Don't be quick to judge Kevin Durant

Judging by some comments on websites, message boards and Twitter, way too many people are upset over a one-word answer Kevin Durant gave TMZ. When asked what there is to do in Oklahoma City in the summer, Durant simply said, "Nothing," and walked away. Now, people in OKC are upset and taking that personally.

Don't be quick to judge, everybody. You shouldn't let a one-second soundbite cancel out the three years of dedicated service Kevin Durant has given to the Oklahoma City franchise and community. Get some context first. Durant was out in Los Angeles trying to enjoy himself. Some annoying reporters were bugging him, so he just said something to get them to go away, and they made a story out of it.

One second. That's all it was. Put yourself in that situation. Do you want to stop your night out with your friends to talk to some reporters, especially reporters from a place like TMZ who are just looking for something controversial to put on their website? I doubt it. You see why now. A very brief clip now has a lot of people in the Sooner State way more upset than they should be.

The Rodgers video was way overblown.

I know I've learned my lesson about being quick to judge someone based on a very short clip. Remember during the NFL playoffs when a quick clip of Aaron Rodgers went viral? It appeared that he walked by a cancer patient who wanted his autograph, and the knee-jerk reaction was Rodgers was stuck up. Several people ripped Rodgers for being a jerk. I know I reacted too quickly and thought poorly of Rodgers. I didn't know the whole story. Neither did Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk, who was the most outspoken against Rodgers. Hundreds if not thousands poured on Rodgers without knowing the whole story.

People more sensible than I came to Rodgers' defense and got the true story: Rodgers simply did not see her. Not only that, Rodgers had given the exact same woman an autograph just a few weeks earlier, and he does a lot of community service work in the state of Wisconsin to help cancer patients, especially children. The woman in the infamous video even spoke up and told everyone it was a non-issue, that she still loved Aaron Rodgers.

I was wrong. Mike Florio apologized for his scathing article, and Rodgers' reputation was fully restored after a gross overreaction by several people, myself included. I learned my lesson, a lesson I really should have learned a long time ago: get context first, then judge. The truth is Aaron Rodgers is a great person who gives back to his community and would never intentionally blow off a fan, much less a cancer patient.

A bit of advice for upset fans:  Love this man. OKC needs him.

This brings me back to Durant. I'm not speaking to ALL Thunder fans, just the ones who are upset. Do you folks really want to rip this guy for this brief video without understanding the context of the interview, if you even want to call it an interview? Last week, Thunder fans would have taken a bullet for that guy. It should still be that way. Durant loves Oklahoma City and its fans. Don't you dare change his mind, folks, because he will be a free agent one day. When that day comes, you want his "Decision" to be to stay in OKC and help that franchise win championships. Right now, I honestly believe Durant will be in a Thunder uniform for more than a decade. He gives back to the community. He reaches out to fans by doing things like buying a disposable cell phone and posting the number on Twitter so fans can text him directly. He is committed to helping this franchise grow and win championships. I'm pretty confident that this little spat will blow over and be a non-issue within a week. I think it's just the triple-digit temperatures that have people a little edgy.

Be good to Durant, Thunder fans. Forget the one second you didn't like, and remember the three years you've loved. There are many more great years to come for Durant in OKC as long as fans continue to embrace him like they have. If he decides he's not wanted and takes his talents anywhere else, then Oklahoma City will become a less desirable destination for free agents, much like Cleveland after LeBron James. Then there will be even less to do in Oklahoma City.

Thoughts on MLB Realignment

I'm sure everyone's heard the reports that Major League Baseball is considering realignment. I think it's refreshing that baseball is trying to evolve. Tradition is great, but it helps to listen to your fans and study feedback to make sure you stay ahead of the game. That's why NASCAR continues to grow in popularity. Sometimes baseball has made good decisions (the wild card and interleague play have both boosted attendance), and sometimes maybe not (All-Star game being for home field, but that's a topic for another blog).

