Fan Fouls

The sports world is big. It takes all types: loud fans, hopeful young kids, stat geeks, eye candy. face painters, the ones who sit alone watching mediocre teams. I'm okay with all of them. I love going to games, and I love the atmosphere and the characters it brings.

Some fans, though, sour my viewing experience. They commit what I like to call fan fouls. It's like a party foul, but at a sporting event. They need to stop.

This isn't a lecture on how to be a fan. It's advice on how to avoid being a bad fan, the type that brings down the experience for your fellow fans. Don't commit fan fouls:

Set a good example. Kids are impressionable, after all.

Watch your language - There are kids at these games. Be respectful. The occasional expression of frustration is forgivable, but long, profanity-laced tirades are not. The players can't hear you. Even if they can, they don't care what you think. Calm down. Drink your beer.

Don't be "In the hole!" guy - You know who I'm talking about. This guy yells "in the hole" after EVERY shot in a golf tournament. It needs to stop. Now.
If you're the type of person who thinks it's hilarious to yell, "Get in the hole!" when a guy tees off on a par five, we probably can't be friends.

No fantasy updates - I'm here watching a real game. I really don't need play by play on "Somewhere Over Dwayne Bowe" vs. "My Vick in a Box." Yes, I have a fantasy team, too. I just don't broadcast the results. Like they said in "Silly Little Game", there is nothing more interesting to a person than his/her fantasy team, but there is nothing less interesting to a person than someone else's fantasy team. Keep it to yourself, bud.

Know your jersey-wearing etiquette - We've been over this before. The CliffsNotes version: stick to current players or legendary players. If your jersey is that of some washed up scrub or a guy who plays for another team now, leave it in your closet.

Know your field/court-storming etiquette - Again, we've been over this before. CliffsNotes version: if you're going to run out there, make sure it's a special occasion. Also, be safe.

Be timely when you leave your seat - Don't get up and climb over people during the game. Asking people to get up so you can go to the restroom is uncomfortable enough, but don't do it while we're trying to watch. Wait for time outs, between innings, changes in possession, etc.

Don't interfere with the game - This is mainly directed at baseball fans, but it happens in other sports, too. Know the rules. You're a fan, not a participant. Stay out of the way. This means don't run out on the field. Although, if you do run out on the field, please get Tased or tackled in spectacular fashion. That, I enjoy... because you deserved it.

Sit down - Unless you're in the student section, stay in your seat. I paid a lot for this seat, and I want to use it. I hate having to stand up because you're in front of me and you're fired up for a third-and-seven in the first quarter. The worst part is that one guy causes a chain reaction. You make me stand up, now I'm making the people behind me stand up, and eventually a thousand people are groaning because they have to stand because of something you started.
Key moments in the game? Sure, that's fine. We can get up and yell for a full count with the bases loaded and two outs. I'll stand up when the home team has the ball, down a point with three seconds left. For the rest of the game, though, sit down.

The "OV-er-RA-ted" chant - It's dumb. Is this team you just beat good or not? Maybe it was kinda funny when I first heard it 20 years ago, which was probably 30 years after it was first chanted. It's old. And if this team truly is overrated, did your team really do anything special?

I'm sure I'm not alone with these pet peeves, and I'm sure there are plenty more that bug others. What bothers you at a game? Add your own.

Defending Notre Dame... Kind of

I'll admit it: I'm a Notre Dame fan. It hasn't been easy the last 20 years, but I am. Being a Catholic kid that moved around a lot growing up, I never adopted any local teams as my own. So, Notre Dame was the natural fit.

There have been some harsh words thrown at Notre Dame,
but a lot of them are true. The Irish just aren't elite anymore.

I did not, however, go to the school. So, my loyalties are not nearly as strong as they are to Marquette, my alma mater. Unlike some Notre Dame fans, I can look at the football team and say when they aren't very good or are overrated. Lately, they've been both... often.

