The other night I had some trouble falling asleep. I decided to do a bit of reading, so I picked up my copy of Orwell's Collected Essays. Not exactly light reading, I admit, but I find his blend of sarcasm, appreciation for everyday things and insight into human nature reassuring. I read the eighth of his As I Please columns he wrote, and it made me think that I should write this post.

In that column, written for Tribune and published on January 21, 1944, Orwell addressed the people who criticized the BBC and its programming. He concedes that there was a great deal wrong with the BBC, but none of the critics seemed to devote any thought to why this was the case and what could be done about it. When I read this again, it occurred to me that I have spent a lot of time criticizing various media outlets without analyzing how things could be better.

The most obvious target of my criticism has been the CHB. I suppose there is very little of intelligence or constructive suggestion in the statement that the CHB looks like Dr. Who. I think it's funny, though, so there will be no form of retraction or apology. And as for his colleague Bob Ryan, and fellow traveler Jay Mariotti, both of whom have been enshrined in the Max Mercy Hall of Fame, they deserved it.

There is a way to fix newspaper sports coverage. It's really quite simple, in theory. Hire better writers. Hire people with a modicum of creativity, who will not have to resort to the "there is something gravely wrong in the world of sports" column that attaches earth-shattering significance to each day's developments (like the Terrell Owens saga). Of course that's a pipe dream, what with the fact that the newspaper is slowly dying right before our eyes.

Lately, I have been critical of ESPN also. Perhaps I overreacted to their coverage of the Cory Lidle tragedy. However, there is a lot to be said for respecting a family's privacy and letting a story unfold before devoting an entire evening to covering it. I have a problem with ESPN because they air sports programming 24 hours a day on four networks. It sounds like a sports fan's dream scenario, but it isn't a good thing.

Because they have 24 hours to fill, the powers that be have to fill it with something. There just aren't enough sporting events and "sporting events" (darts, poker and billiards are not sports), and only so many times you can rebroadcast The Contender. In order to fill the time, ESPN rushes some stories to air. By doing so, they end up manufacturing stories. By that I don't mean they make up a story. They end up taking an event and covering it, and then their coverage becomes the story.

Consider the Terrell Owens episode. Will any one ever completely believe any version of his hospitalization? What would have happened had the network waited before it rushed to the air with the Dallas police narrative? So much air was wasted and ink spilled over what may well be a non-story. He could have deliberately ODed, or been the victim of a pharmaceutical interaction. We'll never really know, because the spectacle of an entire afternoon devoted to the incident and the press conferences held by the various parties from the Dallas PD, EMS, the team, T.O., Parcells and the PR assistant.

Then there is the Larry Coker situation at Miami. Every commentator and his/her brother has weighed in on that sordid scene. Has any one asked the question what responsibility resides with the media for the fight? I don't know if Larry Coker has lost that team. It certainly looked like it on Saturday. But if he has lost his team, might it have been adversely effected by the infinite number of has Larry lost this team stories that had already appeared since the loss to Florida State in the first game?

Of course, if ESPN (and the media in general) were to ask questions like that, it would question their very reason for being. We all know that no one needs 24 hours of sports coverage, but we want it as consumers. ESPN gives us what we want and if the Lidle family, Larry Coker or Terrell Owens must be trampled, then trampled they shall be. God forbid one think for oneself, or come up with something to say to one's friends without help from the Worldwide Leader.

In all of that, it seems that I have failed to provide a constructive criticism of ESPN's programming. There is no constructive criticism to the problems addressed above that I can see, except for waiting a bit before breaking a story. That won't happen, since every media outlet is competing not only with other media outlets, but with blogs like Deadspin (not this blog, since it takes me days to assemble my thoughts and ramble). I do have a constructive suggestion about the talk show rotation on ESPN. Here it is.

In this day and age, it is amazing that there isn't a female host on any of the ESPN talk shows. Think of their roll call: First and 10 -Page, Crawford and Bayless, PTI - Wilbon and Kornheiser (with luminaries like LeBatard, Ryan, Whitlock and Mariotti as stand-ins), Quite Frankly - Smith, Around the Horn - Reali and Rome is Burning - Jim Rome. Even among the panelists on Around the Horn, Jackie MacMullin is the only woman. Is there some reason I don't know of that a female host could not succeed as the men listed above have?

The first to go, if some one must go, from the list above is Jim Rome. While I am not acquainted with every demographic among the ESPN audience, I can say this. No one I know likes Jim Rome. The only segment of the viewing audience to which he seems to appeal is the phony tough, crazy brave frat guy, would be frat guy, future frat guy and former frat guy. Jim Rome must be their lizard king, since he is as phony tough and crazy brave as they come.

Memo to Jim Rome: everybody knows you aren't tough. Even if the famous incident with Jim Everett were staged, you were still dribbled on the set of your own show by a guy you called Chris Evert. Memo to Jim Rome: calling T.O. "to" is not funny. Nor is it tough. Memo to Jim Rome: now that you can see this in print, maybe you'll realize how ridiculous it is and give the "memo to" expression the rest it so richly deserves.

Can any body honestly tell me that one of the ESPN sideline reporters like Suzy Kolber, Michelle Tafoya, Lisa Salters or Erin Andrews couldn't do a better job? After all, Pam Ward does the play-by-play on ESPN college football telecasts, and she does as well as most of her male counterparts (not that that is a compliment, necessarily). Any one of the women I mentioned above would probably do very well as a talk show host. They would certainly be less abrasive, which is Jim Rome's one skill.

ESPN needn't fear losing the audience segment described above, they would watch the show merely because an attractive woman hosted it. For those who think advocating the termination of the show Rome is Burning is not a constructive suggestion, watch the show and tell me that the nation would not be better off if that tool were off the air.

As the fourth quarter of this evening's NFL Monday Night Football game between the Chicago Bears and the Arizona Cardinals winds down, it looks like a fair number of pundits and commentators might be calling in sick tomorrow. Physical therapists across the nation will be treating them for a variety of minor injuries like muscle pulls and joint sprains associated with awkward landings. The Chicago Bears bandwagon might have some good seats available this week.

I have complained a time or two that the media make too much of the most recent performance when they do their analysis. The Bears look awful on offense tonight, and the defense hasn't made enough plays to beat the Cardinals. As I write this, the Edge has fumbled and Charles Tillman took it in for the TD. They are not done yet.

It was only a matter of time until Rex Grossman came back to Earth. He take a lot of chances, he doesn't have much game experience. He hasn't had to battle through a bad road performance like this has been to this point (3:27 and counting, now). The Bears, as a group, don't have that much big game experience. Yes, they made the playoffs last season, and there are some holdovers from the team Dick Jauron took to the playoffs.

In those years, they didn't have to battle their way into the playoffs. Their division just sort of opened up for them. Right now, it looks like the NFC North is going to open up for them again. Green Bay is dreadful. Detroit is four back in the loss column. Minnesota has shocked me thus far, by winning a couple of games. I thought they were going to be much worse (and they aren't very good). Chicago has one game remaining against each of their division rivals, and there is no reason to doubt that the Bears could go 5-1, or even 6-0 in the NFC North.

Devin Hester has just returned a punt for a TD with about 3:00 remaining, giving the Bears a 24-23 lead, in a game where Rex Grossman threw 4 picks, and the offense managed to score all of 0 points. If you are a glass half full person, then you see visions of the 2000 Ravens who weathered a multiple game stretch in midseason without an offensive TD. If you're a glass half empty type, the Bears were overrated and Arizona exposed them tonight. Neil Rackers just missed the kick, the Bears won the game.

I am a pessimist, as a general rule, but I'm also a contrarian. The NFL season, as cliche tells us, is not a sprint, but a marathon. The thing is, to get through the season, a team needs some help at different points along the line. Yes, the offense did nothing, or less than nothing when you factor in the six turnovers. Yes, they needed a 21 point effort from their defense and special teams. But is that a reason to abandon the bandwagon?

To those who say that it is a reason to jump off the Bears' bandwagon, I can't deny they looked bad on offense tonight. It made one think with longing of the glory days of Kyle Orton. But I think it's too soon to forsake them. I would like those who want to stop believing in Chicago breakdown the 1972 Dolphins' perfect season. I haven't looked at it myself yet, but I'm sure there must have been one game they could have lost somewhere along that storybook season. At the end of the day, unless you're Billy Beane or Peyton Manning, it's the win that matters.

I posed the question two weeks ago, and it is going to be a running theme as the season progresses. Can the Bears win the Super Bowl? I didn't have a definitive answer then, and I still don't. Believe it or not, I am more inclined to say that these Bears can win it all than I was then. Adversity is important in the shaping of a team's character. Depending on how the Bears come out from their bye week (not just the San Fran game, but the two or three following it), I think I will be ready to give my answer by mid November.

If they can get a more consistent offensive performance, this Bears team could be unstoppable. If they don't calm down a little bit, they are eminently beatable. There is no way this team can go undefeated. I said it to a friend (believe it or not, I have friends) on the blower before the game tonight. They have to play St. Louis in the Edward Jones Dome, and the Bears have not been a good indoor team in their history. There is the three game stretch in November where they play both New York teams and the veritable gods among men that call Gillette Stadium their Valhalla.

The Cardinals were up by 20 in the second half, and collapsed. Some of the better opponent's who will face the Bears as the season progresses will not collapse under the same pressure. The Bears need to learn from this game, and temper their confidence. Perhaps a wave of refugees from the Chicago bandwagon will wake them up.

As a fan of My Name is Earl, I think there is a lot to be said for the effect karma can have. One reason I am reluctant to wholeheartedly endorse this Bears team is that a lot of negative karma is still hovering over the Chicago football landscape. The premature demise of a Bears team that should have become a dynasty atoned for the Super Bowl Shuffle video. For those a more serious punishment should have been meted out, remember that the proceeds from the video went to charity.

There is some negative karma lingering from the Bears Super Bowl team that may never be exorcised. There is a video from the Super Bowl season featuring Harold Washington, then mayor of Chicago with a group of women dressed as cheerleaders. The women sing a song that goes: "Should we give them the finger? Yeah, yeah. We're number one, we're number one, we're number one, one one." I tried to find it on YouTube, with no luck tonight. But you can see it from time to time on extended highlights of the 85 season on ESPN. I'll look again, and if I find it I'll post the link to it.

