Revisiting the 2009-10 Cleveland Cavaliers

Tonight, the Miami Heat play the Cleveland Cavaliers. When the season began, the Heat were ready to begin their quest for a third straight NBA title while the Cavs were hoping to turn a corner and make a run for the playoffs. But, the season has started off the way all of the previous years have gone for each team with the Heat looking determined to win another title while the Cavs look like they are headed towards another spot in the NBA Lottery.

LeBron James was heavily criticized while in Cleveland, and has shut the mouths of most of those people by winning two titles and simply being the best basketball player on the planet. Now, the focus instead can turn to why he couldn't win titles in Cleveland. Following "The Decision," criticism went squarely back to his supporting cast, which was far different than anything provided to him while in Miami. Considering that LeBron was rebounds and Spurs' missed free throws away from losing the 2012-13 title with Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Ray Allen, and a flurry of talented role players, it further cements how difficult it is to win a NBA title without a great team.

It's worth questioning then. How bad was the supporting cast for LeBron in his last year in Cleveland and how have four years away from King James treated these players?

Antawn Jamison, SF: (2009-10 highlights: 15.8 PPG, 7.7 RPG) Acquired prior to the 2010 trade deadline, Jamison was expected to be the insurance policy that would put the Cavs title hopes over the top that season. It didn't work out that way, and people will continue to second guess whether the front office should have made a bigger push to trade for Amar'e Stoudemire. Jamison led the team during the horrible 2010-11 campaign, and served the Cavs well without any complaints. He left prior to the 2012 season to join the star-studded Los Angeles Lakers. He didn't work well in Mike D'Antoni's system (neither has anyone else on that team really), and signed this past offseason with the Los Angeles Clippers.

Mo Williams, PG (2009-10 highlights: 15.8 PPG, 5.3 APG) Acquired in 2008 from the Milwaukee Bucks for Joe Smith (yikes) and Damon Jones (double yikes), Williams looked like a scoring threat that could bring up the ball and complement James. He did that to a certain extent and the biggest highlight of his time in Cleveland is shown in this great Bill Simmons column, which equally reveals how simple the Cavs offense was. Since departing the Cavs, Williams has been a serviceable point guard at best for the Los Angeles Clippers, Utah Jazz, and currently the Portland Trailblazers. The silver lining for the Cavs was that his trade to the Clippers led to their acquisition of the #1 overall pick used to take Kyrie Irving. 

Shaquille O'Neal, C (2009-10 highlights: 12.0 PPG, 6.7 RPG) Acquired prior to the 2009 season from the Phoenix Suns for Sasha Pavlovic, Ben Wallace, $500,000, and a 2010 2^nd round draft pick, O'Neal was seen as the Hall of Fame post threat that could put the Cavs in the driver's seat for the title. But, it was clear O'Neal was aged and his skills had diminished. In the horrible Game 5 playoff loss to the Boston Celtics, while LeBron allegedly didn't step up, Shaq did. He had 21 points and 4 rebounds. Following LeBron's departure, O' Neal spent a season with the Celtics before retiring. 

There were a lot of laughs and title expectations prior to the 2009 season.

 

Delonte West, SG: (2009-10 highlights: 8.8 PPG, 3.3 APG) West was acquired in 2008 along with Wally Szczerbiak from the Seattle SuperSonics in exchange for Ira Newble and Donyell Marshall (talk about a trade involving the most meaningless role players). West's off the court situations trumped any effect that he had on the court over the years with the Cavs. His legal troubles, the allegations of an affair with LeBron's mother, and his bipolar disorder put him into more of a limelight than anything else. After brief stints with the Celtics and Mavericks, West is now playing basketball in China.

Anderson Varejao, PF: (2009-10 highlights: 8.6 PPG, 7.6 RPG) Varejao has been a career Cavalier and was a spark plug for the LeBron-era Cavs. He continues to be a part of the current Cavs team, but with the team's horrible play, he is constantly the subject of trade talks with his favorable contract and energetic play. Had it not been for a season-ending injury last year, Varejao may have been headed to his first All-Star appearance. He is a fan favorite, and perhaps the only person from the 2009-10 Cavs with a strong value in the NBA.

J.J. Hickson, PF: (2009-10 highlights: 8.5 PPG, 4.9 RPG) Drafted by the Cavs with the 19^th overall pick in the 2008 NBA draft, Hickson proved to be a product of LeBron's success. He had his strong moments on LeBron's team, and his youth and potential upside was enough for the Cavs front office to not ship him in a potential trade with the Suns for Amar'e Stoudemire. But, once LeBron left, it was clear Hickson was not the player the Cavs thought him to be. In 2011, he was shipped to the Sacramento Kings for Omar Casspi and a conditional first-round pick. He bounced over to Portland last year and is now currently part of the Denver Nuggets. With an injury to JaVale McGee, Hickson has been getting increased playing time. He is averaging 10.3 points and 8.8 rebounds per game this season.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas, C: (2009-10 highlights: 7.4 PPG, 5.4 RPG) Beloved by Cleveland fans since being drafted by the Cavs in 1996, by 2010, Ilgauskas was aged, but still capable of having an impact by being a big man with a good outside shot. Paired with O'Neal, it didn't lead to a championship for the Cavs. Ilgauskas also departed for the Heat, but retired before Miami's championship run. The Cavs will retire Ilgauskas's jersey number this season.

Anthony Parker, SF: (2009-10 highlights: 7.3 PPG, 2.9 RPG) Parker joined the Cavs as a free agent in 2009 to be another role player for a championship run. Parker likely accomplished what he was brought in to do, but his role at times was more significant than it likely should have been on a championship contender. He remained on the team following LeBron's departure, and announced his retirement in 2012. He is now a scout for the Orlando Magic.

 

Daniel Gibson, PG: (2009-10 highlights: 6.3 PPG, .447 3-PT pct.) Gibson was the darling of the Cleveland Cavaliers' 2007 playoff run. After James left, he posted a career high 11.6 PPG on the horrible 2010-11 team. How meaningless was Gibson from 2010-2013 for the Cavs? Wikipedia doesn't even have any biographical information for him over those years. “Boobie” is currently a free agent. However, he is drawing bigger news as of late for reports of his marriage falling apart and a summer arrest.

Jamario Moon, SF: (2009-10 highlights: 4.9 PPG, 3.1 RPG) Moon was acquired by the Cavs as a free agent in 2009. He played a mostly insignificant role on the LeBron-led Cavs. He was dealt along with Mo Williams to the Clippers as part of the Baron Davis deal. He is currently in the NBA D-League.

Others who appeared on the roster included Jawad Williams (now playing in Paris), Leon Powe (already with a serious knee injury at the time with the Cavs, he has since retired to work in some capacity in sports business), Cedric Jackson (currently playing in Slovenia), Darnell Jackson (currently playing in China) and most notably Danny Green (significant contributor to the San Antonio Spurs that nearly knocked off the Heat last year).

LeBron's supporting cast has amassed zero All-Star appearances since he left the team. More of the players have retired or played internationally or in the D-League than have made a significant impact on any NBA roster. Arguably, the most successful player has been Green, who got the lowest amount of playing time when on the team.

In 2010, fans and pundits were convinced that LeBron James could take this team to a NBA title. They impressively (and perhaps surprisingly) finished with a 61-21 record to earn the #1 seed in the NBA Eastern Conference. But, championships are won by supporting casts as much as they are won by superstars. As time has shown, the criticism was right. LeBron didn't have the teammates to win the title. He found those teammates (along with his prime) in Miami.

LeBron's decision will always leave a sour taste in the mouths of Cleveland fans. But, none of his supporting casts could remotely compare to what has been provided to him by Pat Riley and the Heat organization. And, with the current state of the Cavs, the idea that LeBron would come back to the team via free agency seems like a fantasy as far fetched as a championship during his time with the team.

