Why not to worry about Kevin Dillard

Game one for UD went mostly the way game ones go: "Team UD should beat" hangs around for longer than the fans feel like they should, Dayton eventually pulls away in the late first/early second half, loses a significant part of its comfortable margin midway through the second half, and then rights the ship to win by 10ish.

For the most part, yesterday's game against Arkansas State followed the blueprint, the one notable exception being that Arkansas State only came within nine in the second half, where usually those leads drop to two or three. So overall, from a listener's perspective (believe it or not, UD-Ark St. was not on TV in Colorado), it was a pretty successful game.

Most players contributed positively to the winning effort. Even if it was a small presence, like Alex Gavrilovic or Devon Scott (again, from what I could hear), they did good stuff for the team. None of the new guys or returning players had a classic Paul Williams disappearance-type performance. You know what I'm talking about: it goes something like 0-2 shooting, zero points, one rebound, zero assists, three turnovers and 10-12 screams from the crowd to "DO SOMETHING!"

The one thing Tom Michaels and Bucky Bockhorn  kept harping on was Kevin Dillard's off day. And in the first half, I don't think there's any doubt they were right. UD's best player did not play well. From a whole game standpoint, he did not play as well as expected, and my mom (at the game) said he just made several similar bad plays. For UD fans expecting Dillard to be an A-10 Player of the Year-caliber player, it was probably a bit disconcerting to watch.

Here's the thing though: Dillard's final line was 3-13, 12 points, 10 assists, 6 rebounds, 5 turnovers. Yeah, not a great game. But a double-double and then six rebounds from your point guard? From a raw numbers standpoint, that's a strong game. Dillard could easily go 4-6 shooting and put up the same numbers. Knock the turnover numbers down to three let's say, and all of a sudden we're talking about his phenomenal ability to manage the game, his excellent efficiency, etc.

If this is what the Flyers are going to get from Dillard on bad days, there is reason for rejoicing, not bemoaning one game. That means UD has its best player since Brian Roberts, who always found a way to get his, even when the shots weren't falling the way they normally do.

Plus, as mentioned earlier, the other guys stepped up and played well. Vee Sanford had 18 and 7-10 from the field. Josh Benson was 7-9, hit multiple long jumpers (!) and grabbed eight boards. Dillard will be called upon to carry the Flyers to a win more or less on his own in at least a few games this season. But it's encouraging to know when he's a bit off, Dayton isn't necessarily going down.

I guess I'm lucky

We like to moan about our misfortune. Whether it's our inability to win playing McDonald's Monopoly (I know, I know, Boardwalk doesn't exist, the fix is in!) or something as simple as not getting picked to participate at a school assembly, we make sure everybody knows how unlucky we are.

I'm one of those people. I "never win anything." I "have the worst luck."

Well, I'm done with that lifestyle. I'll take the luck I had Friday over winning a cool mill from McDonald's anytime.
(Yeah, sorry, this isn't a sports post. But it got me writing on here again, so take heart if that's what you were looking for)

On Friday I was driving to cover a football game for my job. It was a long drive, but I was going because the paper in that area had said they wouldn't be there. Football is one of our more important coverages during the fall, so my Editor said if I wanted to go, I could go. I decided to make the trip, because I thought it would win me brownie points and I would get to see another part of Colorado I hadn't yet.

Well, the drive was nothing short of spectacular. Once again, CO did not disappoint. Until it wasn't spectacular.

While rounding a curve, I hit a patch of gravel (I think) and lost control of my car. I slid across the road (brakes and steering giving no love) and off the other side. My car started to roll before coming to rest upside down. It happened very quickly.

I was hanging by my seatbelt, unbuckled it and crawled out of back window of my car, which had been shattered and was no longer there. This happened immediately, I was not unconscious for any amount of time. In fact, I was almost completely untouched.

Afterward, I had all sorts of people telling me they couldn't believe I was alive, or couldn't believe I was okay. I have no idea how accurate that is. It sounds melodramatic to me, because I was fine, and got out of the car with no problems. But this is what I know: The car flipped about 180 degrees before landing off the road about 15-20 feet down. It appears the driver's side of the cab landed first on a boulder. The roof caved in a pretty significant amount. I didn't notice it at the time, but that roof was probably not very far from the top of my head. So it's fair to say my seatbelt saved me from a head trauma of some degree.

What happened after is where I really feel lucky. I crashed in the middle of nowhere, about 5.5 hours from Craig, and had absolutely no idea what to do. But a couple guys were not far behind me, and they had been working on that road. They saw the crash and helped me out. They set me up with another nearby man they knew who was a volunteer with the local fire rescue. If Bradly Littlejohn and I had crossed paths under different circumstances, I doubt we would have exchanged more than a couple sentences. But here was Brad, chauffeurring me all over the place--taking me to get checked out by the EMTs, then to a hotel for the night, then to the car rental agency the next morning.

I've never been in a situation even close to that before. I have no clue what I would have done. I didn't have phone service where I crashed. But some complete strangers helped me out, and went way beyond their call. And I'm back home because of it.

I don't know what's gonna happen over the next couple weeks. I'm going to need to get a new car in all likelihood. It's going to be inconvenient. But I'm feeling as good as I always do, thanks to the kindness of some cats I've never met before, and a whole lot of luck. Yep, I'm lucky after all.

When we lost our way

When we thought replacements could do an impossible job.

Imagine sending a guy with four years of deep-sea fishing experience to go do the job done by those cats on "Deadliest Catch". "He's fished on the ocean before, so he'll be able to catch us a use-able amount of crabs while our normal guys are asking for better insurance benefits," goes the thinking. Right, but the new guy's never seen anything quite like this. He'll do fine for a couple weeks, with some miscues. But then he'll get caught in a serious storm, the likes of which he hasn't dealt with before. He honestly won't know what to do. It's not his fault; the crash-course in training he received can only get him so far. So in all likelihood something terrible will happen--equipment will be lost or broken, a significant portion of the past week's catch will be lost, the ship will capsize--something to the suits realize, "What were we thinking? Nobody can just step up and do this job."

It's not as serious with sports (because it's sports, not real-life), but in the case of the NFL replacement officials, it's just as egregious an error on the part of NFL brass. They have been officiating Division III college football for years, so it's fair to say they understand the rules of football. But it also should have been obvious to the NFL that they were (and are) woefully unprepared for what they would be (and are) seeing on the field.

About 2.5 percent of college football players make it into the NFL. That's the strongest, fastest, most athletic 2.5 percent of all college football players. Most of those guys come from the FBS, a stronger, faster, more athletic division of college football than Division III. Of all those college football players that make it to an NFL team, not all of them play. No, just the strongest, fastest, most athletic group of 30-35 players play for each team (before accounting for injuries).

See where this is going? These referees have vaulted into an entirely different world of football. Steve Young said it best after last night's game, that the NFL is so much faster in person than anything these guys have ever seen, they never stood a chance. Being an NFL official is already an extremely difficult job--it's why fans are constantly pissed off at the officials in years past. So why would anyone think a replacement is a good solution?

Don't blame the replacement referees for these early-season debacles. It is technically their fault, but they were put in an impossible situation. Blaming them would be tantamount to blaming me for ruining your softball team's chances at the intramurals or parks and rec championship. Yeah, I'm bad, so the team has no chance of winning, but I shouldn't be in this position if excellence was the initial goal.

Think these things through a little bit.

Running, my love, I hate you

Running (not sprinting) can be cool. I swear.

When I was a freshman in high school, I wasn't an especially good runner. I headed to the regional meet that my team had qualified for to watch them and watch my brother run for his school. His team was racing in the toughest division in the state, and probably wasn't going to make it out, so it was almost certainly going to be his final cross country race.

I ended up not really watching my brother. His race, which featured the best three teams in the state, also featured the top two runners in the state, the only guys who had a chance of winning the Ohio Division 1 race a week later. Their names were Levi Fox and Jeff See, and they had a rivalry of sorts that probably existed more in my head than in real life, because their schools were not rivals in any sense. Those two had placed first and second in every common race they'd run that year; See first, Fox second.

So while See went into the region as the overwhelming favorite, there was just no way you could count Levi (this is what everybody called them at the time: See by his last name and Levi by his first. This doesn't indicate preference or familiarity for me, it would just feel weird to refer to them any other way) out; he had that incredible long hair flopping in the wind and was running unbelievably fast times.

You especially couldn't count Levi out once the race had started. 400 meters after the start, Levi Fox was 75 meters clear of the field. After months of running with See and slowly falling back, Levi had had enough. He decided to go for it, and see if See could reel him in. He'd be running alone, making it more difficult on himself, but at least he would make See work for a win, and know it.

By a mile, he had to be 200 meters ahead. It was unbelievable. The best runner in the state looked like he might lose.

Of course he wouldn't stay ahead by that much. Going out so fast meant he would be trying to hold on, not win going away. This is the nature of distance running. See started reeling him in. Still, past the two-mile mark, Levi had the lead. You could see his tactic had had an effect. See was working harder than normal, it was visible from his facial expression.

Jeff See ended up catching Levi Fox and winning the race by about 15 meters. Levi was so spent at the finish line he looked like your run-of-the-mill half-marathoner who went out too fast and paid the price at the finish. He might as well have lost his legs 100 meters back. But he finished.

