Jimmer lands in Sac Town

Jimmer will make Disney Sports Network reporter, LZ Granderson eat crow

Disney Sports Network writer, EZ Granderson wrote a column, stating that despite the lost endorsement revenues, Jimmer Fredette would be better off playing for the Sacramento Kings and not the Utah Jazz. His conclusion could be correct. 

The truth is, the Utah Jazz needed Jimmer more than Jimmer needed them. The Jazz cost themselves millions upon millions in revenues by not doing what it took to draft Jimmer. (Nevermind the fact that they will be worse on the court too.)

Back to the issue at hand though. Granderson's conclusion may be correct, but his supporting points just show the subtle Jimmer hating that you can expect to see until he's holding up a Larry O'Brien Trophy.

Granderson: "Jimmer ain't all that."

This is actually is least objectionable point. Mainly, because he seems to be arguing that Jimmer perhaps is over-hyped when in fact he may be just a serviceable or good player at the end of the day. 

Like all the critics, who in the back of their mind, know just how good Jimmer really is; Granderson immediately hedges after declaring, "Jimmer ain't all that." He goes on to say, "Now, that's different from saying he isn't going to be successful. I love his game."

Granderson puts himself in a position to say that he called the hype or to put a positive spin that Jimmer even exceeded his expectations. Either way, he's covered. Perhaps that's reasonable. It seems like watered down analysis in my view though.

Granderson: "But he isn't a franchise savior, and in Utah, his relentless fame would've miscast him in that role."

Hmm. Now Granderson is starting to take a little bit more of a hard line. He is admitting his belief that Jimmer has a very earthy ceiling. 

Of course, that doesn't mean that he's completely selling out Jimmer before he even sees him step foot on an NBA court. There is nobody in the NBA right now that can pull up and drill a shot like Jimmer. There are few players in the NBA right now that can finish in the lane like Jimmer. And the guy does it while playing point and getting others involved. If that's not franchise savior potential then what is? 

Granderson: "The Kings already have budding stars in Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins to carry the burden of taking the last-second shot."

Yea and the San Antonio Spurs have Richard Jefferson and DeJuan Blair to carry the burden of taking the last-second shot, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The ball will be in the hands of one of their sharks, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker.

Quite frankly, it was this Granderson statement that gave away his jealousy of Jimmer and that he is likely rooting in secret rooting for Jimmer to fail. His declaration is so far away from from reality that that is about the most rational explanation I have to figure the cause of his statement.

Tyreke Evans was constantly missing last second shots last season. He knows it and we all know it. Evans is an all-star caliber player, but at 29 percent from three he is the less than ideal person to have the ball in his hands down two or three with the clock running out. Sure you might run some plays through him because he is a distributor. But let's not pretend that Jimmer can relax so long as the ball is in Tyreke's hands. That is just truly stupid.

And the idea of DeMarcus Cousins taking a shot with the game on the line? That guy is not a shooter. He shot 43 percent from the floor and his game is based on chippies. Decorum prevents me from saying just how stupid Granderson's rationale that Cousins is a closer for the Kings.

Granderson: "Jimmer can go to Sac-Town, be inconsistent (like most rookies are) and find a way to be a contributor without the pressure that being Jimmer in Utah would have brought."

This is just another statement that shows that Granderson just doesn't get it or he's jealous and wants to defy reality or both. Jimmer doesn't need a pressure valve. Jimmer is the pressure valve. The guy thrives on pressure. He lives for it.

He's already carried the town of Glenn Falls, the state of Utah and Mormon Nation on his back. Never at any point has he shied away from the pressure. When the game is on the line, it would not matter if Kobe Bryant was his teammate. He would want the damn ball. And furthermore, he has the skill set to expect the damn ball in Sacramento. 

Being the team player Jimmer is, he might defer to Tyreke in the early going. But once he Jimmers a few teams that will change. He will be the man when the game is on the line. And he would not have it any other way.

And by the way, what's with the expectation that Jimmer will be inconsistent? Jimmer is a great shooter that can create his own shot. That means he'll have some off nights and keep on shooting. But don't expect inconsistent to be a word that describes Jimmer. That's just silly. Again, we see how Granderson is eager to lump Jimmer in with the prototypical player that struggles early in his career.

Jimmer is not prototypical though. I can guarantee that it'll be boom or bust. And frankly, my money is on boom. Expect Jimmer to turn any heads that aren't already turned. And in Granderson's case, to open the eyes on his already turned head.

Granderson: "In Utah, the public pressure to have him in the starting lineup would've made second-year coach Ty Corbin's life a living hell. Now he gets to see how lottery picks Kanter and Alec Burks (who the Jazz took at No. 12) fit in, as opposed to having to make room for Jimmer.

Sadly, Granderson seems to have nailed how Jazz management seemed to view the Jimmer situation. The Jazz seemed to be paying lip service to wanting to get Jimmer at 12 while hoping that someone would bail them out before that. It would have been interesting to see the Jazz pick at 12 with Jimmer still on the board. 

The fact that the Jazz never committed to Jimmer if he was still on the board at 12 really says a lot.

But let's get back to Granderson. First off, 'pressure to put Jimmer in the starting line-up' should not be viewed as problem. Jimmer is already slated to be the Kings starting point guard at opening tip of the 2011-2012 season. Pressure to make a starter worthy player into a starter should not be viewed as a negative at this point.

As for Kanter and Burks, they are bigger risks than Jimmer ever was going to be. We suspect that Kanter can contribute right away. However, there are doubts that he'll ever truly live up to the billing of being a three pick. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Jazz were hoping for a Gasol or Nowitzky and may not even get another Okur.

As for Burks, his earthy ceiling is Raja Bell. Don't ever expect him to be better than that. So the Jazz did not even upgrade with their twelfth pick! And do not be surprised to see Burks toil in the D-League for two years, maybe even lead the league in scoring and then toil in the NBA a year or two before getting cut. One Morris Almond comes to mind.

The Jazz passed on a potential MVP candidate in Jimmer Fredette while drafting two players that quite likely will never come close to making an all-star team. The Jazz would have been much better off with that "public pressure."

And who says public pressure is a bad thing anyhow? In the end it's that public pressure that would have drove Jimmer to thrive while the Jazz counted their millions. 

Granderson: "Sometimes, it's better not to go home again."

Then again it usually is. That's why people routinely head home for the holidays. In Jimmer's case, a support system would have been awesome. Granderson is making the mistake of presupposing failure when Jimmer believes in himself more than any other player in the draft. If Jimmer somehow does not pan out, it won't be because of superficial excuses like hometown pressure.

Granderson: "This way, if Jimmer is a bust in Sacramento, he'll still be worshipped in Salt Lake City."

No matter what, Jimmer will be a Salt Lake City celebrity. So that is just fallacious logic. Anyways, he seriously overlooks Jimmer's potential. Jimmer full well expects to get it done on an NBA stage. In the event of failure, falling back on his old time glory is not going to give him any extra measure of consolation at the end of the day. 

If Jimmer were happy with his Glenn Falls glory or his BYU glory he would have never signed his personal contract to get to the NBA. In fact, it is time for Jimmer to sign another contract; to be an all-star and an NBA champion. He probably already has!

Granderson: "This way, if free agency or a trade down the road brings him back to Utah, fans won't be frothing at the mouth with unrealistic expectations."

This seems to be a misleading statement. Is it unrealistic to expect Fredette to be an elite NBA player? One could make the case. Is it unrealistic to think that he may be an elite NBA player? Not at all. Granderson seems to have all but written off that possibility.

Regardless, Granderson is missing the larger point. Boom or bust, the Utah fans were ready to roll the dice and accept the outcome. Nobody in Utah doubt Jimmers abilities or his heart. They are in his corner regardless of the outcome.

Consequently, the Jazz management have done their fans a great disservice. Nobody in Utah was going to hold Jazz management's feet to the fire if Jimmer did not work out. Sure the national media would do some hit pieces about a Jimmer bust. But they'll do a lot more hit pieces against them when Jimmer works out in Sacramento.