Why I Don't Care About The Buckeyes and The NCAA Anymore

(This post was originally written two weeks ago, and was supposed to be released prior to Ohio State's first game of the season. When it wasn't completed in time, I chose not to post it. However, in the wake of Sports Illustrated's profile of Oklahoma State's program and Yahoo! Sports' recent report on SEC programs, it only added fuel to the flame. Dan Wetzel is referenced in the post, and his column on the subject hit the nail on the head generally better than what I wrote below).

I was born in Cleveland. When it came to college football, if you wanted to cheer for the sport, you only had one option: the Ohio State Buckeyes. The Cleveland State Vikings had no football team, and unless you had a family connection to another Ohio college, there was absolutely no reason for your football allegiance to not bleed scarlet and grey. I remember as a kid that I would follow the same format. I'd tune in to watch the Ohio State game and see Eddie George scamper for touchdowns on ABC followed by a local high school quiz show called Academic Challenge and the state lottery game show, Cash Explosion. My fall Saturdays were highly entertaining even if Ohio State wasn't the best team in the country.

At that time, fans were fully aware of the NCAA's rules, but they often disregarded it. They turned a blind eye to it mostly because there was no reason to pay attention to it. The only scandal that I can recall from that era was Gene Stallings's Alabama team, and that did not seem to get the type of national media attention that it would today. As fans, we accepted that players got full scholarships, and that a free education was a proper reward for whatever they did on the field.

With the advent of the Bowl Championship Series, things started to change. In Death to the BCS, written by Dan Wetzel (in my opinion, the best current sports columnist), Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan, the authors detail the level of greed and lack of logic behind the system that determines the national champion in college football. The bowl system relies on its supposed history and prestige to be appealing to schools and their fans, but the reality is that it only lines the pockets of conference commissioners and bowl leadership. Over the years of the BCS, it's become clear: the people at the top will not allow anything to stop them from making as much money as possible.

When it comes to being an Ohio State fan, everything turned with the notorious and annoyingly named “Tattoo-gate.” It was one thing to be exposed by reports, but now the NCAA had no choice but to investigate and make an example of the Buckeyes based off their rules for student athletes. The ordeal cost coach Jim Tressel his job, even though Tressel probably did the same actions (or lack thereof) that most NCAA head coaches would have done in the situation he was placed in. With the opportunity to provide appropriate punishment based off their rules, the NCAA instead gave the players involved in “Tattoo-gate” an out and allowed them to play in the Sugar Bowl that year. For any Buckeyes fan with decency towards rules and logic, that game left a sour taste in one's mouth. The NCAA wasn't even truly standing behind the rules that they established. They were looking at what was best for their product. They were looking at the money, and as usual, the Louisiana Superdome was packed with fans from both Ohio State and Arkansas.

College football got even more complicated and disturbing with the Jerry Sandusky revelations at Penn State. The subsequent investigation ultimately brought down the reputation of head coach Joe Paterno. With that, it also allowed us to examine how we look at college football as fans and what it means to us. We often put college football on a pedestal of history and appreciation. We prop up coaches like Paul “Bear” Bryant, Woody Hayes, and Paterno, even though all had their own faults and legacies affected. Yet, they supposedly created great players and greater men and were an ideal for all people in sports to attempt to reach.

The best coaches in the game are not far off from their predecessors. Under the guise that they are positive role models, they still are fearless in the recruiting process and the money generation that is involved in college sports. Nick Saban acknowledged that he would rather be out recruiting than coaching in the national championship game. Urban Meyer, who has a cloud of criticism regarding his past recruiting actions, allegedly reported on his former school, Florida, for an infraction. The best coaches don't seem like good guys. But, winning still cements one's legacy in college football over the success of any player as an individual, a human being, or a scholar. The best coaches know how to coach football, but they also know how to work in a system that's more about big business than it is about what college is actually supposed to be about. 

My reaction to the NCAA is not far off from Urban Meyer's face here.

The Johnny Manziel case highlighted just how far things have gone. The NCAA punished Manziel for a half for allegedly selling his signatures for money, a clear NCAA violation. Unless the evidence was right in their face, the NCAA would not have done anything anyway. Manziel is money. He needs to be on the football field. The fact that the NCAA punished him for a half (an unheard of punishment prior to this announcement) furthers just how much the organization insults its fans. They know they have the swagger to enforce their rules in any way that they see fit and that their fans will seemingly accept it.

The hypocrisy towards their own rules has reached such a level that it has ultimately tarnished how I interact with collegiate sports, particularly football. It would be one thing if the NCAA did not allow players to earn any money beyond their scholarship, did thorough investigations of such possibilities, and then enforced those rules properly. Instead, they need the media, whistleblowers, and other such sources to put these issues in front of their faces. Even then, they only punish based off what is best for their product and what will produce them the most money. It's frustrating and insulting to its fan base. By going to games or purchasing collegiate apparel, it feels as if one is lining the pockets of people on Wall Street in 2013 who were directly responsible for causing the financial crisis in 2008.

When I bring up my issues with college sports with friends, they often point to professional sports and their recent issues that have tainted their games from the Alex Rodriguez/Ryan Braun PED scandal in baseball to the Aaron Hernandez trial in football. With professional sports, there comes a certain level of greed, crime, and immoral behavior that come to be accepted by its fans. The main difference is the word, “professional.” These individuals are being paid hefty amounts to do these sports as a job. They get a piece of the pie when it comes to the use of their likeness, jersey sales, and the monetary success that can be gained from their name. Their negative actions receive punishment from their organizations and draw attention from the public that will forever shape their legacy, but it doesn't have an effect on how much they have already generated in earnings from being who they are as professional athletes.

The current Ed O'Bannon case has the potential to open up many doors for student athletes. But, it also will generate far more issues as well. People will debate over how athletes will get paid, if the lower budget sports programs will get sacrificed, and so many other factors if O'Bannon and the rest of the plaintiffs in the case are victorious. I have every belief that they will be victorious, but I also have every belief that the NCAA will find ways for new rules to never truly be enacted properly and for its hypocrisy to continue.

With conference realignment, lack of proper enforcement of its own rules, and an overall approach that shows that money matters over an appreciation for the game, it's hard to be a fan of the NCAA. Personally, I've had enough. As good as the Ohio State Buckeyes will be this year, I won't really be keeping on top of what they are doing. I'll go out to watch games if it's an event that my friends would like to do. I'll still support them from afar since they are still a part of my sports make-up. But, it's hard to really care about wins or losses when you know that the only people that keep winning are the millionaires in suits at conference offices just trying to squeeze out more and more money at the sacrifice of logic and fair play for their student athletes and fans.

5 Keys to The Browns Improving This Year

The Cleveland Browns season begins today. As Browns fans eagerly await today's game against the Miami Dolphins at the newly named FirstEnergy Stadium, I've compiled my five keys to the Browns improving this year (also known as the five ways to keep Browns fans sane this year). 

1. Brandon Weeden must becoming the starting quarterback.

Though the organization gave Weeden the thumbs up that he is the starter for Week 1, he is still on a short leash. He likely has the first four weeks of the season to prove himself. In this four weeks, he must show three important traits: leadership, a positive TD-INT ratio, and wins. All three of these traits don't have to be accomplished, but if after four weeks, Weeden has shown poise, has 9 TD, 4 INT, and the Browns are 2-2, we will have no problem anointing Weeden as the starter for the rest of the season and the “future of the Browns” (at least, the relative future as Weeden is about to turn 30). If Weeden shows any consistent signs of the type of play fans saw from him last season or during the preseason game against the Colts, the Browns have immediately taken a step back. Weeden is now a wasted first-round pick and the Browns are back to the drawing board in trying to find a long-term, consistent solution at the quarterback position. Weeden must show that he is a formidable starter in the NFL otherwise the Browns will continue to be haunted by another quarterback change.

2. Trent Richardson must have a 1,000 yard rushing season.

Richardson rushed for 950 yards last season even while having a broken rib injury. With a much better offensive system in place, Richardson seems poised to get a 1,000 yard rushing season. But, this is still the Cleveland Browns, and Richardson is certainly susceptible to injury with his aggressive running style and willingness to grind for extra yardage. Richardson also must thrive in receiving yards, which should be accomplished in Norv Turner's offensive system.