That remains among the most excited I've ever been watching a sporting event (we'll call running a sport for simplicity's sake). Watching those two go at it, and watching Levi go for it, even though he failed, was thrilling. There's no comparison for that type of decision in any other sport. But it was amazing to watch.

We rarely see this type of thing in elite running these days, where the accepted style is to go slower than most runners are capable of running for most of the race, then turn it into an unbelievable sprint over the final 100/200/lap (American Leo Manzano probably benefited from this type of racing in the men's 1500-meter this Olympics, in a shocking result for him).

That's why distance running is boring. Unless you're a huge fan, you didn't appreciate Galen Rupp's fantastic final 800 to grab silver in the 10k at these Olympics. For the most part, that race was run in a tightly-packed group. While it spread at the end, it was easy for a great deal throughout.

Nobody had any guts. Nobody wanted to make a move and take a chance. Evidently it's much wiser to sit back and try to out-sprint Ethiopians and Kenyans. That has worked a few times in these Olympics, but not very often otherwise.

There's a reason Steve Prefontaine is the most well-like and revered American runner ever, even though he won nothing. Prefontaine took races out from the start and made everyone kill themselves trying to keep up. That way, all he had to do was out-gut them over the final lap. He made races a battle and wasn't scared of anybody. Today, professional distance runners are in a type of condition I can't even imagine. But none of them are interested in using it. It's a shame, because if they did, people might start to realized the 1500 and 5k are way cooler races than the 100 or the 200.

I'm a distance runner, I'm probably biased. But I do think I appreciate the speed and power generated by sprinters. One of the best sprinters in the state went to my high school. He was running the 100 about a second slower than it took Usain Bolt to finish. While a second is a long ways on the track, seeing that power up close (which I did many times) is still amazing. It was something to marvel at, something I would never be able to duplicate.

It's just that the sprints, while cool, are more home-run derby or dunk contest. They're fun, but not as good as the actual game. Middle-distance and distance running is the actual game.

All the sprinting I've seen in person and on TV has never had the effect on me the race between Jeff See and Levi Fox did. See and Fox haven't amounted to much as runners at the international level. Imagine the show their counterparts in the Olympics could be giving us.

Bolt Strikes Again

Why did anyone think Usain Bolt was going to lose?

Because he had lost in the Jamaican trials to Yohan Blake?

Because he had been disqualified in a previous race for a false start?

Did we all forget about that race in 2008, where Bolt ran six-hundredths faster than Blakes personal best time by celebrating the final 10 meters?

Come on. Usain Bolt is 6-5. Blake is 5-11. Justin Gatlin is 6-feet even and Tyson Gay is 5-11. In an event where a tenth of a second is an enormous amount of time, Bolt's height advantage (and lengthier stride) is making all the difference when he can turn his legs over as quickly as all the other guys.

Only a false start or injury was going to make a difference in this race. As it happened, Bolt got the worst start of the four men in the race who mattered. And then he blew them all away.

What about the last time we saw Bolt at the Olympics, when he ran unlike anything we'd ever seen before in sprinting, made us think 2012 would be any different?

The Majesty of the Olympics

There have been some ugly happenings in these Olympics. Korean swimmer Park Tae-Hwan was given a phantom disqualification in the qualifying rounds for the 400-meter freestyle (in fairness, he was allowed back in after an appeal. That should never have been necessary, though). Then Shin A Lam, also of Korea (hopefully just a coincidence), was cheated out of a medal opportunity by judges feeling lazy or something.

Now we're getting this nonsense about badminton players being disqualified because they were losing to try and influence who they played later on. Let's be clear, though. This isn't ugly because players were trying to lose. It's ugly because the Olympic committee embarrassed itself in overreacting to the low level of play.

Supposedly those badminton players "violated the Olympic ideal and the spirit of fair play." I'm not sure how that can be. To me, the ultimate goal when going to the Olympics is to win the gold medal. This is a new format for Badminton. In past Olympics, Badminton was a single elimination tournament. This year, a round-robin preliminary round was introduced. The disqualified teams (which included the Chinese world champions) were simply trying to utilize it to give them an easier path to win gold.

Let's flip the scenario. Fast-forward to the 2014 World Cup, where the U.S. has won its first two games in group play and is now playing Brazil, also 2-0. Meanwhile, in another group, Germany gave up a late goal in its first game to take a tie, and then suffered a stunning loss to the Ivory Coast in its third game. With four points, the Germans are moving on, but lost the group to Le Cote d'Ivoire.

With a spot in the round of 16 secured, the U.S. decides to sit several starters and delivers a pitiful performance, losing 5-0 to Brazil. As a result, Brazil plays Germany in the round of 16 while America gets Ivory Coast...is any American soccer fan upset with this result? Is anyone made the U.S. chose to lose in order to play a weaker opponent? NOOOOOOOO! Why is it any different for these badminton players? Sure, those games with both teams trying to blow it must have sucked to watch, but they didn't matter. They weren't going to tank it anymore. And with some of the best badminton doubles teams out of the tournament now, it's an even bigger joke than their pitiful matches were.

That's why it's nice to remember why the Olympics are actually pretty awesome. Despite the IOC being about as bad as the NCAA ("If you wear that shiny teeth thingy on the stand Ryan, we won't give you your medal. You may have earned it, but not if your teeth aren't normal."), there are always going to be these really cool moments coming from the Olympics.

Like this one. Kayla Harrison became the first-ever American to win a gold medal in Judo. I know nothing about Judo, and watching a replay of her match was the first time I'd ever seen it competitively. But Harrison's medal ceremony was incredible. The Ohio native (yeah!) tried to contain her emotions, but couldn't manage it once the notes from the "Star Spangled Banner" began.

Harrison was a world champion in Judo already, but somehow the Olympic championship has more meaning to just about everybody. It sure does to me. Watching Harrison (who, like so many Olympians in this super-fringe sports, is just a normal person who also works really, really hard at her sport on the side. She's hoping to get selected as a firefighter when she gets home. Not go be in a CrossFit ad or get sponsored by Nike for her badass-edness. No, she's going to put her life on the line. Come on!) break down at the beginning and end of our national anthem had me tingling all over and tearing up. I can't explain why I was so affected; it was just an amazing moment.

Seeing the Packers win the Super Bowl didn't inspire that type of response. Hearing the national anthem at the Olympic medal ceremony and watching an everyday, down-to-earth young woman from Ohio, who I probably won't ever see again, celebrate a judo championship did.

Why Living in the Mountains Sucks...Especially during the Olympics

Since moving to Colorado, one of life's biggest adjustments has been to watch sports and shows on TV two hours earlier than I used to. Sometimes its not a problem, like when I can watch a "Workaholics" or "Breaking Bad" rerun the same night and be done well before midnight. Then, there's no worries about hitting the sack at a decent time. But catching sporting events before getting off work can be a challenge sometimes. It's been strange, but I've gotten used to it after two months.

Nothing could have prepared me for the Olympics, though. NBC's tape-delay strategy has officially ruined my life. Yes, the tape-delay in general is terrible. I knew that the men's 4x100 freestyle relay had lost to the Frenchies well before I actually got to watch it on TV. Everyone in the states is experiencing that. But NBC is executing such an awful tape delay that those of us in Colorado (and even worse in the pacific zone) aren't even up to date with half the U.S. on getting to see prime-time events.

According to the NBC commercials I've seen, the broadcast begins in the Eastern time zone at 7:30 p.m. (yes, everything is still advertised in terms of the east here). That would mean the broadcast would normally start at 5:30 in Colorado. Not so with the Olympics. After the 7:30 start in the east, every other time zone's broadcast begins at 6:30 p.m. For people in Chicago, this is all normal. They're up to date just like they normally would be. But for everybody further west, we can't even view already-old events with our American peers. They have to get even older.

It's one thing to hear on Twitter that France beat the U.S. in similar fashion to the way it lost in Beijing. It's quite another to hear that, then hear from everyone east of Colorado about how the race looked, and how Ryan Lochte did this, or Michael Phelps was super fast!

This delay nonsense worked out alright in 2008 for NBC. It's been a disaster in 2012. We're a different species than we were then. As the Olympics show us every time they come round, with brand new gymnasts, swimmers struggling to retain what they once had (like Phelps in the 400 individual medley) and even basketball rosters shifting (Kevin Durant wasn't on the 2008 U.S. team!), four years is a long time.

What to do when your team is in freefall

Baseball's second half has begun.

Really, we're past the midway point of the season. Going into the all-star break, the Mets were coming off an embarrassing loss at home to the Cubs, and were 46-40, a full five games past half a season.

That record of 46-40 probably should have been better, with the Mets losing four of six to the Cubs and five of six to the Yankees over the final month leading to the All-Star break. So despite the team's near-unanimous preseason projection of last place, it was hard not to feel optimistic. The team hadn't even played its best baseball lately, and it was still in wild-card contention. The surprise team of the season. "Manager of the year for Terry Collins!" they cried on ESPN.

Not so fast. The second half has begun, and the glaring fault on this Mets team, its bullpen, is making it clear the other boys from New York aren't going anywhere. What was 46-40 is now 46-44, with all four losses coming to the two teams ahead of them in the NL East, and three of the four losses coming due to bullpen inadequacy.

A sweep in Atlanta was tough to stomach, but the Mets have been streaky lately. Tuesday's game in Washington said it all though. An anemic offensive night had New York trailing 1-0 going into the eighth. Jonathon Niese had been excellent, going seven innings with one run and eight strikeouts.