Well, the As won't be celebrating a World Series title this fall, just like they haven't celebrated in each of the seasons during Billy Beane's reign of terror. Sooner or later, the commercial media will stop massaging his ego and start expecting a little more than simply making the playoffs. Until that day, I guess fans will have to swallow his snake oil for at least one more year. Perhaps Billy Beane and Peyton Manning can have a grudge match in the offseason to see which overhyped fraud can rightly lay claim to the title "King of the Frauds."

Unlike most people, I guess, I think that at some point a player or a coach has to lead his team to a championship game or series, and an executive must build a team that can at least reach the championship game or series. Until that happens, any praise a player, coach or an executive receives isn't worth a damn thing. Sports, unlike any other aspect of life, are shockingly simple. Someone wins and someone loses. And until you've won, you're nothing but a loser. Any other sentiment but that is nonsense you feed little kids after they lost a Little League game. That's why Peyton Manning is a fraud, and Billy Beane is nothing more than the nerdy kid who knew more algebra than they rest of us (Theo Epstein, stats tool though he is, gets a pass because his team won a title).

A development more interesting than the As collapse occurred in this year's ALCS. Far be it for me to take delight in the downfall of another, especially when some many better paid commentators on TV and in the press do it so gleefully. But Steve "Psycho" Lyons will not be joining us in the broadcast booth at least not for the foreseeable future. I guess we all should have seen this coming, but I never believed it possible.

I imagine their must have been a segment of the viewing audience who enjoyed his "wit," "wisdom" and "insight." I was not one of those people. Moreover, no one I know enjoyed his commentary on baseball broadcasts. And yet, there he was calling games on Fox Saturday baseball with Thom Brenneman making you miss Tim McCarver and Joe Buck, as impossible as that seems. It's amazing that a lack of talent, humor and real insight into the game is not cause for dismissal.

I do agree that his off color comments on people of Hispanic descent merited punishment. But is saying that Lou Pinella was "hablaing Espanol" so terrible? I don't think so. It's certainly stupid, a poor attempt to be folksy. Very poor indeed. Far worse, and less intelligent, was his remark that he was uncomfortable sitting next to Lou Pinella (who is of Hispanic descent) and he feared for the safety of his wallet. That was enough to get him fired.

The strange thing is he had a history of this type of behavior. During the Mets-Dodgers NLDS matchup, he cracked on a fan wearing unusually thick glasses. The cute little epigram was "wearing a digital camera on his face." Of course, there was no way for Steve Lyons to know that the fan in question was almost blind, but there was no need for him to say that either.

Then there was the infamous criticism of Shawn Green for not playing a game against the Giants during Yom Kippur. Shawn Green just happens to be Jewish. Amazingly, Lyons survived that incident. He was suspended without pay, but he wasn't fired. I guess this was his third strike.

I am somewhat torn about this. Part of me is glad that he's no longer broadcasting baseball because I thought he brought nothing to the table. Part of me understands that what he said was colossally ignorant and has no place in civilized conversation. But part of me knows that we've all either made off color comments about other racial or ethnic group. And part of me fears political correctness will eventually overwhelm free expression.

One must ask the question how dumb is Steve Lyons? Even if enlightenment in this area is beyond your intellectual capacity, at some point the instinct to self preservation should come to the fore. If you have been caught on two prior occasions for general insensitivity, and disciplined for religious insensitivity, avoiding any type of ethnic insensitivity might be a good idea. If those of you who read this (all 1.3 of you) aren't smart enough to grasp the self preservation concept, I would suggest this course of action. Simple politeness.

Take a page from General Patton (as depicted in the Oscar winning film with George C. Scott). After omitting the Russians from a speech on his experiences in England where he ever so briefly mentioned Anglo-American world rule in a postwar scenario, Patton found himself in hot water with his superiors. The organizers of his appearance assured the General that his remarks would be off the record, but word got out and caused a huge controversy.

Patton said to his superiors that he would have mentioned the Russians if there had been any present at the time. He said he didn't like the SOBs, but he would have mentioned them out of simple politeness. Apparently simple politeness is far, far beyond the capacities of our society.

Do not misconstrue the tone of this post. Racism is not acceptable. Under no circumstance should you make someone uncomfortable because of their heritage. I merely suggest to those individuals who are not sufficiently enlightened to abandon racial prejudice or clever enough to recognize the consequences of ethnically insensitive comments, that you should at least be polite enough to keep your mouth shut. I apologize for the grammar, but if you can't not be a moron, at least be a quiet moron.

In the long run, I think it's a victory for us all to have Steve Lyons off the air. Unless, of course, the network finds a permanent replacement who proves to be worse than Psycho. I guess we can always hope.

Congratulations are due to the Worldwide Leader in Sports, today. A tragedy occurred in the sports world, and machine that covers the comings and goings of athletes sprang into action with ruthless precision. Words cannot adequately describe the sorrow involved when a 34 year old man with a wife and six year old son passes away suddenly. And yet the story dominated ESPN all afternoon and all evening since it broke.

I am being harsh in my treatment of the ESPN family, I suppose. And uncharacteristically serious. Like many sports fans, I watch ESPN quite a bit. And like many sports fans, I hate the "have righteous indignation, will travel" mentality which is the trademark of the modern sportswriter. I try to strike a light tone, but today isn't most days.

Cory Lidle died when his plane crashed into a building on the East Side of Manhattan. In their rush to coverage, ESPN came on the air with the story before the family could be properly notified. Can you imagine? Stepping off a plane (his wife and son were apparently on a commercial flight when the tragedy occurred) in an airport terminal and seeing on the TV that your spouse died in a plane crash.

Never having taken a class in journalism, I can't say whether or not that is responsible. I do know that it is a pretty rotten way to find out that you're widowed. It also struck me as ghoulish to see the Baseball Tonight talking heads intermittently appearing on screen to remind us how this sad even puts a perspective on the Yankees recent difficulties and controversies. Did this story really merit the three or so hours of national television time it got today?

I understand that too much attention is paid to the world of sports in general, and to high profile franchises in particular. The Yankees are the most visible franchise in the nation's largest media market. There is also the fact that from no until this generation passes, no one will hear a story of an aircraft hitting a building and not call to mind images of the carnage of September 11. As a matter course, this unfortunate incident was bound to be overcovered. That is the unfortunate reality of cable television, 24 hours programming and the internet media circus era in which we live.

There are several questions which linger. First, is the obvious, who made the decision to devote the day of programming to this story, and why? And again, was it coincidence, or a mad rush on the spur of the moment, that a retrospective on the tragic death of Yankee catcher Thurman Munson in a plane crash in 1979 was available for broadcast tonight? Finally, where is the line in reporting a breaking story and respecting a family's right to privacy in the wake of a tragic loss?

Tragedy TV is an unfortunate trend in today's entertainment industry. When a celebrity dies or does something noteworthy (provided, of course, that it is a negative action), it will be covered in the news media until people have their fill of it. I don't watch the news on a regular basis because of this phenomenon. I can live without knowing the gory details of each horror of every day that passes.

I might be one of the last 3 or 4 people to understand why the Irwin family withholds the footage of the tragic death of Steve, famously known as the Crocodile Hunter. Why do people need to see their personal tragedy unfold on You Tube? He was struck in the chest by a sting ray spine, it pierced his heart. Isn't that a vivid enough description without seeing the poor man die?

Sports was my escape from this insanity. But now there is no escape. Look at the events of the Terrell Owens soap opera. Whether or not his camp is telling the truth about a pharmaceutical mishap is not the real issue. The real problem is that the media hopes events like that turn out to be an attempt at suicide. It fills more broadcast time. The fifth starter on the New York Yankees tragically dies in a plane crash, and it's like a head of state passed away. Well, it looks like we've lost sports to the tragedy TV culture. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I write this evening to demand that the Dallas police arrest one Drew Bledsoe for triple homicide. With one throw, he killed the Cowboy's chances of winning the game, my prediction that they would beat the Eagles and my fantasy football team's chances for victory. All of my players are done, all of the other cat's players are done. I came up 3 points short.

I like Drew Bledsoe as a QB. I wish him well, but I am seriously pissed at this week's turn of events. I was 3-1, tied for the lead in my division and for best record in the league. Now I'll go to 3-2, the tool who beat me is now in sole possession of said best record. I may stay tied for first, if Tomlinson and Gates are stifled by the Steelers.

A TD pass from Bledsoe would have won me the game. Especially if he threw it to TO or Jason Witten, both of whom were in my lineup. His interception got him -1.8 points on the day. Not only did he bring nothing to the table, he actually took things away. Seven sacks, three interceptions and a lost fumble. That will offset 223 yards passing, 24 yards rushing and a rushing TD.

Every criticism of Bledsoe was present in today's game. The Eagles pressured him up the middle, big time. He held the ball too long, refused to throw it away and took big sacks. Especially on first and second down in the two minute offense. He did make some big throws, too, to be fair. Especially the one to Terry Glenn that drew the pas interference call which brought the team down to the 3 yard line. Ironically, if Glenn had caught the ball it wouldn't have meant a damn thing in the real world but it would have put me in a better position to win the fantasy football game.

And then, he took the jam out of the collective doughnut of Dallas fans, idiots like me who played him in fantasy football, his coaches and his teammates. He found a wide open defender and drilled a perfect pass to him for 6 points. It was a classic Drew Bledsoe moment. I like his competitiveness and his confidence, but I hate the ghost in the machine that makes him make the fatal mistake at the big moment in the big game. Visions of Reggie White devouring Max Lane danced in my head all day today (Super Bowl XXXI, for those with short memories).

I suppose I ought to explain myself and the thought process that cost me the game. If I played Byron Leftwich in a much better matchup against the New York Jets, I win the game. It's that simple. It's a risk you take each week with the decisions you make as a fantasy owner. It's an artificial feeling of power that makes games which might not be so compelling in their own right more interesting. That's why they call it fantasy football, and not the Cincinnati Kid wins.

I took a chance, playing the Jaguars defense after a game where they were shredded by Mark Brunell and Santana Moss. They were facing Chad Pennigton who was ripping it up, throwing for over 300 yards against the Titans and the Patriots. It worked like a charm. They shutout the Jets, sacked Pennington five times, intercepted him three times, recovered a fumble and blocked a kick. All told, they got me 23 points, so I can only complain so much about Bledsoe.