      3.  The Browns need to be a top 15 defense.

The Browns defenses have consistently been terrible since their return in 1999. It didn't matter who the personnel or the coordinator was, there never has been a season where the defense was considered threatening to opponents in the league, which is sad considering the history of intimidating defenses that Cleveland once had. With Ray Horton aboard as the coordinator, players are excited at the packages and blitzes being mixed in. However, with real questions in the secondary, there may be some growing pains for this defense regardless. Or, we may be in store for another year of a defense ranked in the 20s in the league.

4. No dumb coaching mistakes.

The Pat Shurmur coaching era in Cleveland was marked by numerous dumb coaching errors. Since the Browns usually lost, Shurmur was second-guessed on many of his decisions. However, in some cases, there were a lot of dumb mistakes leading to unnecessary timeouts being used and poor play calling (remember, we did a running play to tight end Alex Smith). In his first year, Rob Chudzinski needs to avoid these situations at all costs otherwise he will begin to hear it from Cleveland fans and media. With balanced coordinators like Turner and Horton calling plays on both sides of the ball, it gives far more hope that such mistakes won't happen.

     5.  Don't be the Cleveland Browns.

You know what I mean. The Browns find amazing ways to lose and look illogical in the process. The Browns have had only one opening-day win since they returned to the league in 1999. A victory in a winnable game against the Miami Dolphins will put this new organization and coaching staff in the right direction with fans. Please, no more moments like this one.

NFL Season Predictions

The NFL is a fickle place, particularly when it comes to prognosticating its upcoming season. It's hard to tell which teams will turn out great and which ones with high expectations will bottom out. Though it's the best league to bet on individual games as the season progresses, it's rather difficult to determine who the Super Bowl winner will be. It takes a combination of presumptions on how a team did in the previous year with what their offseason may have produced for this season. In this era of parity, it's hard to believe that the same teams will return again to the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, I quickly put together my outcome of how the season will turn out with game-by-game selections of each week. Here are my predictions that will probably amount to nothing as we wait for tonight's season opener:

AFC EAST

New England 11-5
Miami 7-9
Buffalo 4-12
New York Jets 4-12

AFC NORTH

Pittsburgh 10-6
Baltimore 10-6
Cincinnati 9-7
Cleveland 7-9

AFC SOUTH

Houston 9-7
Indianapolis 8-8
Tennessee 6-10
Jacksonville 3-13

AFC WEST

Denver 12-4
Kansas City 8-8
San Diego 6-10
Oakland 4-12

NFC EAST

Washington 11-5
New York Giants 9-7
Dallas 8-8
Philadelphia 7-9

NFC NORTH

Green Bay 12-4
Detroit 9-7
Chicago 9-7
Minnesota 4-12

NFC SOUTH

Atlanta 12-4
New Orleans 10-6
Carolina 8-8
Tampa Bay 6-10

AFC PLAYOFFS

Baltimore defeats Houston
Pittsburgh defeats Cincinnati

Denver defeats Baltimore
Pittsburgh defeats New England

Pittsburgh defeats Denver

NFC PLAYOFFS

New Orleans defeats Green Bay
Washington defeats Seattle

New Orleans defeats Atlanta
San Francisco defeats Washington

New Orleans defeats San Francisco

SUPER BOWL

New Orleans defeats Pittsburgh

Why not dream of Roger Goodell handing the Vince Lombardi trophy to the Saints organization?

Drew Brees celebrates his second Super Bowl title.

Josh Cribbs: Forever A Brown

Three former Cleveland Browns players likely at the end of their careers were released by their respective teams yesterday. The New York Jets cut Braylon Edwards, the Washington Redskins did the same with Donte’ Stallworth, and the Oakland Raiders let go of Joshua Cribbs. Edwards and Stallworth will likely have no place in Browns lore. Edwards pushed his way out the door (both with Browns fans and members of LeBron James’s entourage) and Stallworth inexplicably is not still in prison. But, Cribbs was the polar opposite to Browns fans.

Terry Pluto wrote an excellent column on Cribbs following his release. It details just how hard Cribbs worked to get on the team and the sacrifices he took to his body on his way to three Pro Bowl appearances as a special teamer during his tenure with the Browns. It was this type of work ethic that won him over with Browns fans.

Since 1999, the Browns haven’t lived up to the legacy that they established prior to their move. There has been a general disconnect between the team’s carousel of front offices and the fan base. Of the mountain of players that have come through the Berea training facility, only Cribbs and Phil Dawson have been admired at the level of players from the 1980s Browns teams. That’s because Cribbs and Dawson got it. They understood that the Browns were about being a community. They understood that the fans liked hard work, putting the team and city first, and laying their absolute best out on to the field. While the rest of the league’s fans laughed at the Browns faithful gushing over a couple special teamers, Clevelanders were just happy that someone understood them and played their hearts out for them on Sunday.

Cribbs played his heart out for teams that didn’t even deserve that. At best, a return specialist on a better team and functioning organization, Cribbs did that along with being a gunner on special teams, a second/deep threat wide receiver, and a potential quarterback in the Wildcat offense. Such use led to some scary moments and potential major injuries, and yet, as Pluto’s article points out, Cribbs only missed two games in the last seven years. He was this generation’s Eric Metcalf for Browns fans, an entertaining lightning rod overused at a position he wouldn’t play on any other team in the league.

Time may have run out on Cribbs’s athletic career. The Raiders, an organization that could play the game, “Who’s More Dysfunctional?” with the Browns over the past several years, released him, which likely means there won’t be much of a market for a special teamer with diminished skills. This is the time for the current Browns organization to reach out to Cribbs with an understanding of what he means for this community. Plenty of former Browns players have been welcomed back, and if it interests Cribbs, he should be offered some type of position in the organization that stresses his social and communal strengths that made him so loved by Clevelanders.

Cleveland is a loyal city. It loves the people that have been faithful to them (Bernie Kosar), and are even forgiving of the ones who brought great memories and left (Jim Thome). If his career is over and there isn’t a place for Cribbs on any other roster, there will always be a place for him in Cleveland. It’s time to bring #16 back home.

Changing Cleveland Team Nicknames?

On Grantland, Zach Lowe recently wrote, “The Definitive Guide to NBA Team Names.” On the list of 30 NBA team nicknames, Lowe ranked the Cleveland Cavaliers as #29. With such a low ranking, it made me wonder how I would react as a fan if the Cleveland Cavaliers were to change their name.

Are the Cavaliers deserving of a ranking this low for their nickname? Sure. Though, I'm not sure that I care all that much about their team nickname. It's likely because the Cavaliers will always be the third team in town for Cleveland fans unless LeBron James returns (frankly, the Cavaliers could have been called the Cleveland Urinals as long as LeBron was in a uniform and playing for them). It also might be that team nicknames don't have much of an impact on me. Then again, Cleveland is the home to sports teams who have had a uniquely different history when it comes to their nicknames.

For me, the Cavaliers were a team to cheer for when I was growing up in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, and Larry Nance, the team was filled with talent and had the potential for a NBA title if Michael Jordan never existed. The Cavaliers were really the Cavs as evidenced by their iconic logo and appealing blue and orange jerseys. There was something special to the Richfield Coliseum and the Cavs logo on the floor.

If the Cavaliers are deserving of any criticism, it is the creation of possibly the most horrifying jersey in NBA history. In the wake of the move to the new Gund Arena, the Cavs chose to change their jerseys. I'm not sure who designed it, but it looked like the Saved by the Bell opening credits vomited out a basketball jersey. The jersey became a symbol of the mediocrity of the mid-1990s Cavs shuttling through journeyman players and starters that would be bench players on other teams with the only highlights coming from barely All-Stars in Terrell Brandon and Tyrone Hill. The era was highlighted by the acquisition of fat Shawn Kemp, which led to one unimpressive first-round playoff series loss to the Indiana Pacers.

This is sad in so many ways.

If the Cavaliers wanted to change their nickname, it should have come when Dan Gilbert acquired the team. Instead, Gilbert changed the team colors back to wine and gold, which made sense because all Cleveland fans really wanted to remember those glory days of Ted Stepien.