Next came the bullpen, which allowed a run in the eighth to extend the deficit to 2-0. Then something amazing happened. New York scored three runs in the top of the ninth, giving itself a lead. But Mets closer Bobby Parnell, the poster-child of unrealized potential who has for some reason been given extra responsibility even though he's never been reliable, made sure he filled his quota. Three hits, one run. Since Parnell probably doesn't understand baseball, he probably felt like he had done okay. After all, those are the same numbers Niese put up in his innings.

No matter! said the Mets now lively offense, which tacked on another run in the top of the 10th. But as bad as Parnell is, his time was up. It was time to turn it over to the rest of the gang. And it was time for me to look away.

But I couldn't. Instead, it felt smarter to suffer through Tim Byrdak surrendering two hits, a walk and a run, before loading the bases with an intentional walk and handing the reins to Pedro Beato, who made sure his fourth pitch didn't quite make it to Josh Thole. Wild pitch. Ryan Zimmerman crosses the plate. Game over.

New York made it more than halfway. But the writing is on the wall now. Even that last-place projection from everyone and their mother doesn't seem far-fetched. All I can think about is that annoying phrase that sabermetricians harp on and on about, and is usually accurate.

This wasn't sustainable. Regression to the mean.

Andy's Misurray

Andy Murray played well.

He didn't collapse, he didn't choke, he didn't get in his own head and take himself out of the match.

He kept battling despite falling all over the tennis court, despite possibly having ankle and/or back issues, despite definitely being worn out.

Unfortunately for Murray, he was playing against the best of all time at more or less his best. Roger Federer was once again on fire, scorching first serves in play at a high percentage, moving like he was 25 and doing everything right at the net.

So now Federer has won seven Wimbledons, as much as any other man. He's won 17 Grand Slams, adding to his already-record total.

But this day wasn't about Federer's winning, as masterful as it was to watch. It was about Murray being 0-1 in Wimbledon finals, and how that loss led to this.



For those of us that love sports, speeches like Murray's are the second reason we come up with when we explain our love for them. The first we think of, of course, is the elation we see and feel when our favorite teams win. But this emotional response, this ache that comes from losing, but this respect of your opponent and knowledge that you couldn't have done more, is really the best.

Somebody always loses. That never feels good. Losing in a championship is often described as a worse feeling than winning the championship is a good feeling. But to lose with the class Murray does, to care as much as Murray clearly did, is what really makes this great. Where else does that happen than in sports?

My favorite part of the clip: When Murray addresses the crowd, and says this:

And last of all to you guys. Everybody always talks about the pressure of playing at Wimbledon, how tough it is. But it's not the people watching, they make it so much easier to play. The support has been incredible, so thank you.

Everybody knows Britain wants the Wimbledon trophy to stay at home pretty badly. But man, the love those fans gave Murray throughout the match and during and after his speech, even though he failed to accomplish what they wanted, was unbelievable. It was one of the coolest things I've seen in sports in quite awhile.

It was one of the coolest things I've seen in awhile. Period. And that's why sports rule.

"You were sensational today"

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/778/666/147828158_crop_exact.jpg?w=650&h=440&q=75
"You were sensational today."

With those words, the British cat doing post-match interviews at Wimbledon summed a match up, and reminded us what we used to see all the time from Roger Federer.

Federer's semifinal match with Novak Djokovic, aside from a thrilling third set, was mostly boring. One of the two players got a break, and was not broken back. For the first time in a long time, it was one of the business-as-usual matches that was routinely seen from Federer in his hay-day, when I got into tennis.

Djokovic perhaps did not play at his top level. He didn't seem to have the willingness to brawl that has made him the No. 1 player in the world Friday morning. But that's also because Federer played such a dominant match, he never could get comfortable.

It's the type of thing that doesn't happen often anymore in men's tennis. Typically when we see a phenomenal individual effort, it's coming from Djokovic or Nadal, and it comes in a form very different than that exhibited this morning. When those two are at their best, it manifests as an unwillingness to break, this sort of invincibility to losing even individual points. With Federer, it is more like total control and comfort with everything happening.

That was there today. Federer's serve was landing, his forehands were crisp, his slice backhand was landing deep and bringing him back into points. His greatness took Djokovic's fight out of the equation.

Whether that will be there Sunday to the same degree is yet to be seen, and is unlikely. But it's good to be reminded every once in awhile what the greatest really can be.

The Rafapocalypse

It was getting to be nighttime in London. Rafael Nadal had just dominated the fourth set of a second round match at Wimbledon. Everyone spectating at Center Court and watching on TV was shocked that Nadal was even involved in a fourth set, let alone that he needed to win just to stay alive and force a fifth set. Nadal doesn't have trouble with players in the second round of a tennis tournament. He hardly has trouble with the rest of the top 10. But there he was, hurting against Lukas Rozol, and then responding with a dominant set to force a fifth, like he always does. Forcing a fifth, that final set where most matches don't go, where most players lose gas but Nadal (and Djokovic) lose nothing. So we assumed it would just be an early match where Nadal got some trouble, but overcame it, won and then trounced his next four opponents.

But then something strange happened. With darkness coming in a little under an hour, the powers that be at the All-England club decided to halt the match before starting the fifth set so they could close the roof on Center Court and play an uninterrupted set. So the players waited for 45 minutes to play. Then, as seems to happen all the time in tennis, the player with the momentum was bested after the break. Rozol broke Nadal in the very first game of the set, and was never threatened with a break back. Nadal didn't even take him to deuce during a single service game. Rafa lost his earliest match at a Grand Slam event since 2005, when he was 19 and still only great on clay.

Nadal, the invincible competitor, was outplayed by Lukas Rozol. And it's not like it was an unlucky draw in the second round against an up-and-comer or a great grass court player. Rozol is 26 and has never even played in the main draw at Wimbledon until this year. In 2011, he was ousted in the first round of Wimbledon qualifying.

I don't know how to explain how this happened. The top four (and really six) men's tennis players have basically been invincible against the lesser players, to the point that it would have been boring if their matches against each other weren't fantastic. Rafa broke that spell, and not with a loss to somebody in the top 15 who played a great match when Rafa wasn't at his best. This loss was to a nobody. It doesn't make sense.

But I know how I would like to explain it. Rafael Nadal is still not an all-court player. His game has evolved an incredible amount over the years, but it still isn't the complete game that other players (ahem...Roger Federer) have displayed across every surface. His hustle and will have taken him beyond his pretty prodigious skill level.

That last paragraph, of course, is ridiculous. But when you think about the discussion for greatest players of all time, isn't this loss the type of thing that makes a difference? This type of thing hasn't been happening to Roger Federer over a much longer span of years. It hasn't happened to Djokovice in years. Andy Murray and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga overcame a bit of adversity today.

Rafa will be back. But today, there's only confusion.

Harry Potter 7.2, viewing 2

There haven't been many major boons to moving to Colorado. Sure, I'm amid much more impressive nature and am a 40-minute drive away from what might as well be the outdoor capital of the world. Plus, I love working with the people I do. But I don't know many people out here, and Craig isn't quite the hustle and bustle center of the world, even compared to Dayton.
But one great thing so far has been subscribing to television for the first time, and getting as a result of my contract three free months of HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz and Encore. Add those channels to all the typical cable channels, and there is always something good to be found on TV. That being said, I had been disappointed in HBO for having multiple channels playing "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" most days of the week. That's cause I hated HP7.2. I've never understood how such a travesty could garner a 96 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (with an 8.4/10 average score), especially since HP7.1 (a far superior flick)got just a 79 percent.

Then I got to thinking: why not take advantage of my resources, and see if I can figure out what all the fuss was about? Did I miss something on the first viewing? So I set HP7.2 to record, and with the NBA Finals over, decided to fire the 'ole DVR up. What follows is a log of my reactions to the movie as I was watching it (with enough beer flowing that it was going to be fun no matter what, but not so many beers that this would get out of control). Oh and I haven't read an HP book or seen a movie since watching HP7.2 the first time.

Right, we ended 7.1 with Voldemort getting the Elder Wand. I'm feeling mostly caught up. Ah yes and Dobby has just died, which means they've escaped the Malfoy's place. Now I actually am feeling caught up.

Harry is conversing with Griphook about breaking into Gringotts. And it's actually quite excellent. It's almost "Breaking Bad" fantastic. Great start, HP7.2! "There are more than a few curious things in the vaults at Gringotts," and "Perhaps, perhaps not," is absolute gold from the goblin.

Aaaaahhhhhh John Hurt is Mr. Ollivander??? How did I not know this? And why did I not love this movie? Two for two in good scenes right now!

Helena Bonham Carter as Hermione polyjuicing Bellatrix Lestrange--great.

Okay, we're heading to the vault and the CGI, as always, is incredible. Thoroughly enjoying this part, even though it's meaningless. If there's one reason I could understand people saying they liked this movie, then the special effects work. But that's no different than plenty of films coming out these days. Transformers had fabulous special effects for crying out loud.

Wait a second, Griphook's accent changed. He sounds like an American. I don't like him anymore.

They did a great job bringing the scene in Lestrange's vault to life. Trinkets popping up everywhere is pretty cool.