Rick Reilly, though, ruffled a lot of Irish feathers lately with his column blasting Notre Dame football and its privileges. He said Notre Dame hasn't been a factor for 20 years (which is pretty much true), and that all of its special deals should be ripped away or that Notre Dame should do the noble thing and decline them. That part I will defend to an extent.

Reilly takes issue with the fact that Notre Dame gets a $1.3 million BCS bonus no matter what kind of a season it has. Is that really a crime? So, we have no issue with Duke, Indiana, Washington State, Syracuse or any other AQ conference bottom-feeders getting the same amount if not more? Notre Dame has not been a championship level program, but come on. It hasn't been as putrid as some of those programs. Like all of the teams in AQ conferences, Notre Dame has been deemed relevant enough to be in the BCS, so it is entitled to BCS dollars. If you're going to take away Notre Dame's BCS money, take away BCS money from every BCS team that doesn't make a bowl game.

As for the idea that Notre Dame should lose its deal with NBC, don't be ridiculous. Any school that is offered any kind of TV deal is foolish to decline it. I said the same thing about Texas with the Longhorn Network. Does it seem shady? Maybe, but if someone is willing to pay, don't turn it down. You've obviously done something to generate the type of fan base that would make a network be willing to make that kind of investment. Take the cash. If the competition doesn't like it, blame the network for offering, not the school for accepting.

By the way, Mr. Reilly, if NBC canceled its deal with Notre Dame, I can think of one television network that would be first in line to scoop Notre Dame up. Oh yes. ESPN would waste all of ten seconds picking up the phone to offer Notre Dame some kind of deal involving broadcasting all Irish football games as well as its own network. Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Reilly. You might find yourself on a live ESPN Notre Dame special.

Now, to be honest, that's all the defense I have for Notre Dame. The twenty years of mediocrity have rendered all the history that preceded it pretty much meaningless in today's college football world. Recruits today weren't even born when Lou Holtz was coaching the Irish. They have no reason to respect Notre Dame as much as they do USC, LSU, Alabama, or Oklahoma.

Yes, Notre Dame has made three BCS bowl appearances. Whether or not they deserved any of those bids is up for debate since the Irish got blasted in all three games. Meanwhile, programs like Utah, TCU, Boise State, Louisville, and (gulp) Kansas all have BCS wins to brag about. Yikes.

Do today's recruits even know who these guys are?
Heck, do you? Can you name the Four Horsemen?

This is the part Notre Dame fans may not want to hear (and the details of which probably should be saved for another blog): the Irish program will likely never be "elite" again. Sure, it can be good. It can get an NFL player here and there. Michael Floyd was legit. Manti Te'o is legit. There will be others. As far as getting a crop of 7 to 10 NFL players all starting at once like USC, LSU and Alabama do, I don't see Notre Dame ever achieving that again. Its ancient advantages of being on television and being a national power in the 1940's just aren't relevant anymore. Everyone is on TV, and a lot more programs are better built for success. Plus, other schools have warmer weather, prettier girls, and lower academic standards. Yes, those things matter to some of the nation's best recruits. Other schools also have more current NFL players than Notre Dame and more trophies in their trophy case with dates that begin with 20-something instead of 19-something. That matters, too.

Look, hope isn't lost, Irish fans. If Kansas can win a BCS game, Notre Dame can. If Boise State can regularly be in the BCS conversation, Notre Dame can. Notre Dame may one day get that perfect storm of a few playmakers, a big time quarterback, a couple breaks in the schedule, and suddenly find itself in the national championship game. It's just going to take work and patience. Notre Dame can't keep firing coach after coach and pretend that it's going to one day get Nick Saban or Bob Stoops. Irish fans just need to let one coach try to build the program for a while. And yes, I'd be fine if that's Brian Kelly.

The days of Notre Dame getting at least 10 wins every year, however, are long gone and not coming back any time soon.

2012 College Football Games to Watch

Football season is almost here. Like I've said before, I don't suffer from football withdrawals in the spring and summer. When August gets here, however, I'm ready for it. Very soon, I'll start throwing out my questionable picks week to week.

I'm looking forward to college football.
Notre Dame's new uniform? Not so much.

