And everyone's fine with that. Except Malcolm Gladwell. And now me.

I recently read an email conversation between Gladwell and Bill Simmons on ESPN.com. At one point, the discussion winds its way to the concept of moral hazard in sports - the same concept of moral hazard that lead to the current economic crisis - and Gladwell points out that we make it comfortable for teams to lose by rewarding them with high draft picks. He states that everyone's understanding of how the draft should function keeps us believing "that access to top picks is the primary determinant of competitiveness in pro sports."

That's not true. Look at basketball in Los Angeles. The Clippers have picked in the lottery twenty times since the NBA started the draft lottery in 1985. Those top picks have amounted to three first round exits and a near-upset of second-seeded Phoenix in the second round in 2006. In that same time span, the Lakers have picked in the lottery three times. The Clippers will make their twenty-first lottery pick in June while the Lakers just wrapped up the parade for their sixth championship in the lottery era.

Teams like the Clippers, the Memphis Grizzlies, and the Minnesota Timberwolves keep showing up in the lottery - the opposite effect of the current draft setup. Ideally, the league should be cyclical. Bad teams should lose but gain good young players. Good teams should win but pick later, when the players aren't as highly regarded. Bad teams should build a nucleus of young talent and begin to knock off aging champions. It doesn't work like this. The draft is one of many pieces of an organization, but bad teams rely too much on it and the potential of having their ping pong ball come up when the next superstar is ready to leave school and carry their team to glory, banners, headlines and draft picks nearer the end of the first round.

Gladwell's idea is that "the only way around the problem [of moral hazard] is to put every team in the lottery." When the guarantee of a top pick is removed, as the losses add up, teams wouldn't be able to fall back on waiting till next year, on the potential of draft picks to lift the organization out of the lottery and into the playoffs.

I was intrigued by the idea of taking the safety net away from perpetually bad franchises, so Gladwell's words - "Every team's name gets put in a hat, and you get assigned your draft position by chance" - turned into my actions: I printed out every NBA team's name, put them in my 1984 Padres hat, and had my own equal-odds NBA Draft Lottery.

Actually, I had four. I drew a complete draft order four times. Each time, every NBA team, whether they made The Finals or failed to win 20 games, received their draft position by the same equal chance as every other team.

Here are the four different top fives this system produced:

Lottery 1
1. Washington (19-63)
2. New Jersey (34-48)
3. San Antonio (54-28)
4. Philadelphia (41-41)
5. Portland (54-28)

Lottery 2
1. Toronto (32-49)
2. Houston (53-29)
3. LA Clippers (19-63)
4. Atlanta (47-35)
5. Oklahoma City (23-59)

Lottery 3
1. Chicago (41-41)
2. San Antonio (54-28)
3. Golden State (29-53)
4. New York (32-50)
5. Charlotte (35-47)

Lottery 4
1. Phoenix (46-36)
2. Milwaukee (34-48)
3. LA Clippers (19-63)
4. Golden State (29-53)
5. Orlando (59-23)

Looking at the top fives shows how different draft day, and the league, could be if the winners are allowed in the lottery (I want to focus mainly on the top fives because that's where most of fans' general attention to the draft goes). Seeing 30-, 40-, and 50-win teams picking in the top five might feel odd at first, but it expands what the draft can do for all teams, not just the losers. I won't list all 120 picks here, but they are evenly dispersed with championship-caliber, mid-level, and lowest-tier teams dispersed throughout the draft orders.

Based on the results of the draft orders, the equal-odds lottery produced the NBA Draft has the potential to:

1. Give a Loser a Chance
This system would not forget the have-nots. The first team I plucked from my hat was Washington. Hello, Blake Griffin. Welcome back, Gilbert Arenas. Those two plus Caron Butler give the Wizards three building blocks to try and return to the playoffs. Washington fans could nickname Griffin "The Big Bailout".

This situation was highly probable this year. The Wizards had the third highest chance at the number one pick. I wonder if a low-win team would possibly feel more fortunate for winning the lottery and bringing in a player like Griffin in an equal-odds lottery than in a weighted system.

Would the fans and the team treat him less as yet another potential savior and more of a prize to be developed and supported because there is no guarantee of another top pick next year if the team continues to lose? Would they be more willing to fire a losing coach and seek out a winner now that the top prize falls to them? Would they swing a trade to swap quality veterans for younger stars who could grow alongside their new weapon?

Three of my four equal-odds lotteries gave a top-five pick to a team with fewer than twenty wins. Even if those teams didn't get the first pick but snagged the third (like the Clippers did in half my lotteries), they would have a chance at Ricky Rubio or Hasheem Thabeet this year, or someone like Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Dominique Wilkins, or even Michael Jordan, as teams choosing third have had in past drafts.

2. Discourage Tanking
No league wants teams alienating fans, dropping attendance, and becoming the butt of Bill Simmons' jokes (or the object of his attempts to become a real-life NBA general manager) by intentionally giving away games. In current system, if teams tank, they don't guarantee the top spot; they merely increase their chances. If the prize is worth it, a la Oden v. Durant in 2007, bad teams might just say screw it and become horrendous teams for the sake of all those Next Years with a superstar on their roster.

An equal-odds system protects the sanctity of the regular season. Teams would be free to focus on winning, teaching young players to master strategies and game situations, instead of giving up before the opening tip.

This cannot be bad. If wins and losses don't effect draft position, games would be more entertaining for the fans who pay to be there, players would not develop losing habits, and teams would fight against traditions of losing instead of embracing the identity of a league-wide punching bag for the sake of a more ping pong balls in the hopper.

3. Give Back Momentum
My four lotteries produced seven different scenarios where a middle-ground team that has recently deflated possibly gets some wind back through the draft: Toronto picking first; Phoenix picking first; Philadelphia picking fourth; Golden State picking third in one lottery and fourth in another; and the two third picks for the Clippers.

Toronto has slipped from the Eastern Conference third seed to out of the playoffs in two years. Phoenix was the most entertaining team in the league for a good part of this decade. Now the organization is old and confused and desperate. The blessing of a top pick could give either organization some swagger and fan support back.

Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Golden State could use all use the good publicity of a top pick to recover quickly from the very messy and very public Elton Brand/Baron Davis/Cory Maggette fiasco.

The key here is that if any of these teams were to land top picks, it would be result of chance, not a direct consequence of being a bad basketball team. Experts and analysts wouldn't need to focus on how bad the team is. Instead, they could focus on what using this pick well could do for a team that has performed well in recent history, but is staggering a bit.

4. Catapult Good Towards Great
Portland, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago are all rising teams who exited the playoffs in the first two rounds. They all have an ethos of excitement. All the cool kids follow the Blazers on the Internet. The Rockets have a stat-crunching GM and nearly beat the Lakers without their two big-name stars. The Hawks took Boston to seven games last year as an eight seed and made the second round this year. Chicago is full of former NCAA tournament stars, has a #1 draft pick/Rookie of the Year starting at the point, and just played arguably the most exciting first round series in the history of basketball against the defending champs.

Frequent Bill Simmons readers will know that The Sports Guy holds to the idea that the NBA is best when there is a clear group of heavyweights. An equal-odds lottery could help one of these teams, already brimming with excitement and potential, move into that heavyweight division. They have histories of making decent to excellent roster moves; give them good draft position to keep stocking their rosters and they could quickly advance from the first two rounds to being a factor in the conference and league finals.

5. Reward a Well-Run Winner
The Spurs, a team with ten consecutive 50-win seasons (two 60-win campaigns in that stretch) and four of the last eleven championships, show up at number three in my first lottery and number two in my third.

Instinct says that's not fair. They shouldn't have a shot at Thabeet and an opportunity to groom a third dominant big man. They shouldn't get to pick up Rubio and add yet another star international guard.

They should. They are a smart organization. Yes, they've had timely number one picks with David Robinson and Tim Duncan, but they picked Tony Parker at the end of the first round and Manu Ginobili was a second-rounder. They consistently go after role players that fit their team needs: Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, and Michael Finley. They are well-coached and play good defense. Teams don't win consistently if they aren't well-run.

If we don't seem to have a problem with the current draft system allowing poorly-run teams to continue losing, I don't have a problem with setting up the draft to allow well-run teams to keep winning. The only reasons to say no are: a) the incorrect belief that high draft picks equal continued success; and b) championship envy. (If you think they should have no shot at the top pick, stop and ask: if I was discussing your team here instead of the Spurs, would you have a problem? If you have developed a dislike for San Antonio, what about a team you are fairly indifferent towards? Would you be okay with it then?)

6. Stack a Champion
The only team from this season's conference finals in the top five of my lotteries is Orlando. The Magic raise the possibility that a championship team could finish their parade and make an early draft selection in the same month.

This year, the fifth pick I drew for them isn't expected to be a future great, but you just never know. Dwyane Wade was a fifth pick. So were Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Scottie Pippen, and Charles Barkley. If the fifth pick fell to Orlando, Magic fans would be ecstatic that their team just took out the Celtics, upset the Cavaliers, and captured the first Finals win in franchise history - and would currently be convincing themselves that James Harden is the next Wade or Jordan Hill turns into Round Mound of Rebound II.

This could also have ripple effect on the other top teams in the league. Maybe Cleveland sees the team they just lost to with a top pick on the horizon, as well as LeBron's to-NY-or-not-NY situation in 2010, and they decide to amp up their roster with significant trades and free agent signings in the offseason to beat their new rival and keep LeBron at home by proving they can win in Cleveland. We'd already be talking about their imminent collision next season.

7. Remind Teams the Draft Doesn't Fix Everything
The oddest occurrence in my four lotteries came outside of the top fives printed above. In the third lottery, 17-win Sacramento fell to the thirtieth pick: the team with the most losses picking last.

(Okay, technically, they also fell to the floor. I pulled twenty-nine teams from my hat. When I reached for number thirty, my hat was empty. There, on the floor, was a folded piece of paper: poor Sacramento. The NBA system would be safe from such miscues since they would use their sophisticated ping pong ball machine, but in an equal-odds lottery, the worst team has an equal chance at all thirty picks, so I skipped a redraw and stuck with the strange scenario.)