Okay so the trio has escaped the vault and are riding the dragon and this dialogue ensues:
Harry--"We're dropping"
Ron--"I say we jump!"
Hermione--"When?!?!?"
Harry--"Now!"
And that's the end of that scene. Why??

Everyone's stripping and arguing. Radcliffe and Grint had their shirts off in about 20 seconds. Watson starts unbuttoning her overgarment and every fanboy in the theaters on opening day and during viewings since popped a stiffy. Alas, she throws a blanket over herself. Sorry, it's PG-13 flick boys.

Voldy is not happy. Griphook is dead at Gringotts.

Flashforward to Hogsmeade! Aberforth Dumbledore lets the three main characters in and proceeds to be a huge douche. Enough douchebaggery from Abe to convince me that there's no way he would ever let anyone in anywhere. I remember Aberforth disliking Albus, but not being a dick to everyone else he came across. "That's a boy's answer!" Shut up, dude.

Ariana Dumbledore walks walks away from her painting and comes back with...NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM! After a very rough 20 minutes, we just might get back on track. My favorite character from the movie, memory tells me. He's talking smack about getting Cruciatus Cursed and giving the Carrows what-for. I'm all-in again.

"Lightning has struck"--code for Lupin that HP is back in the saddle.

Luna Lovegood knows what the Ravenclaw horcrux is! LUNA! LUNA!

I just remembered the biggest reason I hate these movies from 5-ish on. Ginny Weasley hits the screen for the first time. Here's the exchange:
Ginny: "Harry."
Harry: "Hi"
Ron: wisecrack about not being appreciated as a brother.
Remember when Bruce Wayne's love interest Rachel transformed between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight"? That wasn't just makeup. They chose to use a different actress! And nobody cared! Why Why Why didn't the HP directors/producers/casting people do the same thing. Or was it the writers who just killed Ginny? HOW DID SHE GO FROM SOMEONE EVERYBODY WANTED TO HOOK UP WITH IN THE BOOKS TO ANN MULLANY IN THE MOVIES?

Okay, Severus Snape addressing the assembly. Alan Rickman continues to be the rock of this series, as he has been since movie uno. "Anyone found to have knowledge of these events...will be treated as equ...qually guilty." Too good!

Harry Potter shows himself to Snape! And here comes the Order of the Phoenix! And his main move is to rag on Snape's security and then tell the man everyone believes to be the villain that he is in fact the villain. That was weak HP.

Thank God McGonagall stepped in. Harry was about to get worked. Go Minerva.

Here comes Voldemort speaking in everyone's mind. Ralph Fiennes: pretty underrated as the Dark Lord.

Ginny steps in front of HP (looking pitiful) as Pansy Parkinson sells him out! YEAH GINNY!...and then Finch comes in as some sort of comedic relief? COME ON. This is supposed to be dead serious right now. Natural comedy would have been fine, but we get a cheap laugh of Minny McGonagall calling Filch a "blithering idiot." Sigh.

Maggie Smith (McGonagall) is another great actor in this series. We didn't know her in America before HP, but she's excellent. Why don't we have more awesome old American actors? This brings up an even bigger point though. How did these movies mostly suck with all the acting talent they employed? Usually acting can cover up mistakes, but in HP it only seems to make them glare brighter.

The shields are up around Hogwarts, so HP presumably has time to make his move.

L-U-N-A L-O-V-E-G-O-O-D. DROP. SOME. KNOWLEDGE. Talk to a dead girl. AKA the grey lady. AKA Helena Ravenclaw. AKA Rowena's daughter. But GL knows what Harry is here about. She won't help. But HP wants to destroy it! That got her attention.

Voldemort: "They never learn. such a pity."
rando follower "my lord, shouldn't we wait?"
Voldemort: (thinking) "who is this guy?." (speaking) "Begin."
Other than rando Death Eater, pretty great scene.

Back to HP and Grey Lady:
Lets talk about Tom Riddle. Grey Lady gets unreasonably angry at HP for saying a name, and about things that Tom Riddle did, nothing HP did. Strange reaction. But she drops a line about the Room of Requirement to close. HP is on the trail.

Kingsley Shacklebolt is being as badass as ever, but he still feels like he might need a couple wands to hold off the Death Eater onslaught.
OBLIGATORY SCENE WITH THE WEASLEY TWINS EXCHANGING SIX WORDS:
"You alright Freddy?"
"Yeah"
"Me too"
Glad we got that in.

Ohhhhhh! It's a flaw in the movie that I can't blame on filmmakers. This one's on Rowling. Ron Weasley is the first wizard in history to be able to imitate Parseltongue! And we're in the Chamber of Secrets.

Hermione with the Horcrux Kill!...followed by some random magic happening to the water that doesn't really make sense. Followed by Ron and Hermione...sucking face! Hell yeah Ronnie! Who cares about the rest of the horcruxes! You've got that bitty on lockdown in the Chamber of Secrets. Ralph Fiennes won't care. (I'm pretty sure the entire theater was applauding when I first saw this scene, which is ridiculous)

Longbottom not looking so tough as the Hogwarts defensive shields have been broken. I still love you Neville, as you blow up a bridge and re-up your awesomeness. Oh my! Ginny showed some emotion as Neville jumped to save himself. Haven't seen any of that when HP has been involved. What gives, Gin-Gin?

Hogwarts knights doing battle with trolls. Not going well for the knights, but they've got the numbers. WHOA! Awesome spell from the Hogwarts side casting a dude back out the window from whence he came.

"Never better! I feel like I could...spit fire! You haven't seen Luna have ya? I'm hot for her! Think it's about time I told her since we'll probably both be dead by dawn!"
This golden line from Neville Longbottom is followed by yet another embarrassing scene between HP and Ginny. They kiss, and let's just be polite and say it didn't exactly give the "Princess Bride" a run for its money.

Into the Room of Requirement HP goes, with Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Ron and Hermione in tow. It's gonna get hairy. Right. Goyle shooting off Avada Kedavras all of a sudden. Who knew he had it in him? All things considered, though, cool scene in the Room of Requirement. Great effects. Here's the problem with it though: This scene, like most of the other great ones so far, are not important ones. Sure, a horcrux goes down, but we're far enough along that this is a meaningless horcrux. We still need teh snake and to figure out where the final crux is. Most of the key scenes are completely blown (see: HP 6, Dumbledore dying, and a few to come, if memory serves).

Holy cow, Voldemort just killed random Death Eater. Couldn't say for sure based on a couple rewinds, but it looked like the same dude as before, which makes his inclusion earlier more worthwhile.

The British pronunciation Loo-see-us is way cooler than our Loo-shus.

A troll just hit a bell the trio were inside and they aren't dazed at all. They've also killed three death eaters while running across the grounds. Hell yeah.

Rickman and Fiennes. Elder Wand. Severus, you killed Dumbledore. Oops.

I remember this being the one scene I loved the first time I saw the movie. Harry is grabbing Snape's tear-memories. Don't let me down on second viewing pensieve!

A Weasley twin has died. It's been long enough since I read the book that I can't remember which one. Same goes for Lupin and Tonks. Glad we spent five minutes talking to Helena Ravenclaw and five more showing what the Lost & Found version of the Room of Requirement looks like so that we could glaze over the deaths of three key characters with a quick Mrs. Weasley sob. Well done.

Into the pensieve. And, uh, incredibly effective once again. I had tingles. Rickman shines as the younger, heartbroken versions of himself. And geez, they spend FOREVER on this scene. But it was worth it! It is enthralling.

Sensual moment with the snitch, and HP is speaking with his dead elders. I still can't believe Gary Oldman was Sirius Black. That guy is unreal. Lily Potter is almost as bad as Ginny Weasley though.

"AVADA KEDAVRA!" in the forbidden forest.

Harry in limbo, or whatever, is a pretty casual dresser. Dumbledore is looking snazzy in a white robe, and HP's rocking a grey tee and jeans. This was a part I don't remember being crazy about when reading it either. Maybe I didn't full understand, but it just struck me as a weak deus ex machina of "old magic" that Rowling needed to conclude the story.

Gotta love/hate the Malfoys. They suck, but all they care about is themselves, so Mama Malfoy ends up being a key reason for Hogwarts' eventual triumph.

Longbottom is walking among rubble on one leg with a pint of blood having dripped out his ear, and still looking ready to brawl. That dude is awesome.

Ugh. Ginny with more lines. "No. Nooooo!" Good grief, get her out of this film. I can't take it anymore. All I can think of is the kids in Lord of the Flies killing Piggy. I would roll a boulder on Ginny in a heartbeat. (Couldn't find a clip from the original black and white film. This is some 1990 remake, but it gets the visual across I guess. Point is, everybody hated Piggy, just like everyone should hate this Ginny).

Longbottom stepping forward, talking smack to Voldemort. Suck it. Seriously. It was Fred Weasley who died by the way. Neville told me. Another reason that dude rules.

HP just came back from the dead and Death Eaters are freaking out. Malfoys didn't fly off like others, but you better believe that crew is done fighting. They just want to be elitist. Is that too much to ask?

HP and Voldemort have gotten separated from everyone else in the entire castle. There are at least a couple hundred other wizards fighting in an already decimated castle, but they're alone.