Granderson: "...Kings'coaching staff who weren't convinced Fredette is the right player for them, according to reports on Friday -- about his quickness, his size, his defense... he still has to prove he can handle playing point."

There is not one player in the NBA draft that does not come with doubts. So how is this really at all relevant? The Cleveland Cavaliers would not commit to Kyrie Irving until the last possible moment because they doubted how good he could really be.

There is no need to play doubt card. Solid players like Kawhi Leonard (among others) were still on the board at ten. The Kings clearly believed in Jimmer or they simply would have taken a pass.

And come on! 'Reports' don't mean a thing. As far as I am concerned, nobody on the Kings staff was likely to have been throwing Jimmer under the bus before he even stepped on the hardwood.

These 'reports' are just predictable manufactured garbage by media wanting to sell a tired story.

Granderson: "...so he'll (Jimmer) be under some pressure. But it's nothing like he'd have experienced in Utah."

Nonsense! The reality is that Jimmer had the more attention on him for the single elimination 2011 NCAA Tournament than any other player in NCAA Tournament history. CBS and ESPN pretty much ran marketing campaigns to trumpet him. Until Jimmer reaches a Game 7 of an NBA Finals, he'll never face more pressure than what he has already faced.

Granderson: (End of article) "Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Jimmer would've been just fine in Utah. Maybe his game would've blossomed there and he would've had an All-Star career. Maybe. But as a fan, I'm glad he doesn't have to find out."

Granderson does not end on his subtle Jimmer bashing schitck. Instead, he gets in a final round of hedging. Weak!

Granderson even concedes Jimmer's all-star potential. Funny. One would have never even considered such a notion while reading the first ninety-five percent of the article.

Finally, Granderson metaphorically slaps every Jimmer/Jazz fan in the face. As a fan he's allegedly glad to not see what Jimmer would have done in Utah? Are you kidding me? Every real Jimmer fan wanted to either see Jimmer go to Utah and/or play for his/her team. Don't claim to be a fan of Jimmer, Granderson. You are not a Jimmer fan. You are a Jimmer hater and you know it.



Picture: LZ Granderson

King of Basket Ball "Jimmer Fredette" Wiki & Hot photos

King of Basket Ball "Jimmer Fredette" Wiki & Hot photos.James Taft "Jimma" Fred Juliette born on 25 February 1989. Jimma is an American professional basketball player for the Milwaukee Bucks. He was drafted 10th in the first round of 2011 NBA Draft Milwaukee Bucks and was traded to the Kings on draft night. He achieved national fame during his college career at Brigham Young University, where he

New York Knicks Managment: Heads up their asses

Disney Sports Network reporter Rachel Nichols just relayed on the 2011 NBA Draft broadcast that the Knicks would not be trading up to draft Jimmer Fredette becaus "the price was too high."

The price - Toney Douglas or Landry Fields. - To put it in net lingo LMAO, ROFL.

As a Celtics fan that just watched my team sweep the Knicks out of the playoffs, I can say that neither of those players were so wonderful. In fact, neither of those players would have even been in the Celtics playoff rotation.

I'm glad that I am not a Knicks fan. Knicks management thinks the formula to success is trading away key pieces like Danilo Gallinari and Raymond Felton for the the no defense diva, Carmelo Anthony and past their prime players like Chauncey Billups. They think it's a good idea to hold tight to throw away pieces instead of going and getting arguably the best player in the draft.

One only has to notice that the Knicks played terrible after the Carmelo trade while the Nuggets played much better without their alleged super star. Super a-hole is more like it.

JR Smith had no problem reveling in the trade.  

"Everybody is playing together. We got eight guys in double figures (in Saturday's 131-101 win over Detroit). I think we can count on one hand how many times that happened before the trade."

It sucks to be a Knicks fan. Oh well. They aren't my dog in the race, so it's all good by me.

Picture: Rachel Nichols

Picture: Jimmer Fredette

NBA GMs and Media: Jimmering themselves

Here we are only hours away from the draft and the conventional thinking is that the 2010-2011 college basketball player of the year, Jimmer Fredette will be drafted as high as 7th by the Sacramento Kings or as low as 17th by the New York Knicks.

But why not draft him number first overall? Of course, this might seem like a silly question if there was a Shaq or a Jordan or even a C-Webb on the table. But here's the thing; there is no can't miss prospect on the table. And for our dollar, Jimmer Fredette is the closest thing to a cant miss!

A wise GM would draft Fredette with the number one overall pick. Or rather, given the lay of the land, he would trade back to five or six and then draft him. But certainly Fredette is worthy of being the number one overall pick.

Opening Argument (Why Jimmer Fredette is worthy of the number one overall selection)

Fredette is the best shooter to come out of college since Larry Bird. How is that type of player going to go drafted anywhere below the top five in the shooter deficient NBA?

With 2:27 left in Game 6 of the 2011 NBA Finals with the Miami Heat down 10, the Heat came out of a timeout. Who's number do you think they called? Ah, the great who will get the shot when you need it debate: Lebron or Wade.

It was Eddie House who took the three pointer out of a timeout in a play that was clearly drawn up for him. And why not? Wade or James couldn't throw a rock in the ocean. 

If Fredette was on the court his number would've been called. We've seen him pull up on a dime from forty feet away and hit a three. We've seen him go off a screen and pop a three. How many NBA players can do that consistently as Fredette? We would argue zero. Though we would admit that guys like Kevin Durant or Stephen Curry certainly may come close.

Rebuttal: To the predictable and stale arguments

Argument: Jimmer is too slow.

What? Anybody that followed J.J. Reddick's career at Duke, knows that the entire Blue Devil game plan was to run Reddick off screens and get him a three. He was too slow to create shots for himself.

Despite that obvious deficiency, Reddick is a quality rotation player that occasionally starts at the NBA level. And it's worth noting that he has actually improved his ability to create shots while doing it at 'the next level.'

Of course besides the shooting prowess, Jimmer Fredette and J.J. Reddick are no the same player. Did the critics bother watching Fredette play? He drove to the basket at will against anybody. When the tournament rolled around, teams knew what was coming and they still could not stop it.

Why? Because he has a crazy quick cross-over when they get up in his grill and if they sag back he'll nail a forty footer in their eye. It's pick your poison. And when Fredette did drive to the rim, he nailed off balanced shots with Manu Ginobili styled precision.

The slow argument is a complete farce (especially on the offensive side of the ball).

By the way, it's worth noting that Jimmer's vertical at the NBA combine, was measured at 36 inches. He's not the slow white guy that can't jump.

Argument: Jimmer's too short

Jimmer is listed 6'2". Kyrie Irving is listed at 6'3." Too short? C'mon. Is Chris Paul too short?


Argument: Jimmer can't play defense

Out of all of the concerns, this may be the most valid concern. 

Still, Jimmer was not asked to really play defense at BYU. And why would they? He was their offensive motor and it hurt the team if he fouled out or tired himself out on defense while consistently playing all forty minutes. Not to mention, his back court mate Jackson Emery was only the greatest BYU defender in BYU history and he was great at picking up the defensive slack for Fredette.

Jimmer may surprise us all and turn out to be a solid defensive player. But for a moment, let's assume he ends up being a sub-par defensive player. Is it really as big of a deal as we think it is? The truth be told, how many 'Kobe stoppers' are there anyways?

Teams are not fashioning their defenses to clamp down on outside shooters. The Mavericks played zone almost the entire 2011 NBA Finals. Lebron James and Dwyane Wade's resulting shooting made Shaun Marion and the old geezer, Jason Kidd, 38 look like defensive wizards. Do we really think Jimmer would play much worse defense than them?

Argument: 'We're just not sure his game will translate at the next level'

Here's the cold hard truth. Many first round picks never pan out. A significant number of lottery picks never pan out. And in some cases even first overall picks like Kwame Brown (2001) never come close to even making it to an All-Star game.