If anything, I'd care more about the Cavs going back to blue and orange. I don't have much of a feeling to the Cavaliers changing their name because, for all the reasons that Lowe states, it is meaningless. But, the Cavaliers are the Cavs, and they've been the Cavs for as long as I've lived, and even the name makes no sense, it's kind of become ingrained in Cleveland fans' minds enough to not touch it.

On the other hand, the Cleveland Indians have long been mired in controversy of whether or not they would change their team name. The Indians have more history than the Cavs, and defenders of the name say it was made as an homage to former player Louis Sockalexis. But, that point has never been verified as actual fact, and defenders will often find ways to use “history” and “tradition” as a means to cover up racism. Chief Wahoo is an odd and uncomfortable logo, and the long, sad history associated with Native Americans in this country is enough to say that no sports team really needs a nickname like this one. I'm more likely to want and not be affected by the Indians changing their name than the meaningless Cavaliers.

The interesting part to Cleveland nicknames is the Browns. In the wake of the Browns move, the city desperately wanted to keep the teams records, logo, and name. The idea of the Baltimore Browns was disturbing. When that was accomplished, it was a bizarrely accepted runner-up prize to the loss of the franchise for fans. Of course, time has told the story, and I think any Browns fans would rather be the Cleveland Pierogies and have two Super Bowl wins under their belt while seeing the Baltimore Browns be insignificant than the exact opposite occurring.

In the end, the Cavaliers are a terrible nickname, but I'm not sure it matters in the whole scope of Cleveland sports. We have had bigger issues with team nicknames, and the fan base of Cleveland likely wouldn't care what our team name was as long as we win one title.

Now, for another memorable moment that the mid-1990s Cavs brought us:

Browns Organization Looking Surprisingly Sane

When the Cleveland Browns named Brandon Weeden their starting quarterback yesterday, it was yet another sign for fans that the current organization may be sane. While this may be a first sentence more fitting for an article in The Onion, it’s actually a sad reality to the dysfunction that has plagued the Browns’ front office since the team returned to the league in 1999.

The best organizations in the league have succeeded with a sound front office and a highly skilled quarterback with strong leadership ability. In fourteen seasons, the Browns have shown the exact opposite skill set. The front offices and coaching staffs don’t fully support their starting quarterback and a constant carousel of all of these positions occur in a comical and depressing fashion (from Spergon Wynn throwing passes directly into the ground to Phil Savage resigning but then John Collins being fired instead to George Kokinis’s quick dismissal to Romeo Crennel flipping a coin to determine a starter to fans cheering Derek Anderson as he lay injured on the field).

When Jimmy Haslam purchased the Browns last season from Randy Lerner, Browns fans reasonably had mixed feelings. A new owner likely meant another organizational change for the most inconsistent front office in the league. But, after cleaning house, Haslam selected an experienced CEO in Joe Banner. They smartly didn’t hire Chip Kelly either via Kelly’s own decision or their own (the Browns didn’t have the proper quarterback in Weeden to run Kelly’s offensive system, which would have led to yet another starting quarterback in a Browns uniform), and then went with Rob Chudzinksi.

While an odd choice in a way, Chudzinski brought three positive attributes: his history of being a Browns fan, an explosive offensive mind that would fit Weeden far better than Pat Shurmur’s West Coast system, and seasoned coordinators in Norv Turner and Ray Horton. Browns fans need to be able to relate. The fan base has had too many coaches who seemed distant from them either due to their aloofness in press conferences (Crennel and Shurmur) or apparent total disregard for criticism (Butch Davis and Eric Mangini). With Chudzinski once being a fan, he has an understanding of the history and make-up of the Browns' supporters. Turner and Horton serve well as coaches right by Chudzinski's side, and his ability to grab a two-time Super Bowl winning offensive coordinator along with a defensive coordinator who easily could be the Arizona Cardinals head coach right now was impressive.

The hiring of Michael Lombardi as General Manager was a questionable one. With his historic connection to the departing Browns in 1995, Lombardi has left a sour taste in the mouths of most Browns fans. But, the new administration has allowed Lombardi to be quiet for better or worse, and Banner has taken the helm as the representative who speaks to the media on all decisions. During the Bernie Kosar broadcasting "scandal," Banner headed off the issue with an apology to the Rams. Counter that instance with Mike Holmgren taking a week to address the media on the far more serious issue of Colt McCoy's concussion. There were signs that the structure of the organization was better than it had ever been in the Lerner era.

But, when Jimmy Haslam's Pilot Flying J came under fraud investigation from the FBI, it looked like the new administration was already set for the usual dysfunction in Berea. The coaching staff and players have managed to decently weather the storm of any off-the-field Haslam distractions.
When Chudzinski announced there would be a “competition” between Weeden and Jason Campbell, most Browns fans rolled their eyes. It was inevitable that Weeden would be the starter otherwise the new organization was wasting away a first-round pick from the previous year for a now journeyman back-up to take over the helm. The “competition” was looked at as a way to fire up Weeden.
Strangely, at least from preseason standards, it's worked. Weeden's 18-for-25 with 229 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. The offense has looked fluid. Receivers are open and, in fact, wide open, which is something Browns fans rarely saw in Shurmur's quick throwing system. It's still the preseason, but there's reason to believe that with Chudzinski and Turner, the offense will be vastly improved.

 Browns fans can only hope Weeden's arm can bring a different type of organization to town.

It's why the “competition” has worked and the announcement of Weeden as the starter at this point shows the organization has some sense. It wanted to challenge Weeden to impress them, and he did so quickly within the first two preseason games. So far, it may be a testament to both coaching and play calling along with Weeden's determination and offseason workouts. But, to announce him as starter now gives the Browns the knowledge of how they are heading forward in the final two preseason games and into the September 8 opener against the Dolphins. Weeden is their leader, and will be the first Browns starting quarterback to start the opener two seasons in a row since 2007 (Charlie Frye was the last, and he was traded the day after the 2007 opener, an embarrassing 34-7 loss to the Steelers).

The ball now falls squarely on Weeden to see if the Browns can finally have some consistency at the quarterback position. Weeden turns 30 this year. The time is slipping away, but he's also in a system that fits his skills better than ever. He has to start off strong otherwise fickle Browns fans will inexplicably be calling for Campbell's name. Cleveland is desperate now not just for a winner, but to actually watch entertaining football. It's time for Weeden to air it out otherwise Browns fans will be letting the air out of another season with a high first-round draft pick.

2013 NBA Finals Prediction

I regret that I didn’t write a blog post prior to Game 7 of the Heat-Pacers series because I forecasted that the Heat would win a blowout. Most people would say that it is easy to say in hindsight since that is what is actually happened, so I’m going to try to beat them to the punch with my NBA Finals prediction, which may end up being horribly wrong, but at least I can back up the reasons behind why I think it will be right. The reason that I was so convinced that the Heat would close things out in the Eastern Conference Finals was based off NBA history. If the Pacers would have beaten the Heat, it would have been an impressive victory that bucked all trends that have been established by the NBA, a league whose playoffs have become usually easy to forecast its results. Superstars win championships especially the best superstar in the game. It’s the simple reason why the Heat will win the title.

It’s strange to me how easy the media is quick to turn on the Heat. It’s likely because they are the villains and most people want to see David beat Goliath. But, simple statistics and history would have shown the media that the Heat were going to win the Eastern Conference Finals. How could an experienced team with at least two future Hall of Famers on it lose to a balanced talented team with no Conference Finals Game 7 experience? Not to mention that the Heat have the best player in the world at the peak of his career.

That’s where we get to LeBron James. He’s having the best season of his career by far and the most deserving of his 4 Most Valuable Player seasons. He has the added confidence of one championship under his belt. It’s ridiculous to bet against him. How easy is it for people to forget that the Heat had a 27-game winning streak? This team isn’t a bunch of chumps. On any given day, they could lose to a talented team as they did with the Pacers. But, in a 7-game series, they have the will and experience to win it all.