I have no problem with this. This situation is where ingenuity comes in. Sacramento's decision-makers would be forced to look at other ways to improve their win total - they couldn't sit back with their current roster and coaching staff and just wait for next year's big man on campus because they could easily be picking low again come June 2010.

First, they would scour the unheralded prospects for sleeper potential. Last year, Mario Chalmers was still on the board at thirty and he started alongside Wade in Miami and set a Heat record for steals in a game. Two years ago, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, and Marc Gasol were all second rounders and they've grown into contributors for their teams.

None of these players would be a franchise savior, but that might not be what Sacramento needs. High picks bring the baggage of expectations, whether they live up to them or not, and they might leave as soon as their rookie contract runs out if the situation doesn't improve. Picking and developing a Chalmers or Davis would help Sacramento build a team based on a system and playing together instead of just hoping the talent of a young star could bring them back to the top of the conference.

Sacramento might also entertain something like bringing in Rick Pitino to put together an all-full-court-press unit, like Gladwell and Simmons discussed. They could maximize their roster and build a specific unit to run intense pressure for certain parts of games. Instead of being a bad team, they could at least be a bad team trying to grow into a good team by using their roster 1-12, and a bad team with a fan following and media exposure because of their radical strategy.

This system could force innovation in other areas of NBA organizations. There could be leaps in the use of statistical analysis in building a basketball team; more risks taken in drafting, trading, and signing players; or an intensified focus on the effectiveness and ingenuity of coaching staffs. Maybe one team creates a position focused on finding creative basketball strategies, spawning a rash of copycat positions and new ideas in the sport that we have yet to conceive.

Instead of bad teams putting much of their hope in the potential of a high draft pick to develop into a franchise player, they would see those young stars as a piece of a larger puzzle. Maybe an equal-odds lottery would eventually lead to fewer poorly-run teams, more diverse team strategies and identities, and fans who aren't content to let their teams fold during a dismal season, take L after L after L, and wait till next year.

There is a lot to love about the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Quiet moments in the locker room before the game, you can tell whose eyes burn with the intensity of a champion. During the national anthem, close ups reveal exactly who is about to throw up their pre-game pasta, and who is ready for the battle ahead. The way the teams skate onto the ice to the screams of thousands, modern day gladiators fighting for their playoff lives. The roller-coaster of emotions that travels fast as lightning to both ends of the spectrum, even in the span of one game. The way players play hurt, play hard, give every single fibre of their being to their team in hopes of glory.

It's been 2 years since I first wrote on the Stanley Cup Finals. The Anaheim Ducks made short work of the Ottawa Senators, and someone actually commented on my article, "I didn't realize NHL hockey was still around." True story.

And so it has been for the past few years. Since the lockout eliminated the 2004-2005 season, the NHL has been somewhat of an afterthought (or more likely, laughingstock) in the United States of America. My favorite game has endured countless criticisms and been the butt-end of many, many jokes.

But on a recent vacation, I read a few American based sports publications that were praising, yes praising, the NHL. You see, the 2009 Stanley Cup Playoffs have been a sight to behold. Sure, there's been a few ugly moments (namely this one), but overall, it's been an incredible ride.

The 2009 version of the Stanley Cup Playoffs are bringing people back to the game. Much like when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa brought baseball back (sore subject now), Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin and a cast of other incredible young talent have people paying attention to Canada's game once again.

It certainly helped to have Crosby's Penguins face-off against Ovechkin's Capitals in the 2nd round. It was being hyped as an epic match-up of Bird v. Magic proportions. How often have we over-hyped a match-up only to be sure it can't live up to expectations? Too many to be sure, but this time the stars aligned (pun intended) and this match-up exceeded expectations. Crosby's unassuming nature and intense passion versus Ovechkin's outright flair and unbridled enthusiasm. The NHL's two brightest stars could not be in starker contrast.

There was no choice but to pay attention. I even caught an episode of PTI during which Wilbon and Kornheiser pretended to know something about hockey. America was talking hockey again, and this time they left the jokes at home.

Both stars were as good as advertised in the series; Crosby scoring 8 goals and 5 assists in 7 games, and Ovechkin, equal to the task, notching 8 goals and 6 assists. In the end, Crosby led the Penguins past Ovechkin's Capitals in a 7-game series that will not be soon forgotten.

From there, the Penguins cruised past the Carolina Hurricanes to get back to the Stanley Cup Finals, once again to face the Detroit Red Wings as they did in 2008. The 2009 edition of the Finals provided more than its fair share of good storylines.

The occasion marked the 1st Finals re-match since 1984, when another young Canadian icon, Wayne Gretzky, hoisted his first of four Stanley Cups with the Edmonton Oilers after losing the year prior to the New York Islanders.

Detroit's Marian Hossa, a Penguin this time last year, facing the team whose millions he spurned to sign with the Red Wings, citing that he wanted only a chance to win the Stanley Cup. Now he had the chance. And standing in his way, the men he did not believe in.

I went on record as saying the Pens would be a different team this time around. Through the early part of the series, it appeared I was wrong. Detroit jumped out to a 2-0 lead, and looked to be headed toward a second straight Championship.

Yet Pittsburgh was determined, and battled back to tie the series at two games apiece, then battled back again to tie it at three games apiece after losing Game 5 to the Wings. Even still, going into Friday's Game 7, there wasn't a prognosticator around that wasn't picking Detroit.

After all, smart money was on the defending champs. They were at home, and no team had won a Stanley Cup Game 7 on the road since the 1971 Montreal Canadiens. No team had come back from being down 2-0 in two different series (vs Washington, vs Detroit) and won the Stanley Cup in NHL history. On top of that, Detroit was 11-1 at home this post-season, and Pittsburgh had won just once in six visits to Joe Louis Arena during the past two Finals. Not only had the Penguins lost all 3 previous games in Detroit, they didn't even manage a strong performance in the Motor City.

But Game 7s are a different beast. A bounce, a break, a mistake from your opponent - any could be the difference between winning and losing. Throw out the stats, because the Game 7 is not played in the past.

Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals is the game you dream of your entire life. Growing up in Canada you play that game in your driveway and on the frozen pond. You go to the rink as a child, learning the game, finding your passion, always in the back of your mind the heroes you see each night on the TV. Always with the hope of lifting the Stanley Cup.

In the end, the underdog was victorious. The Pittsburgh Penguins became the first team to win a championship Game 7 on the road in any sport since the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates.

It always amazes me how the record books save a spot for the most special of players. With hockey's history as deep as it is, it doesn't seem there would be any records left for today's players to set. And yet as Sidney Crosby hoisted the Stanley Cup over his head, he became the youngest captain in NHL history to do so.

I've long tried to argue that Americans really should love hockey. It has every element of sport: beauty, finesse, strength, power, physicality, and raw emotion. The video below attests to all of those facts, and it suffices to show that it has been a very good year indeed.

Unfortunately, annual real-life horror stories evoke images that reaffirm such a lowly sentiment. In 2004, a hunter of Hmong descent murdered six other hunters over a dispute regarding a deer-stand (Wisconsin). Last year (also in Wisconsin), James Nichols was convicted of second-degree murder for killing a hunter named Cha Vang. A jury concluded that the primary motive of the murder was racism (Vang was Hmong). Also, this last April, a Minnesota man who was under the influence of alcohol and marijuana accidentally shot and killed his son, whom he had mistaken as a wild turkey.

My perception of hunters was once similar to the aforementioned examples, but has recently changed due to an increased amount of exposure to the sport. After getting married, I discovered my in-laws were hunters who lived within a culture dominated by the outdoors.

I quickly realized the 'low-income' and 'hillbilly' stereotypes I had expected of hunters was misguided. These people owned nice homes and huge, overly-accessorized trucks. Their trucks hauled shiny-chromed trailers that carrying numerous ATV vehicles, fancy riding lawn-mowers, and new jet-skis. They utilized these toys at cabins tucked away in the middle of large-acre spreads.

As I explored one of these privately-owned nature-preserves, I was surprised by how carefully groomed everything was. Vegetation was intentionally planted for specific game to eat. Trails were manicured for easy accessibility. The tree-stands were constructed more like luxury boxes and were equipped with heaters, food, high-powered binoculars, and comfortable chairs. The sight-lines had been cleared away of any stray branch, bush, or tree, making for unobstructed shooting lanes. Outdoor digital-camera boxes documented deer movement, and the data was processed to find the most frequented trails. The high level of preparation seemed more like a planned assassination than the point-and-shoot computer hunting I was accustomed to on Oregon Trail.

The only thing more impressive than the land preparation was discovering a hunter's own anticipation towards the upcoming season. High-powered scopes were sighted for accuracy at specialty ranges. Deer-urine, antlers, and a variety of other gizmos (each promising to attract big game) were purchased without hesitation. Warm, non-scented, water-proof clothing was bought and packed into large plastic garbage bags (to minimize human scent) and GPS systems were put into place to avoid getting lost.

The outdoor stores were built like convention centers, complete with stuffed monuments of bears, lions, elk, and fish that whetted the hunter's appetite to buy, buy, and buy some more. Rifles sold for thousands. According to data released by the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, over 120 billion dollars was spent pursuing the activities of hunting and fishing in the year 2006 alone.

Before you can legally participate in these activities, you must purchase a license. These can range anywhere from ten to one hundred dollars. But once a license is obtained, you must buy special tags (or stamps) according to which game you want to hunt (or fish). The rarer and larger the game, the more expensive the tag.

Some types of licenses and tags are hard to obtain, and hunters can wait their entire lives without ever receiving one. Usually lotteries, where the state selects at random, award these precious slots to individual hunters. Bidding can also be a means of buying a tag. In 2006, ESPN reported that a sheep tag was sold to a winning bidder for $300,000. In addition to the rising costs and spending of the average hunter, specialty hunts (on large private land reserves with huge resorts that guarantee big kills) can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

But for the average hunter, once the land is ready, the gear is acquired, the license is purchased, and the game is killed...an entirely new set of costs come into play. A trophy kill can be sent to a taxidermist, who preserves the specimen, allowing it to be viewed over a mantel or office wall. Taxidermy rates average around $100-$200 dollars for fish and small birds, and $300-$1000 for larger game, such as bears and elk. Food has always been another main motivation for hunting, and if a hunter decides to send a deer to a butcher for processing, they will spend around $100-$200, depending on what form they want the meat in.