Anyone using this argument, is really just being indecisive and lazy. They are straddling the fence. They know damn well whether or not they think Fredette will make it at the next level.

By the way, it's not just the run of the mill free-lance journalist or Disney Sports Network 'expert' saying these things. Following BYU's Sweet Sixteen exit, Colin Cowherd ran a promo saying, 'Jimmer Fredette coming to an NBA bench near you.'

Dan Patrick joked about a random person's tweet about moving the his scoring stats two decimal points to the right. So instead of averaging 28.9 points, he would be averaging 2.89 points per game. He made sure to point out that was not his thought per se. In other words, he's happy to say he knew all along that Jimmer would be a bust if it happens. But still, he's not really sure and more than willing to hedge isn't he?

Clearly, DP was being a weenie. We can actually respect Cowherd for taking a stand and even believing in it enough to run a promo on it. Of course, he'll be eating crow. 

Shots Heard is calling it now, Jimmer Fredette will be an NBA all-star. We feel more confident predicting that about Fredette than any other player in the draft.

Argument: Jimmer might be the next 'Insert crappy white guy high draft pick bust.'

Adam Morrison, Shawn Bradley, Darko Milicic. Sure they were all high draft pick busts. Yea, they all happened to be white. Then again, players like Larry Bird, Chris Mullin, John Stockton, Peja Stojakovic did pan out just fine. Why are a few white busts making GM's so gun shy?

It's ridiculous. If Fredette were black, he'd be a no brainer for the first overall pick. NBA GMs and critics need to drop the white voo doo politics and believe what their eyes.

Kevin Durant didn't let that seed of doubt or rather white bias, grow in his mind when he tweeted 'Jimmer Fredette is the best scorer in the world!'

Considering the weak draft class

Let's repeat: Jimmer Fredette is the closest thing to a 'can't miss prospect' in this craft class. To understand that further, we need to look at just some the most touted players in the draft.

Kyrie Irving

Irving typifies just how weak the 2011 draft. In many draft years, we are not sure that Irving would even be a lock to be a lottery pick. Nothing about Irving stands out, not his speed, strength, shot making, passing, physical presence (he's listed 6'3"). Nothing! 

We're pretty sure that the experts bought their own hype about how well Duke played at the start of the season with him in the line-up and how bad they played when he went out. But do they somehow forget that he was in the line-up when the Arizona Wildcats crushed them by 20 to end the Blue Devil run?

The apologists will point out that maybe Irving's toe was not healed. Maybe that's a fair enough point (maybe it really isnt'). But do they really see something so stellar in his play at the end of the day?

Irving marks the first paper first overall pick. Last year he averaged 17.5 ppg 'in a system' while shooting over 50 percent from the floor and over 90 percent of the line. But the truth be told, nothing about his individual skills leads us to believe that his skills will actually translate at the next level. 

How come nobody is actually bringing that up? It seems like a double standard; one standard for the black player and another for the white player. The truth is Irving just succeeded in a system while Jimmer was just told go score the damn ball. What is actually more impressive when you think about it?

Derrick Williams

William reminds me of another former number one overall pick, Kenyon Martin. Just like Martin, Williams is a a four that can shoot. He can even shoot a bit better than Martin. Both of them are/were athletic fours that could rock the rim.

Besides their games, Williams matches Martin's same bad attitude. Like Martin, Williams talks and talks. When Williams found out Cleveland had the number one overall pick, he tweeted that he could fill the void that Lebron James left. It's the type of tweet that a younger Martin would have tweeted. And frankly, Martin's attitude made him think that he didn't have to work on his game.

Of course they are not dead ringers. Martin was a three point eight. He was mainly a four but he could play a little three in a tall line-up. Martin on the other hand is a three point five. That does not bode well for him at all. It means he'll get man handled when he plays the four and out quicked when he plays the three. 

Williams will contribute right away, but it'll take a couple years for his body to mature into a three or four. And even then, the kid is no lock to be an all-star.

It's also worth noting, that Williams draft stock rose on account of his 32 point, 13 rebound performance against Duke in the tournament. But what did he do in the previous game against Texas? How about 17 points on 4-14 shooting and only 9 for 15 from the line. And what did he do in the game after Duke, against UCONN? Try 5-13 shooting for 20 points and only 5 rebounds. 

Clearly Williams is not a consistently dominant player. He is simply capable of having a strong outing.

Enes Canter

He's a European player that has Dirk Nowitzky potential. But perhaps that is just a lot of hype. We really have no idea at this point if he'll even not be a bust. We are sure that there is a European player that every year is called the next Dirk. But in the last thirteen years we haven't exactly seen the next Dirk have we? (Unless you count the real Dirk resurrecting his career and winning the championship this year).

Brandon Knight

Knight is expected to be a top five pick. Had he stayed in college for two more years he would have possibly made it to the number one overall pick status. Then again, he might have exposed a ceiling on his game and slid to the mid first round.

Either way, Knight is not what Obama would call a 'shovel ready project.' He likely will not start before his third year in the league. Think a more athletic Ty Lawson. Yea, that's how weak this lottery draft class really is.

Kawhi Leonard

We actually think Leonard is an unpolished Paul Pierce type of player. And just like Pierce was overlooked, so is Leonard being overlooked. At the end of the day, the only one with a bigger chip on his shoulder than Leonard, might be Jimmer.

Like Pierce, Leonard can shoot the three and he's very comfortable operating in the high post. His shot is not as smooth as Pierce's shot. But he is a monster rebounder. He would possibly be the best three/four combo 

player rebounder in the league right away (Kevin Love is a four five combo rebounder for the record).

Jonas Valunciunas

He's predicted to go as high as four overall. He's probably just the next Eric Montross (speaking of white busts). He's certainly not a player that any GM with a half a brain would take over Jimmer. Of course, most GMs apparently don't have half a brain.

Jan Vesely

He's put a few nice poster dunks on some other white guys and now people are hyping him. But the reality is that the 6'11" small forward is not even a poor man's Kevin Durant. He doesn't shoot from range or make free throws.

Tristan Thompson

We're guessing that in this weak draft class, NBA execs like his NBA ready body. But in many years he's not even a first round draft pick.

Kemba Walker

He's basically a middle class man's Chris Paul. Quickness and defensive prowess are his two greatest assets. How his shot will fall at the NBA level is an unknown. How well he can run a team is an unknown as well. He will have to develop greater court awareness, particularly in the pick and roll and his passing game. Inch for inch he is definitely the most athletic player in the draft.

Conclusion

So we see that this is not at all a top heavy draft (some would argue it is deep though). But there is one guy, one brand name that has that 'larger than life' presence with the skills to match. He is Jimmer Fredette. Besides his great game, Jimmer has great character. It's that same charcater that brought him to this point.

How many NBA teams have primadonnas infecting their locker rooms like a cancer? That is not Jimmer. It damn well is Williams or possibly a Walker.

How many GMs suffer while they watch their teams put up brick after brick? You won't have that problem with Jimmer. In fact, those GMs will be on their feet with fans as Jimmer routinely puts on a shooting exhibition.

As you watch draft night unfold, note each team that passes up on Jimmer Fredette. Each of those teams has a GM that likely won't be a GM in about two to three years. Because any GM passing up on Jimmer clearly does not know what he is doing.

Jimmer will make the naysayers pay. 

Amazing - It's Going To Happen Today

The Jimmer show continues today with BYU's Sweet Sixteen game against Florida. Florida is a tough team that has all five starters returning. BYU is coming off of their 22 point blow-out of Gonzaga.

'You Are The Jimmer'

Yahoo Sports: Player Hatin' on Jimmer Fredette

Shots Heard asks who has the better stats. Player A or Player B?

