papsrus

From the ESPN report: "Emmert has been given full reign by the pansy presidents [at other universities] to make his own decision," said the (Penn State) trustee. ..." Nice move. Lets start calling other people pansies. Very helpful. Good work, Mr. anonymous trustee.

Goodspeak -- It's safe to say, I think, that Paterno would be tried as an accessory, so although he didn't commit the crimes himself, he is without doubt a party to them, and shares responsibility for them -- legally and morally. As Jim said, Paterno (among others) had the power to stop it all and chose not to. The NCAA is talking about 'unprecedented sanctions.' Given that the school is hastily removing the Paterno statue today and the sanctions will be announced Monday morning, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the sanctions include stripping Paterno and the program of years worth of their treasured wins. Maybe 14 years worth. That would certainly send a clear message to the all-mighty athletic programs that run college campuses these days and remove what is perhaps most valued by Paterno defenders -- his victories. It would essentially wipe out his life's work.

I thought so, too. I can understand a person defending their father, but he kept referring to all this as "one small part" of his father's (er, Joe's) life. It seems as though he is still a long ways away from facing the fact that this was a colossal failure by his father, for whatever reason (selfishness, putting football or his own career ahead of the lives of children, etc.), with tragic consequences.

Rivers was scheduled to play a couple of dates here in Sarasota in the spring. Was excited about hearing him. Sadly, it wasn't to be.

You bet. As you know, Le Richelieu is getting a tres expensive, though. Admittedly, I went for a suite and didn't search for any deals, but the new parking fee does add up. OTOH, it is super duper secure parking now. And in the end, what the hell. Worth it all. Enjoy the fjords!

Sorry guys. Just spotted all these swell birthday wishes. Thanks so much and apologies for the tardy response. Just got back from NOLA, so kicking back with some Clarence Williams and basking in the glow of all the great music, people, sounds, smells, food. No right angles in New Orleans, which tends to enhance the effects of beer intake nicely. Music was outstanding. Hot Club of New Orleans made the Tempura Shrimp at Three Muses taste even sweeter; Jumbo Shrimp Jazz Band rocked the Spotted Cat, dancing was on fire. There was a Second Line down Frenchmen Street on Friday for 'Uncle' Lionel Batiste, the bass drummer for the Treme Brass Band, who passed away July 8. Place was crazy. After several failed attempts, I finally caught the Washboard Chaz Trio, too. Two prior attempts failed: once it was just their steel guitar player, St. Louis Slim, who showed up, which was cool -- lots of Robert Johnson, whiskey and cigarettes. The second time they just didn't show up at all (not an altogether unheard of happenstance in New Orleans, I've learned). But they rocked the Spotted Cat Friday night. Place is a dive, but it's always jumping. Anyways, thanks again for the birthday wishes and cheers! James

This is an interesting NBA off-season. Even I'm paying attention. I kind of like the Nash move to the Lakers. Now if they can land Howard, they might be in business. (Unless the commish nixes the deal). How about the Knicks matching Houston's offer for Lin? That seems a little more dicey than the Nash deal to me.

Why not forget about the dots altogether, focus on the writing, and let the editors assign the dots (since that's kind of what's happening anyways)? If you feel the need to, you could make this explicit in your writeup -- ("Although I don't assign the number of dots, ..." ). Free yourself from the dots. Enjoy the music and the writing.

Wondering if that dodge runs ... or starts.

Don't hate 'em at all. I enjoyed watching the Heat during their playoff run. I am dreading the outcry, though, if either Nash or Allen should sign with Miami. Just hate to see those guys burned in effigy in Phoenix or Boston.

Making a comeback with the Heat?

Haven't forgotten. Just waiting to close the books on June first.

ESPN: Ray Allen interested in joining the Heat?

I agree that will alone does not cause the outcome. But if will is, as you say, "raising the ceiling in the ongoing test of ability vs. circumstance," then it has to have some impact on an athlete's performance. In a sense, how far he or she is willing to go in that test defines the performance. Like the boxer who gets back up and charges to the center of the ring in the 12th round after being knocked silly for the previous 11 rounds. He may not win, but he is demonstrating a will to compete despite being overwhelmed by a superior opponent. The fighter who says "no mas," on the other hand, seems to me to be demonstrating a lack of will in the face of similar odds. The outcomes are the same for each -- a loss. The will demonstrated in their performances are quite different.

It's a terrible, heavy, rainy Sunday, but I think I can muster the will to address a couple of the things you've brought up. I don't think this is the argument anyone is making: that will alone is what determines the outcome of an athletic contest. What I am saying is that I believe Cuban is incorrect to dismiss the human spirit -- the will to win -- as having no impact at all on the course of an athletic competition. What if a guy goes back into a game with severe leg cramps and drains a pivotal 3-pointer? Is this person's desire to overcome the obvious pain and resulting physical limitation in order to try to play a key role in the outcome of a game a measurable event? The outcome (a made 3-pointer) is not guaranteed, so the outcome isn't necessarily the measure at all. Nor is victory. The will to overcome the pain in order to play and try to affect the outcome of a game may be the better measure. There are many examples of athletes who have exhibited great desire to overcome physical limitations but failed to win in the end. That they ultimately failed doesn't diminish the fact that they exhibited an extraordinary will to try to achieve something. I don't get the parallel here at all. See the above example of playing with leg cramps -- a measurable (certainly observable) event. There are a ton of other examples of athletes overcoming physical obstacles that might defeat another person. What makes one person overcome these obstacles when others are defeated by it? I can only re-emphasize that I don't think anyone is saying 'will' alone is what ultimately decides a game. Only that it shouldn't be dismissed as having no impact at all, as Cuban did.