Amazingly, of all the sports available to us today, hunting is quickly becoming one of the most expensive. As equipment becomes pricier, land becomes scarcer, and government regulation increases, hunting is becoming a niche sport affordable only to the wealthy. It demands exorbitant amounts of time, energy, preparation and money. But if you've ever experienced the thrilling and peaceful aspects of hunting (as I recently have), or tasted venison, you might just have to give it a shot (no pun intended).

Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Kyle Singler, Johnny Flynn, and Donte Green.

There's no doubt, if you follow basketball, you recognize these names. Some are starring in the NBA, some are still in college, one is just in the NBA. But there's one thing they have in common. All these men played in the 2007 McDonald's All-American Game and all of them, I'd heard of before I heard the name Blake Griffin.

In September of 2007, the Oklahoma Sooners set foot on the campus at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia for a battle with the vaunted Spartans. Once every 5 years the NCAA will allow teams to take an exhibition tour in Canada. The goal is to team-build, get used to their offense, and let's face it, beat up on inferior competition.

Luckily, yours truly was also on the campus at TWU at the time, as a student and the colour man for the web broadcast of the men's basketball games. We'd already seen Boise State (nothing to write home about) and the Wichita State women's team, and they both won, but not by as much as you'd think. Coming into our match-up with the Sooners, we expected to lose but didn't expect anything special.

But then something funny happened. Something we hadn't seen all weekend; Blake Griffin started destroying people. He didn't break any backboards, he didn't posterize anyone; it was much, much worse than that. All Griffin did was get every rebound, change every shot, score while being fouled, and then score while being fouled by two guys. Every time down the floor.

It was pretty clear the TWU Spartans had no answer for Griffin. He was simply a man among boys, to use a valuable cliche. After the dominant performance, I had to find out more. I sought out a man in a Sooners golf shirt and asked who Blake Griffin was. "Well, he was a McDonald's All-American this season," he said. "So, he's pretty good."

Ya, he was pretty good. And ice is cold. And elephants are big. You can see where I'm going with this. You can always tell when someone is a special talent. No matter where you play, there's a guy or two that stand out. But sometimes it's frighteningly obvious when you're watching someone great. I left the gym that day hoping that one day Blake Griffin would play in the NBA.

It's laughable to me now that I 'hoped' he would make the NBA. Like, 'maybe' he was good enough. I concede, against our brand of basketball in Canada it can be hard to judge NBA talent. To be honest, we got pretty lucky with Steve Nash.

As good as Griffin looked, I didn't know I was looking at the man who would win the Wooden Award two years later. Who would absolutely dominate everything and everyone in his path, prompting one writer to quip that by going pro, he'd at least be paid to receive concussions. Looking back, it doesn't seem right that the future #1 pick of the upcoming NBA Draft played a game in our little gym with a capacity of around 800.

Watching this year's NCAA tournament, I couldn't help but cheer for the Sooners. I'm normally an Arizona Wildcats fan due to spending some time there, but I was totally enthralled with Griffin's game, especially since I'd seen him in person.

I didn't watch many games, but I made sure to watch the Sooners. The talent still stands out (goes without saying), but what I couldn't believe were the shots he was taking. Teams were throwing their bodies into him, in front of him, on his back; one guy actually flipped him over his shoulder.

I was reminded of when Shaq was in LA, and Phil Jackson would complain all the time about how hard Shaq was being fouled. Sure, he's a big guy, but it doesn't mean he's not going to get injured if guys are taking free shots.

I'm not saying Griffin is as good as Shaq was. I'm not saying he even plays the same style; I'm saying, how dominant do you have to be for guys to take shots like this at you? Think how decorated Tyler Hansborough is, and I think he mostly took shots because people hated him. Griffin is being jumped everytime he's on the court because he is bigger, and stronger, and teams are taking every lump they can.

I give him credit for keeping his cool. If someone threw me like that, I probably wouldn't take it very well. Poorly, in fact. But he seems to understand his position, and despite dealing with a temper in the past, has taken a tougher mental approach to the game.

I watched the Sooners lay their Elite Eight egg against North Carolina in a Forrest Gump-themed bar in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Yes, you read that right (Forrest or not, they showed NHL games). Griffin did what he could, but the Tar Heels were a juggernaut. The Sooners were finished, and there wasn't much more for Griffin to do in college.

Two years later, it all adds up to a 30 double-double season, one shy of the record set by David Robinson, and equal to the 30 that a certain Jerry West put up. Griffin's single season rebound total was 504; 1 shy of Larry Bird's 505, and better than the 500 boards pulled down by Hakeem Olajuwon.

All this name-dropping gets me thinking: this time around, come June when Griffin makes his way to Sacramento (good luck, pal), I'm 'hoping' for the Hall of Fame.

I've since applied that notion to all kinds of systems - not only the physical, but also our ideas, our laws, our politics, our educations, our budgets - our everything - and found it to be fundamentally true. Our world tends toward disorder, including our NCAA brackets.

I indulged the button. I know it seems like madness. Upsets are always possible, but going completely random toys with the laws of tourney physics. The random button delivered Final Four matchups like North Carolina against Binghamton, Boston College v. Mississippi State, American against Stephen F. Austin, and, Cornell vs. Cleveland State. The button allowed the hierarchy of the bracket to break down into any manner of ludicrous pairings in the final weekend.

2009's Championship Week, the confluence of most college basketball post-season conference tournaments, agreed to some degree with both my Chemistry professor and the Random Picks button. This year's tournaments-before-The-Tournament laid waste to the upper echelon of college basketball in merciless, borderline nonsensical fashion.

The Big 12 favorites fell first. Regular season champ Kansas fell to Baylor. Oklahoma, thought of most of the season as a possible #1 seed, bowed out to Oklahoma State. The disorder continued with the much-lauded Big East heavyweights Pittsburgh and Connecticut losing to West Virginia and Syracuse. Big Ten regular season champ (by four games) Michigan State lost to Ohio State. Pac 10 champ Washington celebrated their first outright conference title since 1953 by losing to Arizona State. Wake Forest, second in the ACC and one of the many to hold the #1 ranking this season, lost to Maryland. The mighty North Carolina Tar Heels, everybody's pick for 2009 as soon as the Jayhawks' "One Shining Moment" highlight montage ended 2008, dropped an ACC semi-final to Florida State.

The favorites were not losing to other top-tier teams in hard-fought championship games. Instead, they were losing in various stages of the conference tournaments to mediocre competition. Baylor is now a #3 in the NIT. Oklahoma State is #8 in the East Region, West Virginia #6 in the Midwest. The Buckeyes are a #9, the Sun Devils a #6, and Maryland landed as a #10 seed. Florida State is a football school that happens to have a #5 seed in this year's basketball tournament. None of these teams are projected, by seeding, to advance to the Sweet Sixteen.

The only ESPN/USA Today top ten teams to win their conference tournaments were Louisville (the decidedly less-praised third wheel to Pitt and UConn out east), Memphis (congratulations, you won Conference USA, where the only other teams above .500 in conference were Tulsa, UAB, Houston, and UTEP), and Duke (whom the entire nation seems to dismiss for one reason or another). None of the aforementioned three was a consensus championship pick. Instead of legitimate favorites, they seem to be the last few left unscathed by what is not parity in college basketball, but entropy.

Perhaps we are seeing some pseudo-scientific reaction to last year. Kansas, Memphis, UCLA and North Carolina separated themselves from the pelaton in 2008 and held their place all the way to San Antonio as the first four #1's to reach the Final Four together. It was so nice and neat and expected. This year, our bracket appears to be moving toward disorder. Even before Championship Week, the #1 ranking shuffled between an amoebous group of teams who would gain the honor only to promptly lose it and hand it off to Some Other Top Five Team Who Didn't Happen To Lose That Particular Week. There was no clear separation of Big Shots v. Everybody Else; there was a mass of possible powers that would be labeled #1's and #2's and would try to avoid the landmines in their regions come tournament time.

I couldn't help but wonder, as these highly ranked teams kept falling, about the upset champions of the 1980s that have been entered into our collective sports memory: 1983 North Carolina State, 1985 Villanova, and 1988 Kansas. This year, the top teams seemed to be doing everything they possibly could to prove they were not invincible, and I had visions of a Final Four consisting of middling seeds akin to the Wolfpack, Wildcats, and Jayhawks.

Perhaps we would see a #8 vs. #4 on one side of the bracket with the winner set to take on a #5 or #6 from the other. It would be chaos, top seeds crying into their towels on the bench while CBS frantically creates features on the life stories and difficulties of unknown, unheralded heroes, these sudden-stars and their surprising teams looking around the building on a Saturday in Detroit saying, "Really, we're what's left?"

I told friends I would do it, I might just go crazy with my bracket and pick a #6. Why not? Who among the favorites is trustworthy enough? Which top team had proved capable of the overcoming and battling and dominating necessary to win six games in a row without stumbling on some lesser foe? As far as I saw it, the door was wide open for another entry into the Pantheon of Upsets with Jimmy V, Rollie Massimino, and Danny Manning.

I've since cooled on that notion, but not completely. The door is not as wide open as it seems at first glance. The Final Four will not be Wake Forest vs. BYU (#4 vs. #8) and Florida State vs. Arizona State (#5 vs. #6). See, those great upset years of the 1980s were not the decimation of all the top seeds at the hands of the field. In each of those Final Fours, the eventual underdog champ faced a non-#1 while the other side of the bracket featured a #1 vs. #1 showdown. Half of the last four standing were teams people thought should be there.