What kills me is that I'm in a league that gives points for return yards. My opponent threw Rock Cartwright, JJ Arrington and Wes Welker at me. Welker got 12 points from his return yards alone (to go with 7 points from his receptions). Arrington and Cartwright didn't touch the ball on offense, but combined to score . I went with a more conventional lineup, Bledsoe, Larry Johnson, Deuce McAllister, Ronnie Brown, TO, Torry Holt, Jason Witten, Lawrence Tynes and the Jaguar defense. In addition to the kick returners, my opponent played Peyton Manning, Kevin Jones, Santana Moss, Robbie Gould and the Saints defense.

It was a brilliant ploy, each time a kick returner touches the ball he's going to get about 20 yards or so. That's 2 points a touch. I have a much more traditional lineup, and I took it for granted today. I didn't even look at my team this week, I just figured my lineup was good enough that I didn't need to tinker with it. That's what cost me the game.

But my fantasy woes this week tie back into the real world issues. I tricked myself into going with the Cowboys this week, and Bledsoe in fantasy football using the same rationale. I thought the Cowboys could handle the Eagle blitz package. The Eagles weren't doing anything particularly exotic. They just sent more people up the middle than the Cowboys could handle. It was a brutally elegant and simply devastating.

The Cowboys thought they could handle the blitz, and didn't communicate well up front. After all, linebacker and safeties weren't the one running free and hitting Bledsoe. The guys hitting Bledsoe most often were defensive tackle Darwin Walker and especially defensive end Dwight Howard. That means the offensive linemen aren't communicating effectively. They have to close down to the inside, that's an offensive lineman's fist responsibility. If one guy has to close down to the inside, some one has to move with him, and Dallas failed to do that time and time again.

It wasn't all Drew's fault all the time. But the big play at the end of the game was all Drew. It looked like he had the time, but just rushed the throw. As for the Dallas defense, I expected them to play more consistently than they did. At times they were great, and at times they didn't execute at all. Ware got caught inside on Westbrook's TD run. I thought LJ Smith held him on the play, but it wasn't called. But it evened out when Greg Ellis forced the fumble Ware returned for a TD thanks to LJ Smith's lackluster effort to tackle him.

Patrick Watkins, the rookie free safety, was burned badly on the 87 yard TD pass to Hank Baskett. He bit on the first part of a double move, and bit hard. Then to top it off, he had a chance to make the tackle, but failed to bring down the Philly receiver. But the flea flicker wasn't his fault. He covered it well enough. Donovan McNabb just made a great throw, and Pro Bowl strong safety Roy Williams misjudged the ball in flight and took the wrong angle. Two mistakes, which added up to 14 points. Dallas had the chance to win. They made some plays, but the Eagles made more plays and made bigger plays.

In the baseball world, rumors are flying fast and furious in the Bronx. Will The Boss fire/buy out Joe Torre? It's should be harder to say this about a guy who's taken his team to six World Series and won four since 1996, but I think it's time for a change in the Big Apple. A month, two weeks ago I would not have said it. Of course, that was before the Tigers quickly closed the Yankees out of the playoffs. The Yankees looked old, tired and listless compared to the Tigers. And now the buzzards are picking at the Yankee failure.

It's time for a new direction. The Yankees haven't won a championship since 2000. They haven't won a postseason series since their tragic collapse in 2004. They looked out of sorts against the Angels last year. They didn't look any better against the Tigers. They will likely lose Sheff, and ARod and Mussina might also be elsewhere next season. That's life in pro sports these days. It will be interesting to see what sort of team they field in 2007.

By a new direction, I don't mean Sweet Lou Pinella. Yes, he has experience and a World Series ring as a manager. Yes, he has historic ties to the Yankees as a player who was on Yankee champions in the 1970s. He's also a Tampa guy, and Tampa is the winter headquarters of the Boss. Does he have the temperament to manage for Steinbrenner? I don't think so. The Yankees will let a team like the Cubs make that mistake. If Torre goes, my money's on Girardi.

If I were the type of blogger in the habit of giving titles to posts, I guess I might call this one Damn Yankees. The Yankees fans might be consoling themselves with the dulcet tones of Crowded House in their hit "Don't Dream It's Over." I wanted the Yanks to win, not as a Yankee fan, but as a Red Sox hater. But I like Jim Leyland as a manager. I think he radiates an old school, more competent, less snakebitten Pop Fisher (the manager from the Natural) vibe. I've never been able to summon up any negative feeling against the Tigers, which is strange for me since I hate so many things with so few reasons.

The Yankees assembled one of the great paper champions of all time this season. But like another team I hoped would best a squad from Michigan this fall, they were ready for every eventuality but one. In case you're wondering or you don't read my blog regularly, I'm referring to the Notre Dame loss to Michigan. I still don't know whether the Irish are better than the Wolverines, I believe it but I'm biased. The Yankees seemed to deflate when Detroit battled back to win game 2.

It's just me talking, but I got the sense that the Bronx Bombers expected Damon's 3 run shot to put the kibosh on the Tigers. The whole team seemed to be looking around for some other one of the All Stars to step up and get the big hits. Unfortunately, no one stepped up against Bonderman or Kenny Rogers. I don't want to diminish the excellent pitching performances both gentlemen submitted. But the Yankees of 6,7 years ago with a lesser galaxy of stars made a living out of surviving against excellent pitching performances.

This Yankee team just seemed like it lacked guts in huge moments. The Tigers seemed more like the Yankees of old than this edition of Yankees did in this series, and it decided the series. Read this article from the Tigers website. It tells me that it's go time for Oakland, and in the immortal words of Marvin the Paranoid Android from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: "This will all end in tears" if your Billy Beane. Or at least another Bonderman inspired tantrum where he throws a chair into the wall.

Alex Rodriguez has to go. He's a great talent, I can't deny it. He says he wants to be part of the solution in NY, but I just don't think he can do it. The big stage and the pressure seem to eat him alive. It might be self-inflicted, he might take the pressure the media and the fans and his teammates put on him and internalize too much of it. But he has an absolute knack for saying the wrong thing at the wrong moment. First there was his infamous war of words with Trot Nixon a couple of years ago. In the recent Sports Illustrated piece, he complained that people didn't like him because he was biracial and good looking. That seems odd to me, what with the fact that the average Yankee fan would take a bullet for Derek Jeter, who is both good looking and biracial.

I looked at his Wikipedia page, and you who read this tell me that a Red Sox fan wasn't at this. I didn't know that ARod was openly gay. I didn't know he was gay at all. Somehow, with the amount of ESPN I watch and the sports articles I read, I think I would have heard that one of the most famous players in the game swas gay. Not that I care, because it's not my business, but it presents a chance to try Red Sox Nation. Are you really so petty, and pathetic that you need to call a high profile Yankee a homosexual to feel better about yourselves? Even homophobes should be horrified by this trend.

Some other team will take him if the Yankees pay a big percentage of his salary, and he'll fill seats for them. Any other team will be glad to make the postseason, and he just might make a difference (think Magglio Ordonez, but much more talented). In New York, a Yankees championship is not the amazing event that it is elsewhere. Even winning the World Series there has a "Nice work, you did what you were supposed to do, now shut up" feel to it. Outside of the New York pressure cooker, his errors will likely drop and his offensive numbers will probably go up.

The Yankees can afford to pay him to play somewhere else. They might be better off as an organization, as strange as it seems, to pay him to play for another team. He won't be a focal point, no more pressure, no more controversy. The Yankees will have a hole in the lineup, and they'll need to find a third baseman. Aaron Boone is available, since the Indians declined his option. He'll be a cheaper alternative, with less power, but the power numbers weren't there for any Yankee in this series. It's time for the team and the player to go in a different direction, and Red Sox fans surely share my fond memories of Aaron Boone's home run to end the 2003 ALCS.
Gary Sheffield will likely be gone from the Bronx next season too. His option is too expensive for the production one can expect from him. I'll miss him. His massive swing and his if looks could kill expression were pretty cool. I remember Bill Simmons saying that Sheff looked like the last guy you see when you get too deep in the hole with your bookie (I'd link the specific article if the ESPN archive fee weren't too steep for the limited budget of this blog). He didn't look good at first base today, and is he a better option in right field than Abreu (who is most definitely under contract for next season)? Big Stein spent a boatload on the two, but he can afford to cut his losses. And as the Walrus said, the time has come to talk of other things...

I think it was unfair to talk about this Yankee team as the best offense ever assembled. Obviously they weren't, when you look at the fact that Giambi, ARod and Sheff managed three hits among them in the ALDS against the Tigers. There are, or were, two factors oft overlooked in the rush to overhype and overanalyze this Yankee team.

First, it is insane to compare any team from this era to the Murders Row Yankees of the late 1920s and early 30s. In case you may have forgotten, let me remind you that in the dark ages, pitchers hit every day. There was no DH until the 1970s. So there was a weak link in the lineup every day for those Yankee teams.

Most people who know that Curt Schilling and Josh Beckett would have submitted the two most dominating pitching performances that the human mind can conceive understand that I am fabricating the second factor from thin air. Unfortunately for Red Sox fans, they spend too much time looking at the world through rose colored glasses or perhaps the bottoms of empty glasses. But the second reason I think it is pointless to compare the current MLB players to their far distant antecedents is this: they lowered the pitcher's mound after Bob Gibson (who disappointed me by not throwing a hellacious beating on scribes who compared him to Pedro Martinez in the mid to late 90s) ruinated the MLB hitters in the 1968 campaign.

I haven't even mentioned the other peripheral issues one ought consider in such a comparison. Advances in nutrition and exercise regimens altered the physical dimension of even the average American, so what has it done for pro baseball players? And then there are the ball parks. Back in the day, what is now Monument Park in Yankee Stadium was in play. The centerfield wall was 450 feet away. I'm surprised no one else mentioned anything like that on ESPN. That has to be like 12, 13 minutes of talk on Baseball Tonight. Perhaps it's too intricate for the average fan.

I think the Tigers will win it all. Right now, they have a serious team of destiny vibe. Kind of like the Red Sox had the vibe that they were destined to be swept by the Yankees in a pivotal five game series. Heads had to roll for this season, and they did. The path is now paved for a title run next season. Ron Jackson and Dave Wallace will not be joining us for the rest of their lives (to borrow a phrase from my favorite movie villain, Hans from Die Hard).