Player A - 27.9 ppg, 45.5 FG%, 40.4 3FG%, 89.6 FT%, 3.5 Reb, 4.3 Asts, 3.5 TOs, 1.5 Stls, 0.0 Blks

Player B - 21.8 ppg, 47.0 FG%, 36.2 3FG%, 81.9 FT%, 4.8 Reb, 5.2 Asts, 3.2 TOs, 1.3 Stls, 0.1 Blks

Also for the scope of understanding recognize each team's performance.

Team A (Player A) - 28-3, RPI 4, SOS 20

Team B (Player B) - 27-4, RPI 5, SOS 30

Anybody and their dog who claims to know thing one about evaluating performance would pick Player A. So what the F is the Yahoo 'experts' problem? They picked Duke's Nolan Smith (Player B) ahead of Jimmer Fredette (Player A) for their college player of the year. 

It's official, Yahoo Sports has added their experts to the brothel of sports media whores will pander to bigger markets for more web hits.

By the way, the Mountain West Conference as a whole had a better RPI than the ACC, so the media whores don't have that golden oldie excuse of 'well he had to play against tougher competition.'

Yahoo's Jason King wrote the article of explanation.Yahoo reasoned:

- Duke is 27-4 and it may have been worse if not for Nolan Smith stepping up his game after Irving Smith was injured when Duke was 8-0. Nolan Smith led them to a 19-4 record after the injury. "Most teams would've crumbled after losing a player such as Irving."

Jeff King, did you want to throw up when you wrote the line? "Most teams would've crumbled after losing a player such as Irving." 

Not only is that patently bad sports clique, but what the heck is it even supposed to mean?

In Duke's case they have a bevvy of talent and going 19-4 after losing any player was not at all unexpected. If anything it was expected.

And when it comes to player of the year awards, it's pretty lame to play the where would a team be without a player card anyhow. By that measure, one player could perform better and still be at a disadvantage.

But even if you are going to play the where would they be card then what's the point if you're not going to legitimately answer the question? Where would Duke be without Nolan Smith? I don't know, maybe a four or a five seed at worst. Where would BYU be without Jimmer Fredette? I don't know, maybe not even making the NCAA Tournament.

You see. These media whores don't even care if their reasons make sense. They just want to reward their dog in the race. Get it together Yahoo Sport 'experts.' You were supposed have independent analysis (unlike ESPN). But it appears that is no longer the case (if it ever really was).

At any rate, stop player hatin' Yahoo Sports. Ya'll saw Jimmer doing stuff on the court that has not been done since the days of Pistol Pete and ya'll can't recognize? Shots Heard pronounces shame upon Yahoo Sports. Shame.

Shots Heard dedicates these Depeche Mode lyrics to Yahoo Sports. It all seems so stupid. It makes me want to give up. But why should I give up when it all seems so stupid. Shame.

Shame indeed.

BYU Bounces Back - Wins 2010-2011 Mountain West Title

Earlier this week, BYU dismissed their starting power forward and defensive anchor, Brandon Davies after he broke the Honor Code (A BS decision by the way by BYU's admin but that would be an entirely different post). The move almost certainly cost BYU a number one seed (and probably a two seed ore even three seed - (see media whores) as they got routed at home byt New Mexico by 18 points.

If there's a happy ending at least in the short run, it is that BYU beat Wyoming last night and thereby won the Mountain West Title for the fourth time in the last five years. 

BYU will be in the West Coast Conference next year (for basketball).

Jimmer Fredette scored 38 points to finish his season with an eye popping 27.9 scoring average. He is a lock for player of the year. Shots Heard is pretty sure that even the media whores are not going to f that one up.

BYU vs. Wyoming - 03/05/2011 - Official Highlights

BYU vs. Wyoming - 03/05/2011 - In Stands Cam

BYU Student Flash Mob

Jackson Emery - Post Game Tid Bit

Utah Jazz Talk Jimmer

Teach Me How To Jimmer

. 

ESPN media whore Doug Gottlieb (Twat!) attempts to rob BYU basketball of their rightful seeding in the NCAA Tournament

The college basketball rankings came out today. Predictably, the 'experts' did not give BYU the number one ranking that they deserve. But it's like Clint Eastwood told Gene Hackman in 'Unforgiven,' deserves gots nothing to do with it (as noted in a recent Shots Heard rant).

We already told you that it's about the media whores serving their bigger markets. So of course it came as no surprise that BYU came in at number 3 in the recent rankings behind Ohio State and Kansas even though they have a better RPI and strength of schedule than both of those teams.

Granted, polling is subjective in nature and designed to allow for some additional reasoned analysis. And on that basis we would not condemn any individual fan or pollster that believes that a Kansas or Ohio State should get the nod over BYU. Our problem is that collectively the media whores clearly have their vested interests and that they routinely and systematically discriminate against non 'major' teams.

Want proof? BYU, Kansas and Ohio State are all in the top 3 in RPI in that order. They are also all 27-2. They are all clearly comparable teams although if you look at the data, BYU does hold an edge over those teams.

BYU 27-2, Strength of Schedule - 12, , Record versus Top 50 RPI: 9-1

Kansas 27-2, Strength Of Schedule - 13, Record versus Top 50 RPI: 6-2

Ohio State 27-2, Strength Of Schedule - 27, Record versus Top 50 RPI: 6-2

Now if the pundits/'experts' were giving proper credence to the numbers, the voting would almost certainly be close. But let's look at the reality:

AP Voting Totals

Ohio State - 45 First Place Votes

Kansas - 14 First Place Votes

BYU - 5 First Place Votes

So BYU is numerically the best team in the country and yet they get less than eight percent of the vote? The media whores are busy at work.

Speaking of media whores, it gets worse when you look at the USA/ESPN Poll. There are seventeen first place votes for Ohio State, fourteen first place votes for Kansas and ZERO first place votes for BYU.

San Diego State (RPI 4, Strength Of Schedule 26) would be 29-0 and they would be the undisputed number one team in the nation had BYU not handed them their asses by thirteen points not once but twice. Yet, BYU is somehow unworthy of recognition from any of the ESPN media whores?

Speaking of media whores, let's have a laugh as we watch media whore, Doug Gottlieb pretend that not only is BYU unworthy of the number one spot in the rankings, but also a number one seed in the NCAA Tournament (a tournament that is also ran by money whores,  the 'major' conference heads).

Analyzing the 'better conference myth'

You will notice that when the pundits speak of The Big East, Big Ten, or even the especially weak ACC that we are supposed to hold those conferences in some sort of reverence compared to the The Mountain West. (And by the way, what happened to the SEC this year? - Guess they aren't too 'major' this year).

Mathematicians were paid handsome sums of money to develop the strength of schedule formula and RPI formula. Anybody that has taken a college level statistics course will know that every formula has a margin of error. From everything I've read, the RPI and SOS formulas have very minimal margins of error and are quite reliable. And certainly, any margin of error does not justify the votes in the polls.

Let's assume for a moment that the voters were on the level. In such a case, the lack of first place votes for BYU would be quite the statistic anomaly. But we know that it is not truly an anomaly. Rather, the media whores are whoring it up the way they do.

And so knowing that the RPI and SOS formulas are legitimate formulas, then we legitimately surmise that the Mountain West is solid even 'major,' else  BYU would have a much worse SOS (not to mention RPI) than Kansas and Ohio State. And so ti is that the Mountain West is a tough conference as all of the teams in the conference are .500 or better in non-conference play.

The only team not better than .500 in non conference play is Utah. The Utes were 7-7 in conference play. However, Utah is BYU's arch nemesis and teams generally bring their A-Game against rivals. BYU still beat the Utes by an average of 19 points in their two meetings against each other.

The Mountain West, Conference USA, Big Ten and the Big 12 were the only conferences with all of their respective teams perform at .500 or better in non conference play. It's noteworthy that South Florida was the only Big East team (6-7 in non-conference play) with a sub .500 record in non-conference play. (Currently the media whores are slobbering about the idea of eleven Big East teams making the Big Dance). We can see though that the Mountain West is roughly on par with the teams from supposed 'major' conferences.