YES! MY FAVORITE SCENE! Bellatrix Lestrange casts a spell at Ginny Weasley and cackles. Meanwhile, despite the massive battle going on, three Weasleys aren't fighting and turn to see what's going on. Mrs. Weasley steps up and says "Not my daughter, you bitch!" (I'm certain the theater went bonkers for that line when I saw the movie)
Bellatrix keeps laughing and casts three spells, which Molly blocks. She then cackles again, as if she's won the battle. Then Molly Weasley casts several spells of her own, which Bellatrix blocks until for some reason she can't block the final one, and she is killed. (the theater standing ovationed that part).

And this brings me to another major problem: the battle scenes are pitiful. How could they fail? They had Saving Private Ryan (1998), Black Hawk Down (2001), We Were Soldiers (2002), Transformers (2007), The Expendables (2010) and countless other action flicks to base a battle scene on. Somehow, all those movies with riveting action sequences didn't translate to wizardry and spell-casting. Really? One witch/wizard casting 2-6 spells followed by the other casting 2-6 spells was the best they could do? Give me a break.

Harry and Voldemort talking about the Elder Wand, and this line happens:
"What if the wand never belonged to Snape? What if its allegiance was always to someone else? Come on Tom, let's finish this how we started. (Harry hugs Voldemort and jumps off castle) Together!"
Wait...What?

LANCELOT! I mean LONGBOTTOM! Neville just cut Nagini's head off. That was so epic, that despite not happening in the same quadrant of Hogwarts, HP and Voldy stopped casting at each other. They started again though. And now, Harry's expelliarmus has turned Voldemort into an anthrax-like agent travelling through the air. I think we're supposed to think this battle is over, but specks of Voldemort floating around like asbestos aren't making me feel any more comfortable.

Longbottom and Lovegood. Just sitting and loving. No words needed.

The trio holding hands on a bridge outside Hogwarts. I feel so good right now. Other than the fact that no co-ed friends have ever done that.

19 years later. I won't comment on this scene much, other than Bob Saget attempting an english accent would have been more convincing that making Daniel Radcliffe look like he could have an 11-year-old. The funny part? Ginny's actress looks the most convincing as a parent. Maybe that's because she's like a frigid, awful old person.

THE VERDICT
I'll admit it, my disappointment isn't as high as it was after the first time I watched this film. But the beer was totally worn off by the end, and that was unfortunate. The first half of the movie is way better than the second, and the glaring errors still exist. Everyone has their taste in movies and will enjoy things at a different level, but even when we like movies that aren't great, we acknowledge that they are more enjoyable for their tongue-in-cheekiness (think Pirahna 3D or Black Dynamite) or how ridiculous the premises are (The Rundown, Drive Angry and Fast Five are three good examples). It's fine if people enjoyed HP7.2, but not because they believe it was a brilliantly made film. It's not. How reviews like this exist will continue to mystify me. This movie is certainly sensational, but dramatically satisfying and terrifically exciting? Please.

HP7.2 will be linked to film history forever because it is the conclusion to the most successful franchise ever. But that's just it. None of these movies, least of all the final one, ever had a chance to fail. The excitement leading up to them was at such a fever pitch that it was impossible for them to be seen as poor.

All in all, poor's a better adjective than satisfying to describe Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

A Game 3 Reaction

There have been three great games of basketball played in the NBA Finals. The best part? No one has any idea what's going to happen in game four, let alone games four through seven.

We live in the age of hyperbole and overreaction. It's the only way to get ratings. When Oklahoma City came back in game one, it was because the Thunder were truly the better team, and were going to win this championship without a doubt. Nevermind the fact that Miami dominated early and got lazy offensively late. After game two, the narrative focused on OKC's inability to start quickly and Russell Westbrook's responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened to pro basketball in Oklahoma. Nevermind the fact that Miami dominated game two from the tip until about three minutes left, and OKC was within a foul call of forcing Miami to hit a game-winner.

So what's the takeaway from game 3? Hopefully nothing, because both teams gave a good effort throughout, even if the finish wasn't pretty. The Thunder stuck with Miami in the first quarter, and everybody looked correct in saying that was all they needed to do when OKC took a big lead in the third quarter...until the Heat came back and took the lead. Kevin Durant finally came back to earth in the fourth quarter, and James was probably a bit better than him. The heat played its worst quarter with turnovers in the fourth, but the Thunder didn't hit the shots to reclaim the lead.

You know what? Sometimes OKC just isn't going to hit everything in the fourth. Sometimes Durant is going to struggle, just like every other player in the history of every sport ever.

What's going to happen for the rest of this series? Nobody knows. Don't listen to Michael Wilbon saying the Thunder appear to be unraveling. that Don't listen to Stephen A. Smith when he says Scott Brooks blew it by not having "Serge Ibaka, the NBA's leading shot blocka, one of the most dominant rim-protectas we've seen in years," in the game at the end. Don't listen to Skip Bayless when he says whatever he says (that goes for all days, not just following game three of the NBA Finals). It was one game. Both teams were good in the fourth on defense, but neither team was good in the fourth on offense. The NBA is the only league in which great offense seems to beat great defense out. Game four will be different in every way.

So what's on the docket for game four? Hopefully something close and entertaining like game three.

Who will win the NBA Finals?

Through perhaps more twists and turns than expected, we got the NBA Finals most of us were expecting (and looking forward to). So which team is going to win?

Based on the conference Finals, the answer looks like the Thunder, without much issue. In games three through six against San Antonio, OKC asserted itself as the dominant team. In game three, the Spurs gave up early, conserving their energy for a more winnable contest. In games four, five and six though, OKC got San Antonio's best. Even with a fabulous first quarter in the decisive game, the Spurs couldn't hold off a more talented and physically superior Thunder team. And the crazy thing was, it felt a bit inevitable.

On the other hand, Miami is a much better defensive team than San Antonio. And Kevin Durant's virtuoso fourth quarter in game four of the Western Conference Finals was only outdone by Lebron James's entire-game (okay, 3.5 quarters and then he came out) performance in Boston for game six. And with Chris Bosh back, the Heat look like a team that is going to elevate its game to another level this postseason.

Here's the thing about the Thunder: their offense isn't very good. It consists entirely of jump-shooting, and often times those jump-shots come off all individual plays by Durant, Russell Westbrook or James Harden (although the Thunder showcased a much greater penchant for sharing the ball in the final two games of the West Finals). Typically, one of those guys is struggling a bit. But that doesn't matter much. When two of them are shooting well, the Thunder are extremely difficult to beat, because that jump-shooting, individually based offense works (works out). So an opponents best shot at defeating OKC comes when two players are having an off night. This is something that is guaranteed to happen sometimes. But four out of seven games? Not likely. And even if you do get four off games from two players, its not exactly a guaranteed win (see: game 4, Western Conference Finals).

Here's the thing about the Heat: if there is a team equipped to effectively defend the Thunder, it's them. Lebron James is the perfect body size and has enough quickness to guard Kevin Durant when it matters most. Dwyane Wade is just enough of a slimeball (and still has that quickness and athleticism) to veteranly (just now made that up) piss Westbrook off. Put Shane Battier on Harden, and you've got to be feeling pretty good about your ability to at least force the Thunder into more difficult shots at the end of a game (which granted, will all go in some games). Combine that with Chris Bosh pulling Serge Ibaka away from the basket more than anyone in San Antonio did, and the offensive end is opened up a bit more.

The problem with all this, of course, is that even a 45, 15 and 5 from Lebron will not be enough to put the Thunder away. When that happened in game six in Boston, the Celtics didn't know how to respond. They stuck around for as long as they could, but it quickly became clear that Lebron wasn't slowing down, no matter what they did to try and stop him. The Thunder may not be able to stop him if he goes off, but they will have the appropriate response: they won't care. Tony Parker scored 21 points in the first quarter against OKC in game 6, and the Thunder just shrugged it off. They kept playing, started scoring at a better clip, and eventually overwhelmed the Spurs. Miami isn't as likely to slow down as the Spurs were, but there was no team withstanding the onslaught the Thunder performance in the second half of game six.

Perhaps due to their youth, the Thunder just don't really know when to give up. Whereas many teams in the NBA (and other sports) decide to throw in the towel when they are getting stomped in order to conserve energy for the next game, the Thunder just don't have that mentality. And due to their prodigious talent level, it often ends up with them coming back and at least making the game close, even if it's not a win. In that way, they are very much the Rafael Nadal of basketball. (I was going to link to one shot in that video, but 95% of them represent the point I was trying to communicate. Rafa running himself ragged to chase down a ball that every other player I can think of would have given up on).

So unless Dwyane Wade gets himself going and plays much better than in the Boston series, I don't think Miami has the firepower to deal with OKC's combination of firepower and extreme amounts of will. That, plus the Thunder haven't lost at home yet, and they have the home court advantage.

Miami goes down to the team that wants it way more again, 4-2.

The French Open Semifinals

Tomorrow morning (this morning for the eastern time zoners) the men's French Open semifinals will be played. The three best players in the world and another great clay court player in David Ferrer will be participating. And included in this games will be some of the most mixed emotions I can recall having about a sporting event.

I don't know what I want to happen. That's not true. I know that I want Roger Federer to beat Rafael Nadal in the finals of the tournament. It just doesn't seem like that's a possibility. Federer is basically incapable of beating Nadal period, let alone on the clay at Roland Garros. So for the two of them to meet in the finals would almost certainly spell disaster for Fed. There are four options that remain in this French Open: Federer wins a record 17th Grand Slam, Nadal wins a record seventh French Open, Djokovic wins his fourth straight major or Ferrer wins his first. The latter is extremely unlikely. The first of those is not much more likely.