I've set aside my vision of an all-underdog Final Four in 2009. It's not going to happen. This year is different from those 1980s tournaments because those years did have clear favorites. The 1983 #1 vs. #1 actually featured #1 overall Houston and #2 overall Louisville in perhaps the best nickname matchup on historical record: Phi Slamma Jamma against The Doctors of Dunk. 1985 featured the 1984 National Champion Georgetown Hoyas with Patrick Ewing, and fellow Big East power St. John's with Chris Mullin, Bill Wennington, and Walter Berry. 1988 matched Oklahoma and Arizona, assumed by most to be a) clearly the two best teams in the field and b) capable of wiping the floor with the winner of the KU-Duke game on the other side of the bracket.

I suppose the closest thing we have to a clear favorite this year is North Carolina, since they are the only squad returning their lineup from last year's stellar national semifinalists. But their point guard Ty Lawson is dealing with an injured toe, their All-American Tyler Hansbrough is not as shiny and enticing as last year's Tyler Hansbrough, and their defense is constantly maligned in the press (not good in a culture which prizes the saying "defense wins championships"). They seem to be liked because they are the only ones left from 2008's Final Four teams with gaudy win totals and loads of NBA talent. Everybody else this year seems like skim milk: the cream has been taken off the top to leave a #3 (Pitt) and two #4s (Louisville, UConn) from 2008 as the other #1s in 2009.

Still, history points to at least two of those teams flying to Detroit in April and squaring off. If this year is going to echo those underdog stories of twenty-plus years ago - echo, not replicate - we'll see Louisville vs. UConn, or Pittsburgh vs. North Carolina, while the other side of the bracket gives us Wake Forest vs. Marquette, or LSU v. UCLA.

Half of those teams that people suppose should be there will realize they should be there and will play like it. Hansbrough might get another bloody nose and will the Tar Heels towards even more fans with no connection to Carolina. Pitt's senior stars might get the Panthers past the Sweet Sixteen for the first time (that's right, the first time). Louisville might live up to winning the regular season and conference championships in the hyped 2009 Big East, and UConn's 7'3" center might play consistently and inspire headline writers to craft lines like "UConn the Team Thabeet."

It seems likely that two of those four will be there the first weekend in April. After I clicked Random Picks a few times, I made my choices and only went so far as a #4 losing to a future champ #2 in my own bracket (Wake Forest falling to Memphis) while #1s Pitt and UNC square off in the other semifinal. I'm just holding out hope that this year can follow last year's unlikely alignment of favorites with what this tournament is ideally intended to produce: a little entropy.

But this recession and its immediate impact on the world of sports has changed my mind. It all started when I heard how many teams were laying off their staff, cutting out the regular folk so they could trim payroll even by comparatively paltry amounts.

It left a bad taste in my mouth. The current system dictates that we'll pay a guy millions of dollars to play, and even though he could afford to pay a 'normal' worker's salary a thousand times over, it's the 'average Joe' who takes the hit. I realize I'm using 'quotations' way too much, but that's just what happens when I'm steamed.

The problem to me is that the recession isn't going to disappear overnight, and so sports, and every other facet of life will continue to be affected. Many feel the hit will be felt far worse next year, and with the landscape suddenly different, owners are starting to do whatever it takes to bring in alternative revenue streams.

Like raising ticket prices for instance. Here in Toronto, where a ticket to an NHL game is far and away the highest in the entire league, the franchise ownership announced that they are raising season ticket prices 3.5% for next year. Yep, when their fans have less money than years past, the Leafs throw their supporters a bone by screwing them over some more. They stick it to the fans, because they know the fans will pay. We'll keep coming because we love the team.

And so the bad taste gets worse. As fans, we love a team, we're devoted to them, we spend our money, our time, we invest (gasp!) emotions; and this is the thanks we get. The Leafs, who haven't made the playoffs in 4 seasons and are in no place to do so this year, stick it to the very same people who have made them the richest franchise in the NHL.

You can't help what you love, and this I know, because I live it out every day. If it weren't for watching sports, playing sports, reading about sports, or writing about sports, I don't know what I'd do with my time. I don't know what I'd do for work - my job is in sports broadcasting. Even knowing that owners are knowingly and willingly screwing their fan base year-in and year-out doesn't stop me from loving sports. How can I blame owners for doing this stuff if it works? If you kept giving me money for nothing in return, I would probably keep taking it too.

For all I invest in sports, I sometimes wonder if it's worth it. I recently read a book by a reporter who followed the team he covered on all their road trips. He traveled with the team by plane and bus, and his plan was to get a pulse for the inner workings of a professional sports franchise. The book was written in the mid-90s, so the concept was fairly new then.

A large portion of the book was dedicated to comments from the coaching staff, and other members of the media contingency, and I began to notice a trend; more often than not, everything was negative. The book didn't mention the standings often, but I was getting the sense from reading it that the team was doing quite poorly that year. However, I knew from following that team myself that it wasn't true. The team finished 5th in their conference and made the playoffs.

I started wondering how many teams are like this. If you only read media coverage of say, the Yankees, and didn't know what their wins and losses were, would you get the impression that they've dominated the AL East like they have in the past decade or so? Or would they come across as though they were in dire straits, desperate times and all that?

So all this gets me thinking: how happy does your favourite team make you? I mean, unless you live in Boston these days, there's not a whole lot to be happy about. Only one team can win every year, meaning there's 29, or in the case of the NFL, 31, teams who go home empty handed every year. Players change teams so frequently that winning one championship, or even making the finals, doesn't mean as much as it used to.

And the losing, it's hard on people. A guy I know cried when the Tennessee Titans lost this year. Real tears were actually streaming down his face. A grown man. I remember thinking, "is it really worth it?" I can't begin to explain how irrational I think it is to care that much, but it doesn't make it any less true. We love our teams that much. We fill the void inside of us in many ways, and a sporting franchise can be one of them. We hinge our happiness on their successes and failures, which really makes me feel for Cubs fans. Perhaps getting the Bulls dynasty was a way of keeping the city sane.

But anyway, guys like Manny Ramirez (or rather, Scott Boras) turn down 2 years at $45M, while your buddy from Thursday night pick-up basketball loses his job so the local team can stay profitable and still pay the big salaries. There's something wrong with this picture. How long will people keep paying?

I think it may be why my generation seems to resent professional athletes. I mean, we have guys we like, but a lot of media time and attention is devoted to how we can bring these guys down a peg or two.

My uncle likes to talk about hockey in the 60s and 70s, a time when athletes weren't making a fortune, when they were easily related to and embraced by the people. They're great stories, and it seems like a golden era of sport, when things were growing and improving, but weren't out of control. It can't be like that anymore. Now, with all the expansion, and all the pressure to win, teams throw money at guys like A-Rod, then rake him over the coals when he can't deliver victories single-handedly (I'll leave his off the field issues out of this for now).

These games are supposed to be an escape from our problems. A few hours where we can lost in a game, and relax, maybe spend time with friends. I think it used to be this way. But with the way things are going now, I wonder what the future of professional sports holds. Can we keep going, with contracts soaring and owners and stadiums and franchises losing money?

Something's gotta give. Who blinks first? What commissioner is the first to re-locate, or worse, fold a franchise? I've heard it said that sports can be a microcosm of society and lately, it seems it's revealing misplaced priorities.

As a result, I watch a lot of sports. Before I took this job, I watched a tonne of hockey, a lot of baseball, a more-than-average amount of basketball, and the odd football game. Now, I watch all of them in excess.

The reason I bring this up, is this was the first year I really followed the NFL. I always watched highlights and playoffs before, but this year I watched over 32 games, much like you, America.

Here's what I learned:

DETROIT LIONS PUT UP A BAGEL: SOMEHOW DON'T FEEL LIKE LOSERS

Somehow, a professional football team managed to lose 16 consecutive games. To me, that is astonishing, but even more ludicrous may be the comments I heard following their 16th loss. Damion Cook, a member of the team, shared his thoughts: "Anyone can say what they want, but we are not losers."

Quite a testament to the power of positive psychology.

Damion my friend, your squad is the definition of a loser. Nothing defines a loser like, oh say, wins and losses. Of which, you had zero wins, and 16 losses. It's actually pretty straightforward.

Of course, in the 7 stages of grief, Mr. Cook is stuck on #1- shock and denial. Once he wades through some dark days, (especially anger and bargaining), things will get better. #5- the upward turn (maybe a long way off for the Lions), leads to #6- reconstructing and working through. Actually, I smell a book deal; Reconstructing and Working Through: How the Detroit Lions Survived the Matt Millen Era.

I think anytime you have a team going 0-for, there are too many teams in that league. In fact, I think there's too many teams in all the professional league's right now, but that's a different column for a different day. Let's just say I'm glad I didn't have to make highlights for any Lions games this season.

JETS DISCARD PENNINGTON, COME TO REGRET IT

In a related story, Brett Favre is basically being begged to retire. In a matter of 12 months he managed to have everbody wish he wouldn't retire, change their minds to wishing he'd just stay retired (or make up his damn mind), to woefully finishing a once promising season and having nearly everyone say things like, "just go already."

I can't see how he'd come back to the Jets after what his teammates said about him, and I can't see how any other team would want him after the performance (or lack thereof) that he put on down the stretch.

Which brings us to one of the saddest things about sports. Our heroes, who can seemingly do no wrong for years, get old and then fragile, and the game passes them by. There's nothing I find more heartbreaking than watching a man who once owned the surface he played on, having to come to grips with his athletic mortality before our very eyes.

I was never a Brett Favre fan, but it was still tough to watch.

In a more positive story, Chad Pennington goes on to become part of the revival in Miami, making the post-season and winning his second Comeback Player of the Year award. I predict he finds a way to win it the third time, and they re-name it after him. "The Chad Pennington Comeback Player Of The Year: to the player that life just can't keep down."

DALLAS COWBOYS ALMOST GOOD ENOUGH; PROBABLY WON'T WIN NEXT YEAR EITHER

No matter how you slice it, I think you need character to win in sports. The Cowboys have an abundance of talent, but they seem to lack to two elements of championship teams; character and cohesion.