Relaying Doug Gottlieb's flaming pile of analysis

In the above video ESPN's Joe Lunardi and Doug Gottlieb are asked to give their number one seeds, essentially the top four teams. Shots Heard will analyze their slutty analysis (particularly Doug Gottlieb's Bull Durham).

Joe Lundardi's Top Four

Ohio State - East

Pittsburgh - Southeast

Kansas - Southwest

BYU - West

Doug Gottlieb's Top Four

Ohio State - East

Pittsburgh - Southeast

Kansas - Southwest

Texas - West

In the beginning of the video, Joe Lunardi is fairly reasonable with his logic. He clarifies that the choice for the fourth number one spot was between an over-rated Pitt (an over-rated team that has terrible outside shooting, but great inside presence and a solid closer with Wannamaker) and Duke (a good all around team from the weak ACC). Even Lundardi was wise enough not to totally whore it up and to deny BYU who is clear cut number one seed.

Then Joe Gottlieb gave his load of cow dung analysis:

I'd have Texas over BYU and Joe my logic behind it is the number one seed is a reward. It's a reward not just for stellar play in conference but what do you do on the road and I know that you're going to come back with BYU's road numbers; but also what you do out of conference and how you schedule up. Now BYU plays a decent out of conference schedule; Arizona, UCLA; split those two, essentially home and away, quote unquote neutral sites, Utah State they play every year and St. Mary's. You compare that to Texas and what they challenged themselves with; Pittsburgh in Madison Square Garden, a two point loss. They played Carolina in Greensborough a win. They played Michigan State, a preseason top ten and I know numbers wise it does not help them as much. But you consider those wins that they had out of conference and how they challenged themselves. They go to USC and get beat on the road. Probably the same thing would have happened to BYU. And then within conference they don't get the benefit of having Kansas come and play them at their place. And instead they have a monster victory (at Kansas). You got a two point loss and a win on the road at two of your one seeds. I still think Texas is the one seed, especially considering they have a chance to win at Baylor, Kansas State at home tonight. I think Texas has a better resume in terms of pure wins than BYU does.

Joe Lunardi Response:

If it was close, I would absolutely take Texas and their win at Kansas putting them up to the top line but it's really not close. The non-conference schedule strength for BYU is actually 14th (strength of schedule) and they're 14-1 against that schedule. Texas is seventy fourth in non conference (strength of schedule) and they have extra non conference losses. So it's really BYU across the board in terms of number of losses, schedule strength, both overall and non conference, and then of course in the what have you done for me lately category, Texas has lost two of its last three.

Joe Gottlieb Counter:

Texas has also played a far more difficult stretch of road games with Nebraska and Colorado. Look, I'm with you generally. I do fall back on some of the numbers. But I only point this out, of the ten true road victories BYU has, Okay? Eight of them are one hundred (presumably RPI) and below. So they loaded up on road wins against..And then you're counting a Colorado State and a UNLV, two at-best bubble teams. I think UNLV is going to get in (to the NCAA Tournament) largely on the back of win of Wisconsin going back to the first month of the half of the season.

I like BYU, not a shot at BYU. I just think that we're falling a little bit in love with the numbers based on the Arizona win, played essentially on a home court (Utes court) and the latest wins against San Diego State. They've dominated their conference and they got the Arizona win. Outside of that, there's not a lot to fall in love with.

Analyzing the 'Employee Of The Month' level analysis

'Employee Of The Month,' starring Dane Cook is possibly the worst movie in history. It is so bad that you can analyze any segment of it and laugh at how bad it is. Watching Doug Gottlieb's analysis is so bad that if it were a movie it would be on par with 'Employee Of The Month.' It truly deserves a critical dissection. It is just that bad. 

So prepare to laugh as we dissect the idiot's (Doug Gottlieb's) analysis. Gottlieb's words are in italics.

I'd have Texas over BYU and Joe my logic behind it is the number one seed is a reward. 

Oh! Stop the presses! The number one seed is a reward. Shut your hole you condescending twat (ironically I thank Dane Cook for revitalizing that slang word). BYU has earned a number one seed. There has never been a two loss team with an RPI of 1 that did not deserve the reward of a number one seed. Think about that. Never! And yet this guy is trying to state that not only is Texas more deserving, but that BYU does not even merit a number one seed; that they should not get that reward. Twat! It needs to be restated.

It's a reward not just for stellar play in conference but what do you do on the road and I know that you're going to come back with BYU's road numbers; but also what you do out of conference and how you schedule up.

Joe Lunardi basically trumped Joe Gottlieb's BS by stating that BYU has a non conference RPI of 14 to Texas's 71! It is not even close as Lunardi states.

Now BYU plays a decent out of conference schedule; Arizona, UCLA; split those two, essentially home and away, quote unquote neutral sites, Utah State they play every year and St. Mary's.

Let's look at the impressive BYU wins that the a-hole glossed over

(Oh how can you not be civil?) I'm not going to err on the side of civility when I deal with con artists. Just because ESPN is paying this guy handsomely to tickle the ears of the customers in the big markets doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that this guy is worthy of my respect.

BYU beat currently ranked 18th Arizona by 22. Sure it was in Salt Lake City. But it was still a 22 point ass kicking. What were they supposed to win by 35 for it to be worthy of Doug Gottlieb's love?

And let's just look at this straight-up. At one point this season, Texas had a 21 point win at home against currently 21st ranked Texas A And M. Last I checked, 21 is not better than 22. So what's the point of claiming that the Arizona win was in Utah if Texas isn't supplying better fruits in the Top 25 ass whoopin' department on their own home floor? There is no difference.

Con artists like Gottlieb will throw out numbers and not care if they actually make sense. He knows that he just has to fool most of the people (who aren't doing in depth fact checks) for a few minutes on television.

Gottlieb mentioned BYU's loss in Anaheim to UCLA. Okay, but he did not mention that BYU played uncharacteristically bad that game and that UCLA is pretty good. They are currently tied with Arizona for first place in the Pac-10.

Then he tried to gloss over the six point win against the WAC Champion, Utah State and WCC Champion, St. Mary's. And he did not bother to mention that Utah State is 26-3 and has and RPI of 21. Instead,, he wasted time stating that BYU plays Utah State every year as if that is supposed to support his premise that BYU did not challenge themselves.

You compare that (BYU's aforementioned wins) to Texas and what they challenged themselves with; Pittsburgh in Madison Square Garden, a two point loss. They played Carolina in Greensborough, a win. They played Michigan State, a preseason top ten and I know numbers wise it does not help them as much.

I love the line, and what they challenged themselves with. Apparently Arizona, UCLA, Utah State, St. Mary's were not a comparable challenge.

Gottlie mentions the Texas's two point loss to Pitt at Madison Square Garden. But Pitt is an over-rated team (they have terrible outside shooting). It's tempting to point out that BYU has beat a comparable opponent, San Diego State by 13 points twice. But perhaps that would not be fair because we are comparing non-conference feats and SDSU is a conference opponent. But fine, don't factor in SDSU and we still come back to the actual non-conference RPIs.

The North Carolina win is impressive, but it is enough to overlook losing to a team like Nebraska and Colorado? Impressive non-conference wins should not cancel out bad performances in conference. Certainly, if BYU accumulated extra losses to Colorado State and Air Force (two comparable teams) then BYU would not even be afforded three seed consideration, despite the fact that those opponents both have similar records and RPIs.

And what is so impressive about Texas anyhow, that Gottlieb can overlook losing a 22 point lead and losing to Colorado? What kind of number one seed cannot hang on to a 22 point lead? If all things were even then okay we could possibly overlook that parameter. But since BYU is 27-2 with a number 1 RPI then should Texas not have such pathetic happenstances on their resume?

They played Michigan State, a preseason top ten and I know numbers wise it does not help them as much.

Let me remind you that Gottlieb is trying to speak about the context of impressive non-conference wins. He is stacking up 16-12 Michigan State against three conference champions and another second place team that will quite possibly finish in the Top 25. Wow! Way to try to sneak that one in under the guise of  preseason top ten. Twat!