First, though, I want to look ahead to the top ten games I'm anticipating as the season kicks off.

Honorable mention: I WAS looking forward to the Notre Dame vs. Miami game at Soldier Field on October 6. Then I saw the uniforms Notre Dame will be wearing. Oh, the horror.

10. Boise State at Michigan State - August 31
It's a Friday night season opener in East Lansing. It's really the only challenging game on Boise State's schedule. So, if the Broncos pull this off, the BCS-buster countdown may be on as they could very likely run the table with a soft Mountain West schedule.

9. Florida at Texas A&M - September 8
It's really going to be weird seeing SEC powers in College Station, but I suppose we should get used to it. Kyle Field will absolutely be rocking for this one. Will Muschamp knows this location pretty well from his Texas days, but he could really use a good start after an uninspiring first season.

8. Notre Dame vs Navy in Dublin, Ireland - September 1
It's not so much the game as it is the location. I crossed an item off my bucket list this summer by visiting Ireland, and it was pretty amazing. The Irish go to Ireland for the second time in program history (they also played Navy there in 1996). Hotels across the country are booked solid, and the crowd should be pretty awesome. While this obviously isn't Notre Dame's biggest test of the year, I am curious to get a look at the team and see exactly where they are this year. I'm anxious to wake up Saturday morning and hit play on my DVR to see how it went.

7. West Virginia at Texas - October 6

Holgorsen's return to the Big 12 should be interesting.

This isn't West Virginia's Big 12 debut. That comes the previous week at home against Baylor. That doesn't excite me nearly as much as Dana Holgorsen unleashing his offense on the road against a very tough Texas defense in Austin. It's likely that WVU will come into this game unbeaten. Texas is on the road at Ole Miss and Oklahoma State the previous two weeks. So, they may have a blemish or two. The Longhorns will be a great test for the Mountaineers, though, who could make a run at the Big 12 title in their first year.

6. Alabama at Arkansas - September 15
Hate the conference if you want, but this is the first marquee SEC game of the season. Alabama certainly has national title hopes. Arkansas, after a rough offseason that saw them fire Bobby Petrino, still has enough talent to believe it can win the SEC. The Hogs have a great opportunity at home against an Alabama squad that may still be trying to find its identity this early in the season.

5. Oklahoma at TCU - December 1

It's easily the highest-profile game at TCU's renovated stadium, which is looking really good. The place should be packed, and I just hope the game is meaningful. It almost certainly will be for OU, the preseason Big 12 favorite. Will TCU be relevant in the Big 12 race at this point? For the sake of the Frogs' fans and this game, I hope so.

4. Georgia at Missouri - September 8

Dorial Green-Beckham was a huge get for Missouri.
I'm anxious to see him and the Tigers against Georgia.

Yes, it's a conference game, the Tigers' first in the SEC. I'm very curious to see how they do. Plus, I have a family full of Georgia fans. They're all looking forward to this one, too. They are all anticipating a rude welcome for Missouri to the SEC. To be honest, I think I am, too. However, I am also curious to see how good Missouri freshman Dorial Green-Beckham is against an SEC defense. If record-breaking wide receiver leads the Tigers to a win here, his legend begins and the Tigers make a loud statement in their conference debut.

3. Alabama vs Michigan at Cowboys Stadium - September 1
I always appreciate that one marquee non-conference game on the opening weekend. This is the one to watch. How quickly did Alabama restock the cupboard? Is Denard Robinson (who claims to be faster than Usain Bolt) ready for a Heisman campaign? We'll get a solid look at a pair of BCS contenders. Plus, Michigan is wearing TECHFIT jerseys that aren't quite the eyesore that Notre Dame's are.

2. Oregon at USC - November 3
USC is eligible for bowl games and the national title this year. That makes this year's showdown with the Ducks infinitely more important than last year, and last year's game was pretty darn good. This game usually is. There will be a lot of talent on the field, and we should all expect fireworks. A bowl-banned USC crushed Oregon's national title games a year ago. This could be a chance at redemption for Oregon, or it could be USC all but punching its ticket back to the BCS.

