When Is It Okay To Rush The Court?

B-dowd and I were discussing this topic this morning, especially in light of Illinois students rushing the court after their upset win over MSU. An act that Dick Vitale took serious issue with but that Illini students felt was their right, especially in that moment.

First off, Dick Vitale is a buffoon and he's been a caricature of himself for going on 20 years. He adds almost nothing to broadcasts, he's annoying, he bellows stupidity and paws at his play-by-play guy and, worst of all, he makes me like Bob Knight as a color guy. For Vitale -- a clown who gets animated over the stupidest little things -- to criticize students for going crazy is, well, effing stupid. They're going bananas, Dick, just like you do when talking about John Wall like you want to hump his leg. But I digress.

When, dear readers, is it okay to rush the court in college basketball? I was thinking today that there is hardly a situation left where it would seem that Purdue fans would rush the court...correct? I mean, let's say the rankings are reversed when MSU comes to WestLaf and Purdue wins -- the students aren't rushing the court then, are they?

And by the same token, there's absolutely no way MSU fans are storming the floor if they win over the Boilers tomorrow night. That we can say with certainty.

On the other hand, you had the Illini fans rushing on after beating #5 MSU and, earlier this year, you had IU fans storming the court after knocking off powerhouse Minnesota.

So when is it okay? Because there has to be a time, right? Or are you always supposed to pretend you've been there before? We want your opinions on this one.

I'll tell you some of my personal guidelines for what I think is okay:

1) You're mediocre and take down the #1 team in the country. A great example of this was a marginal South Carolina team knocking off #1 and undefeated Kentucky a couple weeks ago. That was cause for celebration.

2) You're a small-time team from a small-time conference and you knock off a powerhouse team from a big-boy conference. Doesn't have to be a #1 team, but they should definitely be top ten, let's say, and a team that is a shock for you to beat.

3) The win clinches a conference title or undefeated season or championship of some kind that's been a long time coming.

That's about it for me.

Times when it's definitely not okay but seems to have become acceptable:

1) When it's a conference foe that's not #1 in the nation. You're supposed to sometimes beat your conference opponents. Acting like you can't believe you pulled one out against a conference opponent is kind of embarrassing. This falls under acting like you've been there before, because you probably have.

2) When it's simply a team ranked higher than you. If you're #25 and you beat #15, simply cheer from your seats.

3) When it's going to get you mocked relentlessly. See Indiana over Minnesota.

What say you, BS faithful?

The Rivalry, Esq., Looks At The Boilermakers

The Rivalry, Esq. has their Purdue preview up. Parts of it are reasonable. No, Purdue is not going to be very good. But anytime we wonder why bloggers are mocked by others in the media, this kind of dreck is why:

I hate Purdue because people act as if Joe Tiller was the first Big Ten coach to ever have his team throw a forward pass...I hate that "Boiler Up!" chant that their crowd yells after every play...I hate that their colors are a bit too similar to Iowa's...I hate that you absolutely can't win in the Big House. When was the last time? 1966? Seriously?...I hate that I still don't know what the word Purdue means...I hate that in 2002 on a late 4th and 1, you let Ohio State throw long to Michael Jenkins for the game winning touchdown. That kept Ohio State undefeated and Iowa out of the Rose Bowl...I hate Purdue.

Let's take a look at this semi-retarded rant.

First, Joe Tiller actually did change how the game was played in the Big Ten. This was established long ago.

Our colors are "too similar" to Iowa's? Seriously? The black and old gold actually looks nothing like Iowa's... what is that? Corn and turd?

We can't win in the Big House. Point taken. When was Iowa's last Rose Bowl again?

You don't know "what the word Purdue means"? Um, this is hard to figure out, I'm sure. Unreal.

