a nerve, not just with me, but with a large chunk of the fanbase.

The team's defenders will say this a young team, and the detractors will say Calipari can't coach. I say that is all bullshit. For starters, if Cal is a bad coach, he wouldn't have been going for win number 500 last night. And for those of you who think this is a young team, you are wrong, at least for this time of year. There are only 3 games left in the regular season; these freshmen are much closer to being sophomores than freshmen. They are not young anymore. Hell, for that matter they aren't inexperienced either. You don't play seven road games that closely and not get some experience from it. What they aren't is clutch, as someone noted on Twitter. And more than anything, what they aren't is a well-led team. When I say that, I don't mean poorly-coached or undisciplined. I mean there is no one on this team who is capable of leading them on the floor.

Why does that matter? Consider the fact that most people thought last year's team would have this year's record, but last year's team only lost 2 road games all year. While there was arguably more talent, there was definitely more of a steadying presence. Part of that was John Wall being mature beyond his years, but the biggest part of that was Patrick Patterson. This team doesn't have that luxury, although Darius Miller and DeAndre Liggins certainly could/should be, if Liggins can quit crying and pissing his pants everytime he gets called for a foul. The freshmen, talented as they are, just don't have that quality about them. And they shouldn't necessarily have to, they are freshmen. While I would like to see Brandon Knight be that guy, he isn't. Again, it's not a bad thing if someone isn't a natural leader, as long as there is someone on the team who is. This team doesn't have one. And the fact they continue to lose close games on the road proves that, because a well-led team learns from their mistakes and corrects them. I haven't seen these guys do that once this year, which is why they won't make a run in the NCAA unless they get one hell of a draw, which they don't even get in good years. Why would they now?

I say all that to say this: everyone keeps mentioning next year's team, with its all-time recruiting class and deeper bench and more talent, as the team to beat. But, if none of the incoming freshmen have great leadership abilities, Kentucky could very well be in the same boat they are now. Granted, more talent and deeper bench means there is a smaller chance of being in a dogfight on the road, but it will happen at some point. How will that team respond? I have no clue, and won't until I see what happens. But until someone shows some stones, I am keeping my expectations tempered.

BRING THE PAIN (1st Edition)

I hadn't planned on letting 2 months pass between posts, but it's hard to find time to write a lot when I don't get paid for it. On the other hand, it's hard to get paid for writing when I don't find a lot of time to do it. Dammit. Either way, I have a good idea. After LeBron James' dumbass tweet last week saying God hates Cleveland (maybe not in those words), followed by him backpedaling fast enough to make an All-Pro cornerback jealous, but preceded by his not having won a meaningful thing yet (and I'm not counting Olympic gold; that was Kevin Durant’s baby), I decided it is high time someone devised a way to judge if a superstar is worth paying any mind too. In other words, is their entertainment value negated by the stupidity they tend to ooze forth? Unfortunately for you, that someone is me. And, after several minutes’ worth of thought and for lack of a better term, I'm proud to give you the PAIN Ratio.

"WTF is PAIN Ratio?" I can hear you asking now. PAIN Ratio is the relationship between Positive Accomplishments and Idiotic Negativity. PAIN. Here's how this works: everything good a celebrity does (for sake of argument, I am sticking to athletes), they get points in the Positive column. This includes, but is not limited to: rings, MVP awards, scoring titles, donated kidneys, All-Star games, and general public perception of the athlete as a passable human being. Now, for every stupid thing an athlete does or says, they get points in the Negative column. This includes, but is not limited to: breaking up with your team on national television, possibly raping someone in Colorado, throwing teammates/coaches under the bus, getting arrested, gut-punching a homeless man, and general public perception of the athlete as a steaming asshole. The point totals for each column make the PAIN ratio, and the higher the number, the higher the chance the athlete may actually say something worthwhile from time to time. If the number falls below 2, the guy no longer matters. This is will be known as being a “PAIN In The Ass.”

Before I get into the points breakdown, let me clarify this: crazy people don’t count. Bill Simmons once wrote about “The Tyson Zone”, when celebrities reach a point where no one would be surprised at anything they did, like tattooing their face. This is a different system; Mike Tyson is crazy. This applies to athletes who make you say, “Geez, that guy is an asshole.” Like LeBron James. If Tyson picks up a VW in an intersection and flips it over, no one would blink an eyeball since the man is nuts. Likewise, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if LeBron bought an orphanage, shut it down, threw the children out on the street, and opened a store that sold nothing but his shoes and jerseys. He is proving himself to be a colossally arrogant prick.

Now, for the scoring system. This is the part I’ve struggled with. Obviously, it’s completely arbitrary at this point, so if anyone feels like giving feedback, I’d love to hear it. If this thing grows legs, I will make the necessary adjustments and update it as we go. I’m also sure that as soon as I post this, I will think of about 7 other things to add. For now, consider this Version 1.0. To start, I decided to score each item on a scale of 1-10, with the most positive/negative things receiving a 10 rating. You’ll notice each item on the Negative list is worth ten times more. I figure this helps compensate for the fact that media and fans obsess over the bad things people do. Here’s what I came up with:

POSITIVE
10 points- Finals MVP
9 points- MVP
8 points- All-Star/All-Pro teams
7 points- Scoring titles/stats leaders/ROY
6 points- Significant role on a championship team
5 points- Olympic participation
4 points- Outperforming hype
3 points- Living up to hype
2 points- Voluntary public service
1 point- Being considered a good ambassador to the sport