It seems like only yesterday that Ron Jackson was the genius who undid the singles hitter mantra the Twins tried to instill in David Ortiz and turned him into one of the most feared power threats in baseball. We live in a what have you done for me lately world, and apparently when they reckoned the account on Ron Jackson, the answer was not enough. Francona (or Francoma, as the Red Sox fan who told me he'd be happy with a 12-7 split in the season series with the Yankees calls him) is still in place for the time being, but like Nebuchadnezzar's kid, the writing is on the wall. I'm thinking of betting that he'll be looking for a job come next November. I take no joy in it, I merely use it as one more avenue to pour salt into the wounds of Red Sox Nation.

This offseason will be an interesting one. Will the Red Sox spend to compete with the Yankees? Or will they weasel out and rely on the dwindling reservoir of goodwill from the travesty of 2004? At some point, Red Sox fans might cowboy up and kick back against a team with the highest ticket prices in baseball, a penchant for charging nitwits $12 to tour an empty stadium and $9.95 for citizenship in Red Sox Nation, a skewed concession economy that leaves fan with a colossal thirst paying over and above the cost of a 30 banger in a packie for a round of watered-down Bud/Bud Light and an front office devoted to misinformation (OK, so I made that last one up, can you find it in your heart to forgive me?). Third place in the AL East sticks going down, even if they did win the title two years ago, and fickle friends in New England won't take it again.

Remember, you heard it here first. The Yankees will win it all next season if they sign Roger Clemens. I dreamed it two weeks ago, now we'll see if it becomes reality. I believe in mysticism and dreams and that irrational stuff. It's fine with me if you don't, but that's how I roll. I feel so strongly about it that I'm willing to be that guy and provide a link to my own post where I initially mentioned the dream. I hate the self reference, but just so you know that the Yanks were still alive when I dreamed it.

Notre Dame did what we expected them to do today. They beat Stanford, and I actually felt badly about it. I hate Stanford, I root against them all the time in every sport, but they looked like a high school team out there this afternoon. It was like me arm wrestling my four year old niece. Dallas plays Philly tomorrow. I'd be rooting for them anyway, but I have TO, Bledsoe and Jason Witten in fantasy. Poor drafting, I know, but I was drunk.

What did we learn from the rest of the college football games this week? Michigan beat Michigan State pretty badly. Last week Illinois upset Michigan State in East Lansing. Today Illinois lost a shootout at home to Indiana. The Fighting Irish needed a miracle comeback to beat the Spartans. So Notre Dame might get through the remainder of their schedule unscathed and face USC with a 10-1 record, but then again they might be in the weeds if Illinois or Indiana decided to pull a fast one and ambush them WWE style.

While it might be intriguing to see a team that had game planned for one opponent suddenly be surprised by another team jumping into the stadium without warning, that's simply not football. And I doubt the NCAA would approve. It might happen one day, with the degeneration of sports fandom. Hopefully, I won't live to see it. I think Michigan still isn't quite as good as they were on that day in South Bend, and Notre Dame wasn't that bad. But the long and short of it is, Michigan has national title hopes, and they killed Notre Dame's chances of competing for that stupid crystal football.

The first day of the Divisional Round is now behind us. And it was a good day. Of course any day that teams are playing playoff baseball, and the Red Sox aren't one of them, is a good day in my world. Not quite good enough that it gets me referring to myself in the third person, but close.

I'm not sure who I want to win at this point. Obviously, it will depress the Red Sox organization and their fans if the Yankees win. That should make me happy because I am a sad, small person in many ways. But I admit that about myself, which makes me a better person. So it all evens out in the end.

I do know one thing. I don't want any of the National League teams to win. I hate the Cardinals. For several reasons. First, they lost the 2004 World Series to the hated Red Sox in depressingly short order. Secondly, they are owned by Anheuser Busch, and I am a High Life drinker (although in the interest of honesty, I must confess that I will drink Bud Light if I'm not buying it and I do like Bud Select). I think my anti-Bud stance can, in small part, be traced to the movie Rooster Cogburn and the Lady (the not entirely disappointing sequel to one of my all time favorites, True Grit), and the sentiment that Rooster Cogburn and his alcoholic cat did not like St. Louis beer.

I don't really care about the Padres, even though they have former Red Sox like Todd Walker, Mark Belhorn and Josh Bard (even though he was on the Sox for about 3 weeks). I have to root against the Dodgers and Grady Little. I don't know what would have to happen for me to root for a team with Nomar on it. I still hate him just as much now as I did when he played for the Sox. I hate the Mets too.

In the AL, I wouldn't mind seeing either the Yankees or the Tigers emerge. I hate the Twins (and all Minnesota teams) because I hate the Vikings. I guess it's like a transitive property of petty hatred. Unless of course my math analogy is incorrect, then it's some other property of hatred, still petty, though. I also hate the As. I think there ought to be a moratorium on declaring a baseball GM a genius until he's won a World Series. In the end of the day in the harsh world of professional sports, the runner up is just the king of the losers. Only this and nothing more. So I guess the guy who can't get out of the first round is like the jack of the losers.

So I guess those of us who wish minor misfortune on Red Sox Nation must back the Yankees. After all, the new commercial for playoff baseball with Tommy Lasorda coaxing a reluctant Red Sox fan from her room to root against the Yankees should provide ample motivation. I imagine it it could be worse. At least it's one more spot where a network isn't showing the "Go, boy, go" Dockers ad and Peyton Manning isn't in it. I guess I should be more grateful for small favors.
PS - To those few of you who read this, I offer the following disclaimer. If you're under 21 and you decide to drink because of this post, it's not my fault. You're a moron. If you're under 21, 21 or over 21 and you undertake to get a cat drunk because of this post, it's also not my fault. You're an even bigger moron. At some point, you have to be responsible for your own decisions.

Well, the first quarter of the NFL season is over now (at least it is for most teams). It is abundantly clear that the three remaining undefeated teams, the Bears, Colts and Ravens, have received far too much attention. The real class of the NFL are the 3-1 teams who faced off in Super Bowl XXIX, the Philadelphia Eagles and the New England Patriots.

In fact, I insist that we start referring to the Bears as 4-1, anticipating their inevitable defeat at the hands of the Patriots in Foxboro on November 26. Alas, Rex Grossman, we hardly knew ye. By the time Bellichek's insane clown posse gets through with him, he'll wish he were injured. Of course, there is just a slight chance that the suddenly vaunted Patriots' defense might be more than a step older and slower than in the salad days. Then again, it might be the No Name defense of this generation.

I favor the less optimistic view, which could be summed up in this paraphrase (and bowdlerization) of Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction. It might be a little premature to offer the gift of oral gratification all around.

After all, while they may have played the most impressive collection of teams that have only won one game apiece at this point in the NFL season, the Eagles have beaten the Texans, the Forty-Niners and the Packers. Those three teams might not wrest the number one pick away from the Titans (who look more and more like a prohibitive favorite as each week progresses, or regresses as the case may be), but they'll most likely be in the top ten come April. They lost in Week 2 to the Giants, when they blew a sizeable lead in the fourth quarter. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but the Giants are the only playoff team from last season the Eagles have faced thus far. Dallas, on the other hand, played Jacksonville in Jacksonville and beat the Redskins convincingly in Texas Stadium.

We probably should start assuming that the Eagles will be 4-1 come Sunday evening. Dallas can't hope to compete with the Eagles this week. The only reason Mike Patterson is left out of the conversation for the most dominant defensive lineman in football is his dearth of bigtime talent. But he'll crush the Cowboys offensive line. I admit that the Cowboys are suspect up front, but the Eagles aren't exactly the Steel Curtain. NFL teams are often only as good as their last game, a fact that should be remembered when we consider that the Eagles sack totals have come against the Texans, Giants, San Fran and Green Bay (all units are even shakier than the Cowboys).

Donovan MacNabb has put up numbers this season, but I am not as impressed with them as some. For instance, in this week's Vent SportsNation poll on ESPN.com, we are invited to vote on whether this group of Eagle wideouts is the best McNabb has had and whether he is a better QB without TO. Perhaps it might be too early to ask questions like that. After all, according to the stats on ESPN's website, the Giants are the 29th ranked passing yardage allowed. Green Bay is ranked 31st and the Texans are dead last. San Francisco is slightly better at 24.

I just wish someone would come out and say that Philadelphia might have the number one offense as far as passing yardage is concerned, because they've played four of the eight worst defenses in that regard in the NFL. Dallas, by comparison is currently ranked 8th in passing yardage allowed. And as for the shaky Dallas offensive line, they've only allowed 3 sacks this season, tied with Chicago for second in the NFL. McNabb has been sacked 9 times, tied for 17th in the league. Maybe they'll play a game in Philadelphia this Sunday, instead of just handing the win to the home team, after all.

As for the Patriots, anyone who knows football (and by that, I mean the exact opposite) knows that the Patriots are better than the Bears across the board on defense. Vince Wilfork is easily better than Tommy Harris, and every other player in the defensive tackle rotation in the Windy City. Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau aren't a step slow after age and debilitating injuries, and they make Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs look like chumps. Rodney Harrison isn't fully recovered from last season's injury, but he singly handedly thwarted the Broncos passing attack. It's not like Javon Walker tore up the Patriots downfield.

That's the problem with football fans in this fantasy football/24 hour news coverage/internet generation. Every tool gets too excited about a big win, and too down after a big loss. Cincinnati cannot stop the run. Denver could, and did. Cincinnati lost, Denver did not. It also helped that there were two high profile arrests involving Bengals players in the week leading up to the game. Say what you want about how much or little these things effect a particular team in a given week, Boomer Esiason did. His take is interesting, if slightly sanctimonious. These incidents couldn't have helped.

There are also a number of significant injuries on the Bengals, depleting their linebacking corps. David Pollack is out for at least 2 seasons, and probably for ever with a broken vertebra in his neck. An injury like that has to weigh heavily on the minds of his teammates. It's certainly depressing me right now.