For an example of both, I'll use the Pittsburgh Steelers (who ironically, or perhaps not so, won the Super Bowl). They had an overhaul of their offensive line, and because of this, many media pundits felt they could not win the Super Bowl. I read in SI that Roethlisberger flew all the linemen out to his place during the off-season, took them water-tubing and just had some good ol' fashioned bonding. And when presented with the Lombardi Trophy Sunday night, what did Big Ben have to say? "What do they have to say now, O-Line!"

A band of brothers came together and got it done. When faced with some adversity, everybody dug in. It's the oldest 'team' concept in sport, but it's lost on a lot of today's athletes. This is my problem with the Cowboys. When it comes to gut-check time, to look inside yourself and decide whether you have more to give, or whether you'll concede defeat, some people start to point fingers. That's what the Cowboys did, and that's why they'll never win.

PLAXICO BURRESS ATTEMPTS CAREERICIDE

Yep, he shot himself. Try to think of a dumber thing that's happened. Ever. Sure, Joe Sakic broke his hand sticking it in a snowblower, but that happens all the time. How many game-breaking wide receivers on Super Bowl contending teams have actually shot themselves?

LARRY FITZGERALD DOES HIS BEST USAIN BOLT IMPRESSION

Somehow, in the rotation of 17 weeks of football, I didn't get to do an Arizona Cardinals game. Then, in the playoffs, I was assigned their game against the Carolina Panthers. In my research, all that kept coming up is how the Cardinals can't win on the East coast, and how the Panthers were undefeated at home, etc.

And Fitzgerald, he was always the guy that people knew was good, but wasn't ever discussed as one of the greatest receivers of the game, likely only because Arizona had done so little in his career (and their existence). He was regarded as 'upper-echelon' to borrow a broadcast term. I distinctly remember one half-time show in which the best wideouts in the league were named: Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. and ZERO mention of Larry Fitzgerald.

Seems almost laughable now. Fitzy destroyed just about everyone in his path, until Sunday, when he seemed to be held in check through the 1st half. He had 1 catch for 12 yards. Of course, he made a tough catch on a jump ball look easy for 6, then with 2:50 and change to play in the 4th quarter he caught a pass over the middle and displayed speed on land not seen since Beijing.

The best part about Larry, at least for me, is the way he goes about it. He's a respectful guy. Well-spoken, stays out of trouble, all of that. Heck, he even says he'll give some money out of his pocket to keep Anquan Boldin on the team. That's border-line revolutionary. He is an absolutely dominant athlete with the attitude of a 3rd string role player. You can't help but love it, and you can't help but cheer for him.

Which I was doing Sunday, only to be disapointed by the Steelers. Roethlisberger has now placed himself firmly in the Pantheon of great 4th quarter comebacks, and Pittsburgh has their 6th title. Just when it looked like the underdog had comeback to defy the odds, Santonio Holmes literally snatched the title away, while being sure to get both feet in bounds.

And so concluded my year with football. Whether it's for work or not, I can't wait to do it all over again.

Then again, there's not much about Tim Tebow that would be considered normal. Not his brand of football, not his superhero build, not his recent decision to stay in college following a national championship. Everything about Tim Tebow points to one thing: Tim Tebow is a freak.

I got home from work early on the night of the BCS Championship Game, and I started flipping around the channels. I found the game in the latter stages of the 4th quarter, and it was effectively over. Sensing this, the announcers started into the typical congratulatory comments about everyone on the winning team.

When they came to Tebow, they started gushing. This is not unusual, as grown men have been gushing about Tebow for years. The only difference is that usually, those men are gushing about Tebow's athletic prowess. This was different.

They spoke about his maturity as a person. How engaging he is, how humble he is, how approachable. They went on and on about how remarkable he is as a young man, and how rare it is for a young, uber-talented athlete to be this way. They didn't mention football, because that much is obvious. I got the sense they wanted you to know how great Tim Tebow is apart from the game.

Tim Tebow is a Christian. The announcers were likely expecting the usual from star athletes of this age; arrogance, bravado, airs of immortality, etc. But Tebow isn't arrogant. And he sure ain't greedy. Here some excerpts from the press release announcing he was staying in Gainesville.

''Overall, I just felt loyal to this place,'' Tebow said. ''I feel like I'm a role model, and a lot of times people start things and don't finish them. I didn't want to be like that. I wanted to be loyal to the university. I wanted to finish what I started and play another year.''

Finish what you started? Tim, you finished what most college athletes never get a chance to start. Twice! Loyal? Worry not my friend, Florida has gained a thing or two since bringing you into the fold.

What about his coach? Does he have visions of hoisting another title, riding to victory on the broad shoulders of his noble thoroughbred? Urban Meyer must have thought Tebow was headed to the NFL. He certainly has to believe he's ready.

''There's the functional football player part of it, but we all know it's much deeper than that,'' he said. ''He is so good for college football. He is unbelievable. When my daughter texts me in the morning the Bible verse he has under his eyes it's good for college football, it's good for young people, it's good for everything.''

He's right. It's good for everything. Unless you're an opposing school in the SEC.

There is a danger in all this adulation. Sometimes we elevate a man with a type of worship that should only be saved for One. Sometimes I wonder if it's fair to praise Tebow for being a great guy; I mean, there's a lot of great people out there, Christian or otherwise. It can feel like those announcers were praising him just because he's not a jerk, and it's so rare today that star athletes aren't jerks. But ultimately I think that Tebow's influence is an important one.

If you watch sports, there are athletes you will admire. Players that stand out for their talents on the field. The last two weeks have made me a big Larry Fitzgerald fan (the guy goes to work. He doesn't cause drama, he doesn't need attention. He just dominates). But often who they are off the field is a disappointment, or in other cases, they aren't suitable role models for kids.

A lot of people talk about using their abilities as a platform to serve the Lord. A lot athletes talk about religion, or casually give credit to God for the good things that happen to them.

The difference between most athletes (most people) and Tim Tebow is that he actually backs it up. It's hard not to like a guy who spent the three summers before college in the Phillipines doing missionary work.

One look at Tim Tebow and you can tell he's born to play football. I'm glad he'll affect more than football games.

As recently as 6 months ago, I would've been hard pressed to find someone to argue with me. I even wrote an article for Burnside about how much I enjoyed fights in hockey. As of yesterday, I was hard pressed to find someone to agree.

On Dec. 12, 2008 Don Sanderson was playing in a Senior 'A' game for the Whitby Dunlops (Senior is basically adult amateur hockey). Sanderson dropped his gloves with a willing opponent, as he no doubt had before, and he fought. Only unlike his other tussels, this one had a distressing end. Sanderson and his adversary fell, and as they did, Sanderson hit his head on the ice. He went into a coma, and 3 weeks later, he passed away. Don Sanderson was 21-years-old.

As I was saying, 6 months ago, I could've found a Canadian hockey fan who thought fighting in hockey was wrong; but it would've taken me a long time. Now, every time I turn around, there are fans calling for it to be banned from the game.

And you know what? There's nothing I can say to justify fighting in hockey. There is no way I'm going to sit here and say that allowing two men to commit an otherwise criminal act is okay just because it's in the context of a game. There's no rational or logical path that would lead me down that road. I won't even try it.

But what I do know is that sports are more than logic. Sports are emotion, and emotions erupt. Hockey, however, lets them erupt far further than other sports. And I know that when there's a fight, everyone pays close attention. Everyone eagerly awaits what will happen next. We love to pretend we don't crave violence, and then there's not a person sitting when two guys drop the gloves.

I'm not bothered by the debate of whether or not fighting belongs in hockey. I'm bothered by the timing. Don Sanderson's death is certainly one of the most tragic events in hockey history. When your child begins playing a sport at such a young age, you never dream anything so horrible would happen to them. And truth be told, it really hasn't. This kind of thing doesn't happen very often.

But now it has, and the groundswell to remove fighting in hockey has begun. You can't turn on sports radio in Toronto without hearing someone debating the merits of fighting. There are those who make candid, well thought out arguments as to why it should be removed, and there are those who defend it. Sadly, those who defend it can come up with little more than the argument that "it's a part of the game." Again, it's difficult to justify.

To me, this means what I stated earlier. They grew up with fighting, and they don't believe it's wrong. I'm not criticizing them, I happen to feel this way; but again I'm not going to pretend I can justify it with logic. The amazing thing is none of this was ever an issue until Don Sanderson tragically slipped into a coma. Now his legacy may be changing the face of 100 years of hockey history.

Fights will always happen. People snap, they go in the stands, they step on someone's face; it happens in every sport. The difference being that in hockey, this sort of thing (warning: following video is hilarious) is not punished severely.

A friend asked me how I thought hockey would look if they took fighting out. One thing I know for certain is you'd have a tough time weening it out. We're talking about a generation of guys who done things this way their whole lives. I've written before about "the code" that exists in hockey. Here's a recent example of it:

Allow me to explain what you've just seen. Ruslan Fedotenko (playing for the Penguins, in black) and Colby Armstrong (playing for the Thrashers, not in black) decide to fight. You'll notice in the replay, they agree to take off their helmets before they do. Colby Armstrong has been in several fights in his life. Ruslan Fedotenko has been in, well not so many. They take their helmets off because part of the code states that you aren't considered tough if you leave you visor on, lest the man accosting you break his hand on it. Ironically, it is fine to have him break his hand on your face, which is what Fedotenko does here. People say, 'so, they take off their helmets?' Yeah. No wonder people think hockey players aren't smart.

(As a side note: How hard is your face if somebody one-punches you, and they break their hand? Armstrong gets clocked, but stays in the game and keeps playing. Fedotenko leaves with a broken hand and now will miss several games. That is one hard face.)

The thing about that video is that when I saw that fight live at work, I jumped out of my chair. There's a bevy of reasons, primarily that guys rarely get popped like that, let alone by a player like Fedotenko. But I enjoyed it. Somehow, it got my blood flowing, brought a little life to my evening; it was exciting.