There are myriad human characteristics that cannot be scientifically measured. Doesn't mean they don't exist. What Cuban said was that this murky thing called 'will,' or 'desire' or 'wanting it more than the other guy' plays no role at all in the outcome of a contest. In fact, his argument was not that 'will' was not present. His argument was that it was present but was not a factor because everyone on the court had it in the same degree. (Apparently he can measure it). And so, because everyone had the same degree of desire, the same will to win, the outcome of a contest boiled down to X's and O's and execution. While X's and O's and the ability to execute are important, paramount even, dismissing the competitive spirit, the will of an athlete to overcome obstacles as a non-factor reduces athletic competition to a kind of robotic exercise. And it would lead you to believe that the so-called underdog could never defeat a superior opponent with a superior strategy. We know that's not the case.

Well, I'm coming here for my NBA analysis from now on. Nice breakdown. But I'd guess that Cuban might say luck has nothing to do with winning or losing, too.

A dangerous line of thinking. I hear athletes and coaches talk all the time about how Jesus Christ must have intervened in the outcome of games as a result of their unwavering faith in him; does the fact that they talk about it all the time mean there must be something to their idea? The "will to win" fallacy also runs rampant in bad scholarship around military issues. Here's IR scholar Robert Farley: Interesting, although whatever its motivations, this doesn't argue that Will doesn't exist (or, by extension, that it plays no role in outcomes). It simply questions whether A) Will can by itself determine or explain an outcome, and B) what is the moral/ethical basis of Will (in some instances), I suppose. I'd say that associating "the will to win" or "wanting it more than the other guy" with religious zealotry and/or fascism in every case is fallacy, though. As the sole explanation for winning or losing, sure, it's bunk. But that's entirely a different thing than saying it can play some role. As can X's and O's. And clearly Cuban was saying it plays no role at all. Who knew the NBA could be such an exercise in existentialism?

I agree that First Take is a light on actual analysis (is there any at all?) and heavy on Bayless' contrived controversies and touchy-feely stuff. It's a morning fluff show. I disagree, however, that this sort of thing extends to "all" media, as Cuban proclaimed (in a sweeping generalization of the sort he was accusing Bayless of making), or even all of ESPN. The network's NFL coverage is fairly good on the X's and O's, I think, with former players and coaches breaking down tape for viewers, etc. They also do a pretty decent job in their baseball analysis -- with former players and coaches breaking down pitching technique, location, batting technique, etc. Maybe they should do more, but it's not like it doesn't exist at all, as Cuban claimed. And while he may not have said that X's and O's are the only thing that matters, what he did say pretty clearly was that the will to win, or "wanting it more" than your opponent has nothing to do with the outcome of a game. I disagree. I think Miami drew a great deal of motivation from their failure last year, and that Oklahoma City may very well succeed next year in no small part because they will derive motivation from their failure this year. This sort of thing -- the will to win, if you want, or imposing your will on your opponent -- has something to do with winning and losing, me thinks. You hear athletes and coaches talk about it all the time. It must mean something. "The difference between the impossible and the possible lies in a person's determination." -- Tommy Lasorda "It is not the size of a man but the size of his heart that matters." -- Evander Holyfield "Your biggest opponent isn't the other guy. It's human nature." -- Bobby Knight "I always felt that my greatest asset was not my physical ability, it was my mental ability." -- Bruce Jenner

Watched the Cuban segment(s). Couple of thoughts: There's no doubt that Bayless is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian, and that he will contort facts to fit the contrarian view of the day. But Cuban's claim that a player's desire or, more generally, the "human" element, plays no role at all in sports, and that victory or defeat all boils down to X's and O's, is equally myopic. Jordan didn't win three straight, twice, simply because of X's and O's. The Miracle on Ice U.S. hockey team didn't beat the Big Red Machine simply because of X's and O's. And anyone who watched the Heat bury the Thunder could see that LeBron James had a will to win that elevated not just his game, but elevated the whole team. There is a human story to be told. It is not simply because of X's and O's. Something else was in play. Desire/fear/anger/joy/love and all the rest. I'm actually surprised Cuban thinks it all comes down to X's and O's. X's and O's play a big part, but if that was all it was about, sports would not be nearly as compelling as it often is. In fact, overcoming X's and O's is often what it is about. Overcoming a superior opponent (didn't everyone and his mother say the Thunder were the better team going in to this?) And Steven A. Smith pointing out that Cuban only knows the X's and O's as well as he does because he owns the team and the coaches are showing him basically how to break down tape rings true to me. Maybe Cuban was born a basketball genius and could break down tape at 2 1/2 (like his son apparently can), but I doubt it. Someone showed him what X's and O's are all about, and in all likelihood (since he owns the team) it was the coaches who work for him. Cuban may come across as some kind of populist for bashing "the media," but he was dead wrong in dismissing the human element in sports. IMO

Mine arrived on the doorstep today. No. 963, for those interested. Haven't had time to do anything more than crack it open and drool. Given the enthusiasm here, I'm looking forward to discovering it over the next _______.

I like fundraisers better than ads anyways. (Although I did notice when I logged in recently that right below my login field there was a notice from some hot girl on facebook who said she wanted to meet me. And she was "online now!" too. Will she go away with the ads? Better question: was she paying you to wink as we logged in?) Will send some cashola soon. Thanks for one of the few truly engaging roadside attractions on the internets. James

Ain't never goin' back to my ...

Too young. RIP