At stake is the legacy of Federer. If he were to win, it would give him the most championships ever. If he were beat Nadal and win, it would cement him as the greatest player ever, so far ahead of everyone else as to be in a Michael Jordan-esque position at the top of his sport. If he were to lose to Djokovic, the prevailing discussion would continue to be about Federer's age. If he were to lose to Nadal, then the doubt about Federer's all-time greatness would continue to creep up. Is Nadal really better than he is? With yet another win, the conversation would keep coming up.

I'm terrified of that final scenario. I love Roger Federer's game more than any other tennis player. Since Rafael Nadal is the biggest threat to Federer's legacy, I dislike him more than I should. I don't want him to succeed.

So is a Djokovic win over Federer more preferable? Since Djokovic seems to have Nadal's number, that might be better for the Finals. Or maybe a reminder that Federer still has it against the best in the world (he beat Djokovic in this same spot last year, followed by a loss to Nadal) would be better. A second French Open title for Fed somehow seems empty if he takes it by beating Ferrer in the final (even though he would have to beat Djoker to get there).

I have no idea what's going to happen in the morning. I guess the good news is I don't know what's worth rooting for. Maybe that'll mean I'll just be able to watch and enjoy some tennis.

End Times in Miami?

So it's been quite a while since my last post and my excuse is that I've been very busy. In the past month I've moved from Ohio to Colorado and started a new job with the Craig Daily Press. For all my Eastern Time Zone readers, that means the posts are going to be coming across the horn later at night. Apologies for that. But with internet newly installed in my apartment, I'm ready to get back to doing some serious posting. It just so happens that I'm coming back during a particularly interesting time in sports.

There will be tennis posts to come. The Euro Soccer Championships will be thrilling, but they can wait. The New York Mets are enjoying success I could not have imagined at this point in the year, but it's still early in baseball. There has been an inordinate amount of news coming out of the Atlantic 10 this summer, and we'll get there soon enough. But I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that my interests match up with those of ESPN; that is to say, I want to talk about the Miami Heat.

If you have an excellent memory, you'll recall that I wrote about the Heat in one of my most recent posts. I talked about not being worried about the Heat, because they're just too talented to lose to most of the teams in the NBA when the games really matter. I continued to feel that way when the Indiana Pacers took a 2-1 lead on the Heat, and Miami won the next three games. I still didn't worry when the Celtics came back to tie the Eastern Conference Finals 2-2. Even Bosh-less, the Heat have way more talent than Boston. But now, there is nothing but worry for the Heat, because they are a game down and have to win in Boston to stay alive. Not impossible, but not feeling likely right now.

So how did this happen? How did Miami go from overwhelming favorite to the brink? Was it because we (I) overestimated them? I don't think so. They are the same team as last year (probably a bit better), the loss of Bosh notwithstanding. While I've battled the "inability to close" idea that ESPN and others have propagated since last season, it keeps coming true. But I think the term "close" is the wrong one. No one can close a game better than the Miami Heat when they have an eight point lead. They play loose and are unstoppable on offense, like normal. As a result, teams can't get any closer down the stretch.

But when Miami is in a two or three-point game, or losing by a few, the offense just doesn't seem to flow as freely. Dwyane Wade and Lebron James' drives to the basket don't even seem as smooth. They play a forced, rough style of basketball. During a normal part of any game, the layups are beautiful, inventive and always seem to drop. At the end of a close one, though, something is missing (couldn't find a video of Garnett blocking James down the stretch of game 5, but that's a good example. Just a basic, straight-line drive to the basket. That's not going to work in the NBA most times.) And it's not just better defense.

This is very interesting, because Wade and James have proven many times in the past that they are capable. Lebron James is the same guy that went for 47 against the eventual champion Boston Celtics in game 7, and single-handedly beat the Detroit Pistons in two overtimes in 2007. But in years past, he hasn't been there. He is still as dominant as ever, but isn't dominating at the right time, or at least not dominating enough to make that "right time" not matter.

Will that come back? Game 6 in Boston would be a good place to start.

Landing Jordan Sibert

The rumors have finally been confirmed that Jordan Sibert will transfer to UD from Ohio State this season, and play two seasons with the Flyers starting in 2013. The prevailing thought after Sibert had announced he would transfer was that Dayton had an excellent shot at getting him, but the fact that it came true is no less big a deal just because we were pretty sure it would.

Sibert represents the type of physically imposing and gifted guard that Dayton has not had in years. At 6-4, he'll have the size to play above many of the guards in the Atlantic 10, and his athleticism will be a game-changer, too. Dayton has had 6-4 shooting guards in the past; that's where Paul Williams was listed. But Sibert should be expected to be significantly more aggressive going to the basket and as a finisher; PW never really had that in his arsenal. Marcus Johnson was an amazing athlete and a great defender, but only really against smaller players. MJ is listed at 6-3 at DaytonFlyers.com, but that is probably giving him an extra inch. Not to mention Marcus really struggled with his jump shot later in his career. With Sibert, UD will supposedly have a guard who can do all of those things--shoot the three, slash to the basket and have some nice size to create mismatches. Of course, Chris Wright was supposed to be the same thing at the small forward/power forward position, and that only worked out every once in awhile. But I'm going to err on the side of positivity here. Anytime a guy who was the No. 37 rated recruit in the country coming out of high school is coming to your school, you've got to be excited about it.

The interesting thing here is that Sibert will not get a chance to play with most of the guys who are going to be a factor on this year's team. He would figure to be a major player in year four of the "crazy amounts of changes" era of UD basketball. After losing seven seniors following the 2009-10 season, Dayton lost two more to graduation, two to transferring and its coach after '10-11. Now after the most recent season, Dayton lost three more seniors (plus Ralph Hill to transfer), and will have four new additions to the team; two transfers who are now eligible, and two incoming freshmen. Those four will all be around for Sibert's first year of playing in Dayton. But Kevin Dillard, Josh Benson and Matt Kavanaugh will not. The only guy who might still be around who figures to play a decent role on this year's team is Devin Oliver (I use might because if the freshmen or Matt Derenbecker play well, they just might take Devin's spot, and he might decide to transfer).

So what kind of impact will Sibert have at UD? Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine him having a huge one, given the volatility of the time he's coming to the program. Guys who would be committing over the next year notwithstanding, Sibert would be playing his first year alongside Oliver, Derenbecker, Vee Sanford, Khari Price, Jalen Robinson, Devon Scott and Alex Gavrilovic. Is it just me, or does that seem a really rag-tag group of players? It is a necessary evil for Archie Miller and crew to make the best of its situation, but I hope they start invest a lot more time recruiting and less looking for transfers in the next couple years. Sometimes, a transfer can be an awesome addition to a team, and provide a spark (see Rob Lowery's first year with UD). But in the grand scheme of things, getting just two years out of a player is a difficult way to build a program (unless of course you're operating with the recruiting abilities of John Calipari). Having Jordan Sibert come to Dayton is a great thing, and it should provide the program with even more talent. If a couple other players pan out, UD might be very good again much quicker than we imagined. But while this is a great pick-up for UD in the short term, it's time for Miller to start looking long term, big-picture. Three freshman coming in next year is not bad, but that needs to keep happening. Having four year players that are there from the beginning is how to build a foundation for a good program. Rob Lowery provided an awesome spark, especially in his junior year, to the Dayton offense, but he was never a pillar of that team in the way that Chris Wright, Marcus Johnson or even Kurt Huelsman were.

Pat Summitt continues to set the standard

With her announcement of stepping down as Tennessee's head women's basketball coach, Pat Summitt has shown once again just how much better she is than everybody else doing this coaching thing.

You know most of the story. 16 SEC regular season and tournament championships. 18 Final Fours. 1,098 wins. Tennessee never missed an NCAA Tournament during her 38 years at the helm, a feat that absolutely boggles the mind. But by stepping down due to her battle with early-onset Alzheimer, Summitt showed she knew when her time had come, a characteristic not displayed by many athletes or coaches these days.

There was Michael Jordan coming back to play for the Washington Wizards when he shouldn't have been, and Brett Favre ruining his relationship with Green Bay before heading to the New York Jets and Minnesota Vikings. Even then, Favre stuck around until scandals surrounding his penis did more to force him out of football. In college football, both Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno hung on to their jobs at the helm for way too long, the latter ending in disastrous circumstances. Bobby Petrino hadn't been at Arkansas for long, but he was revered by the Razorback faithful. Now, he's out of a job because he too let his ego and perceived importance get the best of him.

Not Summitt, though. Somehow (sarcasm), she managed to avoid the inflated sense of self that has ruined so many other sports personalities. She knew earlier this season that this would have to be her last, but where she differed from so many others was that she followed through on that. Sure, Summitt will still be the "Coach Emeritus" (whatever that means) at Tennessee, but she's done with the profession. She'll still be there so Tennessee can recruit competitively, but Summitt knows it's time to hang up the proverbial whistle.

Always good to know that there are still some decent, smart people in the sporting world.

Why I'm not worried about the Heat, even a little bit

I couldn't find much to write about in the past week and change. But with the NBA playoffs coming up soon, there has been an interesting development in the league that is quickly becoming the biggest headline: the Heat are losing games, they can't keep pace with Chicago. Can they pull it together and win a championship? Wait...that's been the headline of the NBA for the past two seasons.