And that's the emotional appeal. If that was the affect on me, a non-partisan observer, imagine how Fedotenko's teammates felt when they saw it. They'd have a little spring to their step, a little more inspiration to their game.

But like I said, there's no way to justify why we allow fighting in hockey. If I hit a guy like that in a parking lot, I'm going probably going to face serious legal action. People won't stand and cheer.

However, what if I was being robbed, or suffering some injustice, and I cold-cocked a guy with a punch like that? I'd be a hero, right?. Even more of a hero, if someone else was suffering an injustice, and I went over and stood up for them, saving them from harm.

Well that explains this kind of fight. (the cheer you hear at the 1:00 mark is the crowd seeing the punch on the scoreboard, which shows that fans, for all their debates, do enjoy fighting in hockey.) Sheldon Souray sees his teammate Erik Cole get steamrolled by Matthias Ohlund. Perfectly legal hit. No argument there, but in the video you hear the color man say, "Souray answers the bell." What he means is, hockey players are taught that you are to stick of for your teammates when they get clocked, even if somebody hits them legally. If the impact is hard enough, it will prompt a fight. Souray fights Ohlund so that he'll think twice before he takes another run at an Oiler player. And if Souray punched me like that, I'd think twice before doing just about anything.

I realize, the real-life comparison of helping someone who is being robbed is a bit of a reach, but this is the way those of who grew up in hockey see these things. When people say fighting is engrained in hockey culture, they are absolutely right; whether or not they're pointing it out as a positive or a negative. Hockey players are hard-wired to stick up for their teammates.

One reason I'd like to see fighting abolished? I typed 'little kid hockey fight' into the search engine on YouTube, and I got 41 hits. 41! We're talking 8-year-olds here. The can barely skate and they're throwing hay-makers at each other.

Deep down I know why these little kids resort to these tactics Because they see it on television. Their heros do it every Saturday night, and when they do, their dad's stand and cheer, and with a laugh explain, "it's just part of the game".

Valero Alamo Bowl (San Antonio, TX)
Missouri vs. Northwestern
Dec. 29, 8 p.m. ESPN
Missouri needs this game. They finished the regular season poorly, partly due to injury. A healed Tigers squad should be hungry, but so should a solid Northwestern team that knows a victory in San Antonio would make this one of their better seasons in recent memory.
Watchability Rating: 7

Roady's Humanitarian Bowl (Boise, ID)
Maryland vs. Nevada
Dec. 30, 4:30 p.m. ESPN
Talk about inhumane treatment. Having to play a football game in Boise, Idaho in the dead of winter on an ugly blue field? Brutal. Jack Bauer couldn't inflict torture this vile. The only thing Maryland and Nevada will be thinking about is how quickly they can get out of Boise following the game.
Watchability Rating: 3

Pacific Life Holiday Bowl (San Diego, CA)
Oklahoma State vs. Oregon
Dec. 30, 8 p.m. ESPN
If the over/under on this game is below 125, I'm flying to Vegas to lay money on the over. This bowl is famous for entertaining shootouts, and this match-up is no exception.
Watchability Rating: 7

Texas Bowl (Houston, TX)
Western Michigan vs. Rice
Dec. 30, 8 p.m. NFL Network
When the best team you can find from Texas is Rice, you're officially in trouble. When you are Texas A&M, and you're at home for the holidays watching Rice play in a bowl game, you are really in trouble.
Watchability Rating: 3

Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl (Fort Worth, TX)
Houston vs. Air Force
Dec. 31, Noon ESPN
Worth watching because it provides one of the entertaining rarities of college football; the rematch. When these teams met up in September, Houston lost by a field goal on the road.
Watchability Rating: 6

Brut Sun Bowl (El Paso, TX)
Oregon State vs. Pittsburgh
Dec. 31, 2 p.m. CBS
An East Coast team and a West Coast team meet halfway in a matchup of very similar styles. Both are well coached by guys with runs in the NFL. Both overachieve with respect to their talent. Both were a win away from crashing the BCS party.
Watchability Rating: 7

Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl (Nashville, TN)
Boston College vs. Vanderbilt
Dec. 31, 3:30 p.m. ESPN
Vandy was everyone's favorite Cinderella story through 5 games, then they dropped six of their final seven. But they still score the invite from their hometown bowl, though it's going to take more than a little home cooking for them to beat BC.
Watchability Rating: 4

Insight Bowl (Tempe, AZ)
Kansas vs. Minnesota
Dec. 31, 5:30 p.m. NFL Network
Kansas is a decent team that struggles against quality competition. They do, however, put up serious points on mediocre opponents. Minnesota was 3-5 in the weak Big Ten this year and struggles to score. Consider it a public service that this game is on the very inaccessible NFL Network.
Watchability Rating: 3

Chick-fil-A Bowl (Atlanta, GA)
LSU vs. Georgia Tech
Dec. 31, 7:30 p.m. ESPN
This game seems like a great match-up based on name recognition, but LSU failed to get it together this season. When you lose as many players to the NFL as they have the past two years, the fall off is expected. Meanwhile, Georgia Tech is a solid team coming off two straight wins against ranked opponents, and this is essentially a home game for them.
Watchability Rating: 2

Outback Bowl (Tampa, FL)
South Carolina vs. Iowa
Jan. 1, 2009, 11 a.m. ESPN
It's difficult to factor a watchablility rating for this pedestrian matchup. It's the first game to kickoff on New Year's Day, thus you can rank it yourself depending on the time zone you live in, or, by how heartily you ring in the New Year. It's worth a watch if you are an early-to-bed individual living on the East Coast. Hard partiers on the Left Coast may be more compelled to sleep through the 9am start time.
Watchability Rating: Variable

Capital One Bowl (Orlando, FL)
Georgia vs. Michigan State
Jan. 1, 2009, 1 p.m. ABC
The two teams are within shouting distance of each other in the rankings, however Michigan State lost their two games against ranked teams by a combined score of 95-25. Plus, this is Georgia QB Matt Stafford's final NFL audition so he's sure to come out guns-a-blazin'.
Watchability Rating: 3

Konica Minolta Gator Bowl (Jacksonville, FL)
Nebraska vs. Clemson
Jan. 1, 2009, 1 p.m. CBS
Clemson closed the season playing great defense, then their staff was raided by Kansas State. There should be a lot of points scored in this game.
Watchability Rating: 7

Rose Bowl Game Presented by Citi (Pasadena, CA)
Penn State vs. USC
Jan. 1, 2009, 4:30 p.m. ABC
This will be USC's fourth Rose Bowl against a Big Ten opponent since 2003. The closest the Big 10 has gotten is 14 points. You're probably better off watching the Rose Bowl Parade than the actual game. Sad, but true.
Watchability Rating: 4

FedEx Orange Bowl (Miami, FL)
Cincinnati vs. Virginia Tech
Jan. 1, 2009, 8:30 p.m. FOX
A lot of people are hating on this game. Granted, Cincy isn't a traditional football school, but this season they proved to be a good squad. Both teams will play hard in this one and provide a nice nightcap to New Year's Day. You know, to go along with your nightcap on New Year's Day.
Watchability Rating: 8

AT&T Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX)
Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech
Jan. 2, 2009, 2 p.m. FOX
Last year Ole Miss coach Huston Nutt was the coach of Arkansas. In their bowl game his team played an explosive Big XII team that was smarting from a blowout loss to Oklahoma, which knocked them out of the BCS. Thus, Arkansas got destroyed. This year, Nutt's team is playing an explosive Big XII team that is smarting from a blowout loss to Oklahoma, which knocked them out of the BCS. I have a bad feeling about this. Huston Nutt does too. This one manages a 5, just to see the "not again" look on his face.
Watchability Rating: 5

AutoZone Liberty Bowl (Memphis, TN)
Kentucky vs. East Carolina Jan. 2, 2009, 5 p.m. ESPN
When the BCS took the liberty of spreading out the bowl schedule and playing some games after New Year's Day, it was mildly annoying. When the Liberty Bowl is scheduled after New Year's Day, it's just dumb.
Watchability Rating: 2

Allstate Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)
Utah vs. Alabama
Jan. 2, 2009, 8 p.m. FOX
Remember when Boise State played Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl two years ago? We all thought it would be a blowout, so those of us who actually witnessed one of the greatest bowl games ever didn't tune in until midway through the fourth quarter? Me too. That's why I'm watching this game from the beginning.
Watchability Rating: 8

International Bowl (Toronto)
Buffalo vs. Connecticut
Jan. 3, 2009, Noon ESPN2
I really want to be cynical and snarky about a bowl game played in Canada on January 3. However, I can't do it (because his editor is Canadian, -ed). Both programs have been shining examples of how to build from the ground up, and both have good young coaches. The only thing holding down the rating is late-season football viewing fatigue.
Watchability Rating: 8

Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)
Ohio State vs. Texas
Jan. 5, 2009, 8 p.m. FOX
Ohio State played two games against Top-10 teams this year, and managed to score 9 points. Total. Texas scored 35 points or more in all but one game this year. Warm up the bus.
Watchability Rating: 4

GMAC Bowl (Mobile, AL)
Ball State vs. Tulsa Jan. 6, 2009, 8 p.m. ESPN
I need to wash my hair that night. We all need to wash our hair that night.
Watchability Rating: 1

FedEx BCS National Championship Game
Florida vs. Oklahoma
Jan. 8, 2009, 8 p.m. FOX
There are lots of reasons to boycott this game. The BCS system is whack. The late start time keeps you up way too long on a work night. The game is played an entire week after New Year's Day. The uniforms are going to clash. But in the end, we will watch. After all, how could we dedicate two full weeks to football, and not watch the heavyweight fight? Two teams with tons of NFL talent and strong coaching is too much to pass up. With a couple of quarterbacks who are FCA poster boys, you may even feel safe letting the kids stay up to watch the end.
Watchability Rating: 10

* * *

The Burnside Writers Collective fundraising campaign has begun. If you can donate a few bucks, we'd be grateful. Here are a few ways we want to say thank you:

Donations under $35: A Burnside sticker.