1. Alabama at LSU - November 3
Last year, it was the much-hyped game of the year. Then we got the rematch. While some complained about the lack of offense, I was impressed with the defenses. It was clear to me I was watching the two best teams in the country (sorry, Oklahoma State). Will they be as great this year? Maybe. Maybe not. This game should still decide the SEC West champion and possibly a national championship game participant.

For right now, it's pretty clear that November 3 is the date we should all have circled on our calendars. But, I think we all know that as the season goes along, different games and teams will become relevant while some of these listed above may not be. We'll check in again then.

The Strasburg Decision

This is one of those blogs in which, even as I start typing, I'm not 100% sure where I'm going. I'm pretty sure, but I could talk myself in and out of the decision ten times before I decide where I sit.  This much-debated Stephen Strasburg decision is a tough one.

My first look at Strasburg, when he was at
San Diego State. We all knew he was a star then.

I remember seeing Strasburg when he came to Fort Worth for the Mountain West tournament as a much-hyped college pitcher throwing over 100 mph. He was worth the price of admission. You just knew he was going to be a franchise arm for someone.

The Nationals know they have a star, so they are exercising extreme caution with a guy who has already undergone Tommy John surgery. The plan was to shut him down this season after 160 innings. Then something crazy happened: they became World Series contenders a year ahead of schedule. 2012 was supposed to be a step forward, but not like this. Bryce Harper was ready sooner than expected, the pitching staff clicked and the Nationals are slowly pulling away in the NL East.

The Washington Nationals can win the World Series this year. THIS year! Yet, they are committed to shutting down their ace? It's quite a predicament, but the pros and cons are pretty obvious.

Why you shut him down
- It is what the doctors suggested. It's the safe option for an arm that could be worth over $200 million.
- You have him under contract for five more seasons. You want him pitching all five of those seasons. Maybe, if you protect his arm, that will work in your favor when it's time to renegotiate.
- It's less likely, but you could still win the World Series without him, and he comes back on schedule next year.
- In the playoffs, when times get tough, teams are tempted and sometimes forced to start their guys on three days' rest. You absolutely cannot do that with Strasburg, especially after he starts stretching that innings limit.

Why you keep him going
- YOU CAN WIN THE FREAKING WORLD SERIES. You need that ace who can win a playoff game when the other team is starting its ace.
- Tomorrow is never promised. Sure, it looks good for the Nationals for the next five years, but you never know. Players retire, get injured, or unexpectedly stop producing. If you can win now, win now.
- Strasburg says he's fine and wants to keep going
- Those 160 innings are an inexact science. It's not like once he gets to that 161st inning, his arm falls off. You could shut him down at 140, and he could still blow his arm out next year. You just can't predict that.

I'm not a Major League coach. I'm not a doctor. But I've never fully subscribed to the idea of pitch counts and innings as how long you stick with a pitcher. I think they are more like indicators for you to pay closer attention to a guy's command and velocity. It's more about how he feels and how effective he is. Some guys wear down at 90 pitches. Others are just at strong at pitch 120 as they are at pitch 10. I know Nolan Ryan is on board with this. He wants his Texas starters to pitch as long as they can. They've been to back-to-back World Series.

To be fair, though, Texas does have two starters out for the year with arm trouble. Was that because they were overused? You can't prove that one way or the other.

Strasburg will watch the postseason
from the bench. Is that the right call?

If Strasburg says he feels fine, and the doctors say his arm is structurally sound, I say you roll the dice and let him keep going. Like I said, future success is not promised to any franchise. The Nats have a shot at a championship right now. They should go all in.

Is it a risk? Sure. But I suppose pitching him even 1 inning is a risk to some extent.

Ultimately, it's not my arm and it's not my decision. I won't lose a dime based on this. The Nationals, Strasburg and Scott Boras (his agent) all have a lot of cash on the line. While I'm sure Boras is also looking long term for his client's health, the only opinions that matter are in the Nationals' front office. Strasburg will be shut down. I can't say it's a terrible decision, either, despite the fact I lean towards letting him pitch on.