In looking at the NBA Finals, the San Antonio Spurs have had a great run. I love that team. I love their organization. I love how their main core of players have stood the test of time and dominated younger teams that people would expect they would lose to. But, that’s what makes it even more perplexing for people to believe so confidently that they will defeat the Heat. It would be a different story if 2013 LeBron James were facing off against 2003 Tim Duncan. What an amazing showdown that would be that would dictate how the histories of these two players would be determined. But, that situation is left for a video game or an annoying debate between Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith. This is a matchup between LeBron James at the peak of his career and an aging but still amazingly effective Tim Duncan.

Here’s the main point: if LeBron James wants to be thought of as one of the greatest players of all-time, he can’t lose this series. If his name can even come close to that of Michael Jordan’s, he can’t lose this series.

Once Jordan reached his peak, he never looked back. There was never a hiccup other than his retirement. He beat an older Magic Johnson to pass the torch, his supposed equal Clyde Drexler in an embarrassing manner, Charles Barkley, a skinny Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton, and John Stockton and Karl Malone. Some of the greatest players in NBA history could never touch a ring in the 1990s because of Jordan.

That’s the same situation LeBron is in. If he wants to be considered the best, how could he possibly lose to an elder Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili? The supporting cast doesn’t matter. For your Joel Anthony, you have Jordan’s Bill Wennington. For your Shane Battier, you have Jordan’s Jud Buechler. A superstar wills his team to victory and gets his role players to do their roles. As much Dwyane Wade may be injured, he still will put it into gear and blow out his knee if he has to in order to get the production that he needs. That may mean laying an egg in a Game 6 and having his leader LeBron subtly call him out in order to help dominate a Game 7.

If LeBron enters the pantheon belonging to the greats, he wins this series. Just as I said after the 2007 NBA playoffs that LeBron was just too good to not win a title do I say now that he’s too good to not win a second under these circumstances. He’s a superstar that’s simply amazing. He has the confidence to find the way to win just like Jordan did. If he doesn’t, then it would be a surprise to me, and it puts LeBron back in the same conversations we had about him before he won a title last year. Can you imagine the current LeBron James putting up an 8-point stinker performance like he did in Game 5 of the 2011 Finals? Not likely.

 Once again, LeBron James's legacy is on the line.

The 2-3-2 format of the NBA Finals is something that I've always found obnoxious. It doesn't make sense that the format of the 7-game series suddenly changes and it's a shift that dramatically does not benefit the team not possessing home field advantage. It's very difficult to win 3 straight games at home against the same team let alone the best team from the opposing conference. Since 2000, only 3 teams have managed to win all three games in that position (2004 Detroit Pistons, 2006 Miami Heat, 2012 Miami Heat – all three teams won the title). Only the 2006 Miami Heat managed to come from 2-0 down to win the title. So, odds say the Spurs have to split the first two games to have the leverage and momentum to even do the difficult task of winning three straight games. It's even rarer that teams in such circumstances find themselves up 3-2 heading into Game 6 on the road (only the 2010 Celtics did that and then lost the final two to the Lakers). It makes the idea of winning three straight games against such a talented team as the Heat unlikely.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Spurs can win this series. Never say never. But, for anyone to have such conviction that the Spurs will win is surprising. The Heat have proven to be the favorite all year long. Any time that the media or fans have second guessed them, they've come out and played stronger and answered. It only makes sense that LeBron and the Heat shine because that's what happens in the NBA with superstars at their peak on teams that are so good.

My prediction: The Heat in 6.

Tiger Woods vs. Sergio Garcia : A Race Against Progression

The Tiger Woods-Sergio Garcia spat reached its zenith after two weeks on Tuesday, and it was everything that the media could have asked for. After consistently being entertained by the back and forth between the two golfers and even egging them on with questions about each other, we saw it end with one of its two possibilities. Either it would fizzle out as the golfers would move on from it or it would come crashing down with an all too personal comment. Sergio Garcia chose the latter, and took a useless situation that got made into an even more talked about useless situation and turned it into something blown hugely out of proportion.

After being asked playfully if he would have Tiger over for dinner, Sergio responded that, “We will have him 'round every night. We will serve fried chicken.” In simple terms, it was a dumb, racist comment, and as usual, that’s what the media has run with it as. But, it’s not simple. Race is never a simple subject. If you actually look at it in complex terms, we should realize that we are better than a discussion on this subject as a society, that we have moved on from such terminology and such a thought process, and that this ordeal can only be chalked up as something not worthy of discussion in the scope of racism and discrimination in 2013.

It’s a stupid situation to begin with because this has happened to Tiger before. In 1997, after winning The Masters, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller commented that, “"So you know what you guys do when he gets in here? Pat him on the back, say congratulations, enjoy it. And tell him not to serve fried chicken next year .... or collared greens or whatever the hell they serve." There are many reasons why Zoeller's comments were far worse than that of Garcia's. This was Tiger Woods's first major win. He was young and on the cusp of the greatness that golf fans were expecting from him. He also was a man with black skin entering a white man's world. Zoeller's comments brought that underlying reality back to earth with a comment that sounded like something said in many country clubs over the years with a level of ignorance and incompetence that we wished we would not see at that time. Zoeller was rightfully criticized by the media and the public for the comments and his golf career has never lived down that moment, particularly when countered with Tiger's success.

But, since then, things have changed. Over the years, Tiger Woods has defied race (the media sometimes glosses over that he represents more than one of them) and become the most recognizable player in the sport and arguably the most recognizable athlete in the world.

I remember when I was in seventh grade and Zoeller's comment was major news. I was sitting in English class and we were discussing the comment. My friend, Brad, a Japanese-American, didn't know that eating fried chicken was a stereotype of black people. In fact, I didn't even know that was a stereotype, either. How could two kids of racial minorities not know that? It's possible that because we grew up in a predominantly white suburb of Cleveland that we weren't exposed to that. But, it's also likely that the stereotype itself had been so far removed from our cultural thought that we weren't even aware of it growing up in the 1990s.

What's been missed with this ridiculous comment by Sergio is actually examining what is the issue at hand here. If a comment about fried chicken is supposed to lead into a discussion about race, why isn't the sports media actually having a discussion on that? If we're supposed to be educating people from these comments, why isn't anyone actually discussing minstrelsy, coonery, and other terms that actually connect fried chicken as a racial stereotype? Once again, it's because we'd rather handle a complex subject like racial history in far more simplistic terms. It's far easier to say “Fried chicken is a stereotype” and respond with “That's offensive” than actually have an intelligent discussion about it.

Fried chicken became a racial stereotype thanks to minstrelsy, and the commercialization and depiction of Black Americans as buffoons by white individuals in power. It's an uncomfortable part of history with even more uncomfortable imagery.

But, we've gone beyond that in 2013. The first sign of blackface comes with a response of disgust or anger by the general population. Minstrelsy and such stereotyping of fried chicken, watermelon, collared greens, or any other food you'd like to select gets the type of reaction that Sergio received. It's rightfully so. The majority of people know that this type of perspective is wrong, and those that do not are frankly idiots who likely choose to not educate themselves further on the subject.

That's what makes Sergio's comment and the uproar over it that much more ridiculous. Clearly, Sergio tried to be funny. He failed at that. Clearly, he tried to make it personal. He failed at that. Not only did he fail at all of those things, he set them on fire. Of course, he has to then make an apology, so that we can end all of this. He's not racist in that he made one comment about race that was misguided and ignorant and he was punished for it. I don't know Sergio Garcia personally. If he utters racial slurs underneath his breath or looks down upon others as less than him because of their race, then that's something that I simply don't know about, but that would make him racist. What I do know is that he's a golfer who has cracked under pressure, won zero majors, spit in a cup at a tournament, and now used the lowest form of unfunny humor to try to one-up another individual. His legacy already speaks for itself.