But you consider those wins that they had out of conference and how they challenged themselves. They go to USC and get beat on the road. Probably the same thing would have happened to BYU. 

WTF! I would say the real words of that acronym, but decorum prevents it. Is it plausible that BYU could have lost on the road to USC. Well USC is 17-12. So yes they are good enough to beat anybody. But would BYU go to USC and probably lose? No a-hole. BYU would have probably went into the one third filled Galen Center and beat them down by 20 points. That is what they probably would have done. If BYU would have probably lost to USC then why did they not fold in SDSU (a team with a legitimate claim for the number 1 ranking)? Twat!

BYU has a 49 point and 50 point win on their resume and they did not get to 27-2 and a 1 RPI by losing or even barely beating teams like USC. Obviously, I can't repeat 27-2 and 1 RPI enough.

For stating that BYU would have probably lost to lowly USC, Gottlieb ought to be banned from the airwaves for a year. I'm not even saying that for effect either. As a consumer, I don't want watch whores lie to my face.

This is how the double standard is really in effect; Gottlieb would not be claiming that Ohio State or Kansas would likely go to the mediocre USC and lose. Yet, BYU is the same caliber team as those teams. And by the way, going to USC is not exactly a daunting task in the first place.

And then within conference they don't get the benefit of having Kansas come and play them at their place. And instead they have a monster victory (at Kansas). You got a two point loss and a win on the road at two of your one seeds. I still think Texas is the one seed, especially considering they have a chance to win at Baylor, Kansas State at home tonight. I think Texas has a better resume in terms of pure wins than BYU does.

Actually idiot, the RPI significantly weights road wins and conversely punishes losses at home. So playing Kansas on the road was a really good thing; especially since Texas won. And really since, Pittsburgh is an artificial (borderline) number one (they are not BYU, OSU or KSU) then your touting Texas's playing two number ones is fairly disingenuous. And it's worth noting that they went 1-1 in those games! Fifty percent win percentages is hardly a trump card. BYU could have just as easily went fifty percent (or better) against those teams.

SDSU, 27-2 has a 4 RPI  and they are a legitimate number one seed caliber team. And BYU DID beat a legitimate number one seed twice and by 13 points (None of this only losing by two points BS).

By the way, what is that BS about pure wins? Gottlieb is just making up terms! There's no definition or measure for pure wins! Gottlieb only compounded his stupidity by trying to sound especially smart. The only thing more annoying than having a smart person trying to con you is having a dumb person trying to con you! It's like dude, just shut the f up. You sound like such an idiot and we don't want your snake oil.

(Further analyzing) I still think Texas is the one seed, especially considering they have a chance to win at Baylor, Kansas State at home tonight. I think Texas has a better resume in terms of pure wins than BYU does.

Hmm. Texas will play Kansas State at home and Baylor on the road. KSU has a 25 RPI and Baylor has an RPI of 72. Yes that is more impressive than the RPI of BYU's last two opponents who are New Mexico, RPI 91 and Wyoming RPI 258. But will that somehow be enough to move Texas's RPI from 9 into the top 4 and BYU from 1 into 5? No. Even if so, it is pure speculation at best. It does not justify this a-hole's going on television and claiming that five loss, nine RPI Texas is more worthy of the one seed than two loss and top RPI team, BYU.

I know that we are making fun Doug Gottlieb's BS, but let us not forget that Joe Lundardi is basically a wolf in sheep's clothing either, when he conceeds, If it was close, I would absolutely take Texas and their win at Kansas putting them up to the top line but it's really not close.

That's the big preliminary load of BS that we are dealing with from the outset. Why is it preset that if it is close that Texas gets the nod over BYU? This a-hole undoubtedly put his preset bias right on the table for you. He made a Freudian slip and showed you exactly how the ESPN whores divvy out rankings. Lundardi is basically the equivalent of a sports bigot. The fact that he is not trying to pile on like Gottlieb only speaks to his pragmatism and not a sense of real fairness.

Texas has also played a far more difficult stretch of road games with Nebraska and Colorado.

Yea and they lost those road games to bubble teams (at-best bubble teams if they were in the MWC). BYU has won their road games against bubble teams. BYU went to the gyms of similar teams like Utah, Colorado State and Air Force and handled their business. And they won their road games against tougher teams like UNLV and SDSU.

Look, I'm with you generally. I do fall back on some of the numbers. But I only point this out, of the ten true road victories BYU has, Okay? Eight of them are one hundred (presumably RPI) and below. So they loaded up on road wins against..

You ever have someone look you in the eye and pretend like they are adhering to reason when you know they are just trying to get away with a huge con? This guy is not falling back on the numbers is the big problem. He has completely thrown the numbers out the door. 

But Gottlieb pretends that he is adhering to numbers when he mentions that BYU has eight victories against opponents with an RPI of one hundred or higher. Okay? (I'm going to do the Gotliebb Okay? technique -- Like listen to me I know what I'm talking about okay?). 

Texas performed better in their non-conference road schedule? They only had four road games and they went 2-2 in those games! Fifty percent again! The rest of the time Texas loaded up with all really weak opponents at home (not challenging themselves).

And in Texas's two challenging non-conference games against UCONN and Illinois, they went 1-1. Fiftye percent again!

Let's remember the crux of Gottlieb's argument. He wanted to value the non-conference performance. Hmm. Texas went 3-3 against Top 100 RPI teams in non-conference play (that's how they got that justified 71 non conference RPI by the way).

And I like how he tried to pretend that it was about Texas finishing strong against KSU and Baylor. That would just magically disregard BYU's accomplishments.

Do you ever wonder why a media whore will tout how a team finishes? It's because in the olden days, before RPI and quick data, it was easier for the pundits to snow people into thinking somebody finishing on a good note was more worthy of a seeding. It somehow did not matter the team sucked earlier in the year.

But does that really make sense?

If a Guy A finishes a marathon with a better time than Guy B do we say that Guy B deserves the win because he was ran the last two or three miles faster? No. That would be preposterous. The same principle should apply in college basketball.

Nonetheless, 'experts' will often use the 'who's hot' trick to whore it up for their bigger markets. But even Gottlieb is using that tool to take an unprecedented leap. Gottlieb is taking so much undue liberty with that Joe Lunardi has to pragmatically remind his fellow media whore: So it's really BYU across the board in terms of number of losses, schedule strength, both overall and non conference, and then of course in the what have you done for me lately category, Texas has lost two of its last three.

So they (BYU) loaded up on road wins against..And then you're counting a Colorado State and a UNLV, two at-best bubble teams. I think UNLV is going to get in (to the NCAA Tournament) largely on the back of win of Wisconsin going back to the first month of the half of the season.

Okay, I cannot say this enough mister a-hole (Gottlieb). The RPI is a measure of strength of schedule and performance. So stop trying to pretend that the Mountain West is weak when they are one of only four conferences in which all of the teams have winning non conference records.

Also characterizing CSU and UNLV as two at-best bubble teams is so contemptuously pathetic that someone ought to just slap you in your snide face.

UNLV has a 26 RPI and 33 SOS and they are 22-7. Granted a pinhead like yourself will come back and say cough, cough well look at their 3-6 record versus Top 50 RPI teams. Of course idiots like yourself would ignore the fact that they were all hard fought games. If it were Kentucky or UCONN and they had the exact same numbers, Gottlieb would not be pretending that they were bubble teams. So knock the double standard off already media whores. We know you're game. It's old.

Idiots like Gottlieb are not going around calling UCLA a bubble team or at-best bubble team.  UCLA is only 3-4 against the Top 50 RPI teams with a 46 SOS and a 21-8 record that is worse than UNLV's 22-7 record. Could it be because calling a likely first or second place team of a 'major' conference is sacrilege but calling a third place team in a 'non major' conference is standard procedure?

Quite frankly if UNLV was in the ACC or Pac-10 they would have been competing for a conference title and then it would be unthinkable to call them an at-best bubble team.