Just get ready, though, if the Nationals are eliminated from the postseason because they don't pitch well enough. There will be a shot of Strasburg (and probably some of his teammates) just fuming in the dugout. And the criticism will begin.

Ten years down the road, though, if Strasburg is still in Washington and he's won multiple Cy Young Awards and led the Nationals to a World Series title or two, then the Nats will have the last laugh. Enjoy waiting that out.

My Favorites from the 2012 Olympics

As the Olympics wrap up, it's time to look back on the athletes that truly made themselves famous from this year's games. We all have our favorites, but here are the athletes I'll remember most and believe we'll hear from a lot between now and Rio in 2016.

10. McKayla Maroney, gymnastics

Maroney's sense of humor has turned a negative into a positive.

The gold that she helped her team win was great, and her individual silver in the vault was nice, albeit disappointing for her. However, her scowl at the medal ceremony made her famous. "McKayla is not impressed" has become an internet sensation. Her great sense of humor about it, however, has made her a big winner.
After first seeing her upset expression, some may have labeled her a poor sport who would just pout over being mocked on the internet. Not even close to the truth. McKayla has embraced and owned her scowl, and I fully expect her to cash in on it. Look for several commercials with her not being impressed with products very soon.

9. Allyson Felix, track
After settling for silver in 2004 and 2008, Felix finally broke through for gold in the 200 meters. At age 26, it was probably her last chance to do so. Throw in a couple of golds in relays, and she is now a highly marketable face in track and field.

8. Destinee Hooker, volleyball
People chuckled at her name, but then they saw her play. She was dominant for Team USA, and she finished as the second-leading scorer in the Olympics. While the silver medal may have been a disappointment for her and her team, Hooker made her mark. The 24-year old is likely to be the face of USA volleyball for at least the next four years.

Pistorius was an amazing story by just showing up in London.

7. Oscar Pistorius, track
He didn't get a medal, but he didn't need to. A double amputee running in the Olympics? What an inspiration. The image of him running in the 400 will last forever. He'll be able to use his now worldwide fame to inspire countless others who have disabilities, and even those who don't.

6. Michael Phelps, swimming
Did he dominate like he did in 2008? No, but no one really expected him to. He did, however, have a more impressive showing than fellow American and rival Ryan Lochte (who wasn't bad. He just wasn't Phelps). By the time the Games were done, Phelps had two more individual gold medals, six medals overall, and he had cemented his legacy as the certainly the greatest swimmer of all time and arguably the greatest Olympian. Rowdy Gaines said it best when he said, "Gosh I'm gonna miss this man." We all are.

5. Gabby Douglas, gymnastics
Gymnasts have so much pressure because most of them only have one shot at a medal. In a sport in which 20 is "old," Douglas capitalized on her opportunity. She now will forever be mentioned with Mary Lou Retton, Carly Patterson, and Nastia Liukin as American all-around gold medalists. She's a winner no matter how she styles her hair.

4. Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh Jennings, beach volleyball

Misty and Kerri cemented their place in Olympic history.

Can you even name another beach volleyball team off the top of your head? Since it became an Olympic sport in 2004, these two have owned it. They've captured gold all three times, and their humble attitudes and great relationships with the fans have made them immensely popular. Misty and Kerri cemented their legacy in this relatively new sport (at least to the Olympics). They will be the standard by which all future teams in the sport are measured.

3. Missy Franklin, swimming
There were a lot of female swimmers to choose from: Dana Vollmer, Rebecca Soni and Allison Schmitt all had great showings. Franklin, however, was a breakout star as a teenager. Relatively unknown a month ago to those who don't follow swimming (so, most of us), Franklin is now a household name. She swam in seven events and came home with four golds (including sweeping the 100 and 200 backstroke golds) and a bronze. She did it at age 17. While it remains unclear if she'll cash in on her fame by turning pro now or swim in college first, it's extremely likely we see her in at least two more Olympics.

The new face of USA soccer.