The problem that is truly maddening is the reason that I wrote this blog post to begin with. First, I am a stand-up comedian, so I am going to look at things a little out of the box, but it will come back to simple logic. Unless you're a vegetarian or an insane person, you have to love fried chicken. It's delicious. The notion that this is something only enjoyed by Black people and to some excessive extent is obnoxious in 2013. It's also to the point that few people upon hearing “Black people love fried chicken” actually think of minstrelsy in their minds, but rather just think, “That's wrong to say.” The reality is that we all love fried chicken. We all love watermelon. We all love collared greens. “Soul food” is truly appreciated now. It's not a part of buffoonery.

I'm not Black (obviously). I can't speak for Black people and what offends them specifically. But, I can say, as a human being who is a racial minority, if you are offended simply by the words, “fried chicken,” that is odd. I'm not sure how many Black people really are offended by that. If a stranger says Sergio's comment to you on the street, you should be irate, but that's the end of it. You're not going to see that person again and there's no reason to interact with someone like that further. Those are the situations I can speak of as a Brown man. I've been called a lot of racial slurs (some not even my own) over the years by complete strangers. It angered me briefly, but then I pushed that person's ignorance aside.

In this case, Sergio Garcia and Tiger Woods know each other. They are co-workers who don't like each other. If one of my co-workers said something along the lines of “fried chicken” to me and I didn't like them to begin with, I'd report them to Human Resources. There's no need for education and discussion with someone I already don't respect. That's all Tiger Woods did. He let Sergio lose the conversation in tweets clearly approved by a public relations person, and then let the Human Resources that was the world's opinion let Sergio be punished for it. Sergio has been punished for a dumb and misguided comment.

But, inevitably, it comes back to race, and here's where my biggest problem lies. I don't know the best way to refer to it, so you as the reader can put it in your own terms. You could say “The Man,” “The Company,” “The Powers That Be,” “The Predominantly White Media,” whatever. However, someone is dictating what racial minorities are supposed to be offended by, and that's more offensive than anything in this Tiger-Sergio debate. When you decide how an entire group of people is supposed to feel about something, you've taken away who they truly are. Rather than say, “That's offensive,” we should instead be asking, “Who's offended by fried chicken?” No one answered that question because no one asked it. There's a certain level of “white guilt” that's involved in why the question doesn't get asked as well as just dealing with how uncomfortable the subject of race can be. Nevertheless, no one truly posited the question or answered if Black people care that Sergio Garcia said the words, “fried chicken,” to Tiger Woods. My educated guess is most of them don't. I don't care because I can look outside of the box and say that minstrelsy is wrong, it's a terrible part of our history that is not acceptable, and fried chicken is delicious and anyone who has eaten it would likely agree with that. In the scope of racial discussion and discrimination, frankly, we've been here, and in 2013, we have bigger fish (or chicken) to fry.

I waited for the dust to settle on this situation to see the reactions from famous sports columnists about it. Every one of them took the usual approach, which was to criticize Garcia or the feud in general. I turned to famous Black sports columnists to see their response. Michael Wilbon has always been critical of Sergio Garcia, so his response of being “offended” on Pardon the Interruption wasn't a surprise. Jason Whitlock (who was caught in his own stereotypical mistake last year) had some good points, but went on to say that Tiger needs to “promote enlightenment” on race. That's never been Tiger Woods, and there's no need to expect that from him. If we wanted a better opportunity to discuss race, then last year's Heat Trayvon Martin photo was that time.

But, no one pointed out that we're simply beyond this particular situation. It is understandable to have an uproar over inappropriate comments that are hurtful, but it's ridiculous to have an uproar over the type of commentary that we've already heard, discussed in the past, proved to be wrong, and moved on from. It's also ridiculous to merely label something as wrong or offensive without analyzing and educating others to be better than that. If we want to truly analyze sports and race together (or really any subject in life), then that's an essential part of it, and that's what was missing from every media member's overblown reaction to this situation.

If we're going to discuss race, there are so many other forms of discrimination and civil rights issues that exist not just in America but around the world that are worthy of debating. Certainly, in sports, when the situation arises, it's worthy of talking about. But, now, we're at a time period where discussing gay rights or more serious situations with racial implications (the aforementioned Trayvon Martin case as an example) are what we're ready to deal with, analyze, and educate people about in 2013. To focus in on a “fried chicken” comment only harps back to a time and perspective that most of us from my generation and the generation after me are disconnected from and completely frown upon. We should have a knowledge of our history so as not to recreate it, but we shouldn't consistently hammer home its worst parts (like “fried chicken”) as some sort of casual reminder that everyone should be offended.

Race isn't a simple topic, and one column can't cover the scope of hundreds of years of violence and discrimination that puts us in these types of situations. But, if we want to experience true equality, we also have to really examine how far we have progressed and what's logical and worthy of discussing and educating each other about. A “fried chicken” comment by a misguided golfer is worth a few seconds of discussion in our day and age. It's not worth a constant day-long chatter where no one (not even the individuals actually involved) progressed any farther than when the words “fried chicken” left Sergio Garcia's lips.

Average Person's Guide to Giving You The Best Chance To Win Your NCAA Tournament Pool But You Probably Won't Anyway

I haven't watched most of the college basketball season. Chances are that if you're reading this post, you probably haven't, either. But, you're reading it because you know me and you're going to fill out a NCAA bracket, so why not read what one more person has to say? While the experts will give you their choices and analyze these current teams, I'll give you my expert opinion, which is likely just as good as theirs with how these tournaments turn out every year. So, here it is, my “Average Person's Guide to Giving You The Best Chance To Win Your NCAA Tournament Pool But You Probably Won't Anyway.”

 Hi ladies, I'm a bracketologist!

1. Pick teams with a history.

You know the teams that have won the championship before, and over the past decade, it's been a lot of familiar names multiple times: Duke, Connecticut (but, this year, oops!), Florida, Michigan State, North Carolina. As long as these teams are having good years, they should be locks to guarantee you at least early round points (not so much North Carolina, but definitely Duke. There's no way Duke loses in the first round again, is there?!)

2. Pick the coaches

I have no idea why, but there are just some coaches who know how to coach in the NCAA Tournament regardless of how good their team is. Some of them are the same people who coach the teams above: Kryzyzewski (Duke), Izzo (Michigan State), Donovan (Florida), and all of the previous teams are alluring picks in this tournament. There are even the new coaches like Shaka Smart (VCU) and Brad Stevens (Butler) who know how to make the wins happen.

3. Don't fall for the “trap” teams (whoever they are).

Every year, the tournament has them. They are teams that have either been seeded better than they should be or they made a run at their conference tournament and that was the only thing that you watched this season, so now you're salivating over them. Biggest traps this year: Gonzaga (#1 seed with a history of disappointment), Miami (I'm selling on their season/ACC Championship win), Michigan (#4 seed doesn't even show how much they seem to have fallen apart). Remember, I don't really know anything, and you may have your own trap teams in mind, but they're out there.

4. There are going to be upsets, silly.

This is a guarantee. Some weirdo team will end up in the Sweet 16. Your guess is as good as mine, and I didn't feel good about any of the weirdo teams to actually pick this one, so I'm guaranteed one wrong in the sweet 16. Oregon and California are appealing, but they're not weird enough. Belmont and South Dakota State sound nice, but really? I'm going to ride Belmont to the Sweet 16? Why can't Akron be playing any other team but VCU? I love my MAC teams to the Sweet 16!

5. Do not put too much money into your pool.

The NCAA Tournament is the most fun that you can have in sports, and the worst fun that you can have if you actually wish to gamble.

So, based off these five rules I just made up now, I'm putting $5 into a pool and picking the Duke Blue Devils to win it all (a team I've strangely never picked before)!

Final Four: Duke, Ohio State, Florida, Indiana

Biggest Upsets: (12) California, (12) Oregon

Middles to watch for: (5) VCU, (6) Butler, (6) Arizona, (9) Villanova, (9) Wichita State

I'm really looking forward to seeing how wrong I am, and I'm not sure if I even followed my own rules. Enjoy the tournament! 

The Sway of the Conference Tournaments

The NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket is complete. But, it couldn't have been completed without another year of conference tournaments, a bizarre but exciting approach to college basketball that can sway people's opinions incorrectly going into the NCAA Tournament.