Bourn and the Astros may bolt to the American League.

I think having 15 teams in each league makes sense. It balances out the two leagues, meaning the AL West no longer has just four teams and the NL Central no longer has six. Yes, it would mean there would be an interleague game every day, but I don't think that hurts the NFL or NBA. Perhaps the schedule could be arranged so last place teams from the year before are the ones playing interleague games in late September.

One issue people keep talking about is having a "balanced schedule." I think the idea of the schedule being balanced is a bit of an illusion because the strength of a team lies largely on the starting pitcher. Say the Rangers, Athletics, and Angels all play the Mariners 18 times. However, do they all face Felix Hernandez the same number of times? The Mariners with King Felix and the Mariners without King Felix are two different animals. You'll never have a perfectly balanced schedule, so I say you have to be a little flexible there.

Another rumored change is the elimination of divisions. The part of me that fears change is a little uncomfortable with this, but a closer look helps me understand it. Teams like the Tampa Bay Rays and Baltimore Orioles would welcome this. A more balanced schedule in which the Rays and O's play the Yankees and Red Sox a little less and the Royals and Athletics a little more would be a welcome change. That would mean they only have to be top five in the entire American League instead of top two in their own division, which has proven to be quite a challenge over the last decade. So, while I like having divisions and rivalries within those divisions, I might be open to trying one big league for the sake of those teams.

A team that dominates in the regular season should be rewarded.

However, I think there should be a major reward for a team that wins the regular season title if it's one fifteen-team league. Perhaps the overall regular season champion never has to leave its own park? In other words, if the Phillies finish first in the National League, then all seven games in a seven game series would be in Philadelphia. I'd be okay with that. Baseball plays a long, long season. A team that establishes itself as the best over that time frame should get a more significant bonus in the postseason than just one extra game at home.

Regarding the no divisions proposal, the biggest question I would have would be how they work out the schedule without leagues. Do you play every team in your own league six times? Eight? Ten? Part of me still wants to have divisions.

The one advantage to keeping divisions would be the schedule could balance out pretty easily:
- Play the other four teams in your division eighteen times (six three-game sets). That's 72 division games.
- You have three home and three road games against the other ten league teams. That's 60 more games.
- Now, on to interleague play. Two steps here. First, pair up the divisions geographically. AL East plays NL East, Central vs Central, etc. One three game series for each team. This happens every year because it pairs up rivals every season. (Home sites rotate each year. So, one year it's Cubs-White Sox at Wrigley. The next year, it's on the South Side.). So, that means a total of five three-game sets with your rival division. That's 15 games.
- Finally, part two of interleague: rotate with other divisions. One year, NL East also plays the AL Central. Next year, it's the AL West. And go back and forth. Again, one three-game set with each team. That's 15 games.
- 72 + 60 + 15 + 15 = 162 games.

Then at the end, you have three division champions and two wild cards in each league. I think you should reward the top overall seed. As I said earlier about the no division format, a team that establishes itself as the league's best over 162 games should be rewarded in the postseason.

I'm fine with wild card teams, but make their road tougher.

So, my playoff proposal: the two wild card teams meet in a best-of-three series. The winner faces the top overall seed, which never leaves its home park in a best-of-five (in other words, all five games would be at the top seed's park). The other two division champs meet in the same 2-2-1 best-of-five we've come to know. The league championships and World Series remain best-of-seven. The top overall seeds would have to go on the road as they traditionally have in the LCS and World Series. If a wild card upsets the top seed, then it would have home games as the underdog as it normally would under the current format. I just think a top seed should have a decided advantage against a wild card. Maybe that's just me.

That's my proposal. It's pretty close to balanced. It preserves rivalries, and it rewards regular season dominance.

It'll never happen.

Coach-in-Hating

The idea of a coach-in-waiting is a pretty lousy one. The formula for it to work has to be absolutely perfect. Otherwise, it tends to blow up in the athletic director's face.