Colorado State has an RPI of 47 and an SOS of 38 to go with an 18-10 record. Admittedly, with two games left they are a bubble team in that if they finish the season with losses, they would jeopardize their tournament selection. However, CBS Bracketology 'experts' have CSU in the tournament as it stands right now and they certainly are not an at-best, a bubble team. So again, the a-hole lied to the viewers.


Getting back to UNLV; they went to Virginia Tech and beat the Hogies by 12 points. Duke went to Blackburg and lost by 4. A couple days ago, Gottlieb would have been willing to give Duke a number one seed. This guy knows that UNLV is not a legit contender, not a bubble team.

And what's more, Gottlieb's going discredit UNLV while worshiping University of Wisconsin basketball?

I like BYU, not a shot at BYU. I just think that we're falling a little bit in love with the numbers based on the Arizona win, played essentially on a home court (Utes court) and the latest wins against San Diego State. They've dominated their conference and they got the Arizona win. Outside of that, there's not a lot to fall in love with.

Gottlieb tries to to make BYU sound like a fluke. He paints a picture that BYU only got a few lucky wins. This is a patented media whore maneuver. BYU is 9-1 vs. the RPI Top 50 whereas Texas is 7-2 vs. the RPI Top 50. 

Here is the real tragedy. Anybody that has watched BYU play, knows that they are for real. They can and will beat anybody anywhere.

BYU has played as well as any team in the country and they have performed great on both ends of the court. They also have an offense that has outperformed everybody. Jimmer Fredette has routinely bombed forty foot threes. Despite that reality, the ESPN whores seek to discredit them. 

And let's not just pretend that this is on Gottlieb. The show's producers and the Disney executives knowingly allow for this system of deceit to continue.

Picture: ESPN whore, Doug Gottlieb 

Noteworthy: Soon after the publishing of this article, Texas lost at home to KSU.

College Basketball - The media whores: Handling their business in 2011

The Blake Griffin Analogy

The NBA Slam Dunk Contest that Blake Griffin won tonight is a microcosm of how the system works in college football and basketball. Griffin was the favorite. Griffin was even the best and most exciting dunker. But Blake Griffin did not earn his victory on an even playing field. And in the case of tonight, he would not have won the contest on an even playing field.

The same concept holds true. The 'major' teams are often the favorites and even the best. But the playing field is not even and it often leads to unfair results.

And who or what enables this unfair playing field: the media or as they will otherwise be called in this article, the media whores.

Tonight, in the first round of the NBA of the NBA Dunk Contest, Blake Griffin needed a  good score on his second dunk to advance to the final. He had two minutes to complete the dunk and he was going to use about all of it if needs be to complete what may have been the greatest dunk in the history of the event. He was going to have Baron Davis throw it off of the back side of the backboard while he came flying from the side of the court and he would then complete a reverse back hand 360 dunk. He tried about six times and only came relatively close one time.

Hey. We don't fault Blake for trying though. We only wish that he completed the amazing dunk!

Finally on the seventh try, he settled for a ho hum tomahawk dunk. Now I've watched enough NBA Slam Dunk Contests to know that had that been anybody random ass clown throwing down a generic dunk on the seventh try that we would have saw sixes and sevens from the judges. Blake did throw down the dunk with decent power and that might have been enough to boost him into the eight and nine category had he just been a random ass clown.

But Blake Griffin is not a random ass clown. He's Blake Griffin and his average score was consequently a 9.2. His total score of 46 for the dunk gave him a two round total of 95. It was enough to beat the random ass clown, Demar Derozan (94 points) by a point. Even though Derozan threw down one of the best dunks I've seen in years for his second dunk (I did not see his first dunk); short of dunking from the three point line, he was not going to surpass Blake Griffin on this night.

Was Griffin the highest flying, most powerful, most exciting dunker in the field? Yes, yes, yes. But did he truly earn it on a level playing field? Absolutely not. But hey, the NBA and the sports media is swimming in more gravy with Blake Griffin winning the dunk competition.

How's that, you ask?

They cash in as soon as this weekend. More internet hits for articles and highlights. More people will actually tune in for tomorrow's All Star Game to see Blake Griffin's star. And long term. Well long term, let's just say that a bigger money path has now been blazed. Andre Agassi said it best when he said, "Image is everything."

Remembering Boise State Football 2010

Last season, the Boise State Broncos had one of the best football teams ever assembled (Just watch and see how many skilled players, let alone linemen they had that will go pro - It'll be sick!) But it did not matter. It flat out just did not matter. Had BSU beat a Nevada team that was essentially as strong of caliber as anybody else in the top ten then it would still not matter.

And I know what some of you lemmings and otherwise intelligent people are thinking. The Nevada Wolfpack were a top ten caliber team? Yes! They were 13-1 and their only loss was a close loss at Hawaii. Everyone out west, knows Hawaii is a notoriously tough venue (The Rainbows are always good at home even when their team sucks). But Hawaii did not suck. They were 10-4.

The Wolfpack also, had a running back duo that broke the career record for rushing yards. They were a team capable of pounding any team into submission on any given night. And quite frankly there is a reason that they were not on Oregon or Auburn's schedule. These teams from 'major' conference routinely stay away from their equals so that they can most effectively play the system. The University of Florida has not played a non conference game outside of the state of Florida since 1992! Shameless!

The general system

These team  from 'major' conferences are essentially no better than many of the teams from non 'major' conferences. But they have made a system that allows them to be recognized as superiors while the media whores who have vested interests in the facade prop them up. And yes, there is no bigger media whore than good ole 'wholesome' ESPN.

The RPI (College Basketball) Formula - A shameless double standard 'supplemental tool'

The RPI is predominately a measure of strength of schedule and quality of wins. When a team from a 'major' conference has a good RPI, it is used to justify anything and everything regarding their seeding in the NCAA tournament. When a non 'major' school has a good RPI, it suddenly becomes only a 'supplemental tool.' That is why despite being one or two in RPI for approximately the last month and a half (off the top of my head), BYU has not cracked the Top Five in the polls.

Look at an excerpt from bleacher report (not exactly a power house media outlet, but known). Look at how they shamelessly consider BYU to be some second class program from somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

BYU (23-2) is having an outstanding season, but one has to wonder how reliable the RPI is with the Provo, Utah school as its No. 1 team:

It's questionable at the least to understand how they rank higher in the RPI than Kansas RPI (No. 2), Texas RPI (No. 8), Ohio St. RPI (No. 3), Pitt RPI (No. 6) and Duke RPI (No. 7).

Just for clarity, Provo/Orem has the same population as Durham, North Carolina, where Duke is located.

One might miss that subtle shot if they are not used to recognizing the media whore's tactics. Yes even outlets like the Bleacher Report who were likely created to counter media whoredom, eventually realize there's more money in pedaling  to the bigger supply of johns (telling their primary markets what they want to hear).

How can a team from Provo have the best RPI? Oh clearly the RPI measure cannot be taken seriously?

Oh really?

The whores at ESPN will be rattling off Duke's RPI, UCLA's RPI, or whoever's RPI to justify their seedings or whatever else come tournament time. However, when a team like BYU cracks the top spot in the RPI, it's more like, what the _______ is wrong with that formula? They know that little if anything is wrong with the damn formula. But anytime a non 'major' school gets up there, they will have no problem pretending that the formula is broken.

I guess a little thing like having the best f-ing player in the country (Jimmer Fredette) and routinely kicking ass did not help them get to where they are? C'MON!

Even today, despite a poor shooting performance from that best player (who is always getting double and triple teamed and still routinely dropping 40's on teams), BYU went to Fort Worth and beat TCU by 23.

Tweny freaking three points!

Great teams make good teams look bad. That is what BYU did to TCU and that is what they did to San Diego State (a top ten team) when they beat them by 13, handing the Aztecs their only loss of the season.

