Forum Time!

When you get emails overnight questioning parts of your logic, it's probably time for a forum to hash out the differences:

"You give Bruce Weber an offensive nickname, but you don't really explain why, just that you've seen him complain live. What gives? How does this make sense?"

That is an excellent question, and deserves an immediate response. Here's the deal with Bruce: when you watch him coach live it seems he does very little coaching, and generally just is in the referees ear from start to finish. The only coach I recall being that way other than Bruce was Matt Painter. It's unique, this ability to complain from tip off to final buzzer. And it bothers me. Both of these men were Gene Keady disciples, but by the time I got to see the combover he was in his final moments, and didn't really have it in him to go the full game. Still, you could see how in his prime that may have been his style as well.

In contrast, during my time at IU, I saw a number of other coaches come through who coached their team and observed the game, saving the complaining for the moments where it was needed: Roy Williams, Tom Izzo, Thad Motta, Coach K, and Bo Ryan to name a few. These men would complain when needed, but because they didn't do it all the time it made their words far more powerful. Maybe that is something that comes with success, but Motta and Ryan don't have anymore success than Weber.

I will say this, however: I'd much rather have a coach engaged in the action, even overly so, than completely checked out. When you watch Weber there is no doubt that he cares deeply about the game, his kids, and the outcome. When I watched Mike Davis ... let's just say I had my doubts. I grew up with my coaching philosophy somewhere between Bobby Knight (for his x's and o's) and Phil Jackson (for his ability to sit back and let the team play, while also knowing when the time was to get the technical or call a timeout). Weber just doesn't fit my schema, but he is also better than some. He got the nickname because that appears to be his specialty: bitching and moaning. Seeing him live makes all the difference; maybe if I had been raised in a Purdue household at the mantle of Keady I would view it different.

"Bruce Weber bitches? And you're an IU fan? Bobby Knight threw a chair on the court when he didn't like the call. Come ON!!"

Knight had major anger issues, and no one can deny that. He was, in every form of the word, a curmudgeon. But he knew the game as well as, if not better than, anyone. He came from a different era where players respected coaches, and where discipline was something to be sought after. Look at his graduation rates and the clean program he ran without NCAA problems, then get back to me. He wasn't a saint, but he does get a bad rap. Then again, I am a homer.

"For those of us who haven't watched LOST, but might when it's done and all on DVD, think you could avoid the LOST posts?"


Thanks for the idea, but probably not. I will try to post early on if it is a LOST post so that you can choose to skip it. This is an interesting issue, however, for people who write in real time about a variety of pop-culture items. Spoiler alerts only work so well, but the next show I'm going to get into reviewing is "Deadwood" which has been off the air for four years. Hopefully that won't be a problem. Great show, though.

"I thought you might get a little creative, but instead, you sound like the typical Hoosier whiner...loud and proud when you win and ready to blame everybody else when you don't."

Yeah, probably deserved that one, but there is a method to my madness. First of all, I hope that the breakdown was at least a little creative, even if it could have been more so. Secondly, I can't help the "arch-rival" mindset: it's a part of why I enjoy sports. I'm a competitive person. Everyone who knows me knows this. ESPN has a commercial for their ESPNU entity that talks about how "the colors you root against" are just as important as those you root for. I tend to almost agree; I'd say they are almost as important. Either way, this makes me think about the teams I love to hate, and why. To root against a team it makes sense if you find some of the following qualities in them:

- A major rival of your team
- A regional team other than your team, whose fans you are exposed to constantly
- A team with a player or coach you can't stand

With those in mind, my "arch-rival" or "arch-nemesis" teams are the following:

College Basketball: 1) PurDon't 2) Illinois
College Football: 1) PurDon't 2) **fluid** (most recently Texas)
NBA: 1) Indianapolis Pacers 2) **fluid** (most recently the Pistons, before that the Knicks)
MLB: 1) St. Louis Cardinals 2) Chicago White Sox
NFL: 1) Indianapolis Colts, 2) Green Bay Packers/Minnesota ViQueens
NHL: 1) Detroit Redwings
Golf: 1) Phil Mickelson
Tennis: 1) Rafael Nadal
NASCAR: 1) Dale Jr.
Cabinet Members: 1) open (used to be Donald Rumsfeld)
Governors: 1) Mitch Daniels
Actors: 1) Russell Crow 2) fluid (most recently Leonardo Dicaprio pre-Departed)

See how much FUN this is? :-) It can be expanded to any area of life, and then you have someone to root for, and someone to root against. Go Matt Damon! Kick Russell Crow's ASS!!

I think it is also important to distinguish between a level one team (the Cardinals, Boilermakers, etc) and a level two team (Illinois for instance). The big difference is this: if PurDon't wins the big dance this year I will not be calling anyone to congratulate them. Nobody. I don't like that team. If Illinois had beat Carolina in 2005, I would have been very happy for a number of people, especially my grandfather who is a lifelong Illini fan. Illinois is a level two team because they have a coach who I can't stand, and are a geographic rival to boot. Purdue is a level one team because I have a hard time finding a redeeming factor of the entire campus. But, then again, I am a Hoosier homer! :-)

"Damn. That's a lot of typing just to say you still don't like Lovie."

Indeed it was, but I'm glad you got them message :-) Look, Lovie has been on my badside since his inept coaching blew the playoff game against the Panthers. I don't think he is a good coach, period. But what cracks me up is the follow up email here:

"That said, I also don't agree with your use of the word "Desperation". I think it's anything but. I'm pleased to see the dropping of coin, in any event. The choices? Eh, they're alright although I think they overpaid Peppers. I'd like to see some IMMEDIATE help for the O-Line, that's my biggest concern. Boldin? Sure, let's hope they don't pull on TO's chain, heaven help us."

So we agree they overpaid for Peppers? To me, that's the same desperation we saw out of the Cubs when they signed Soriano, but I get the point: one man's desperation is another man's "they are finally spending on free agents, hopefully this will help." We agreed on the other two signings, and trust me, if there was anyone out their to fix the O-Line I'm sure they would have done it; it was just a weak year for free agents in that regard. I also agree with TO not being an option, but not because his skill set wouldn't help (possession receiver is exactly what we need). Cutler is enough of an ego to manage without an even bigger malcontent, and Lovie hasn't exactly specialized in managing problem children in the past (see Johnson, Tank or Benson, Cedric for a breakdown).

"Enough about the team's you don't like; which teams do you root for?"

Ok, I wrote that one, but I wanted to be able to break down my favorite teams for you:

College Basketball: 1) Indiana , 2) North Carolina
College Football: 1) Indiana, 2) eh ... I really don't have a horse in this race
NBA: 1) Chicago Bulls, 2) Dallas Mavericks (for now ... I love me some Cuban)
MLB: 1) Chicago Cubs, 2) open, although I do like the Twins a bit...
NFL: 1) Chicago Bears, 2) Pittsburgh Steelers, 3) New Orleans Saints
Golf: 1) Tiger
Tennis: 1) Federer, 2) Roddick
NASCAR: NONE
Cabinet Member: Open (used to be Colin Powell)
Governor: Arnold!!!! "Don't be economic girly-men!!!"
Actor: 1) Matt Damon!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for all the feedback guys, keep it coming!