During the football season, I'm going to be running a new feature after each week's games. It's my favorite running debate of the season. Are the Bears good enough to win the NFC championship? They hung a pretty solid beating on the defending NFC champs this week. Their defense looked unbelievably good, and very fast. But they were playing a game at home, and Seattle was playing without the reigning NFL MVP.

Would Shaun Alexander have made that much of a difference? I think he would have been worth at least one TD, maybe 2 when you factor in Jeremy Stevens and the red zone flexibility that might have afforded the Seahawks. I doubt that it would have been enough, especially since Alexander was not playing like an MVP when he was injured. Obviously, one can discuss the would haves, should haves and could haves for hours and not resolve anything.

The answer to my "Are the Bears Good Enough?" debate: not right now. They have played much better on offense than anyone expected. Rex Grossman looks dangerously close to becoming a serviceable quarterback, like Trent Dilfer in 2000, but better, younger and not bald. Their defense is at least as good as it was last year. But like I said about Philly, what is their competition so far?

Green Bay is not good. Detroit was stifled by the Bears and Roy Williams was ridiculed for his wild predictions, but they came alive against the Rams in a big way. Minnesota is the second best team in the NFC North, but there's a big gap between first and second here. The Bears did beat them in the Metrodome, where they've always had trouble in the past. And they did beat Seattle convincingly, especially when you figure that the Kyle Orton edition of the Bears needed 4 weeks to score 37 points during last season's doldrums. But as I mentioned, Shaun Alexander and Jeremy Stevens were out of the lineup.

Looking ahead, it is very possible that the Bears could go undefeated in the North. I won't say it will happen, but they do have Green Bay and Minnesota at home and Detroit may fall apart at any moment. 12-4 or 13-3 aren't outside the realm of possibility and may indeed be a very probable outcome for this team. With the way things are going that just might be good enough for home field throughout the NFC playoffs.

Soldier Field in January should be a big advantage, but you never know. Just look at last year. I never expected Carolina to win there in the winter. And they had beaten Carolina at Soldier Field earlier in the season, sacking Jake Delhomme 8 times. I'm sure that fed into an arrogance that caused them to cover Steve Smith with Charles Tilman one on one. Obviously, that didn't work too well based on the result. To make a long story short, it might be something to consider in the back of your minds should Seattle play Chicago again in the postseason.

Of course, the above scenarios depend on the vain hope that the inevitable beating at the hands of the Patriots doesn't utterly devastate their fragile psyche. One can only hope the Belicheck puts some compassion inside that grey hoodie. We all know that the Jedi master will frustrate and bedevil Grossman just as though the Bear QB were a younger, more articulate (he'd almost have to be more articulate than Junior Simple) version of Peyton Manning. On a serious note, I think the Bears can beat the Patriots even in Gillette Stadium. More than that, I think they will beat the Patriots. But I'm not sure that they can win it all.

Now that the Patriots have beaten a quality AFC opponent on the road, I guess we can stop concentrating on Tom Brady's body language for a while. Like most people who watch football, I was not surprised that Brady looked unhappy, to say the least, on the field against Denver. The team didn't play particularly well, and they lost the game. It would have been a much bigger deal if Brady took that in stride, but people need things to talk about and write about.

One thing that nobody mentioned in the one million and one analyses of Brady's body language that came out in the past week is the great personal strain in his personal life. As America became metrosexualized in the last 10 or so years, one issue was neglected. What happens when a metro goes bald?

With the recent pharmaceutical advances, male pattern baldness has lost much of its sting. However, there are some who have concerns about the chemicals in these drugs, particularly the need to keep hair loss medication away from pregnant women, or women who might become pregnant at some point. The trouble is, no high profile metrosexual has gone bald with dignity (if that's possible). Brady is blazing a trail for metrosexuals everywhere, and that must be difficult for him. Maybe the media needs to ease up on him a bit, and let him work through this issue.

There were a few things that disappointed me during this weekend's games. Like most people, I'm sick of seeing Peyton Manning in his 25,000 commercials. I understand that he's a high profile player in America's most popular professional sport, but for the love of God, there must be one or two other guys out there. I must confess that I would take the money, so I don't fault him for being in all the ads. I blame the agencies which create the ads and the companies that pay him to appear in them. Imagine the horrors which would be unleashed if he had won a championship? One would never be able to see any sporting event or TV show without seeing Junior Simple.

Another thing that disappointed me was learning that a certain balding metrosexual sent Matt Hasselbeck a scouting report on Branch from John Madden during the Sunday night game. I understand that baldies have to stick together, and there is an element of professional courtesy involved. But in the end, they are quarterbacks on two teams that might end up contending for a Super Bowl berth. Why try to help out somebody that wants to win it all when you want to win it all? It doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, there is the Dockers ad. If I saw that stupid commercial one more time today, I think I would have lost my mind. I still have that insipid "Go, boy, go" song stuck in my head. I hate when that happens. But at the same time, I hope those of you who read this have it echo in your minds all day. "Go, boy, go." "Go, boy, go." Over and over. "Go, boy, go." It's very catchy, isn't it? "Go, boy, go." You can thank me later. "Go, boy, go." Now stop.

And one more thing, in a weird way, it's bad for Notre Dame that Illinois won this week. All of a sudden that impressive 19 point fourth quarter comeback against Michigan State looks quite a bit less impressive. The Spartans managed one offensive touchdown against a team that allowed 20 points to Rutgers in one quarter. A quarterback named Juice Williams threw one of the biggest wounded ducks that turned into a long TD for the Illini.

There might be something to be said for the Spartans going into the tank after the emotionally devastating defeat, but Illinois hadn't won a Big 10 game since 2004. They hadn't beaten Michigan State on the road since the 1980s, nor had they beaten them at all in 10 years. Ron Zook was winless in the Big 10, now he's not.

There was some unpleasantness at the end of the game when Illinois players attempted to plant the flag at midfield. I am of two minds on that subject. It's not cool to do things like that, especially when your team is coming off a year where they hadn't won a single conference game. On the other hand, and I think this applies to the TO situation in Dallas when he disgraced the star, if you want to protect your honor and your field...there is one thing you can do. Win the game. Like Al Davis said: "Just win, baby."

It's pretty late on Saturday night. Most people are in bed right now, which is probably a much better idea than a blog post while slightly intoxicated. Perhaps that might be an optimistic estimation of my condition, but there will be no channeling Kellen Winslow II problem tonight. I still wonder sometimes where that came from. I probably should have simply deleted the post, especially since the Sedition in Red Sox Nation Nation numbers about 3 on a good day. No one would have known how serious my drinking problem can be, but that would have been totally dishonest, and honesty is one of my vices.

I haven't had much to say lately. The Red Sox collapse this season has, in a strange way, taken the jam out of my doughnut. Red Sox fans, at least the ones I know, have started taking my calls again. They don't get mad when I ask them if they find any consolation in the haunting lyrics of the magnum opus of 1980s band Crowded House, Don't Dream It's Over. I did get a rise out of one of the Red Sox fans I know who toes the party line (He told me that he would gladly take a 12-7 split in the season series with the Yankees. I thought at the time, but didn't say, that I'd gladly take the Nobel Prize in Literature for this little blog of mine, the one being as likely as the other) about the US Ryder Cup team wilting the way they did.

I know, because a couple of tools told me that the Red Sox have had somewhere on the order of 17 different deals in place which might have brought Roger Clemens to town this year for minimal cost. Alas, none of them were consummated. And the Red Sox faded, finishing in what looks like third place. It's the first time the Sox haven't come in second to the Yanks since 2001, if memory serves. Of course there was the chance that the Sox could have won the AL East last season, but they finished tied with the Yanks who owned the tiebreaker. At the time, a little bit was made of then fact that there was no playoff. There were 19 games for the Sox to make their mark, as long as both teams mad e the playoffs, there was no point to risk an injury to a key player on either side.

While Red Sox fans are watching the DVD of the 2004 crime against humanity, the Yankees have had a chance to rest some people and set their rotation for the upcoming playoffs. I, for my part, don't think they'll win it all this year. I had a dream a couple of days ago where Roger Clemens was putting a pinstriped jersey with the number 27 into a locker. Since I believe in my dreams, I think he'll pitch for the Yankees next season and they'll win the World Series. Just some food for thought. But if Clemens pitches for the Yanks and they win it all in 2007, both of you who read this blog heard it here first.

After another week of college football, some things became clear to me. First, the CHB and Bob Ryan in their capacity as mouthpiece for Tom O'Brien will eventually out Ohio State as a fraudulent number one, since the Buckeyes continually duck America's team in Chestnut Hill. BC beat Maine today. A win so impressive I feel no need to provide for those who missed the game. It's not every day an ACC team outs a 22-0 beatdown on a 1-AA team, but it sees to happen frequently these days.

According to John Powers in the Globe, these games are mutually beneficial. For the small matter of taking a savage beating at a bigger school's hands, a 1-AA team can receive a bribe of a half million dollars or so. This is an important issue to me, as a committed and admitted Notre Dame fan. There has been a lot of talk about how their schedule is comparatively soft. I, for one, resent that allegation. Yes, Notre Dame plays Navy every year and plays at least one other service academy on an annual basis. But the school owes the US Navy a debt of gratitude because the Navy used Notre Dame as an officer training school in WWII, which kept the school from going broke when most of its students enlisted (ND was a small, all male university at the time).

As the talk about Notre Dame's weak schedule mounts, somebody must comment. As I have a very nearly photographic memory and a serious ND fan complex, it might as well be me. Yes, the schools that will face the Fighting Irish over the remainder of the season might not have the best records. But I have combed my memory of ND games since the Gerry Faust era, and I cannot find a single game in which Notre Dame played a Division 1-AA adversary. And yet Notre Dame's impressive comeback against Michigan State looks a lot less impressive since the Spartans did not hold the pass against a much weaker Fighting Illini team today.

Boston College and Notre Dame are both 4-1. But BC has a much more impressive 4-1 record. After all, Notre Dame has beaten 1 ACC team and 3 Big Ten teams, while BC has beaten a few NFL teams and the core of the 2nd Marine Division (the 1st, 3rd and nominally reserve 4th Marine divisions are all hiding from BC by fighting in the current wars). Oh wait, I made a very inappropriate joke to conceal the fact that BC aspires to be the nation's premier Catholic university in the face of a weak curriculum and a fraudulent athletic program that feeds on the weak and aspires to be Notre Dame's rival/equal.

