NCAA Basketball Tournament: 'Parity' Is Like Ash In My Mouth

Another March Madness, another busted bracket. I only do one bracket a year, and picked Kansas to whip Villanova in the title game. We're done with the opening two rounds of the 2010 NCAA Tournament, and this is no longer possible. That's a fact. Also a fact: After the first weekend, the most over-used word is parity. "We now have parity." Parity? Where? When did that begin? When Cornell makes the Sweet 16 four of six years--that's when we can say that the playing field is level. Let's see Northern Iowa actually win the title, and then reach the second weekend again in '11. Only then could we claim that there is a true sense of unpredictability. But those things are not going to happen. More than likely, these teams (and the entertaining St. Mary's College) will be replaced by a handful of other upstarts. Every March, we get so excited over the upsets that we get amnesia. Upsets happen every year. Brackets get destroyed quick and in a hurry.

The one recent exception was 2009, where all four #1 seeds made it to the national semifinals. There will never be true parity in major college ball. Although the usual murderer's row didn't appear in the tournament this year--represented by perennial powers like UNC, UCLA, and UConn--do you really doubt that they'll miss again next season? Schools like North Carolina are just on a different level. They have the recruiting network. The money. The boosters and alums. Big-time community support that, in most cases, has been there for over a generation.

You're going to see the same twenty or so universities making the tournament for another generation. There are exceptions to this old-school theory, like a Gonzaga, which has built a winning program in recent memory. But they still aren't part of the upper echelon--they're merely outstanding (so far). They're not Michigan State, or Duke.

Yes: that kind of powerhouse, where a great coach leaving or a losing season are just bumps in the road. Not the beginning of a retreat to obscurity. Remember when that team did good that one year?... This is why I'll always be most enthusiastic for the NBA over college. (Other than the obvious upgrade in play and talent.) At least the pro league doesn't pretend to be something it is not. Its flaws are there for everyone to see. Meanwhile, the NCAA proposes adding thirty-two teams to the Madness, yet pretends that the phrase 'student-athlete' is still written in the correct order.

Come on. Try and convince me.

Rate Me

So are we still saying that the Philadelphia Eagles' Brian Westbrook is one of the game's best? I don't know if I agree with that, anymore. He had two amazing seasons in 2006 & '07. He blocks and even can play at QB. But we're talking about someone who has never, in an eight-season career, played a full season. And after two concussions in five games, his very playing future is rumored doubtful.

He's got the talent to match anyone in the NFL. But to be considered one of the best, you've got to have durability. It's not his fault that his body breaks down more than average. Nor that he plays at the halfback position, one of the most physically-demanding in the sport.

When we list the best running backs playing today, everything should be taken into account. The statistics. The all-around contributions. The clutch play. And the durability. Sometimes "durability" relates to the size of an athlete's heart (i.e. Allen Iverson); other times to how well his body takes punishment.

Westy's career is not over Not at age 30, with "only" a few concussions so far. At worst, he will sit the 2009 campaign and return next season. Or he might make a tough-guy return for the playoffs--assuming Philly gets in. Aside from the 2006 season, when QB Donovan McNabb went down to injury, and Westbrook willed the team to two playoff wins, #36 seems to fade as winter goes on.

While we're at it, we've got to look at the Chargers' Ladainian Tomlinson, too. Is he still one of the best? Or is he falling off a table?

LT missed a game due to groin injury back in January, and his team lost to eventual Super Bowl champs Pittsburgh. A year before that, he wasn't effective (five yards on two carries) in a playoff loss to New England. You've got to assume that these performances had something to do with the contentious relationship that's developed between San Diego fans/management and Tomlinson. Even in 2007, there were whispers about his toughness. Premature? Perhaps.

LT is the leading touchdown rusher in history. And Westbrook is one of a handful of players to rush for 30 TDs and catch 25.

But all the stats in the world don't matter, next to piling up numbers when it counts. Both of these men, as much as we love watching them at their best, haven't quite stepped up on that count.

Anyway, there's only one "LT" in football. He was on "Dancing With the Stars" a while back...