$35-$59: A copy of Donald Miller's upcoming book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and a Burnside sticker. The book is due out in 2009. We may or may not be able to get copies before they hit the stores. Regardless, you'll get when we get it.

$60-$99: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, a book of your choice penned by one of our contributors* (list of options below) and a Burnside sticker.

$100-$199: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, two books penned by our contributors, a Burnside t-shirt and a Burnside sticker.

$200 or more: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, all five books penned by Burnside contributors, a Burnside t-shirt, a Burnside sticker and your name listed as a Burnside Patron on the new site.

EagleBank Bowl (Washington, DC)
Wake Forest vs. Navy
Dec. 20, 11 a.m. ESPN

2008 will be the first year for this bowl game, which was originally to be called the "Congressional Bowl". While the name has changed, two features remain to bear testimony to the original title. First, all food items sold at the stadium will be pork products. Secondly, they are giving out amazing handouts as you pass through the turnstiles. Big screen TVs. Laptops. Fistfuls of cash. Unfortunately, they are only available to CEOs of tanking corporations.

Watchability Rating: 5

Pioneer Las Vegas Bowl (Las Vegas, NV)
BYU vs. Arizona
Dec. 20 8 p.m. ESPN

Just a hunch here, but I'll guess the BYU players and coaching staff spend a lot less time on The Strip than their counterparts from Arizona. Football with a hangover? Not pretty. Combine that with the fact that BYU is a far better team, and it won't even be close.

Watchability Rating: 4

New Mexico Bowl (Albuquerque, NM)
Colorado State vs. Fresno State
Dec. 20, 2:30 p.m. ESPN

The only entertaining part of this game will be Weird Al Yankovic performing his utterly ridiculous 11-minute song "Albuquerque" live at halftime.

Watchability Rating: 3

R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl (New Orleans, LA)
Southern Miss vs. Troy
Dec. 21, 8:15 p.m. ESPN

Proof that there is at least one bowl too many this year.

Watchability Rating: Unwatchable

San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia (San Diego, CA)
Boise State vs. TCU
Dec. 23, 8 p.m. ESPN

All joking aside, this could be the best bowl game of the season. #11 TCU has one of the best defenses in the country and their two losses were at Oklahoma and at Utah. #9 Boise State boasts one of the country's most creative offenses, and probably should be in a BCS game. No excuse to miss this one either, as it's the only bowl game on Dec 23.

Watchability Rating: 10

Sheraton Hawaii (Honolulu, HI)
Hawaii vs. Notre Dame
Dec. 24, 8 p.m. ESPN

The only thing keeping Charlie Wiess employed right now is that he gave ND alums an excuse to spend Christmas in Hawaii. After watching their team get destroyed by bad teams in bad weather cities all over the country, the faithful are relishing the opportunity to see their team get destroyed by a bad team in a tropical climate.

Watchability Rating: 3

Motor City (Detroit, MI)
Florida Atlantic vs. Central Michigan
Dec. 26, 7:30p.m. ESPN

Give the car companies that congressional bailout, and throw in a clause that Detroit has to give us a better bowl game than this every year. Seriously, haven't the people of Detroit suffered enough?

Watchability Rating: 2

Meineke Car Care (Charlotte, NC)
West Virginia vs. North Carolina
Dec. 27, 1 p.m. ESPN

Oh, what could have been. Three of West Virgina's four losses were by four points or less. Ditto for North Carolina. If a couple of things break differently, either of these teams could have cracked the BCS. I'll be watching, because this should be a good game. UNC fans will be watching with one eye open however, because a huge UNC win could see Butch Davis getting phat job offers from actual football schools.

Watchability Rating: 7

Champs Sports Bowl (Orlando, FL)
Wisconsin vs. Florida State
Dec. 27, 4:30 p.m. ESPN

Since "Champs" is in the title, I declare the winner of this bowl one of two Co-National Champions. There's only one thing better than a mythical National Championship: a mythical Co-National Championship. The only reason to watch this game is for the undoubtedly lengthy interview/feature they will have on FSU Saftey/Rhodes Scholar Myron Rolle.

Watchability Rating: 5

Emerald Bowl (San Francisco, CA)
Miami (Fla.) vs. California
Dec. 27, 8 p.m. ESPN

Poor Cal. They have to stay in the Bay Area for Christmas and don't get to go anywhere warm. Nothing fires up a football team like being held hostage in Northern California all winter. Playing a Miami team that has looked bad even in its wins does not make for compelling viewing.

Watchability Rating: 3

Merry Christmas and Happy Holdays!

* * *

The Burnside Writers Collective fundraising campaign has begun. If you can donate a few bucks, we'd be grateful. Here are a few ways we want to say thank you:

Donations under $35: A Burnside sticker.

$35-$59: A copy of Donald Miller's upcoming book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and a Burnside sticker. The book is due out in 2009. We may or may not be able to get copies before they hit the stores. Regardless, you'll get when we get it.

$60-$99: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, a book of your choice penned by one of our contributors* (list of options below) and a Burnside sticker.

$100-$199: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, two books penned by our contributors, a Burnside t-shirt and a Burnside sticker.

$200 or more: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, all five books penned by Burnside contributors, a Burnside t-shirt, a Burnside sticker and your name listed as a Burnside Patron on the new site.

The Second installment of the Bowl Watchers Guide is coming next week.

With a brutal early schedule and Greg Oden out for a few weeks after his NBA debut, it didn't look good for Portland. Portland managed to outlast San Antonio at home, but dropped their 3rd and 4th games to Phoenix and Utah. Portland looked flat and bewildered, and the Western Conference elite were running rings around them.

But then, this happened.

Since that point, the Blazers have gone 14-4, rattling off victories over New Orleans, Detroit and Orlando. Going into Boston, Portland was being hailed as the 4th best team in the NBA.

The Blazers have arguably the third best shooting guard in the league. They have a dominant defensive presence at center who's just beginning to tap his potential. They have improbably depth, including the current front-runner for 6th Man of the Year, Joel Pryzbilla. They have two of the league's top rookie of the year candidates (Oden and Rudy Fernandez), but they also have another rookie who's starting at small forward in Nic Batum. The Blazers play as a team, get along well, and earn clutch wins (seven of their games have been decided by five points or less, and Portland has won five of those).

Portland pundits and bloggers, from the local talent at BlazersEdge to superfan Henry Abbott, have been exceedingly cautious in their praise. A line from Henry Abbott's post sums up every Blazer writer's tempered optimism:

"Look, I'm not getting ahead of myself here. I realize that Portland still has flaws, and will not be winning a title this year."

No one can bring themselves to say, "This team can do it. This team can win now."

Why not?

I'm not saying Portland is the best team in the NBA right now. Last Friday, the upstart Blazers visited Boston to face the defending champs, and received a veritable curb-stomping.

But I watched that game, and it had little to do with raw talent. The Blazers lead the dance for most of the first half, and hung with the Celtics until around four minutes left in the first half when, with a one point lead, Portland was called for their 3rd technical foul of the half (two for illegal defense, one for Oden hanging on the rim after a dunk).

After that, the Celtics turned the one-point deficit into a 13-point lead to close the half.

The Celtics, being the wily veterans they are, were in the Blazers' heads. Paul Pierce was jawing at Brandon Roy all night, and Portland's usually unflappable star, despite absolutely destroying Pierce on two plays in the 1st quarter, was shaken. That frustration spread like a virus, and the Blazers shot like crap in the third quarter, standing around on the perimeter at times. The Celtics ended up winning by 15.

It was an eye-opener, and analysts will point to the Boston game as evidence Portland doesn't have a chance against wily veterans clubs like Boston and Los Angeles. But cut out the ticky-tack technicals and get Brandon Roy into his usual headspace, and that's a Blazer win. The next night, Steve Blake hit a three with 8 seconds left to edge out the Toronto Raptors, a bounce-back win the Blazers needed, proving once again this isn't a team that goes on bad streaks.

I understand the fear of jinxing such a promising and well-loved team, especially considering the injuries plaguing our potential superstars. So I'm not saying the Blazers are going to be meeting the Celtics in the Finals. But is a victory parade in Portland this summer that far out of the question?

* * *

The Burnside Writers Collective fundraising campaign has begun. If you can donate a few bucks, we'd be grateful. Here are a few ways we want to say thank you:

Donations under $35: A Burnside sticker.

$35-$59: A copy of Donald Miller's upcoming book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and a Burnside sticker. The book is due out in 2009. We may or may not be able to get copies before they hit the stores. Regardless, you'll get when we get it.

$60-$99: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, a book of your choice penned by one of our contributors* (list of options below) and a Burnside sticker.

$100-$199: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, two books penned by our contributors, a Burnside t-shirt and a Burnside sticker.

$200 or more: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, all five books penned by Burnside contributors, a Burnside t-shirt, a Burnside sticker and your name listed as a Burnside Patron on the new site.

Shut up.

Seriously, shut up. It's about time you stopped shooting your mouth off. You are precisely 34 years, 358 days old. A lot of people grow up well before their 30s. They begin looking at situations differently, analyzing what is happening through a more critically accurate lens. They realize others around them don't need to hear all their opinions, and just maybe, they don't need to have everyone's attention all the time.

But T.O., you can't seem to avoid saying something stupid. It's like there's this immense pressure building inside you, and when an opportunistic reporter sticks his tape recorder in front of your face, that pressure takes over, and out flow words that do nothing but further hurt your reputation and image. And worse, your team. Three weeks ago in San Francisco, you're not getting the ball enough; this past Thursday against the Seahawks, everything is fine.

Do you ever wonder how you will be viewed at the end of your career? I know you care about it, because we all know you crave attention. You're like a toddler who has to deal with a newborn baby sibling that gets all their parent's affection. A 34-year-old toddler. At the end of your illustrious career, your magnificent numbers and incredible talents will be overshadowed by a massive ego clearly spawned by insecurity.

That's right buddy, I see right through your little act. The bravado, the strutting around, the big talk; you just want us to love you. You want us to look at you and see what you see when you look in the mirror. You want us to talk about how great you are, a marvel of athletic ability, how good your numbers are (gaudy, really), and how unstoppable you are. What you need to realize is that we never had a chance to love you.