2. Alex Morgan, women's soccer
Two years ago, it would have seemed impossible that any athlete could have surpassed Hope Solo as the most popular soccer player in America. You could argue that Morgan has done it, and it's not because of her good looks, either. It's also not because Solo has lost any popularity. Morgan's popularity has just skyrocketed.
Anyone who watched the World Cup and these Games knows that she is the spark plug to the USA offense now. If she's not scoring goals herself, she's causing havoc and creating room for others to do so. Her header to defeat Canada (her third in six Olympic matches) was one of the signature moments of the Olympics.
Abby Wambach has been the leader and top goal scorer for a while, but Morgan is now ready to assume the role of leader and star player. By the time the next World Cup rolls around, I fully expect that she'll carry the title of best player in the world, and people may even start comparing her to the legendary Mia Hamm.

1. Usain Bolt, track

Cocky? Sure, but Usain Bolt backs it up. Every time.

While I'd love to put an American at the top of this list, there's no denying that Bolt stole the show. He dominated his sport unlike any other athlete. While Carl Lewis has questions about Jamaican drug testing, right now there is no proof. So, I just sat back and enjoyed Bolt's dominance. He is without question the fastest man in the world. He breaks world records while running half speed the last ten meters. I'm just curious what else he could do. He says he wants to play soccer. Not sure if he'd make Manchester United like he wants, but I'd watch.

There are several other great stories I left out: Nathan Adrian (gold in men's 100 free), Katie Ledecky (gold in 800 free at age 15), and hometown star Jessica Ennis (heptathalon gold) to name a few. It just shows how jam-packed the Olympics are with amazing stories.

I've really enjoyed these Olympics, and now these athletes can go out and capitalize on their new found (or reaffirmed) fame. They've earned it.

All photos courtesy Getty Images.

The Great Dream Team Debate

I'm a little late to the party here (moving from Tulsa to DFW has put my blog on a bit of a hiatus), but the water cooler debate about whether or not this year's USA men's basketball team could beat the storied 1992 Dream Team both intrigues and amuses me.

No team will ever match the greatness of the 1992 Dream Team.

I liked Larry Bird's answer, when he said that they probably could considering he, Jordan, Magic and company are all 20 years older now. (Side note to make you feel old: Anthony Davis is on this year's team and wasn't even born when the Dream Team won gold.)

Bird's comment, though, falls in line with my opinion of the whole thing: we're talking about two different eras, so the argument is full of holes.

Could this year's team beat the 1992 team as they were that year? Actually, yes, they probably could. Bird retired just after the Olympics, and Magic had been away from the game for a year after being diagnosed with HIV. Plus, today's athletes are, generally speaking, in much better shape than athletes from 20 years ago. Training, teaching, and nutrition have all seen a lot of advances since then. So, could they beat that 1992 team one time? Sure, they could.

Are they greater than that team? Not even close.

The greatness of athletes is ultimately determined by how great they are in the eras in which they played. Athletes get bigger and faster and stronger over time, making today's teams in all sports capable of greater feats than athletes from decades ago. That's why track and swimming records fall year after year. Each generation strives to be greater than the previous one, and each generation finds a way to do so through advances in teaching and training.

While Babe Ruth would probably be great against any generation, I doubt he'd have 714 career home runs if we could get a time machine and put him in today's Major League Baseball. He was truly ahead of his time in the 1920's, though. The major league career record for homers at the time was 138, and he blew past that on his way to 714. That's why he is viewed as the greatest slugger of all time.

Athletes change over time. Judge them against their own eras.

The 1972 Dolphins are still the only team to go through an NFL season undefeated. Look at the average size of their offensive and defensive lines, though. The '72 Dolphins, like all teams in those days, averaged about 250 pounds up front on offense and defense. Any team in the NFL today averages well over 300 on the offensive line and has lean, powerful guys approaching 300 pounds or more on defense. Simple logic says those teams would blow the '72 Dolphins off the ball and dominate the game. Does that mean today's teams are greater? Absolutely not. The '72 Dolphins were perfect in their own time, and that is why they are still the gold standard for NFL champions.