And, about 2002. Yes, Iowa was very good that year. And only squeaked by Purdue by 3. And actually lost to Iowa State -- Iowa State! -- in a loss that ruined an otherwise perfect regular season. And the infernal "Holy Buckeye" play is what kept Iowa out of the Rose Bowl? You might be a bit mistaken, given that OSU didn't go to the Rose Bowl, either. They went to the Fiesta and won the national championship. The Rose Bowl chose Oklahoma and Washington State. But hey, it was probably Purdue's fault.

Idiots bother me.

I Have A Better Solution For Not Getting Beaten 100-0: Don't Suck So Badly

As happens once in a while, a score in a high school athletic contest is making the rounds as the current thing we should all say is just "poor sportsmanship," and shake our heads about, etc. Well, bullsh-t, I say. That's just stupid. The fact that Convenant School is now asking to forfeit their 100-0 win over Dallas Academy is just ridiculous. Why even keep score? Why even have a team? If you're going to have to apologize for pummelling your opponents, then don't even effing play.

If you didn't yet hear about this (lucky you), Covenant pounded Dallas Academy -- a school that hasn't won a game in four years, mind you -- by 100 and then backed off. Should they have been pressing and keeping on the pressure into the fourth quarter? Well, maybe not. I suppose there's an "honor" in being reasonable to your opponents. And the school's chairman described the win as "victory without honor," "shameful" and an "embarrassment."

However, if Dallas Academy wants to field a team and Convenant is in your district, then, well, guess what? You need to take your medicine or else disband your basketball program. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles. At least it used to be.

I remember playing on a traveling team of what were loosely described as "All-Stars" from my town (I say loosely because, hey, I was on the team). We played other towns all-star squads, many of which were, let's just say, a bit better than we were. I distinctly recall a road game in which we had a total of two points after three quarters. TWO! We were down something like 50-2. I don't remember the final but it was something like 66-8 or something like that. And I don't remember ever a word being uttered about it being "wrong" that we got shellacked like that. We got run out of the gym, plain and simple. And we lost. And then we went home. And on Monday we went back to school. And life went on.

Convenant also won games this year by scores of 66-7 and 77-27. Why haven't they forfeited those games? Is winning by 50 honorable but winning by 100 is not? Where is the line? I'm just curious.

I just don't agree with all this apologizing and the ludicrous notion of forfeiting the game to the lousy team. It is what's wrong with athletics right now. These are high school girls -- they're not 8-year-olds. The next level is college. And do you know what happens in college? Sometimes you don't succeed -- and I'm not even talking about basketball. Sometimes you get your ass kicked by a biology midterm. And if you get a zero on it and look pathetic doing so, your professor isn't going to decide that you should actually get 100 because failing you wasn't "honorable."

This whole story is so idiotic and it makes me angry.

Plaxico Burress Weekend Line: One Catch For One Wound

Picture courtesy of the funnymen at Tirico Suave.

So I got called out for in the comments of another post by an old college buddy about how I haven't written about Plaxico's idiotic move over the weekend. We don't normally allow goading like that to dictate what we write, but fine, my resistance is down... like a married, drunk Minnesota fan at the Metrodome.

As you no doubt know, Plaxico Burress went to a club in New York and had a concealed weapon on him -- a fricking felony in New York -- and further demonstrated that he shouldn't be carrying it (as though we needed any evidence of that) by "fumbling" the gun, according to reports, and somehow shooting himself in the leg. (I do love that he "fumbled." Gosh, Plax is usually so sure-handed!)

Now, I guess it makes sense that it went down like this -- Plax is a WR and so it only makes sense that he would "catch" a bullet rather than send one to someone else. (Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.) But seriously, how idiotic is this?