Media Whore: Oh that doesn't matter though. San Diego State plays so many non 'major' teams. It doesn't matter that they have twenty seven wins to one loss! Clearly a Pittsburgh or whoever would too if they played out west.

I doubt it! The truth is that if the 'major' conference teams are better than it is a marginal difference at most. But the media whores would have you think it's a head and shoulders difference the way they routinely vote and the way the continually disregard the BYUs and San Diego States of the world.

Furthermore

Were it not for that one loss,San Diego State would likely be ranked one in the nation right now! Even the media whores would have a hard time denying the Aztecs that top spot. So BYU beat an elite team and has routinely spanked more teams than anybody, but it's not good enough to get them top five status?

No. BYU will take their token top ten spot and like it. Of course the voters won't like it. As long as BYU is there, they are taking up valuable real estate and robbing them of potential revenue.

Yes that is the reality. 'Overachievers' or rather teams from non 'major' conferences cut into the revenue stream.

Corrupt Math

ONE LOSS San Diego State is behind a THREE LOSS Texas team (four after their loss today).

One of the Longhorns losses came by seven points to USC! Yes USC! Are they not on probation? Did they not have scholarships cut. As a Southern Cali resident, I have not even bothered to watch them on television this year, if they are even allowed to be on television.

But they still have to pretend that USC is relevant. After all, they are from the 'major' magical Pac 10.

One can legitimately believe that Texas is better than San Diego State. That is not the issue. The issue is not that it is a legitimate belief but rather that the voters play this shell game every f'ing year. We always see the 'major' teams getting the benefit of the doubt. You can set your watch by it.

When the media whores give you these supposedly well thought out reasons for it, it is window dressing. They are just covering up the fact that as media whores, they get more money if Ohio State is ranked number one and not San Diego State.

Without knowing anything about schedules or the teams or anything, we already know that by the media whore system, Texas should be ranked higher than San Diego State.23-4 for Texas will almost always beat 27-1 for San Diego State. It's a gray area and that's all the room that they need to sell you that Texas deserves it more. They will only vote for San Diego State if there's a possibility that they would lose their pretend credibility. And since San Diego State does not have an average point differential of 35 and wins against six top ten schools then that is not an issue.

The Excusemobile: Emotional Effects!

We know how it goes too. San Diego State is a good team, but they just do not have enough quality wins yadda yadda yadda.

Quality? The RPI is a freaking measure of quality. But when BYU has a solid RPI, it's, 'oh well it's a just a supplemental tool. Yea that's it.' -

Consider this RPI analysis for ESPN whore, Eamonn Brennan.

The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, the emotional effects of specific games,

Emotional effects? Are you f'ing serious? Are you going to tell me that a team like BYU could be penalized because some kid was worried about his grandma being sick?

So if a team has a hard fought loss to Team A then that should factor into their loss against Team B? C'MON!

The TCU reality check

Here is something else for consideration. Today. BYU beat TCU by 23 on the road. Connecticut has not beat one Big East team at home or on the road by that great of a margin all season!

Yes, Connecticut recently piled on some losses so they are below BYU in the standings. But a three loss (not a six loss) Connecticut team would be unquestioned and be ahead of BYU (as I just explained). It really is automatic.

Okay, but is not this the same TCU that is going to be good enough to be a part of the Big East next season?

TCU gets how this BS works. That is why they parlayed their recent football success and will be joining the Big East next season. They'll have the same recruits (mostly). But they'll magically be 'major' and not icky non 'major' via The Mountain West moniker.

There is no such thing as merit in college sports. It's about the title. If BYU had the magical ACC title then nobody could deny them.

BYU realizes that it has gotten so bad and that is why they said f this. We're going independent. 'Maybe if we crush enough 'major' teams that are really not much better than the teams we play now then we'll get our due that is overdue.'

Who really gets screwed

Okay, so some of the cream of the crop teams are looking for and arguably finding loopholes to improve their situation. But who is really getting hurt in the long run?

How about the Colorado States, New Mexicos, Fresno States, Long Beach States, Gonzagas and UNLVs of the world. They are all fine and competitive institutions.

Those teams are consistently on par with Marquette, Louisville, Villanova, Syracuse, North Carolina State and Miami. The only damn difference is that they are not from a 'major' conference.

Feeding Lemmings

ESPN is going to keep enabling and fools are going to believe them. I had one message board poster tell me that the Boise State Broncos (football) did not have the big linebackers to compete for a full season in the SEC. The lemmings in those more vested markets actually believe such nonsense because that is the type of stuff that the media whores tickle their ears with.

Do the lemmings not bother to check out how many NFL players are coming from schools like Boise State? Sure there is arguably some marginal differences, but it really is not that pronounced. And it certainly is not enough for them to think that Auburn was absolutely better than Boise State this year. Quite frankly, I would not bet against Boise State. But thanks to the BCS whores (that includes the school presidents and atheltic directors of 'major' schools) we'll never get to know see what would have happened.

In fact, BSU beat the other Paper Championship Finalist, Oregon only one season before. Auburn certainly was not better than Adrian Peterson's Sooners, who the Broncos beat in 06 Fiesta Bowl.

Oh I forgot to mention that it is the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The systematic screwing of good teams is brought to you by Tostitos. Sort of makes you want to buy the store brand chips doesn't it?

Back To The BYU Basketball Reality

BYU has two losses this season. They lost a game in Southern California against UCLA. That was a game in which UCLA's big oaf center got four fouls and then he was allowed to throw elbows and bulldoze people and not get fouled out. Of course BYU played terribly that day and UCLA played well so I do not want to take anything away from UCLA.

Maybe we should consider what emotional trauma some of the BYU players may have been suffered from that game? (Sarcasm)

BYU also lost at one of the toughest places to play, New Mexico. The Albuquerque venue is basically the Rockies version of the Cameron Crazies. At one point recently, the Lobos even had the nation's longest home winning streak. But hey, we still got to consider New Mexico a non 'major' team (Code for: Not the media whores biggest seller).

By the way, UCLA (19-7) and New Mexico (17-9) are not slouches. BYU lost by single digits to good team on the road in games that they did not play well.

Heading into the New Mexico game, BYU was coming off of an emotional 13 point game at home against previously undefeated San Diego State. Do we not factor in the emotional nature of playing in that trap game?
Of course we do not do that! BYU is not a 'major' team. That double standard is preserved for the haves, not the have-nots. Instead, just mark it on the ledger that BYU lost to the lowly New Mexico and drop them in the rankings as far as you can possibly justify without too much of an outcry (Let's relegate blogs like this, that tell you how it is, to the fringe).

It does not matter that New Mexico (17-9) is not really lowly and that they would hold their own against any other 17-9 team in any other conference.

Speaking of 17-9, that is the exact record of St. John's, the team that beat Pittsburgh today. But will BYU jump ahead of Pittsburgh? Maybe, but probably not. After all, BYU has not beat all those 'major' teams that Pittsburgh has beaten.

BYU does not have the same strength of schedule as Pittsburgh. Never you mind that RPI weighs strength of victory and weighs it against performance. Perception needs to be reality. Reality being reality could be disastrous.

Reality

BYU is not  dominant team. Come tournament time, they might lose at any stage. But so might Pittsburgh or really any team in college basketball. So why do we pretend that one team is not worthy and one team is elite? It goes back the media whores. It's a set proposition. More johns are in the Big East Market (Yea that's how they came up with the name Saint John's by the way) (sarcasm).

That is not to say that every market does not have a wonderful amount of level headed and fair minded sports fans (they do). But like Colin Cowherd says, sports fans always back with their dog in the race.

If you can tell the majority of sports fans that their team is 'major' and the team in f'ing who the hell cares is not as good as you guys then they are going to accept it. It is that simple. Yes there are victims, but majority rules all the same.

Picture 1: Believe it or not, it is not the 'white bias' keeping BYU down.

Picture 2: The media loves selling the story of BYU' Jimmer Fredette as this year's Stephen Curry. The fact that his team is as good as any other team only annoys the media whores though.

Bonus