Is A Cinderela-less Sweet 16 Boring?

Although ESPN.com senior writer Pat Forde never poses the question in his latest column, I'm sure it had to have crossed his mind, as it has many this week: Is the looming Sweet 16 of the NCAA tournament a little boring without a surprise Cinderella team still alive?

This is the first year in quite a long time that none of these said spoilers -- think George Mason of 2006 -- will be present in the Sweet 16 round. (No. 12 Arizona, pictured above, comes closest, but they're traditionally a powerhouse, so they don't count.) Instead, all of the 1, 2 and 3-seeds are still alive, making this weekend's round and the rest of the tournament a true display of basketball's finest teams. But it seems like there's a greater excitement to the tournament when a surprise team makes it deep, and I can't help but notice a little bit of buzz fading now that there's not an underdog to root for. I'm not a diehard basketball fan, but I appreciate the game and of course I'm invested (literally) in the tournament this year for the same reason everyone else is: that fine payday that awaits. (Don't look now, but I'm NUMBER ONE in all Lehigh brackets on Facebook!) 

Anyway, has the tournament become less interesting without a Cinderella team? Or are you excited to see the nation's best teams square off to determine an unquestionable champion in terms of talent? Do you care? Do you just want the money? Discuss! 

Let The Man Tweet, Coach!

Charlie V loves Twitter, hates eyebrows

So in keeping theme with our recent discussions about social networking and its place in the sports world, I thought I'd post about an article from ESPN about Milwaukee Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva's recent Twitter mishap:

Villanueva got a talking-to from his coach Scott Skiles after the coach learned Villanueva posted a message to his Twitter feed -- a "tweet" -- from his mobile phone during halftime of Sunday's home victory over the Boston Celtics.

"We made a point to Charlie and the team that it's nothing we ever want to happen again," Skiles said after practice Tuesday. "You know, [we] don't want to blow it out of proportion. But anything that gives the impression that we're not serious and focused at all times is not the correct way we want to go about our business."

Using the screen name "CV31" -- Villanueva's initials and jersey number -- Villanueva posted the following message during halftime Sunday:

"In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We're playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up."

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with Villanueva's actions -- besides him NOT HAVING ANY EYEBROWS, WHICH CREEPS ME THE HELL OUT -- because he wasn't doing anything harmful against his team. In fact, I love to see athletes embracing Twitter, and social networking devices in general. I've been having a blast following Shaq on Twitter (THE_REAL_SHAQ), who recognizes the Web site as a great way to communicate with his fans. While coaches from the old guard might not see a place for Twitter in the locker room, I think that if it isn't distracting to players competitively, why not tweet? This can only be a good thing for sports. It of course brings more attention to the athletes, shows fans another side of them, and probably would only increase revenues. Plus, Villanueva said the tweet motivated him, and the forward turned in a pretty decent game in the second half. Coach Skiles... you have a really mediocre team on the verge of missing the playoffs. You see what happens when one of your players tries something new. Why not let all your players tweet from now on?

Eagles Employee Fired For Bad-Mouthing Team on Facebook

Dude's like, "you can take away my job, but you can't take away my keyboard."

While I promised I wouldn't let my love for Philly sports creep into my posting, this one's actually gotten quite a bit of leverage in the national media in the last few days (it even made ESPN First Take this morning) and is worthy of some good old-fashioned debate. Here's the story, as first reported by the Inquirer and commented on by Matt Mosely of ESPN: 

Dan Leone was a rabid Eagles fan (like there's any other kind) who was living out a dream of working for the organization as a part-time employee. When the Eagles allowed Brian Dawkins to sign with the Broncos, the 32-year-old Leone fired off an angry message on his Facebook. It's the sort of thing you could get away with in a crowded bar in South Philly -- but not in Cyberspace.

The Eagles relieved Leone of his duties over the phone, which added fuel to the fire of the Inquirer's muckraking (and entertaining) new columnist John Gonzalez. You have to appreciate a newspaper that can convince a grown man to pose for a picture while holding his keyboard like a helpless animal.

This was the status Leone posted on his Facebook: 

"Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver. . .Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

Nevermind the fact that Leone can't spell, but was his firing justified? The Eagles' Front Office is drawing ire for cutting the employee, who only works part time and admitted that the action was stupid and immediately removed the status after the organization saw it. But the bottom line is this: you NEVER bad-mouth your employer in public. 

See, I am a fan and a blogger, with no contractual obligation to the team, so therefore I can say that, yes, the damn Eagles are indeed retarded for letting Dawkins walk.

Whose side are you on? Leone's or the Eagles'?

Should The Union Identify The Other 103 Names?

A-Roid is like, "Yo, this isn't fair."

[LINK:] Fehr rejects drug suspicion talk

Major League Baseball union head Donald Fehr says the union will try to ensure that the list of 103 names of players who tested positive for steroids in 2003 will remain confidential. But is this fair? The biggest name on the list, Alex Rodriguez (hereafter referred to as A-Roid, or A-Fraud, you pick) has already been revealed, forever tainting the baseball star's career and legacy. Test samples and records were supposed to be destroyed, but Fehr says the players' association didn't have enough time to make arrangements after the results became final Nov. 13, 2003. Obviously the guilities don't want their careers to be jeopardized if their names are released, but as much as I hate the guy, not revealing the rest of the list isn't fair to A-Roid. In all likelihood, he would've been the biggest name on the list under any circumstance, but the fact that there are 103 other guys who tested positive for banned substances who aren't getting scrutinized means that 'Fraud is the media's sole scapegoat in this snafu, and he'd sure like to have some company to take some of the burden off his back. My main man Brad Lidge is also heralding the release of the names for the sake of his fellow players. Says the closer:

"I wish they would just come out and say who the 104 players are because it's not fair for the other players," Lidge said last week. "We're all lumped in with them, and people think most players did it during the steroid era. But all of us didn't cheat. I don't care how they do it, they should name all of the players on the list." [link]

What do you guys think? I know we're all tired of the steroids talk. I want to see this go away as much as anyone so we can all just enjoy normal baseball again.

test test test

worddddddddddd