I don't want to hear about how football players are targets. Several people have brought up Sean Taylor and his tragic death during a home break-in last year. Yes, that was awful. And yes, unsavory characters could very well target other rich athletes. And so, presented with this knowledge, Plaxico chose to carry a loaded, illegal gun in a public place.... instead of:

- Not going to places where he feared being accosted
- Licensing his gun and getting a permit to carry legally
- Hiring bodyguards
- Any other option besides what he ended up choosing to do

And let's dispense with the "fear" issue. This wasn't about him being afraid somebody was going to rob him. He's in a public place with other large football players. And any club like this is going to cater to New York Giants and Plax had nothing to worry about in terms of safety (though, like I said, if he was indeed afraid, maybe it's not the right place to be). No, what this is about is ego. So many rich athletes can't figure out what to do with their money and so, in an attempt to be more "street," they buy guns. Allen Iverson comes to mind... what need did he have with guns? Besides to wave in the face of his girlfriend/wife/whatever?

Plax wanted to feel like a tough guy. And you know he wanted to show off his weapon now and then to impress people. And that's just so very sad. Show them that you're Plaxico Burress, man, and they'll be plenty impressed. And if that's not enough for you, figure something else out.

I've never really liked Burress. He's a malcontent who has, incredibly, NOT ruined the Giants locker room. I imagine this has something to do with the fact that WRs are always moody, distant little bitches. I also give a lot of credit to Tom Coughlin and some of the other players. In the end, Plax always played and seemed to play hard, so whatever BS went on off the field was somewhat forgivable. He didn't ever appear to be lollygagging like, oh, say, Randy Moss did in Oakland.

But when he become such a problem that the team had no choice to suspend him earlier this year, I was more worried and wished there was a way to get rid of him. Yes, he's great to have on the team because he pulls out incredible games now and then and almost always draws the best corners away from guys like Toomer, Smith and Hixon. But I'm fine with the Giants finding a way to get rid of him now. He's one of the only "criminal" types on the team right now and no Giants fan wants to be the Dallas Cowboys.

Thanks for the TD catch to win the Super Bowl, Plax. That was nice. But you made your own bed, completely. Have fun in the clink.

Best All Star Game Ever?

Well, 'dowd, you're not the only one who's old.

I, too, couldn't stay up all the way to the end. In fact, at 11:30, Central Time, I was dozing and finally relented, leaving the TV on with the timer set for another hour. Turns out that wouldn't even have been enough.

As my headline indicates, I think this All Star Game probably was the best ever. Sure, I know back in the 40s, players cared more about it all, dad gummit! But seriously, this game, as Dowd mentioned, was played with an intensity the All Star Game rarely sees in any sport. And that's what makes MLB's ASG the best one, by far -- because the players can play the game the way they always play it. The NBA's game has zero defense. The NFL's has nobody show up and no hard hits. The NHL plays a joke of an ASG with nary a body check thrown. But MLB has a game that allows the guys to play as hard as always.

Last night, the game flew along, with pitchers dominating for the first five or six innings. The NL scratched out a run on a Holliday homer into the short porch in right and then eeked out another one against Jonathan Papelbon -- yikes, that was getting ugly with the fans; how often is there booing in the ASG? -- and it was 2-0 NL. They were looking for their first win since, what, 1996? Yowsers.

Of course it was a Red Sox player, JD Drew, who tied it up with a two-run homer. Why do I say "of course"? Well, mainly because I think the entire Sawx roster made the team. (Seriously, .218-hitting Jason Varitek belonged there?)

And it was then that I began worrying that baseball would manage to shoot itself in the foot again. Never before has the league looked as moronic on the field as six years ago in Milwaukee when Bob Brenly and Joe Torre ran out of players and dumped the mess in the lap of the limp Bud Selig, a man who couldn't make a decision between Pepsi or Coke. And we expected him to fix this problem. His solution, of course, was to make the ASG decide home-field advantage three months later in the World Series. Jury is still out on whether this is a good idea, but it at least makes it mean something. And it should make the managers actually manage the game like a real game, which is all anybody wants.