Earlier this evening, it looked like there wasn't going to be a post tonight. There was a big upset brewing in the top 25. It looked like an unranked Michigan St. team was going to blow out the Fighting Irish. It also looked like the BC Eagles were going to cement their status as best of the rest in the Atlantic Coast Conference. But funny things happen sometimes in football.

Notre Dame scored 19 unanswered points in the fourth quarter on 3 TDs in a 5:25 span. For those who wrote off Charlie Weis after last week's debacle, it might be time to back off a bit. The team looked shaky (to say the least) in the first quarter. Weis looked fairly foolish when his call to go for it on 4th and 8 just past midfield backfired and Michigan State scored a big TD. Of course, there is also John L. Smith, the man, the myth, legend.

How many times in college and professional football do we see a coach take the air out of the ball when they get a big lead in the second half? I can see some of the logic, not wanting to risk the big turnover. And Michigan State was killing Notre Dame on the ground for the first three quarters, especially with Jehuu Caulcrick, the big 260 pound tailback. Thank God John L. Smith went to the power running formation and stopped running out of the spread formation, which has killed Notre Dame since Joe Tiller brought that attack to Purdue in 1997.

And then there was BC. A blocked extra point helped them beat Clemson, now a missed extra point cost them this game against NC State. Once you miss a kick, you chase that point all day. Then you have to go for two when you want to make it a seven point game. If you miss the two, then it goes from a TD to tie, to a loss situation. Damn shame it had to happen like that.

Of course, there is the theory that you have to take care of business when you have the chance. BC had the ball on third down with short yardage to go. They fumble the quarterback-center exchange, but they were lucky. Matt Ryan fell on the ball, and they only wasted one down. It set the stage perfectly for the most overhyped short yardage specialist in recent memory. I imagine that the CHB had an easy story, and angle all set up. Alas, NC State did not get the memo, and they stopped Brian Toal for a loss on fourth down. That set up their winning TD drive. Under a minute to go, and no time outs. But they took care of business. Good times.

One thing that drove me crazy during the Notre Dame game was the constant game breaks from the studio. I can understand when they have news or scores to update. I appreciate finding out what's going on in games I'm not watching, especially when I can't check the score during a commercial because a particular game isn't on in the area. But if they updated me on the Ohio State game one more time 3 hours after it ended, I was going to start hopping up and down and hooting like Woody Woodpecker.

On a totally unrelated note, what is the point of the Nike Gridiron/Briscoe High spots? I can see where it is somewhat cool to envision a high school where Jimmy Johnson teaches history and Brian Urlacher, LaDanian Tomlinson, Michael Vick and Matt Leinart play football under George Seifert. It's also funny to see Urlacher and the other captains tower over their rivals in the big game. I'm guessing that the point is that with Nike equipment anyone can play with the big boys, unless that Ryan kid is somebody I should know but can't place.

I think the real point is one of those beautiful accidental moments that occur in commercials. A classic example is the Michael Strahan Chunky Soup ad from about 6 or 7 years ago, where he's handing out soup to commuters on the New York subway. As the ad ends, there is a shot where his head is framed by one of the windows in the sliding door. Right below his big goofy smile is a sign that says: "Mind the gap." There is no way that was deliberate, but it's still funny.

To make a long story short, the moment like that from the Briscoe High ad is the unintentional referendum on Michael Vick as quarterback. With a fourth down and time for one play, what does George Seifert run? A tailback option pass play, which is almost assured to fail in that situation because it is the run threat that leaves the wide receiver open down field. On fourth and long there is no way you'd ever run with time about to expire. You'd think the quarterback should be dropping back to throw it deep. But when your passing threat is Michael Vick, maybe you do want Tomlinson throwing the do or die pass.

I hate Michael Vick because he tried to kill my fantasy team a couple of years ago. I also hate him because he is a big whiner. Every time the Falcons fall short, it's a coaching failure, never the QB. Then there was his unilateral demand that media stop questioning his pocket passing ability in the wake of the single most impressive passing performance of the modern era when he threw for 250 yards against the Dolphins last season.

Well, Notre Dame took a savage beating at home this Saturday. Inevitably, the national media is now tearing down the monster that they built. Notre Dame was overrated. Who would have thought that, if the ones doing the rating didn't? I don't know whether the Irish are a worse football team than the Wolverines. Obviously on Saturday, an inspired and well prepared Michigan squad entered Notre Dame Stadium and embarrassed a flat, uninspired team.

Whether Notre Dame could have beaten Michigan if they played with the same emotion they showed against Penn St. or not, and whether Notre Dame had a hangover from the home opener or not are questions that might be worth discussing, but I am not in the frame of mind for that speculation tonight. I'm interested to see how Michigan comes out to play this week. If they come out flat and lay an egg, what will their recent victory tell us. Will Notre Dame look worse, or will Michigan be regarded as a good team that caught ND at the right time? Time will tell.

I had intended to write at length about the questions in the paragraph above, but then a friend (a cynical Penn St. fan) emailed me this story. After one season and two games, apparently it's RIP Charlie Weis. His legend has been declared legally dead. Obviously, if you read the piece, you'll get the impression that the author is a Tyrone Willingham fan. I liked Tyrone Willingham. I think he's a good guy with a strong commitment to the high academic standards the University of Notre Dame has for its student athletes. He was not a wartime consigliere, though.

Among some of my personal favorite Ty moments: the green jersey game against mighty Boston College, the hit or miss emphasis on regionalization and the look on his face when the breaks beat the boys and the game slipped away. First and foremost, unless you are a BC fan or a moron (and alas, the two conditions often flow together like the Allegheny and Monongahela to form an Ohio of ignorance with Chestnut Hill as its Steel City), you know that Notre Dame and Boston College are not rivals. Notre Dame's rivals are USC, Michigan, Michigan St and Purdue. BC sold out the Big East to go from Big East 3 to ACC 5. But they maintained the illustrious position in the Come To Boise And See Our Blue Field Bowl. Notre Dame wears green jerseys for USC or Michigan, not middle of the pack ACC teams. Good call on the green jerseys, Ty. Way to make an average game into a huge victory for BC. No wonder the echoes stayed asleep and no thunder shook down.

Then there was his emphasis on regionalization. Ty thought that since ND recruited on a national stage, players from the area in which they played road games would play better closer to their homes. It worked against Tennessee, when he started little used WR and Tennessee native Matt Shelton who caught 2 touchdowns. It blew up on him when he started Mike Richardson, a little used cornerback against USC in LA, his hometown. USC's receivers beat poor Mike like the CHB beat the Curse of the Bambino. In case you care, Mike Richardson has earned his way back into the starting lineup, and was not victimized for any of Mario Manningham's long TD receptions this past week.

Finally, there was the look of utter mystification that would descend on his face when Tyler Palko set a record by throwing 5 TD passes against the Irish. Or the Gator Bowl, when NC State crushed the Irish. Or when Pat Dillingham threw a TD pass to a BC linebacker in the infamous green jersey game I mentioned.

I linked to the article because I found it fascinating and maddening. The tone of the article suggests that Charlie Weis has been overrated and overhyped because he did little more than surprise some overrated teams with Ty Willingham's recruits. Maybe Tyrone Willingham should have been given a 5 years to succeed like his predecessor, Bob Davies. Maybe it was racial, maybe it had to do with the fact that he was never the first choice, but he was stable and his resume was honest (in short, not George O'Leary of the 13 days). I personally think the latter option led to the short window. If he'd won more consistently, he'd still be at Notre Dame. And it's not like Washington is contending in the PAC 10.

As for Charlie Weis winning with a team largely recruited by Tyrone Willingham, consider this. When Tyrone Willingham signed on to coach Notre Dame, he took over a program with no players and built a winner. Or he had the best start since Ara with Bob Davies players, but there is no mention of that in Charlie Weis' requiem. And this was a 26 point loss to Michigan, but that still puts him 4 26 point losses behind Ty for his career. Bob Davies only had one such loss in his career.

Another interesting point raised in the article is that Charlie Weis beat Navy and Washington last season. So he did, but Navy was a bowl team last year. And if we look back at Tyrone Willingham's record, he was undefeated against Navy and Washington, but Pittsburgh and BYU gave him fits. Weis is undefeated against those teams too. And last October, Weis put his team in a position they haven't been in since the Bob Davies era. They fought the number one team to the brink, and USC needed a TD on the game's final play to win. Ty managed to lose to USC all three times in his tenure. And they weren't close losses, either. And he dropped all three games to the not so mighty Eagles of BC.

It might not sound like it from what I've written above, but I liked Ty Willingham. I really did. But I thought he needed to go. He brought class and stability to the program when they needed it after the George O'Leary mess. But he didn't win, and as Herm Edwards says, you play the games to win. Charlie Weis has brought the Irish to more BCS bowls than Ty Willingham. I think he can weather at least one more loss like this before he gets the gate.

I realize I'm somewhat late to the party, talking about the FIBA World Championship basketball tournament two weeks after it ended. Other things have intruded. But I have a few things to say and a few minutes to say them now.

First things first. This edition of Team USA had no business coming in third. This team should have won, plain and simple. Yes, it wasn't perfect. Yes, a pure shooter might have been a nice complement to Wade, James and Anthony. A player like Bruce Bowen might have provided a more dependable perimeter defender than some of the team members. But there is no way that there was another team that was as talented, and as deep as the US.

Our old friend Bob Ryan was determined to let those of us who were not sufficiently initiated into the mysteries of Dr. Naismith's sport and so deemed this third place finish a disaster know that he was right and we were wrong. The phenomenon of basketball globalization is to blame for Team USA's recent lack of success in international competition. In short, players all across the world are better now than they ever were in the past.

Of course, it is widely acknowledged that Pau Gasol is 18 to 20 times better than the best American playing in the NBA, which accounts for the amazing run of success his teams have enjoyed in their postseason forays. To date, they have yet to win a single game. And I was just one of many who pointed out that Dirk Nowitzki came up small in the biggest moments of this season's NBA Finals. Foreign players are better than the teams that the US squashed in 1992 and 1996 and beat in 2000. But are they better than Americans? I don't think so.