NEGATIVE
100 points- Accused of murder/manslaughter/rape
90 points- 2nd offense (or more) of particular crime
80 points- History of complaining/blaming others/quitting on team/2nd league suspension
70 points- League suspension
60 points- Arrest for different offense
50 points- Arrest; multiple kids by multiple women
40 points- Being an idiot on Twitter (henceforth known as being a "Twidiot" if no one has coined that term yet)
30 points- Publicly embarrassing someone/calling them out
20 points- Not living up to hype
10 points- Getting caught in a lie/bad PR


Somes notes about my train of thought here: for starters, you’ll notice I put a lot of emphasis on individual accolades. This is because we as a society, for the most part, would rather see our superstars at the center of the stage; that is why they are superstars. This also means that ultimate team guys, like ring-wearer extraordinaire Robert Horry, don’t usually generate enough press, good or bad, to dominate conversion. As for the negative side of things, it should be fairly self-explanatory. You’ll notice I put “accused of” regarding murder, manslaughter and rape, rather than “convicted of”. I’m not trying to be harsh, but these guys should know better than to put themselves in compromising positions in the first place. If you are in shape to get accused of murder, you made a damn bad decision somewhere that night. Also, no decimals, because that would be an endless discussion.

After this, I realized I needed a way to recognize patterns, such as repeat awards/offenses. So, if a guy wins multiple MVP awards, he gets recognition for the duration of his accomplishment. Likewise, if a guy has regular diarrhea of the mouth on his Twitter feed, he gets points there as well. It works like this: if something happens more than once, but not consecutively, then the point value is two times what the previous value was. In other words, if a dude gets the MVP, then another three years later, the second is worth 18 points, since the first MVP was worth 9. If he got a third MVP two years later, that one would count for 36 points. Got it? Now, if a guy wins multiple MVP awards in a row, each successive one is worth the point total of the first one squared. Therefore, the second MVP would be worth 81 points (9x9), and a third consecutive award would be worth 81 as well. And, for the hell of it, if a guy wins two consecutive MVPs, then a third one 2 years later, the third one counts for 81 points. On the other hand, if a guy gets accused of rape on two separate occasions, the second offense is worth 100 points, and each offense after that is 1000 more. This should offset the fact I’ve used the maximum point total for mere allegations.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s get to the nitty-gritty and see the PAIN Ratio in action. For the sake of time, I’m going with 3 people on the initial run: LeBron, Kobe, and Ben Roethlisberger. Here’s a look at the stats for each guy:

Bryant:
Rings (’00-’02, ’09-’10)= 150 points
Finals MVP(’09-’10)= 110 points
MVP(’08)= 9 points
Scoring titles (’06-’07)= 56 points
All-Star/All-NBA (12 times each)= 1328 points
Olympics (’08)= 5 points
Living up to and outperforming hype= 7 points
Being a good ambassador= 1 point
Arrest and rape accusation= 150 points
Tendency to pout in games= 160 points
Calling out Shaq for cheating= 30 points
Bad PR over rape arrest= 10 points

That’s 1666 good points to 350 bad points, for a PAIN Ratio of 4.8

James:
MVP (’09-’10)= 90 points
Rookie of the Year (’04)= 7 points
Scoring titles (’08)= 7 points
Olympics (’04, ’08)= 15 points
All-Star/All-NBA (6 times each)= 656 points
Public service= 2 points
Quitting on team in ’10 playoffs= 80 points
Being a Twidiot= 120 points
Not living up to hype (no rings yet)= 20 points
Bad PR= 110 points
“The Decision”= 30 points

That’s 777 good points to 360 bad points, for a PAIN Ratio of 2.2

Roethlisberger:
Rookie of the Year(’04)= 7 points
2 Rings (’05, ’08)= 18 points
Pro Bowl (’07)= 8 points
Living up to and outperforming hype= 7 points
Voluntary public service= 6 points
2 rape accusations= 200 points
Suspension= 70 points
Bad PR= 100 points

That’s 46 good points to 370 bad points. Damn. PAIN Ratio of .1 for Ben.

Obviously, Ben’s numbers are skewed on account of the rape accusations, so if he keeps it in his pants, he can get his number back up eventually. What hurts him is that, even though he is a proven winner, he doesn’t have eye-popping numbers to offset the dumb shit he tends to do. I may have to find a metric to get him back up to a respectable level, something like his career win percentage compared to the overall history of the franchise. In the meantime, we are all hoping he makes a strong recovery. As for Kobe, I think he proves my system to be at least somewhat fair. He has accolades out the ass, and just enough negative marks against him to make it interesting. A 4.8 seems perfectly reasonable to me. LeBron, on the other hand, needs to keep his damn mouth shut until he wins something. The All-Star games are the only thing carrying him right now, as a 2.2 rating makes him very close to being a PAIN In The Ass. A sizable chunk of the population already thinks he is anyway.

In a large nutshell, maybe a walnut shell or something, that is the PAIN Ratio. I’m hoping to get some feedback, on Twitter or in the comment section, if anyone so desires. When I came up with this, I created the scoring system without looking at anyone's stats; the fact that I had LeBron in mind with the cut-off point he nearly reached thrills me to no end. Now I’m curious what the 32 of you who are going to read this think.