"MJ's a Jerk Now"

It's amazing how naive we are. People watched Jordan's commercials, the playful smiles... I watched almost every game of his career. I always felt like fans (especially casual ones) saw MJ as almost cuddly. Harmless. Then he ripped a load of people in his Hall of Fame induction speech. He went so far back to find people who'd offended him in life, he was digging up graveyards. He gave the speech the way he played--giving no quarter to any opponent. Finding a reason to not only beat you, but demoralize you. Now, suddenly, people are gasping for air. "MJ is a jerk!" more than one sports fan has said. My question is: what did you expect? The guy was the best in the world, probably the best ever. Think of all the 'best in the world' types. Don't all of them have a little jerk in them? Do you think it's coincidence? It must be a necessary quality at that level.

a Rose by any other name

So a few more names dropped off the 100-plus PED user list from around 2003. We already knew about Manny Ramirez... and David 'Big Papi' Ortiz showed up too. Predictably, people are once again quaking in their wingtips, and even saying that the Boston Red Sox need to give back their '04 & '07 rings.

Fans who follow the game closely, or claim they do, are less and less concerned about the whole issue. The ones most outraged about Ortiz and Ramirez are people who hate the Red Sox. They always thought that it was strange that the Yankees appeared to be getting picked on and witch-hunted.

Proof that fans only care when it's a team other than them.

Now it's flipped 180 degrees. And it's hard to believe that this isn't some kind of plan. Why these two names; why this team and none other? Does anyone really think this is an accident? And while we're asking questions: where are all the West Coast teams on this list? I suppose only northeastern baseball players use performance-enhancers.

One day, major professional sports are going to allow human growth hormones/PEDs. They're already coming into everyday society, like it or not. Doctors will figure a way to keep us healthier and living longer, and they will naturally trickle into sports.

Hearing this destroys the serious baseball fan, heretoforementioned as the Purist. The Purist is an endangered species; more than that, he's obsolete. Especially the ones who happen to be part of the media.

The fans just want to be entertained, no matter what, Purist says with curled lip. (As if this is a bad thing.) This was proven the day after Ortiz's name appeared in the sports section at the end of July, when Big Papi hit a homer. The crowd stood nearly unanimously and cheered.

The Purist treats the game of baseball as his blankie. He's going down fighting. He takes it personally when players use. Noted baseball fan George Will said of Barry Bonds in 2006, "Most people who care about baseball wish that Bonds had never played and hope he never does again." Here's hoping Will lives long enough to see Spider-Man's head on the bases, the outfield grass cut in a webbing lattice, and the Green Goblin throwing out the first pitch.

As late as December '07, baseball egghead Tim Kurkjian said of NY Yankee Andy Pettite: "A guy who used HGH a couple of times [is different from] using anabolic steroids. HGH helps in recovery. It doesn't make you bigger and stronger technically so I would be really surprised if a suspension followed this..."

The egghead may be overcooked. Just read that statement, and feel the Need To Believe in the game floating within. (And remember that Pettite, like every other user to date, lied repeatedly, inexorably leaking the truth as he was smacked with evidence.) Will and Kurkjian sound like little boys who got that blankie snatched. Is HGH/PED using cheating, or isn't it? Does it depend on who the appointed grandmasters of baseball personally like? Who decides any of this? You do.
But while we're in this moment, smelling the dying roses of summer, I am looking ahead to modern players' Hall of Fame considerations. The obvious issue of legacy is waiting for them, and for us. Will we still have the scent of Pete Rose hanging around?

There's a direct line from Pete Rose's lifetime suspension for betting on baseball (while still a dugout manager), straight to PED users. Even casual fans know that the lifeblood of baseball is streaked with things that don't line up with its All-American, noble athlete, mom n' apple pie image.

Spitballs and illegally-cut baseballs. Upper pills back in the 1970s. Corked bats. Sign-stealing. The issue of wholesale segregation up until the mid-20th century.

I'm sure I've left a few items off that list. And cheating won't ever be washed out of baseball, no matter how many tests players take. No matter how red-faced the old-timers get about modern hardball. Baseball is only noble on the outside--in the minds of nostalgics. It's like a weird, slightly-too-ripe fruit that'll crumble with a good whack of the bat. Hmm, kinda reads like I'm describing most people's idea of America. Or of humanity.

The major difference is that Pete Rose's mistakes came as a manager. The integrity was missing, but he didn't change stats or outcomes. PED users (and the other cheaters mentioned above) have done it as players.

The irony is, if not for Charlie Hustle's arrogance toward his questioners and accusers... if, to get in his head a moment, he'd just admitted guilt even if he thought it was wrong to do so... he'd be a HOFer already. We like to build people into emperors, and then we like to tear them to shreds. And we especially love it when they 'bare their souls.'

If that means anything anymore. Public apologies and visible victimhood are just more commodities. Another way to get people looking at you. And hopefully buying whatever it is you're selling.