Exhibit A: West Virginia. What exactly was Oliver Luck thinking?

"Hi, Bill. I can't wait to take over for you." Awkward.

Imagine you're at work, and for the sake of this argument, let's say you love your job and don't want to leave. Your boss comes up to you and says, "Hey, we're going to replace you. This is Dana, he'll be taking over. Wait, though .We still want you to do your job for a year. He'll just assist you until then. Then you'll be out of here, and he'll take over."

Sounds like a formula for disaster to me. What Bill Stewart allegedly did (getting reporters to dig up dirt on Holgorsen) was pretty shady, but I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing. If I thought I was going a good job and some guy I didn't want around was brought in to replace me, I think I'd do anything I could to try to convince my boss in that last year that I was worth keeping around and that he's made a mistake. Obviously, the ultimate high road would have been to go out, hopefully win every game and leave Luck wondering if he'd made a mistake. However, desperate times make men do desperate things. Again, I don't condone it, but I understand.

I get why schools try the "coach-in-waiting" idea. They want some continuity with recruiting, especially when a successful coach retires. However, there are two key elements that a coach-in-waiting situation must have to be successful in my opinion.

Texas had a coach-in-waiting, then didn't.

1. Set a timetable. - The coach-in-waiting needs to know when he's going to take over. Ideally, this should only be a year. Setting an indefinite timetable only creates an atmosphere of impatience. This is where Texas went wrong with Will Muschamp. Sure, he was the coach-in-waiting for a great program. However, how long would he be waiting? Mack Brown never specified when he would retire. Muschamp could have been waiting 10 years before Brown hung it up. Why wait 10 years for Texas when you could have Florida now? In the end, all Texas did was put a target on Muschamp's back that said "this guy is a great coach," and schools around the country all agreed, including Florida. If Muschamp knew for a fact he only had two more years to wait to be the guy at Texas, would he have left? We may never know.

2. The head coach has to agree - This seems obvious, but I guess not to Oliver Luck. If the head coach isn't planning to leave or retire, don't appoint a coach-in-waiting to start pushing him out the door. If you don't want your head coach, fire him. Simple as that. The last thing you want is a head coach constantly at odds with the young coach who can't wait for him to leave so he can take over. That's what West Virginia created with this Stewart/Holgorsen situation.

For this season, the end result will be better for West Virginia. The Mountaineers now have the rest of the summer to let the bitter feelings go away and accept the fact this is Holgorsen's team now. It's a much better option than the team being divided into Team Bill and Team Dana.

I understand that some WVU fans had become disenchanted with the direction of the program. I understand that some fans think WVU sold itself short by giving the job to Stewart in the first place, and I can't say I disagree. The program was in great shape and probably could have gotten a higher profile coach back in 2008. I get that, and I get the idea of bringing in an offensive mind like Holgorsen to take over. However, it doesn't change the fact that Stewart was the head coach, and the coach-in-waiting situation was nothing but awkward. If Luck didn't like Stewart, he should have just fired him, dealt with the backlash, and told people to wait and see how well Holgorsen would do as head coach. Holgorsen may do great things at West Virginia. Hiring him may not have been a mistake. The way it was done certainly was.

The coach-in-waiting idea should simply be reserved for an aging coach who is ready to retire and wants to keep up the continuity of the program. When Joe Paterno decides he only wants to coach one more year (my guess is that will be when he's 100 years old), then Penn State could probably do it successfully. Jim Calhoun could do the same at Connecticut. For most programs, though, just accept the coach you have now as the only one you need. When he or she leaves, then that's the time to find a replacement.

LeBron vs Jordan? Stop it.

Jordan vs LeBron? Not yet please.

I think we've all seen the Bad Teacher trailer by now. It airs four or five times during every NBA Finals game. The scene in which Jason Segel caps off his Jordan vs LeBron debate with the "six championships" argument is great. It really sums up how I feel every time the talking heads want to compare the two. It seems like every time LeBron does something great, it's time to check where he is on the "surpassing Jordan scale." Every time LeBron has a rough game, it's time to say "that's why he's not Jordan."

Stop with this. I hate this desire in the national media that we absolutely have to declare right now whether or not LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan. Why? That is so far down the road, it's impossible to predict. One of my coworkers just had a baby girl. If I were to take the LeBron/Jordan approach with them, I'd be badgering him every day about where she's going to college and what career she'll choose. Let's just worry about that when the time comes.

Best of all-time? How about best in Miami?

Why can't we just enjoy LeBron James for who he is now? He's great! He's exciting, and he has so much potential. Yes, he has potential to be one of the greatest of all-time, but it's still early. When his career is over, we can stack up all the chips and see where he measures up. Maybe he'll have seven championships, multiple MVP's, and handful of scoring titles. Then we might have a fun debate. Then again, he may have only one title, or none (Dallas can still win this series, you know). Where would the argument be then? Let's make sure he's better than Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, and Dominique Wilkins first. Heck, are we all 100% sure he's the best player in Miami? Dwyane Wade did get a ring without LeBron, and maybe I just have my Marquette-colored glasses on, but it seems to me he's been the one closing these games in the playoffs.

I'm not a LeBron hater. I love his game. I like watching him play. I just hate that we have to put him on the Jordan scale every time he steps on the floor. He has a long way to go. A LONG way.

Have these people forgotten how great Jordan was, anyway? The six championships argument is a solid one, but that's not the only reason people consider Jordan the greatest of all time. You know who else has six titles? Scottie Pippen. Robert Horry has seven. Neither one of those guys would even be in the same area code as Jordan when it comes to all-time greats.

Championships aren't everything. Titles are a product of being part of a great team. Certainly, players do become legendary if they are the ones making big plays in title games. Even so, you don't start with the championship argument. You start with consistency in the regular season, what you see every day. The reason we consider Jordan the greatest of all-time really can't be measured in stats. It was about him being the most exciting, dangerous player on the floor every single night. Every... single... night. That's why Jordan was great.

Steve Kerr has five rings. Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dominique Wilkins, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin, Elgin Baylor, and George Gervin combined for exactly zero. Kerr and Horry aren't on their level. Why? Because neither guy was ever the best player on the floor in any NBA game he played. Those other guys were quite often. So, you should use the regular season and day-to-day performance to separate good from great. Once you've separated those groups, then you move on to the discussion of who is an all-time great, who is legendary.

LeBron isn't on Kobe's level yet.
Get there first. Then, talk Jordan.

Jordan became a legend because he capped off his greatness with not one, not three, but six critic-silencing championships. All six of those championships happened largely because of what Jordan did on the road to get there. Even if LeBron were to get six rings, what if Dwyane Wade is the guy making the clutch plays and getting Finals MVP every time? Wouldn't Wade then enter some of that greatest of all time discussion ahead of James? Let's not only wait to see IF LeBron gets six rings, but how he gets six rings.

So, after you separate good from great using day-to-day stuff, use championships to separate great from legendary and legendary from greatest ever. LeBron is great, a sure-fire future Hall of Famer. He's not at the top of the list yet. Let's sit back and enjoy the ride. Because, if all we do is focus on where he'll be at the end, we might not appreciate everything he does along the way. When it's all over, then we can stack up all of his accomplishments against Kobe, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and yes, Michael Jordan. Then, and only then, can a legitimate debate can begin.

The transition to my new blog

I've always enjoyed blogging at work. I like to entertain and express my opinions, mainly about sports but it's fun to rant about other things, too.
Unfortunately, OKBlitz.com is shutting down, so my OKBlitz.com blog is shutting down with it. So, I've decided to take my talents to South B... I mean Blogger. I hope you enjoy.