The 1992 Dream Team, even with Bird and Johnson past their prime, were far and away more dominant in their own time. They won by an average of 44 points per game, and 11 of the 12 members are in the Hall of Fame. Christian Laettner, a rookie out of Duke at the time, is the lone non-Hall of Famer, but he is in the College Basketball Hall of Fame.

Is this year's team that far ahead of the rest of the world? I don't think so. That's partially because the rest of the world has gained a lot of ground on the United States since 1992. The Dream Team embarrassing the rest of the world served as plenty of motivation for the development of international players. That said, will 11 of these 12 players make the Hall of Fame? It's hard to tell because many are so young, but my best guesses on that right now:

Yes: Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant (I know it's early for him, but he's well on his way)
Maybe/Still work to do: Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams
No: Tyson Chandler, Andre Iguodala
Too soon to tell: Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Anthony Davis

So, while these current guys are more athletic and better conditioned than the 1992 team, in my opinion, the absolute best they could achieve would be 10 out of 12 Hall of Famers.

Despite the generation gap, several of the Dream Team members (Jordan, Ewing, Robinson, Pippen, Malone, Barkley) were in their prime. While I think the current team could get a win, I still think the Dream Team would win a best-of-seven series. But we'll never know, so it will just remain a water cooler debate or something people simulate on video games.

To me, though, there is no question that the greatness of the Dream Team far exceeds the greatness of this team, and that's all that really matters.

Don't be an NBA Wingman

You're all familiar with the concept of a wingman, right? He's the guy who goes with you to the bar to help you hook up with a girl, especially in a situation when said girl has a less-than-desirable friend who needs to be entertained so you can get some alone time with the hottie.

Asking your friend to be a wingman is one thing. Friends will do that. Asking a stranger or a rival to do it, though, has to be awkward and pretty close to impossible. That's what I feel some NBA teams are doing these days: they are finding a third team to be their wingman to help them make a big move.

I can't fathom why a team would want to be the "third team" in a trade that would help a franchise land a superstar like Dwight Howard. I'm just trying to imagine that phone conversation:

A player like Dwight Howard can instantly
make a team a contender. So, why help them?

"Hey, man, it's Billy King with the Nets! Look, we've got a great shot to get a franchise-altering player in Dwight Howard. We just need you to throw us a bone and help us make it happen. You in?"

"Um, what's in it for me?"

"You just need to take a couple players off our hands, maybe give up a draft pick or two, and hey, I'll even throw a little MarShon Brooks action your way to make it worth your time."

"Oh, well, heck yeah, I'm in! Good luck with Howard, buddy!"

I just don't get it. With all due respect to MarShon Brooks, who may be a pretty nice NBA player, he isn't a guy who instantly makes you relevant. 

You want me to help facilitate a trade for a superstar that will change the landscape in the Eastern Conference? No way, man. I'd respond with, "Hell, no. Figure it out your own dang self."

Being forced to trade a player that you can't re-sign is one thing. I get that. If a player is going to leave as a free agent, sometimes you have to make a deal to make sure your franchise isn't left empty-handed. I just don't get being the outside party who gets little out of the deal and just helps another team get significantly better.

The only reason I might possibly accept would be if the wingman team is in the superstar's conference now and wants to facilitate a trade to get him out of the conference. That might make a little sense, especially if it helps the wingman team in some significant way. That doesn't change the fact, though, that the wingman team is helping another team get to a championship level.

The NBA is clearly going in a direction where the formula for success is to acquire three superstars and then fill in the rest with role players. Why a team would help another acquire one of the game's elite stars is beyond me. I'm glad the Clippers or Timberwolves or whichever other teams were reportedly involved didn't let it happen (at least not yet). 

In a league where there is a big gap between the Haves and Have Nots, the Have Nots shouldn't be helping the Haves have more.

So to all those, "third" and "fourth" teams out there in the trade market, when someone calls asking you to be their wing man, just say "Bull----. You can be mine."