In this most recent addition of "The Heat can't cut it", the Heat have gone 3-4 while trying to make a push for the Eastern Conference's top seed. Of greater note is the fact that three of those four losses came to the Boston Celtics (twice) and the Chicago Bulls. The fact that as the season winds down, and the Heat are unable to beat other playoff teams from the East gives some people concern (or fills them with glee). Bill Simmons even took the time to write a column about how his beloved Celtics are back, and that they could mess with the Heat in a playoff series if they stay healthy. Sorry, not gonna happen. Because while I'm no expert on the NBA, I watch enough to know that the regular season is mostly meaningless.

In the NBA's regular season, getting into decent position in the playoffs is the only concern. It is a rarity to have a game in which both teams really play hard on a given night in the NBA. Take this BS Report podcast with Steve Nash, who talks about in a normal NBA season, having "scheduling losses", losses that a team basically just surrenders due to the grind of its schedule at that time. Yeah, sometimes in the NBA teams don't really show up. When they do, it's fantastic. That is why the playoffs are so entertaining. Because teams and players are giving it everything they've got in the playoffs. That's also why the regular season can't really be used to evaluate a playoff bracket.

Take Lebron James' first team for example. In the two years before James left for Miami, the Cleveland Cavaliers had the best record in the NBA and lost in the playoffs. In 2009, the Cavs were an unbelievable 66-16 in the regular season, but were dispatched pretty easily by the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals. If not for a buzzer-beater by James in game 2, that would have been five game series. A 66-16 team was manhandled. Orlando, despite its inferior regular season record, was the better team. In the next year, everyone knows what happened. Cleveland went down to the Boston Celtics in six games, and Lebron "quit" in game 5. (This is an argument for another time, but I watched the game, and just don't agree that he had already quit on the Cavs. Look at his game 6 stats for at least some evidence). Whether or not James had given up, what always seems to be lost in that story is that clearly, the Celtics were a much better team than they were given credit for during the regular season. Everyone thought the C's beating the Cavs was an incredible upset, but then the Celtics beat the Magic easily, and almost won the Championship over the Lakers. It seems obvious to me that the Celtics flipped a switch in the playoffs and started playing real basketball. They just wanted to get into position, and when that happened, with all their veterans, become the team they knew they were capable of being.

So what was it about those Cavs that made them so good in the regular season but unable to get over the hump in the playoffs? The answer is simple: they played hard every night in the regular season. Players like Anderson Varejao hustled like crazy every night and were awarded as All-Stars in the regular season. But the playoffs started, and the Varejaos of the world start going against guys who are more athletically gifted, more talented and now playing just as hard, and things got ugly. (Varejao's career stats: 7.3 points, 7.2 rebounds. His career playoff numbers: 6.0 points, 5.6 rebounds (according to databasebasketball.com). In 2009-10, Varejao averaged 8.6 points and 7.6 rebounds. In the playoffs that year, he went for 5.7 points and 6.5 rebounds. In both cases, he played less minutes per game than during the regular season, but that is just as telling as the decrease in numbers: Varejao couldn't get the job done quite as well anymore).

Now look at last season, in which the Heat were the second seed in the East behind the Bulls. Miami went 0-3 against Chicago in the regular season, and it looked like Chicago had a serious mental edge. But then after losing game one, Miami reeled off four straight wins in relatively easy fashion, burying the Bulls in the fourth quarter each time. The Heat proved it was a better team than Chicago was.

Given the way this NBA season has gone, there's no reason to expect a different result in the playoffs. The Bulls almost exactly the same team as last year: a hard-playing group of most good players that operate around one unbelievable superstar. They have managed to win without Derrick Rose this year, which might be better for the Bulls come playoff time, but it's unlikely. When everybody is playing as hard as Taj Gibson and Joakim Noah are, Chicago looks a whole lot more pedestrian. And when everybody in Miami is playing that hard, the Heat will become a whole new animal, similar to last year.

Hopefully it will still result in a team on a mission from the West dispatching them in the NBA Finals, so the Heat narrative can continue.

We found baseball in a hopeless place

One hundred sixty-two games. It can be easy to forget in the early season excitement of Major League Baseball (which begins tonight, at least in the U.S.), that we've got to last through five and a half months and 162 games just to get to the playoffs. And that means if your team is not very good, after a month-long (maybe) grace period of just being happy to watch baseball, the sport can get pretty old and pretty depressing pretty fast. That's not a good thing, because a few tennis Grand Slams aside, baseball's the only thing going on during the summer months.

This is precisely why I'm concerned about the 2012 MLB season. According to Grantland.com baseball writer Jonah Keri, it would be a surprise if the New York Mets (my favorite team) were to finish anything better than last in the NL East. In ESPN.com writer Jayson Stark's annual preseason prediction of the World Series winner, the Mets qualified as one of the ten teams that have "no shot to be cooking in October." And in a division that possesses expected contenders in the Phillies, Braves and Marlins, let alone the popular sleeper-pick Washington Nationals. It could be a very long season for the Metropolitans. The Amazin's are looking like anything but in 2012.

So how to enjoy a season of baseball in which the team I like will probably be 10 games off the lead within the first 40 games of the season? Fantasy baseball will certainly help. But the key to continuing to enjoy baseball lies in following individual pursuits. Will David Wright, one of the great Mets of my lifetime, finally enjoy a healthy season and return to his original form? Will any of the young players (Ike Davis, Lucas Duda, Ruben Tejada) have a breakout year and be a pleasant surprise in an otherwise dark year? How impressive will Johan Santana be after sitting out last year due to surgery? Outside of the Mets, how about Jose Reyes? Will he continue to be the dominate game-changer he was in 2011, or will he go back to good-but-not-great form after securing himself that massive contract?

With so many players, so many games and so, so, so many numbers, there is always something that can be enjoyed about baseball. Really, where else can we so easily access a hitter's batting average against a certain pitcher when he is facing a 2-1 count? Nowhere else in sports that I'm aware of. Love it. So tune in tonight, tomorrow and over the weekend.

Evaluating the Final Four games on anything but basketball

For the first time since I can't remember, I won't be able to watch the Final Four games tonight. Yes, devastation. Luckily, there is a way of figuring out which teams will meet in the Championship game without even catching a whiff of basketball.

Kentucky vs. Louisville
Mascot
Kentucky's mascot is among the most generic in all of sports, right alongside bulldog; that being said, Louisville's mascot is the Cardinal. The Cardinal is a non-predatory bird, and while it looks cool and is the state bird of Ohio, that's about all it has going. Sorry, Cardy, the Wildcat takes round one.

Roster names
Pretty easy call on this one. Junior guard Twany Beckham aside, UK's roster is a veritable who's-who of average basketball player names. Darius Miller. Terence Jones. Anthony Davis. Sam Malone. Coach Cal is an unbelievable recruiter, but he's got to work on getting his name-game up. On the other hand, Louisville has two guys with the last name Smith on its roster and still manages to be more exciting. Whether its freshman Angel Nunez (anybody named Angel is automatically getting my attention) who doesn't play at all or sophomore Gorgui Dieng (same goes for anybody named Gorgui--or Dieng, for that matter) who starts for the Cardinals, Louisville has cool names on lockdown. The 'Ville has some guy named Stephan Van Treese on its roster. That dude sounds like he should be the son of a Duke, but is disappointingly just from Indianapolis. Still, his name's getting the job done. Even one of Louisville's more boring names, Kyle Kuric, rolls off the tongue nicely due to its alliteration. Cards even things up.

Most Interesting Man test
This test is inspired by the Dos Equis commercials featuring the "Most Interesting Man in the World". Which team has a guy who might speak French in Russian? Or maybe he could have inside jokes with total strangers? Basically, who would I want to hang out with most? And the answer to this one goes to the the resident winner of the name game as well--Gorgui Dieng. While in Louisville last weekend I spent time hanging out with a guy from Tanzania who was friends with the people I was visiting. He was funny, always in a good mood and ready to mix it up with whoever, and told some absolutely fascinating stories. Gorgui may not party quite as hardy as anybody in Lexington, but I'm thinking he'd be way more interesting to listen to between the weekends, telling me stories about his time in Senegal and what he thinks of the States. That definitely sounds better than talking to Anthony Davis about how crazy it was at this one AAU Tournament he played at when he was 15. Edge, Louisville.

Most Interesting Coach test
Same as before, but with the men running the benches for both teams. Unfortunately, I know very little nothing about either team's coaches beyond the leading men, so there are only two candidates I could choose from in this one. And that seems like a pretty easy call. Coach Cal may be deplorable, but is there any doubt he'd be a fun to hang with? It is clear as day from interviews that his players like him, and he's doing something right in order to fill his roster with future NBA-ers year after year. I'm guessing it's got to do with that personality. Coach Pitino on the other hand? Larger than life guy, for sure. Ultra-successful college coach, yes. But he still strikes me as very meh. The only thing I'd want to talk about is what a conversation Ricky probably wouldn't be keen on having.

Who is more worth rooting for?
Well, neither team. It's Kentucky and Louisville. The only way to make this worse would be to replace one of the teams with North Carolina and bring Tyler Hansbrough back to the Tar Heels' roster. But Louisville has several seniors and guys who aren't going to be making money playing professional basketball in the U.S., and other guys who might make the money, but still won't be playing. Set aside the fact that Kentucky is a farm team for the pros and how much that sucks in general. Most of the guys playing on that team will have plenty more shots on glory when they are in the pros. This is just a stop for them. No matter how much they really care about this Championship and no matter what happens over the next three days, the future is bright for them. For Kyle Kuric and Peyton Siva? The future (as far as basketball is concerned) is the next three days. So this has to the to the Cardinals.

For anybody not able to keep track, Louisville pulled off the upset, 3-2. Despite all the indications, opinions and talent to the contrary, here is some hard evidence that the Cardinals have a chance. And hey, even if Louisville does get thrashed tonight, at least Gorgui Dieng will have given it some pride: MVP of this column.

Ohio State vs. Kansas
Mascot
If there is a mascot that Ohio State would actually beat, it is escaping me. Seriously, Ohio State are the Buckeyes. And not even the tree. The seed on the tree that peanut buttery snacks are modeled after. Even if it was the tree, the Buckeye is not an especially impressive angiosperm. Were they the Ohio State Redwoods, then maybe we're talking. But Buckeye? Let alone the fact that Kansas' mascot is a mythical bird. This is not close. Point KU.

Roster names
Mostly boring on both sides. All of Kansas' cool is coming from guys that don't see the floor: Naadir Tharpe, Niko Roberts, Merv Lindsay (Merv!). The Jayhawks do have two guards with decent names in Tyshawn Taylor (once again, on the strength of alliteration) and Elijah Johnson (on the strength of Elijah), but KU has clearly left this one wide open. Ohio State doesn't have much to shout about in the category either, however. It is always a good thing to have a Weatherspoon on the roster, and J.D. Weatherspoon proudly sports the scarlet and grey from the sidelines. So Ohio State has that going for it, which is nice. Throw in LaQuinton Ross and Evan Ravenel, and the name game is going down to the wire. The way I see it, it comes down to Merv Lindsay and Evan Ravenel. And while Merv has the advantage of having a fake first name for a first name and a real first name for a last name, I think only Gorgui Dieng has a shot at beating Evan Ravenel for full-name glory. Kudos to Ravvy's parents for having the guts to name him Evan. That could have gone south quickly with so many e's, a's and v's in such a short span of syllables. But it hasn't. Point Buckeyes.

Most Interesting Man test
Thomas Robinson is an incredible player with an incredible story. He has put his younger sister before himself at all times, and should be commended for that. But in spite of that and in spite of my disdain for him, I don't think there's any choice other than Jared Sullinger for Most Interesting Man in this game. Sully's larger-than-life personality has been on display since his freshman year. It reached a nationwide audience when we saw him singing "Party in the USA" on ESPN, but it is there for all to see in the middle of games as well. Sullinger puts his tongue out and cheers and nods when good things are happening for his team. But this year, the other side of Sullinger was seen much more frequently. He was pouting when things weren't going well. He quit on his team because he allowed things he couldn't control get the better of him a couple times. Right now, however, Sullinger appears to have his swag back in full force. And even though he annoys me to watch on TV, I have no doubt he'd be a blast to be around in person. Buckeyes, 2-1.

Most Interesting Coach test
Thad Matta's name is Thad Matta, and that is awesome. Thad also is kinda cool because he's not like any of the other mega-successful coaches of big programs in the country--Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Bo Ryan, John Calipari, Billy Donovan, Jim Boeheim, etc. All those guys are totally composed in their interviews. Thad doesn't have that polished feel about him. He seems much more genuine in his comments because of that. That being said, he coached at Xavier, which pretty much ends this argument. Bill Self is another one of those boring, polished automatons, but he hasn't been at Xavier. Sorry for that Ocean's 12-esque, buildup and anti-climax, but I needed to write something. Edge, Kansas.

Who is more worth rooting for?
The T-Rob story speaks for itself. That guy is pretty well worth rooting for, as are the other veterans on his team, but Ohio State has some worthiness of its own. The Buckeyes are coming off a year in which they were far and away the best team in the country, but suffered in the Elite Eight due to a poor shooting game. What's more, that loss came at the hands of a freshman-laden Kentucky team. This year's UK team is totally different, but I would imagine the leftover Buckeyes would still love a shot at returning the favor. Jared Sullinger has said he came back this year because of the sting of last year. Whether or not you like Sully (and I don't), that's what college basketball is all about. And Kansas' last national championship came in 2007, while OSU hasn't cut down the Nets since 1960. I'd say that means point, Bucks.

Finaly tally comes to Ohio State 3, Kansas 2. The scientific approach delivered by Ken Pomeroy says it will be Kentucky-Ohio State. The non-scientific but educated consensus from the ESPN pundits says we're getting Kentucky-Kansas. And this non-scientific and not-educated is pimping a Louisville-Ohio State final two. I guess that adds up to a fun night of basketball.

No need for teams in the Hunger Games

I finally got around to seeing the Hunger Games today, and came out the other side thoroughly pleased. An unnecessary District 11 riot aside, the movie was really good. But before getting too into those thoughts, a couple generals ones first.

One thing I haven't had the chance to do much of since going to college is see movies at the theaters. A combination of the fact that for the most part I was content waiting to see movies when they came out on Netflix and the fact that, believe it or not, there is almost always something to do at school that sounds just as fun as going to the cinema, I just haven't been to the actual theaters much lately. But wow, is it fun to go. I love watching movies at anytime, but there is nothing quite like the seats rumbling beneath you when the bass kicks in on the speakers that are playing way too loud while you watch that gigantic screen.

And this brings us back to the Hunger Games, which took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by a movie theater. We walked in during the first trailer, which was for some horror flick called House at the End of the Street. This movie would have blown by pretty quickly, but it happens to star Jennifer Lawrence, and the trailer involved some time with her putzing around in a tank top, which will always work for me. I don't know the last horror movie I watched, but #HATES (as was thrown together at the end of the trailer) just might be the next one. I love Jennifer Lawrence. The rest of them were exciting ones as well: The Avengers, Snow White and the Huntsman (which has a chance to be good, but has one serious flaw: Kristen Stewart is not gonna pass as fairer than Charlize Theron anytime soon), G.I. Joe: Retaliation (starring The Rock!), What to Expect When You're Expecting (looked pretty funny, but then again so do most comedy trailers) and a 30-second teaser bit for the Twilight Breaking Dawn part 2 (more on that later).

Then the movie started. I won't bore anyone with my every thought on the film, but I really enjoyed it. I loved the way the cameras were used in that out-of-control sort of way, especially during the time in District 12. It made the movie feel that much more intimate, which was good for a movie that was based on a first-person narrated book. Speaking of the narration, the Katniss in this movie if probably a better version of the Katniss in the book. While Katty seems like a great gal in the books, she is also prone to infuriating fits of stupidity. She just doesn't make very good decisions and never seems to read people the right way. Not having been a teenage girl in my time, it was at times brutal to read what was going on in Katniss' head, because it just wasn't very smart stuff, coming from an otherwise intelligent individual. But making the movie from a third-perspective was a great move, because all that pent up emotion was left in the capable hands of Lawrence. And I gotta say, Jenny killed it. Her wandering eyes in scenes with Peeta and her scenes with both Primrose and Rue were excellent. I got all the Katniss I needed without getting any of the Katniss I didn't want. And that all involved plenty of Jennifer Lawrence. And any review of this movie should not happen without mentioning that Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz were absolutely perfect as Caesar Flickerman, Effie Trinket and Cinna, respectively. Awesome.

The other big bonus from this film was my major concern coming in. Leading up to the movie, I saw Facebook and Twitter updates about people who had tickets for the movie, and were pumped up about it. At the end of many of these people's updates was the hashtagged phrase #teampeeta. Having read the Hunger Games trilogy, I understood the reference. During the height of the Twilight Saga's reign, there were people proclaiming that they were on #teamedward or #teamjacob, the two young men chiefly involved in Bella's life. Now I have not read the Twilight books, so I don't know if Jacob was actually a love option for Bella or if he was actually worth rooting for in that love triangle, but I assume he was, because many people boasted about their #teamjacob-ness. And that is what upset me. Sure, there are two dudes heavily involved in Katniss' life: Gale and Peeta. She has those confusing teenage-y feelings about both dudes. Of course, the feelings are nonsense, but she has them. But what bothers me is the thought that anyone might proclaim to be a part of #teamgale. Seriously? Gale is hardly even involved in the first book! And in the second and third when he plays a bigger role, he just shows that the disgruntled, moany 18-year-old who can't get over a 16-year-old girl who's a bigger bad-ass than he is. All Gale does is whine about the Capitol and he votes to have a Hunger Games of the Capitol's children (if you've only seen the movie or read the first book, sorry. But this isn't giving much away, you'll get there). How could anyone be on that dude's team?

No thanks, I'll take Peeta, the guy who does nothing but good, says all the right things, has everything awful happen to him in the world but still maintains some sense of himself (a self that is better than everybody else in the supremely f-ed up world Suzanne Collins created). That was my concern. That this movie was going to be portrayed as some Twilight love triangle. That's not what it is. Peeta is always the shockingly better option. Was there really anybody on #teamgale going in? Has anybody who's seen the movie decided to stay on that bandwagon? I hope not.