The conference tournaments are a little odd. While many people criticize the BCS for its structure and money grab from the major conferences, the basketball tournaments hold some similarities. The major difference is that it breeds excitement. These conference tournaments provide an appetizer to the “Big Dance” with dramatic games in major venues from Madison Square Garden to the United Center which counters football's desperate need for a bigger playoff system that gives mid-major schools a better opportunity at the national crown.

But, just as the conference tournaments breed excitement, it cannot be denied that they are major money makers for both the NCAA and the respective conferences. Additionally, they provide an added, unnecessary emphasis on the NCAA Tournament that skewers our perception of teams.

The average person who will put their money in on the NCAA Tournament probably hasn't watched much college basketball throughout the year. They kick in their viewing once the conference tournaments hit. With not much to go by, they rely on the teams that produced well in the conference tournaments as a gauge to their potential success in the NCAA Tournament.

In the same light, the NCAA adds emphasis to the conference tournaments. Whoever wins the tournament receives an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament, which, while adding excitement, toys with the whole point of looking at a team's merit based off an entire season and puts into jeopardy every bubble team on the rare occasion that a lowly team runs their way through the weekend and their conference championship. In general, it's a bit bizarre to have a season conference champion and a tournament conference champion.

Furthermore, the NCAA Tournament's committee that decides the bracket puts far too much emphasis on the outcomes of the tournament in deciding seeding. This seeding ultimately has an impact on our own perception of the teams when filling out our brackets as well as once again swaying away from the importance of a team's regular season. An example is Ohio State, who likely could have been as low as a #6 seed or as high as the #2 seed that they did receive depending upon how they fared in the Big Ten Tournament.

I'm going to go ahead and grab this #2 seed.

To look further into the impact of the conference tournaments on the outcome of the NCAA Tournament, let us look at the winners of the NCAA Tournament since 2000 and the winner of their conference tournament that year:

2000: Michigan State – Michigan State

2001: Duke – Duke

2002: Maryland – Duke

2003: Syracuse – Pittsburgh

2004: Connecticut – Connecticut

2005: North Carolina – Duke

2006: Florida – Florida

2007: Florida – Florida

2008: Kansas – Kansas

2009: North Carolina – Duke

2010: Duke – Duke

2011: Connecticut – Connecticut

2012: Kentucky – Vanderbilt

8 of the past 13 NCAA champions won their conference tournaments. However, in most cases, they weren't surprises. Other than Kemba Walker leading Connecticut on their wild run in 2011, and perhaps Florida in 2006, these were stalwart teams from traditionally excellent programs. Nevertheless, from a numbers standpoint, the majority of champions were winners of their conference tournament, so momentum may play a factor.

However, take a look at last year's conference tournament champions and their outcomes in the NCAA Tournament:

ACC: Florida State - 2^nd round

Big Ten: Michigan State – Sweet 16

SEC: Vanderbilt - 2^nd round

Big 12: Missouri - 1^st round

Big East: Louisville – Final Four

The main point is that the conference tournaments normally have at least one winner that is a real trap team when it comes to their actual production in the NCAA Tournament. Florida State seemed like the clear possibility last year (and that was the case), but it turned out Vanderbilt was as well as Missouri being the biggest miscue (even for me as I had them winning the tournament in my bracket).

The conference tournaments are a fun experience, but they shouldn't allow a person betting on the bracket to get too invested in them. Momentum always plays a role, but it's more difficult to find in the forecasting of the most enigmatic sport to determine, college basketball. It's best to rely on the conference champions that proved throughout the season that they were winners rather than the ones who managed to bump themselves up and are now making all of us think they are better than they truly are because of seeding.

Flacco vs. Boldin

The Baltimore Ravens sent Anquan Boldin to the San Francisco 49ers for a 6th round draft pick. It was yet another cost-cutting move by the Super Bowl champions who are looking to stay under the cap while also managing the expensive deal they handed out to quarterback Joe Flacco.

The deal for Flacco was the type of deal that I said the Ravens shouldn't make. The market for that type of contract may have been there for Flacco, but it was better suited for a reckless team to make such an offer and the Ravens to reap the benefits of potential draft picks from those teams. Instead, the Ravens (already mired in cap issues) dug themselves into a deeper hole.

That hole got much more confusing when the Ravens shipped off Boldin. First, if the market for Flacco was so high, how could the market for Boldin possibly be so low as a 6th round draft pick? Sure, we are dealing with two different positions here and the impact of a quarterback trumps that of a wide receiver. But, I would argue that without Boldin, Joe Flacco doesn't have the type of postseason that propelled him to having the biggest contract in NFL history. Here are the duo's postseason stats:

Joe Flacco - 57.9% completion, 1,140 yds, 11 TD, 0 INT
Anquan Boldin - 22 catches, 380 yds, 4 TD

Flacco was questioned throughout the year as being an elite quarterback. He technically proved his critics wrong with a superior postseason. Boldin had four touchdowns for the whole season then stepped it up on the way to a Super Bowl title.

The biggest question is this: would the Ravens be better off with an unknown quarterback, their receiving corps intact, two first round draft picks from the team that signed Flacco, and more to work with when it comes to their cap space issues or Flacco and cap issues? We'll never truly know the answer other than to see how Joe Flacco and the 2013-14 Ravens play.

 Boldin owns his now teammate.

What further surprises me is that there were not any other takers offering something better than a 6th round pick? As a Browns fan, I would have gladly offered a 4th round pick for Boldin's services or even put conditional implications on a lower round pick. It makes sense that the Ravens wouldn't trade Boldin to a division rival, but no other team (not even the Dolphins who spent lavishly on Mike Wallace) would be interested in a veteran receiver fresh off being a leader on the Super Bowl winner? Just as bizarre as it would be for the Ravens to send Boldin to the Browns, it's odd that they send him to their Super Bowl opponents in the 49ers.

Fans should respect the Ravens front office. Their track record and history are evident. General manager Ozzie Newsome also acknowledged that they were not going to repeat the type of experience that they had with the salary cap following their last Super Bowl win. Nevertheless, it's a curious choice and with both them and the Steelers making cost-cutting moves, the AFC North got a lot more interesting.

Dwight Howard Stays: The Only Logical Choice for the Lakers

Now that the dust has settled, we can sit back from Thursday’s NBA trade deadline and see that it was all a lot of hooey for nothing. In the lead-up to the deadline, there was a lot of talk about Dwight Howard. Most television pundits stated emphatically that the Los Angeles Lakers should trade Howard. In an also emphatic (if not slightly over-the-top) comment the day before the deadline, general manager Mitch Kupchak said that wasn’t going to happen and that Howard was going to be a Laker for a long time. Initially, I agreed with most pundits. But as the deadline loomed, it was apparent to me that the logical choice for the Lakers was for Howard to remain on the team.

At first glance, the logical choice appeared to be to trade Dwight Howard. The Lakers are on the outside looking in when it comes to the Western Conference playoff picture. Reports say Kobe Bryant and Howard are not getting along both on and off the court. Howard is going to be a free agent at the end of the year and has shown no commitment to staying with the Lakers beyond this season, and given how this season has transpired, it would be highly unlikely he would want to stay. All signs point to getting the best trade possible for Dwight Howard.

But, haven’t we been through this already? Didn’t the Orlando Magic just go through this type of dragged out fiasco months ago? I’ll get to the Magic’s role in this situation later, but first, it’s time to focus in on the Lakers.

Kupchak is one of the best general managers in the league. He has continued to make the Lakers a success and a destination for free agents. When he made the trade for Howard in the offseason, he knew the ramifications of such a decision.

Kupchak put his money in on Dwight Howard. When the trade happened, no one thought it was a bad move, and automatically the Lakers had the scariest starting lineup in the league. Little did we know that the Lakers' season would turn out this way and that they would play like they were “old as shit” (Kobe's hilarious words, not mine). Now, Kupchak is pot committed, to put it in poker terms. He is riding the future of the Lakers on Dwight Howard.