And yet these two idiots managed to almost turn this into a farce. JD Drew was evidently going to be the next pitcher after Scott Kazmir, the Tampa Bay ace who Terry Francona committed to only using if he absolutely had to. And while that might have been amusing, having outfielders pitch to all-star hitters might have been a bit ridiculous.

Sorry for the meandering (but aren't you used to it by now?) but let me touch on the Kazmir thing... I know Tampa Bay didn't want him to pitch at all, but let's think this through. For the first time in their history, the Rays are a legit contender, just a 1/2 game back in the AL East. It's not inconceiveable that they might make the playoffs and, from there, we all know what can happen. So let's say Tampa continues their cinderella season and makes the World Series. Well, now they'll have home field advantage. And if you asked the Tampa Bay front office who they would pitch if they had to win a game to get home field advantage, I bet the answer would be Scott Kazmir.

Other cool moments...

The footage from batting practice where Mariano Rivera is showing Roy Halliday how he throws his cutter and Kazmir is studying Mo's grip like a kid looking at how his dad throws a baseball. I thought that was a really cool moment.

Tim McCarver commenting that a pitch was "in on the hands" and then seeing the replay show it on the outside corner.

The fact that these guys actually played like they cared. Pitching domination followed by a 2-2 game in the 8th, followed by runs being traded to make it 3-3.

The AL loading the bases with nobody out in the 10th and the NL somehow getting out of it. I felt bad for Dan Uggla making two straight errors to start that inning and I was glad they didn't lose because of him. When the next ball was hit to him and the play was home, he was very deliberate and I don't blame him.

I forget who was coming home on one of those force-outs in the 10th, but whomever it was intentionally interfered with catcher Russell Martin to break up the potential for a double play.

And then, of course, the fact that the AL gets a couple of guys on in the 10th or 11th and the guy on second is slow-footed Dionner Navarro, who then gets gunned down on a play at the plate, where Martin actually blocks the plate and applies the tag after a nifty catch of a short-hop.

Even the winning run (pictured above) was a close call. All around, a terrific game and I wish more of the country actually saw the end of it. Nice work, as always, TV whores, making this game start at almost 9 PM Eastern. Well-done.

I Never Said Yankee Fans Weren't Idiots, Too

One thing you have to admit -- despite my clear hate of the Red Sox and support of the Yankees, I never acted like Yankee fans are innocent or not largely made up of idiot meatheads. In fact, I think more than once I've come down on the NY media and fans for being general morons, like when they say things about A-Rod being a choker or the Yankees being better off without him. You know, idiot things.

But the story currently on ESPN.com and pointed out by reader "bdi," the mess pictured here killed a Red Sox fan with her car. Apparently, intentionally, after get harrassed in a New Hampshire bar.

Now, I'm sure she was provoked. I'm sure the Sox fans were obnoxious to her. I'm sure they called her all sorts of desultory names. But to get into your car and to f-cking run the dude down?? Wow. Seriously unhinged.

According to the prosecutor, "she indicated to police that she wanted to scare this group of people. She thought they would get out of the way." But they didn't and a 29-year-old dude is dead now.

Way to end your own life, too, you disgrace.

I'm not sure what you were thinking being a vocal Yankee fan in a New England bar, but hey, keep your fandom to yourself. You're nothing to be proud of.

Insightful Emmitt

After Monday night football last night, Sportscenter went immediately back to the Superdome where they had a crack team of clowns onsite to break down the Saints third straight loss to open the season.

They showed some of the early highlights and Emmitt Smith decided that faking a handoff to Reggie Bush during a kick return and other such modes of deception were "gimmick plays." Now, never mind that faking a handoff on a play from scrimmage is simply considered "play-action," it's what Emmitt said next that I particularly enjoyed:

"I don't like gimmick plays because when they don't work, they're just a wasted play."

Right. As opposed to when you run a traditional, smash-mouth draw play that doesn't work. When that happens, your team is awarded three points because your play was "non-gimmick" and thus, not wasteful.

Idiot.