As far back as I can remember you've been wearing out your welcome everywhere you've been. How many teams will get sick of your egomanical behaviour before you realize maybe, just maybe, (insert various names here) are not the problem.

The problem is people would be far more likely to sing your praises if you just went about your business. Do people think Tom Brady is great? Or Peyton Manning? How often do you hear those two going off in the media with drama? Or LaDanian Tomlinson. A once in a lifetime running back, mired in a wasted season, and not a word.

I'm offering help. I'm offering advice. I'm not sending you to a self-help guru, or a rehab centre; I'm not even going to send you to your room without dessert. All I ask is that you look at another wide receiver who used to be in a similar situation. Mr. Randy Moss.

Moss had his attitude problems, and mooning issues, and eventually realized he wanted to win. I know you want to win too, but Moss realized winning means closing your mouth and handling your business. In practice, in meetings, in the media, and on the field. Moss got a hold of a good situation in New England and he took advantage of it. T.O., you got a hold of a good situation in Dallas and now you're trying your best to throw a grenade on the whole operation.

I wonder how this will end for you. Terrell, whether you like it or not, as of now this is your legacy.

You see, since I was in high school the Spurs have been a perennial lock to go deep in the playoffs. Living in the East, I was mostly spared from watching the Spurs until the postseason where I always found myself hating them because they got in the way of KG's Timberwolves, or even the Great Canadian Steve Nash and the Suns.

The Spurs won 4 titles with Duncan. And it's pretty obvious why. He's a dominant force, a great scorer and rebounder. The numbers are there, without question. No argument about his greatness; merely questions about how entertaining he is to watch.

But while I was watching the game the other night, observing Duncan with a much more critical eye, I learned what makes him such a great champion. A lot of players can put up numbers, this is no secret. But Duncan is a rare breed of athlete.

The Spurs are not getting any younger, and age is least kind to athletes. Many think they'll make the playoffs this year, but won't have home court advantage. No one seems to believe that they'll contend for a championsip.

So maybe the reign of Duncan and the Spurs is coming to a close. But I want to point out what I experienced during this game, because I never really gave Duncan the respect he deserved. Until now.

In the first half Duncan was looking putrid. He finished with 6 points (I think, definitely no more than 8). He struggled on offense, missing shots he normally would make, not getting calls from the official. So what did he do? Did he sulk, and complain, and mail in the game like a laundry list of NBA stars would? Nope. He played hard D, he encouraged his teammates, and he faded to the periphery and allowed Tony Parker to score 24 points in the half. No whining, no ego. I almost forgot I was watching professional sports.

It got more impressive. The Timberwolves were giving the Spurs all they could handle, and the game was coming down to the closing moments. Duncan had been battling Al Jefferson and rookie Kevin Love, and was starting to pick it up in the 4th quarter. His shooting woes from the first half behind him, TD starting filling it up. Tony Parker was still scoring at will, but down 2, with nearly no time left, the Spurs went to Duncan. And he delivered, tying the game and forcing overtime.

In overtime, it wasn't Duncan who dominated. Parker continued his lights out performance, finishing with 55 points, including a buzzer-beating, game-tying shot to send the game to double overtime.

There was a moment in the 2nd overtime that stood out to me. Parker made his defender look incompetent yet again, scoring on another lay-up that put the Spurs up 6. The Wolves called time out and the first guy over to hug Parker was Duncan. This was not your usual, chest bump, we're fired up kind of hug. This was a, 'you picked us up man,' hug. I would describe the look on his face as gratitude. Duncan's ego was unbruised by Parker's stealing the show.

And some people might think this is no big deal, because Parker has emerged into a great player over the last few years. But how could he have became who he was without playing with the kind of star who wants his teammates to succeed? How many big shots do you see Kobe Bryant deferring in a game? One at the most? What about Gil Arenas? He'd take the last shot from half-court before letting a teammate shoot.

Duncan is the kind of star fans all say they wish for. He's mentally strong, talented, a natural leader and conducts himself professionally. There's no drama, there's no screaming, and there's no trouble motivating teammates. Because when you see the big man go about his business, working hard and making things happen, his teammates can't help but follow suit.

The funny thing is, Duncan doesn't get a lot of credit for his leadership. We talk about admiring this type of player, but then we complain when the Spurs succeed because they aren't flashy or exciting. There's never any controversy. Duncan has no bells and whistles. He doesn't get discussed on PTI because he stays out of trouble. All he does is go out and dominate despite every defense knowing exactly what he's going to do. Jump hook in the block? Can't stop him. How many jumpers have we seen him bank off the glass from the wing? Pick and roll with Parker? Good luck.

After all my years complaining about how boring TD is compared to, oh say, Amare Stoudemire, I've come to my senses. People should be watching this guy and telling their kids, "see how he handles this, see how he plays? Play like Duncan."

Especially since at one point in the game, Minnesota rookie Kevin Love legitimately defended Duncan, shutting him down. Did Duncan throw a fit? Did he cry foul? A veteran, frustrated by a lowly rookie. He patted Love on the back and told him, 'good job.'

So on top of all that, he's a pretty nice guy too.

* * *

The Burnside Writers Collective fundraising campaign has begun. If you can donate a few bucks, we'd be grateful. Here are a few ways we want to say thank you:

Donations under $35: A Burnside sticker.

$35-$59: A copy of Donald Miller's upcoming book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and a Burnside sticker. The book is due out in 2009. We may or may not be able to get copies before they hit the stores. Regardless, you'll get when we get it.

$60-$99: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, a book of your choice penned by one of our contributors* (list of options below) and a Burnside sticker.

$100-$199: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, two books penned by our contributors, a Burnside t-shirt and a Burnside sticker.

$200 or more: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, all five books penned by Burnside contributors, a Burnside t-shirt, a Burnside sticker and your name listed as a Burnside Patron on the new site.

But it's not just socially inept people who can't get dates. All sorts of men have no clue how to talk to women. Which is where I come in. Because I'm here, to fight for the jocks.

Fear not fans of sport, I am here to teach you the ways of another sport: womanizing.

A long while back I gave you A Sports Fans Relationship Guide. Now, I give you A Sports Fans Guide to Picking Up Women. I should add a disclaimer: once you pick up a woman, you're on your own. This is not phys ed class.

I'm a qualified teacher. In fact, I'm probably overqualified. I'm married, which means I know as much as you can possibly know about convincing a beautiful woman that you are totally and unquestionably awesome.

The first thing you'll want to do is avoid smelling like the sport you love. I can't stress this enough. Especially if you play hockey, as I do. Hockey equipment, as it turns out, smells pretty horrible. I suggest taking care of this well before approaching anyone, let alone a woman you intend to woo.

Another pre-pick up drill would be to work on your game. Not your pick-up game...I mean practicing your sport of choice. Nothing says, "I'm the most eligible bachelor in the room' like mastering your backswing, three-step drop, or your wrist shot. I mean, beautiful girls are really smart; they are not going to date someone who's not good at sports. (1)

Now, let's assume you get through the initial banter and you've secured a date. You smell good, like Febreeze even, and you didn't once mention that you can't get that nasty hook out of your golf swing (you don't want to divulge too much on the first date). Let's get to some in-date tips, because let's face it, if you can't 'close the deal' you are probably a less-then-adequate member of the male species.

First I would suggest talking at great length about your sporting exploits of the past. I mean, you were once a great athlete, a prodigious talent, if only your extremely bright career wasn't cut short by (insert excuse here). What beautiful woman wouldn't want you to avoid having a conversation in order to hear at length of your 4 touchdown game against Central Jr. High.

After all, nothing impresses women quite like bravado. They love it. If you don't brag, she may not notice how unbelievably awesome you are, you know, because she'll be distracted by your sheer manliness.

Also, for your consideration: I read a story once about a man who wrote to Steve Yzerman, then captain and superstar of the Detroit Red Wings. The man wrote to Yzerman that the Red Wings were his son's favorite team, and that they lived in Colorado (Detroit's arch rival) so his son had no friends at school, and worse, that the boy was now dying of a terminal disease. Yzerman, the good Canadian boy that he is, immediately called the man personally and told him he would do anything to help. He sent sticks, and signed jerseys and tickets to Red Wings games. This dude even had the nerve to shave his 7-year-old son's head just so representatives from the team would believe him.

Turns out the guy was lying. Kid was fine, aside form having the world's most disturbing father. I'm not saying you should shave a small boy's head to get a woman to date you, nor am I saying that you should call Steve Yzerman and ask for his help. (2) But you may want to try lying.

At some point, you'll have to deal with your competition. Other males, out on the prowl, looking to impress women with their football jerseys and knowledge of statistics. You'll need to be as physically intimidating as possible. (3) The more deficiencies you can point out in another human being the better. Not only will they back off, but in front of your date you will look superior to your foe.

Best of luck to you. After all, if I know anything, it's that you don't want to come back to the locker room without some stories of your successful exploits.

---

(1) Unless that person is rich, handsome, generous, funny, extremely intelligent, likable, friendly, wise, engaging, dynamic, etc.

(2) Actually, now that you mention it, that's not such a bad idea

(3) Unless the other guy is huge. In that case, good luck.

* * *

The Burnside Writers Collective fundraising campaign has begun. If you can donate a few bucks, we'd be grateful. Here are a few ways we want to say thank you:

Donations under $35: A Burnside sticker.

$35-$59: A copy of Donald Miller's upcoming book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and a Burnside sticker. The book is due out in 2009. We may or may not be able to get copies before they hit the stores. Regardless, you'll get when we get it.

$60-$99: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, a book of your choice penned by one of our contributors* (list of options below) and a Burnside sticker.

$100-$199: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, two books penned by our contributors, a Burnside t-shirt and a Burnside sticker.

$200 or more: An autographed copy of A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, all five books penned by Burnside contributors, a Burnside t-shirt, a Burnside sticker and your name listed as a Burnside Patron on the new site.