We know that there was one key decision that set the US up for failure. They didn't include one pure shooter on the roster. There is a little known fact that only men like Bob Ryan know. A pure shooter can never go cold. A guy like Reggie Miller or Michael Redd would never have had a game where they shot 0-10 or 1-11 when the team needed him. Reggie Miller would have shot 11-10 or 13-8 or some other percentage which is patently impossible for the other 6 billion or so individuals who are bound in space and time by the laws of physics and nature.

Of course there are those who know how to fix things. Mark Cuban revealed his a ten point plan in an interview which he reprinted on blogMaverick. His first point is that one set of rules should prevail in basketball, either play American basketball by international rules or international basketball by NBA rules. That makes some sense, but athletes like the ones who made up this team should be able to adapt in short order. It's not exactly like the officials and the other teams made up the rules as they went along.

Another point is that the US sent its first Dream Team into a vacuum, following the implosion of the Soviet Union. I would be willing to bet that that team would have devastated any team of professionals from any country, even if they were forced to play shorthanded. That team had incredible talent, incredible competitiveness and incredible leadership. They would have found a way to beat anybody.

One guy who has gotten a pass in this disaster is the legendary coach. Where was Coach K when we needed him? This team seemed like they were well prepared for every eventuality but one. They weren't ready for some team to weather their run, and they come back swinging like the Greeks did, hitting their first 10 shots of the third quarter. And here's an idea...if your team isn't shooting well from three point land, maybe you could tell them not to take so many three point shots. Believe it or not, there are other ways to score in basketball.

I thought Elton Brand did a nice job summing up what the US team needs going forward. Particularly because he discounts the value of the designated savior (take your pick from Kobe, KG, Ray Allen, Gilbert Arenas or Player X). If there is one guy who needs to go, it's Battier. Without Duke getting calls by reputation, he (and Coach K) aren't the dominant forces that some believed they might be. Bruce Bowen is a better defender. Not much of an offensive player, but he might know a bit about the pick and roll.

More zone is a good idea. More size to counter the pick and roll is also a good plan. But it doesn't necessarily mean bringing in new people. Maybe Elton Brand could have played more minutes, and less center. Of course, one can easily forgive Coach K for not utilizing Brand as effectively as he could have. After all, with the healthy culture that pervades youth basketball and college recruiting, it's not like Coach K saw the balance of Brand's high school games. Oh wait, he did. Instead of adding more weapons, it might be a good idea to use the ones you have. And a halftime adjustment or timely timeout might not hurt.

It's been a long time, again, since my last post. But as I said earlier, it's hard to maintain the motivation to attack the Red Sox when they seem so snake bitten this season. I mentioned in one of the first few posts that I do hate the Patriots, but it's not a very strong emotion. They weren't very good when I was a kid, and I had the good manners not to join the press to jump on the bandwagon in the Parcells era. Yes, a lot of people have been going to games for years, but I still remember a lot of weeks where the Patriots were blacked out in the local TV market when I was a kid.

Patriots' fans can't be too thrilled about today's news. For those few who haven't heard 100 times, Deion Branch will not be joining us for the rest of his career. With the loss of David Givens to free agency, that means bad news for Tom Brady. Unless rookie Chad Jackson plays lights out, Troy Brown and Reche Caldwell will be the main outside receiving options. Of course, this might have been the scenario envisioned by the Pats personnel wizards when they drafted tight end after tight end in the last few years.

But what are we missing after all? Obviously, as a Pats hater, I'm not missing anything. But leaving that sentiment aside for a moment, what did the team lose? In four seasons, Deion Branch managed to score 14 TDs and caught 213 passes. Since practical skills like basic arithmetic seem to elude New England residents where their teams are concerned, let me put that in perspective. 50 catches and almost 4 TDs a season.

Think about that for a second, those of you who play fantasy football. Do those numbers scream "Draft Me!" to you. They don't to me. Deion Branch had one "big" game in the Super Bowl against Philly. Yes, he tied the Super Bowl record for receptions in a game, which he shares with Jerry Rice. However, Super Bowl records and career success sometimes run north and south. Just ask Timmy Smith, who set the single game rushing record in Super Bowl XXI. By 1990, he was out of football.

I realize, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, that fantasy is an illusion and fantasy football doubly so. It places so much emphasis on stats, at the expense of little things that receivers have to do to help a team win, like block downfield. But does Deion Branch have the reputation for doing the little things that don't show up in the stat sheets that Hines Ward and Keyshawn Johnson have earned? I would say no.

If your anticipated number one receiver put up half the numbers of Larry Fitzgerald, then you don't have a number one receiver. One can say that the Arizona receiver is not an apt comparison because of the respective offensive systems and the level of competitiveness of each team. Also, at 6'3" and 230 pounds, he's considerably bigger than Branch. However, Fitzgerald plays opposite Anquan Boldin, who would be the number one receiver on half the teams in the NFL.

So will Deion Branch be missed? Probably, but not as much as you might think. Don't dwell too much on that Super Bowl MVP award he won. Think back on the game. If you can tell me that Branch was the best WR on the field that day, then you're either a shameless homer or a moron. TO had a better game. Not as many catches to be sure, but pretty good for a guy on a broken leg with no running game to speak of and a quarterback with the walking pneumonia or whatever was wrong with him.

Of course, I like TO. Even with all of the foolishness from last season, I haven't given up on him yet. But more will be written about TO in the coming weeks. I still have to throw in my two cents on the disaster that was the US team's bronze medal "performance." Plus, I have a lot of things to say about college football. Since I grew up in a the only region without a major college football powerhouse, I am a Notre Dame fan. I suffered through the bad years, so I intend to enjoy the Charlie Weis era. And you're going to hear about it.

To leave on what I hope will be a more positive note, there may be a silver lining in the Branch trade. It's not the first round pick from next year's draft. It is that with the Branch situation resolved, the CHB will (knock on wood) stop referring to him as the "Receiver Who Must Not Be Named." There was a time when a sportswriter would think twice before making a hacky, hokey allusion to Harry Potter.

Yes. I know a bit about Harry Potter. What separates me from the CHB is that my references to pop culture are funnier and show more thought on the part of the writer. Plus I don't look like Harpo Marx with the wit and humor of Dr. Who (who wasn't funny). I don't want to keep criticizing him, but when he gives his "effort" on the Patriots this title: "Quarterback was receiver -- of hits" what can I do? He brings it on himself.

As a bonus, the Douglas Adams quote I paraphrased reads: "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." If I'm not mistaken it comes from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, but I'm too lazy to track down my copy of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

Ladies and Gentlemen, times have been tough for me, which is weird when the Red Sox are collapsing in front of our eyes. All of the optimism born from the improbable comeback in 2004 seems dead. The Red Sox gave up on the season, according to the anchor fraud in the Globe Sports section, when they traded David Wells. There were those who expected very little from Wells this season, which makes it very funny that his departure marks the moment where some in the media queue up the Crowded House (they sang the song Don't Dream It's Over in the 1980s).

And will next year be any better? Curt Schilling will be a year older. Josh Beckett might get it together, then again he might not. And after that, there is no one left in the rotation. Tim Wakefield should be coming back from injury, but if you think that will be enough to fix their current woes, I have some real estate I'd like to sell you. And then there's Matt Clement. Some day people will look back on the 1st half of last season as an aberration on par with season one of the Chapelle Show. There is no next year for which to wait.

I have been somewhat quiet for the last week, even though I wanted to gloat because I felt bad. As much as I wanted to do a victory lap, only a total tool would do that with the health problems faced by David Ortiz and Jon Lester. Especially now that Lester has lymphoma. It makes me feel like a jackass even typing what I've typed to this point.

But I can't keep silent about something. Poor Carl Yaztremski. Baseball Hall of Famer, Triple Crown Winner and a guy who shares a name with a new birth control medication. Not that I have a particular problem with contraception. That's just one of many subjects where we'd all be better off if we kept silent.

As if Carl doesn't have enough problems. Dan Shaughnessy has to be circling around him, as the oldest really recognizable Red Sox alumnus (Johnny Pesky lacks the eminence, nice guy, nice player but not a star), the CHB has to be hovering over him, just like the CHB hovered over Ted Williams in his declining years. That is another angle to generate columns with a minimum of effort that the CHB has perfected.

In case those of you who read this were wondering, I have some things to rail against in the coming fall. I hadn't prepared any formal lines of attack, which explains this "post," but there will be pieces coming in the next few days. I cannot let the Danny Ainge impression conducted by Coach K and Jerry Collangelo pulled in this year's world championship pass without comment. And I'm sure this season's edition of the Celtics will find new ways to disappoint. And the rest of my plans for this fall's Festivus can wait for another day.

Good evening sports fans. Things have been a bit hectic here as I juggled a side project or two, a possibly broken TV and my preparations for the upcoming season of fantasy football. If only I had the desire to apply the time and energy I currently devote to foolishness to a positive, career building strategy.

The West Coast has not been kind to our friends in the AL East. Yes, the Red Sox are coming off of a sweep at the hands of the Mariners. Yes, they are 6 and 1/2 games out of first. Yes, the CHB has dusted off the wait till next year bit in his own inimitable fashion, and utterly butchered it. Yes, it looks bleak for the Old Towne Team, but I am not convinced. The lone voice of optimism for the 2006 edition of the Red Sox is the author of Sedition in Red Sox Nation.

It scares me. But I remember doing a victory lap on my friends and family after the Yankees beat the Sox like they stole something in Game 3 of the ALCS in 2004. I even got an "eff you" out of my brother as soon as he picked up the phone after a big home run by the Bronx Bombers. And then there was the comeback. And I had to listen to every person I taunted taunt me. In case you wonder, ladies and gentlemen, crow is singularly unappetizing. But I answered the calls, because only a tool taunts when things are good and then hides when they aren't. So I am waiting until the Sox are mathematically eliminated this year before I celebrate.

For as poorly as the Red Sox performed against the Mariners (who are themselves, an unfortunate 13 games behind Oakland), there is still the fact that they lost no ground to the Yankees on this trip. It doesn't matter in the end that the Red Sox can't beat Tampa Bay. Nor does it matter that the As savaged the Red Sox not long before my long silence. It doesn't even matter that the Yankees trounced the Tigers when they met earlier this season. There are too many games left to be played for me to rest comfortably. But that isn't the theme of tonight's post.