MMA: Lesnar Goes Apescat

UFC heavyweight Brock Lesnar defended his title against Frank Mir, getting revenge on the only man to beat him so far. Lesnar has had a short but eventful mixed martial art career so far, and UFC 100 was the pinnacle.

Then Brock decided to blow things up a bit after his victory. It's hard to steady your emotions after a moment like that. However, let's be honest: the guy went off his nut. Started ranting like he's back on the WWE circuit. Needless to say, that did not make Dana White and the MMA powers-that-be too happy. Lesnar cooled off and apologized for his antics. They will be forgotten if not repeated. 

To this eye, MMA can't help but be linked to pro wrestling--its entertainment aspect. White wants the sport to dress up a bit. To be respectable. But you can't serve me raw meat and tell me it's sizzling, fully-cooked sirloin. 

Say what you want: men who are dressed for bed, grappling in front of millions of eyes, tearing and breaking each other, gladiators who don't use weapons because they are weapons... that, sir, has crazy sideshow quality. 

You can't pretend it's just two guys fighting. That's why Brock was not entirely wrong.

R-R-R-Rubio!

Why are we so enamored of point guard Ricky Rubio?

The golden-skinned Rubio qualifies as exotic, in the United States. It's the name, so pleasing to the ear. It's the court vision, the occasional Pistol Pete pass. He turns 19 at the start of the 09-10 season, and he's fun to watch.




We're left to wonder: why did Minnesota draft Rubio and PG Jonny Flynn?

There are good reasons to think he'll be All-Star caliber. (Assuming he ever plays here. Just because he was drafted, doesn't mean he'll choose to play NBA ball.) Anyone who intellectually honest will admit that his Olympic play was stellar. He was 17, remember. My guess is he'll peak five or six seasons into his career. He is already an outstanding passer--anticipatory the way John Stockton was. Obviously he's got to get stronger and improve his defense (like 95% of draftees every year).

Yet the reaction to Rubio's NBA debut is a huge man-crush. I don't remember ever getting excited about a NBA rookie. Because no matter how good they are, they all get humbled. Bron, Kobe, Jordan, Bird--name anyone you want. No one is that good.

It's the exotic-ness.

There is a segment of NBA fans that will support Rubio because he's (euphemism alert) "different."

Ricky Rubio is from Spain, which is the original Hispanic-producing region, depending who you ask. But it's hard to imagine Rubio getting quite the same love, if his parents had both been Mexican, or Cuban. We like to claim that it's all about talent. In sports, more than any other sphere right now, it is.

Reality is not always so simple. When what I hear clashes with what I see, I go with my eyes. Don't you?

The whole idea of Rubio confuses some people. Even admitted racists are confused. A 'white power' site commenting on Spainards had the forum split between they're white, leave them alone and be careful of those Spainards. Penelope Cruz has a mulatto-looking father...

But let's not judge the I like Ricky because he's 'different' types too harshly. For there is another segment, just as vocal, who already hate on Rubio for the exactly the same reason: racism. He's not black, and he's getting some early love... and these fans can't stand it. Knowing that if Rubio was black, according to the amorphous and random definitions in the U.S., they'd be kissing his behind.

Both of these groups should just let the kid play. Preferably for a few more seasons in Europe. He's still a little undercooked.

every Yes is preceded by a No

Before the deciding game of the NBA Finals, his Orlando Magic down three games to one, Dwight Howard pretty much spelled out his doom, right there in the tunnel. He was asked if he had faith in his team's ability to do the unprecedented.

"Impossible is Nothing," Howard said, quoting a sneaker ad. His tone didn't match adidas' words. There was no fire, no fury. I wanted to see D-How with his nostrils flaring, barely able to wait for the tip-off. I wanted him to be impatient with the whole idea of a pre-game interview, and telling us as much with body language.

We saw none of that. They're definitely done was the idea only one quarter into this game.

Howard's play reflected that chat. He was more Clark Kent than Superman. His tendency to bowl people over and call it a post move didn't work this time. That helped him into foul trouble.

After the loss, with the LA Lakers celebrating on the Magic home floor, Howard's words finally matched his body language.

"It hurts," he said, watching the ceremonies. "Sometimes you've got to lose to win."

Orlando may be a balanced team, but without Dwight Howard on the floor for stretches... forget it.

Yet there were flashes. Little glimpses of what could be.. footwork and shots we'd never seen him do. Makes me wonder what he could do, if his legs were as developed as his upper body.

At that point, forget "Superman". He'd be Baby Wilt.