When pundits stated that the Lakers should trade Howard, I initially agreed with them. It's likely Howard would leave and with the wishy-washy nature he showed in Orlando, why deal with that? The Lakers shouldn't stake their future on Howard, and should instead get pieces to assist Kobe and the future.

It seems like a great idea, but I realized that I was looking at it from the perspective of a Cleveland fan. That's what a Cleveland team would do. That's what most teams would do. That's not what the Los Angeles Lakers would or should do. The Lakers are one of the few teams in the league that players want to come to. They've built a culture of winning and have highlighted the appeal of the West Coast since “Showtime” hit the Great Western Forum. Why would the Lakers become sellers of all a sudden? Why would they play for the future when their offseason buyer move of Howard was playing for now?

 Kobe has no choice but to deal with Dwight.

Even if a trade were to happen, what possible value could the Lakers have gotten for Howard? That's where the anger occurs in trade demand situations like with Howard, Chris Paul, or Carmelo Anthony. The small-market team loses out on a superstar in order to get a bunch of pieces that can never live up to the importance of that superstar. And, as we've seen, the NBA is dictated by superstars. Since 2000, the only team that didn't at least have a clear superstar player on their roster and won a championship was the 2003-04 Detroit Pistons. But, having a balanced team like that is a rarity over the norm. Even so, one superstar can't even lead a team to the title on his own. Jordan had Pippen. Kobe had Shaq (or vice versa). LeBron has Wade and Bosh. Let's not stop to mention all the role players that make a championship team a true winner as well.

There was nothing to say that Los Angeles would have gotten equal value for Howard. Rumors (from wherever it's not even clear in these days of social media) had a possible Howard-for-Rajon Rondo swap. This was the best deal possible, but didn't seem likely to happen, and officially would have thrown in the towel for the Lakers this year given Rondo's season-ending injury.

Imagine if the Lakers had made an Orlando Magic-type deal. Here's the breakdown of the deal from Bleacher Report with their moronic opinion that the Magic won on the deal after a re-evaluation a month ago.

Let's look at the Magic players' current season stats:

Aaron Afflalo: 16.8 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 3.1 APG

Nikola Vucevic: 12.3 PPG, 11.4 RPG, 1.07 blocks per game

Moe Harkless: 5.8 PPG, 4.1 RPG

Josh McRoberts: 3.9 PPG, 3.3 RPG

Al Harrington: Staph infection

Christian Eyenga: Waived in October

The Magic received a number of draft picks from the Knicks, Nuggets, and Lakers, all presumed playoff teams, so the selections are likely to be tougher in producing an impact or star player. While Afflalo and Vucevic are fine players, they are pieces on a championship team, not superstars (the notion in Bleacher Report that Vucevic “really makes one think if the Lakers truly got the best center in the long-term” is perhaps its silliest).

Now, factor that in with the idea that any team taking Howard knows that they may possibly have him for only half a season and the negativity and criticism that has followed the All-Star big man, and it seems ridiculous that the Lakers should even possibly take a deal like this one.
 

The Lakers were better off to do what they did, and stick with Dwight Howard. They now have the time to see if their superstars can make a run in the second half of the season to get them into the playoffs. Likewise, Kupchak has already begun to work his magic in showing his wholehearted support for Howard.

Whether Kupchak's comments work on Howard or not remains to be seen (as does the possibility of a statue outside Staples Center). But, one thing is clear: the Lakers are still the Lakers because they kept Dwight Howard.

The "Mental Game" of a Sports Fan

Recently, I finished reading Dr. Bob Rotella's Golf is Not a Game of Perfect. Published in 1995, the perspectives in the book have likely aged and are common knowledge at this point, but it was still a nice read to further enhance my “mental game” in not just golf but any sport that I may participate in. Dr. Rotella's main emphasis was on not focusing in one's mechanics, but rather to have confidence and positive thought in order to attain success on a golf course.

But, in a different realm, the book got me thinking about the sports fan, and the “mental game” involved in that. Recent Bud Light commercials have proven two things: one, that a company can beat to death a song to a point that you sadly don't like it anymore (Stevie Wonder's “Superstition”) and that the average sports fan puts a lot of emphasis on their rituals and that their interaction has an effect on the outcome of a game.

Is it possible that a fan can actually have an effect on a game? Nothing can particularly prove that other than the factor of home field advantage, which can have an impact in sports (varying from the surefire victories the Seattle Seahawks were getting this year at CenturyLink Field to the pointlessness of being a #1 seed in the NHL Playoffs). Beyond that, can superstition or a mental perspective play a role? Can the fan sitting at home really dictate anything? While I have as much proof as saying that Ray Lewis was right and God gave him the another Super Bowl win, I do think that a fan's mental state can play a role in a game outcome.

A strong part of this belief has to come from being a Cleveland sports fan. I grew up with “The Shot,” “The Drive,” and “The Fumble.” I've seen Jose Mesa's blown save. I've seen Dwyane Rudd throw a helmet and reveal a rule no one knew existed. When it all comes down to it, I learned that no lead is ever safe. It also created me having zero confidence in my team when it comes down to a close game. We've found so many different crushing ways to lose, how can any of us as Cleveland fans feel strongly that we'll win?

There are a lot of instances where I can show how mentally I felt completely different as a fan and the outcome was the same. In Game 5 of the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James put up his memorable “48 Special” performance against the Detroit Pistons. In Game 6, I had my usual doubts as a Cleveland fan, but as the game progressed, I felt more confident with LeBron as a leader and the team won on our way to getting swept out of the NBA Finals. Take that situation against LeBron's no-show in Game 5 of the 2010 playoffs against the Boston Celtics and how every Cleveland fan had to be thinking we weren't going to win in Boston after getting blown out at home. I was convinced this same situation would happen to LeBron in last year's playoffs after losing Game 5 to Boston, but alas, LeBron is now in Miami and was the exact opposite of a no-show in dismantling the Celtics on their home court.

I remember having similar feelings in the 2007 American League Championship Series. After the Indians went up 3-1, I knew we had to take Game 5. Then, Josh Beckett shut us down. Most fans would still feel they had a chance up 3-2 in a series, but knowing just how dominant Beckett was against us, and that we were headed back to Boston for the final two games, I didn't believe the Indians could pull it out, and they didn't.

In connection with fan confidence is momentum. Some will say that momentum plays no role in how a game or a series transpires. But, in these examples, there's something to one team simply dominating another and it swinging the momentum of a series. Now, this swing has to do with player confidence as well. If a player feels advantageous against their opponent, he or she has the wholehearted confidence to believe he or she will win. Such confidence and momentum passes on to the fan. 

Of course, all fan bases have different levels of confidence. One of the more notorious moments where it was clear that fan confidence may have had an effect on an outcome of the game was the Steve Bartman incident during the 2003 National League Championship Series. Best depicted in ESPN's "30 for 30" Catching Hell documentary, Cubs fans turned on Steve Bartman when he interfered with a foul ball rather than focusing on the team's poor inning as a whole. I remember watching the game live, and you could feel the energy sucked out of Wrigley Field almost immediately, and it kept getting worse as the mistakes kept piling up for the Cubs.

Fan bases sometimes sadly find confidence in hatred.

But, there's got to be that other side of the coin, too. My buddy Evan is a Boston sports fan. I asked him if he feels confident when Tom Brady has the ball in a clutch situation. He humorously said, "Not lately," which makes sense. But, he acknowledged that for years Brady and the Patriots had that swagger and confidence that led to a fan feeling good about winning a game. He said he felt the same way whenever the Red Sox handed Pedro Martinez the ball during his best seasons. Once a player and a team manage to prove something and show confidence, it rubs off on the fan as well.

The "mental game" is a part of a lot of aspects in sports. I genuinely believe that momentum and "something in the air" can have an effect on the outcome of the game. Sometimes, it's a team's sense of confidence that translates to the fan (Bulls fans have to believe Jordan will hit a game winning shot) but other times it's the fan's pressure and feelings of failure translating to a team (the Cubs in 2003 and perhaps any situation for that team for the rest of time).