Nor is the theme the bizarre recusatio (Latin for a rhetorical device where a speaker claims he will not talk about something in the act of talking about it. I try to avoid being a nerd whenever possible, but you can see how many words it took me to explain one Latin term, had to do it) Shaughnessy published in the Sunday Globe. Read it, and tell me that it's not a rip job on Manny. I'll warn you ahead of time that if I'm not buying it from the CHB, I probably won't buy it from you. But if those few who read this and know me can convince me, I will apologize.

Tonight's theme has been on my mind for a long time now. Every year, people in Red Sox Nation think Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame but he doesn't make the cut. Every year, I don't think he should get in and they tell me he was the best power hitter in baseball in his era. To borrow a quote from a Roy Orbison song (and I don't feel guilty, since Gram Parsons covered it and Nazareth mauled it): "I'm young, I know, but even so...I know a thing or two." And to borrow a quote from Skip Bayless, "It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good."

Jim Rice was a good player. He was not however, the best power hitter in baseball in his era, unless you restrict his era to 1077-1978, or you discount the great fighting city of Philadelphia. In 16 seasons, Jim Rice hit 382 home runs. Mike Schmidt hit 548 home runs in 18 seasons. Rice drove in 1451 runs, Schmidt drove in 1595. Both retired in 1989, and only one is in the Hall of Fame.

1978 was a magical season for Jim Rice. He hit 46 homers and drove in 139. He had 15 triples, 406 total bases and won the MVP. He also batted .315. Mike Schmidt only hit for an average over .300 once, the strike shortened 1981 season. In his best statistical season, Schmidt hit 48 home runs, but drove in 121 runs and had just 342 total bases.

He hit .298 for his career, which is higher than Schmidt's .267 average. Rice also hit 20 more triples in 2 fewer season. But then he played in Fenway Park, not Veterans Stadium. And Jim Rice played in a lineup that featured a pitcher hitting in only World Series games in 1975 and 1986. Conversely, Schmidt only played in games with a DH following the 1980 and 1983 seasons.
When one looks at the career number, it is then that the advantage is much more clearly in Schmidt's favor. Jim Rice hit 30 or more home runs four times in his career. Mike Schmidt hit 30 or more home runs every year from 1974 to 1987, with the exception of 1978. Jim Rice out homered Mike Schmidt in 1977, 1978 and 1988 in the years their careers overlapped. Mike Schmidt 40 or more home runs 3 times, compared to just once fore Rice. The Phillies third baseman led the league in homers a mere 8 times, whereas Rice managed the feat a robust 3 times (77,78 and 83). Schmidt was MVP 3 times, to Rice's 1. Rice won two Silver Slugger awards, Mike Schmidt won 6. Schmidt won the World Series in 1980, and won the World Series MVP. Rice, as we all know, won 0 titles.

Rice batted .333 in his lone World Series (1986). Schmidt hit .220 in his two World Series, but there was his disastrous showing in 1983 where he hit .050. In 1980, he hit .381 with 2 HR and 7 RBI (for those of you keeping score at home that matches the totals for Rice's 18 playoff games, none of which came in World Series play). In 2 more seasons, Schmidt drew 201 intentional walks to Rice's 77. He was also hit by 79 pitches while Rice was hit a mere 64 times, for someone who was allegedly unpopular with his rivals on a colossal scale.

It is somewhat unfair to compare the two, as Schmidt was the greatest third baseman (just think of the 10 Gold Gloves he won from 1976-1984 and 1986) of all time, and Rice was Jim Rice. For someone like ARod to rival Schmidt he'd have to hit 800 HR and tap dance across the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers. Jim Rice was a very good player and a good hitter, but he didn't earn a place in a league with Mike Schmidt.

As much as people say Fenway isn't the hitter's park we all think it is, there is no way you can convince me that a hitter like Mike Schmidt wouldn't have out up more home runs here than in the Vet. Nor can you convince me that Jim Rice didn't have an artificially high triples stat because of the stadium, not to mention RBI that might have been outs if he didn't play in what John Updike called the lyrical bandbox of Fenway Park. And if you don't believe me, go to this site and compare for yourself.

Ladies and gentlemen, after long absence, I'm back. It's quite fortunate for me that it coincides with the Boston Massacre 2006. When I last posted on July 24, the Sox were in first place. Now the Sox are 6 and 1/2 games back in the division and four back in the wildcard following today's loss. It's not every day that the team you hate above all others loses 5 consecutive games to their most hated rivals over the course of four days, so I trust you'll forgive me for gloating a little bit.

Unfortunately, nothing so enjoyable comes without cost. In this case, the cost is nearly substantial enough to outweigh the triumphant sweep. Dan Shaughnessy, better known to three generations of science fiction fans in the British Isles as Dr. Who, is back with a vengeance. This presents me with a dilemma. You who read this might think that because I wish to annoy and depress Red Sox Nation I should have no problem with the CHB. After all, his apparent goal in writing what he writes the way he writes it seems to be to cause the greatest amount of aggravation to the greatest number of New Englanders.

However, I do not like the CHB as a writer or as a guest commentator on various and sundry TV and radio programs. It is my opinion that his MO can be explained thusly: he wraps a misdirected sense of moral outrage in poorly worded prose rife with awful allusions and ghastly turns of phrase (just check my earlier post which enshrined him in the Max Mercy HOF). He pretends to be a defender of the people and a chronicler of Red Sox history because those two angles can fill half of his columns with the barest minimum of effort. And for some strange reason, he has decided that the safest place for him to conclude his not so illustrious career is safely (he hopes) ensconced in Larry Lucchino's pocket.

In another of my past posts (it's been so long that I am willing to commit the sin of self-reference again), I drew from the film Kelly's Heroes to criticize Terry Francona's managerial style. I will do so again, this time to draw an interesting parallel to the CHB, albeit one that is unfair to the original. In the film, there is an exchange between the platoon sergeant Big Joe played by Telly Savalas and the corrupt supply sergeant Crap Game played by the immortal Don Rickles. Big Joe accuses Crap Game of only taking risks when he smells a profit, and Crap Game's defense was merely to say: "Well, I'm coming out now." Shaughnessy's piece in this past Sunday's Globe was his version of emerging when he smelled a profit.

As much as it pains me to defend America's Prom Date, I think I have to now. I am amazed that Theo still has a job after the CHB so elegantly skewered him with this gem: "The computer-geek management style has been thoroughly exposed in the last two days and there's a perfect storm brewing upstairs on Yawkey Way." For an unfortunate change of pace this July/August, Dan Shaughnessy found himself in the cat bird seat.

If Theo didn't make a trade, the CHB could attack him for that. If Theo parted with one of his young arms to fill one or two of the holes that riddle his lineup and it didn't pan out, the CHB could have had a field day with that situation. Of course if Theo made that theoretical trade and the Prom Date turned out to be this generation's Lou Gorman (by that I mean selling a hot prospect to rent a player for a single pennant race), the CHB would be set to wind out his career rehashing that mistake 25 times a season until he retired. And in the worst case, if Theo had acquired Bobby Abreu, the CHB could complain that the Sox couldn't afford to take on the remainder of this season's salary, next year's $15 million and the $2 million buyout for 2008. It must be nice to have to do so little to earn your daily bread.

I can only hope that the CHB didn't strain his formidable intellect when he crafted this: "Odd that Henry would be celebrating Epstein's engagement at a time when the honeymoon is officially over for the most popular and bulletproof general manager in Boston sports history." The late, great Ernest Hemingway might have classified that as the one true sentence which he himself so desperately sought, provided that Hemingway were a dreadful writer and a mental midget.

Before the CHB stepped down from his soap box, he fired this parting shot at America's Prom Date: "The cruise is over and so is the free ride for Theo. No disgrace in that, it happens to all of them, but the Sox need a quick turnaround to keep Epstein out of the shark-infested waters that devoured the likes of Lou Gorman and Dan Duquette." I feel compelled to point out that the CHB tailored this piece around the engagement party John Henry threw for Theo on his yacht, lest you get the impression that the nautical references were completely from left field.

I was unaware that Theo got a free ride. After all, there was the CHB to carp (couldn't resist the bad pun against the shark-infested waters, which must surely have included a small element of ego on the part of the author) at him during his tenure as Sox GM. As for Theo being bulletproof and maybe sharing the fate of Lou Gorman and Dan Duquette, I can't believe that such a perceptive and enlightened knight of the keyboard could ignore one simple fact. Unlike Dan Duquette, Lou Gorman, Haywood Sullivan and every other GM from 1918 to 2004, Theo presided over a World Series championship team. Or maybe Dan happened to be on vacation in 2004. Maybe he had a lot of work to do in his side job, traveling in a phone booth protecting the space-time continuum against the Daleks.

There are a few other facts that the CHB might want to consider before he takes to the keyboard and charges Theo like Don Quixote going after the windmills. First, unless I missed something, no World Series champion has repeated since the Yankees in 2000. Second, the fans I talk to don't seem quite ready to mutiny. And third, he ran the show when the team won the World Series for the first time since 1918. I know, I said that before but it bears repeating.

Of course the piece wouldn't have been complete without a quote from the CHB's puppeteer, Larry Lucchino. The president of the Sox had this to say:

"This is not the best time for me to offer comment. I'm a little agitated, as
the average fan is. Everybody feels a sense of disappointment about these first
three games. I would understand if the manager is keenly disappointed in the way
these first three games have gone. It's still a long season. Come and talk to me
later."

According to the CHB, John Henry was unavailable for comment. Theo, or "young Theo" as the CHB insists on calling him, was also unavailable when the CHB was writing his article. Of course, this was the day before America's Prom Date faced the press for his now famous 26 minute grilling on Sunday. I started wondering whether Lucchino kept the CHB locked up in his basement like the gimp from Pulp Fiction, but that was far too frightening a prospect to dwell on.

I had intended to gloat like crazy over the debacle that this series was. Then I started thinking that it might be just a little early to start a victory lap. The Red Sox have had an irritating habit of surviving improbable situations of late. So I was checking out some of the stories on boston.com. And then I read the CHB's latest "effort." His article was so well conceived and well written that it inspired the pseudonymous author of Sedition in Red Sox Nation to waste his first post in nearly a month defending a guy he's attacked since the birth of this blog in April. It's amazing what a talented writer can achieve.