Friday, March 24, 2006

My Bracket's been Shaq'ed

March Madness is in full swing, with some major upsets and unexpected outcomes rocking brackets nationwide. I think I’m back to loving this time of year again.

My bracket is dead to me now, with both of my final teams (Gonzaga and Ohio) out of the tourney. In fact, the only teams I have left are Texas, Memphis and BC. And BC hasn’t played their Sweet 16 game yet.

Seeing Duke go down was sweet, even though I didn’t think they’d make it to the Final Four anyway. They petered out at the end of the regular season, dropping their final two games to division foes UNC and Florida State. What struck me as funny is that while some experts were pointing out that Duke (or more specifically, Redick) may be running out of steam, they also had them in their Final Four picks.

Regardless, they didn’t make it. And Redick, probably one of the most loved (by Duke fans) and hated (by everyone else) ACC players in history, finishes off his collegiate career with exactly ZERO national titles. Sweet.

So who to root for since the Zags are gone? As I am prone to doing, I made another mistake in my post yesterday, claiming that the only ACC team left to root for was Duke. Beings that I now live in Boston, there’s little excuse for me overlooking BC’s run in this tournament. However, since they just joined the ACC this season, I think I deserve a pass on that goof. So, Go BC! (What’s their mascot again?)

I hope LSU mania doesn’t sweep the nation now, though. While I’m probably more excited than the next guy about their upset of Duke, I get a little annoyed by those “area affected by tragedy” rooting trends. Sure, Hurricane Katrina was devastating to New Orleans and other areas in Louisiana, but don’t let that be your reason for pulling for LSU. LSU winning the tourney won’t help the region recover from the turmoil. Let’s keep our heads on straight, please.

I hate to harp on the Barry Bonds thing (well, that’s not entirely true, its kinda fun), but he just makes it so easy sometimes.

Turns out that the suit he has filed against the authors and publishers of “Game of Shadows” is not a libel case at all. Instead, Bonds is suing because the authors used illegally obtained grand jury transcripts.

How does this move not simply crush the Bonds PR movement? For years now, Bonds has vehemently denied using any time of performance-enhancing drug. Now this book comes out that not only fingers him as a steroid user, but outlines his sources, his doping regimen, every drug he ever took, even fellow ballplayers he introduced to the stuff.

So, to maintain his innocence, wouldn’t you expect him to sue for libel, claiming the book is erroneous and portrays him in a negative manner that would negatively, severely negatively, impact his career? Wouldn’t you?

But he didn’t. Bonds took a different approach, suing because the authors used information that was supposed to be privileged. So he’s not claiming the book is wrong, just complaining about how they got their information. That’s shooting yourself in the foot.

Reminds me of those Law & Order reruns I always watch. Police bust into a suspect’s house and find the murder weapon that would easily lead to a conviction. However, clever lawyers deduce an illegal search and seizure makes that murder weapon inadmissible in court, and the criminal walks, usually without ever seeing a jury. Does that make him any less guilty in anyone’s eye, though? Of course not.

And that’s what Bonds is trying to do now, wiggle his steroid-bloated body through that same loophole. Sure, I may be guilty, but you can’t prove it because you’re not supposed to have those documents. See the hypocrisy? The irony? The whateverthefuck that is?

Man, my head hurts.

Parting thought: Am I the only one who didn’t know Dwight Gooden was Gary Sheffield’s uncle? Learn something new every day …

No comments: