Many OSU fans have been salivating over the possibility of our first
Rose Bowl appearance since '64--that was before I (and many others here) were born.

If we win out--no easy thing, with Cal, @Zona, and the Quacks in the next three weeks--we're in.  At best U$C can tie the Beavs, and we win the tiebreak.

However, I've seen discussion on a U$C fanboard of how the Beavs might get screwed out of a Rose Bowl bid--even if we did win out.  Certainly, The Powers That Be would probably not relish the thought of a 9-3 team from a smaller school playing in the BCS.

So, what's the angle you ask?  Simple.

Penn State.

With the Nittany Lions losing to Iowa over the weekend, their hopes for a title game bid are probably in the toilet.  So what's left for them?  A Big-10 title, and a Rose Bowl appearance.

But <strong>we have already played Penn State</strong> this year:

Acording to "Rule B" of the BCS rulings (this is clipped from another blog post and I don't have a link to the source handy):

5. After completion of the selection process as described in Paragraph Nos. 1-4, the conferences and Notre Dame may, but are not required to, adjust the pairings taking into consideration the following:

A. whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years;
B. whether two teams that played against one another in the regular season will be paired against one another in a bowl game;
C. whether the same two teams will play against each other in a bowl game for two consecutive years; and
D. whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans as measured by expected ticket sales for the bowls and by expected television interest, and the consequent financial impact on Fox and the bowls.

 

Emphasis added by me:

So, questions for those more knowledgeable.

1) If OSU wins the Pac-10, and PSU wins the Big 10--could The Powers That Be decide that OSU shouldn't get to play in the Rose Bowl?

2) If the answer to #1 is yes--do we then have to be invited to another BCS bowl instead?  (My take on reading the above is that TPTB are limited to swapping bowl assignments among the BCS teams; that they cannot exclude a conference champion on grounds of having previously played another conference champion).

3) If we do win the Pac-10--does U$C still earn an at-large BCS bid, screwing over someone like Utah (who beat us--wouldn't <em>that</em> be ironic?)

What would Beaver fandom think if OSU were to win the Pac-10, and be rewarded with an invite to the Fiesta Bowl instead of a ticket to Pasadena?  What matters more--the Pac-10 championship, or having it be the RB?

Yes, it's getting to be time, Blazer fans, for the return of The Man who will lead us to championship glory.  That charismatic leader, that ebullient soul, that basketball genius who will single-handedly guide the Blazers to victory.  'Tis been a year since he last laced up the rhetorical sneakers, and now he is ready to fulfill the immense promise that he and he alone possesses.

Greg Oden?

No... not him.

I'm talking about the one, the only.... fatty.

Tomorrow, folks, is 9/18, and the end of el gordito's self-imposed exile from Blazer fandom.  Tomorrow, according to rumor and reports, BlazersEdge will once again be decked out in his punctuation-free stream of consciousness.  Tomorrow, the Eric Cartman of Blazer fandom will make his triumphant return to the court on which he once was the master.  Tomorrow, the many posters who have joined this forum in the past year will finally get to experience the experience known as "fattitude".  Tomorrow, the liquor will flow, the women will swoon, and the rich and powerful will celebrate the resurgence of the personality whom they address as "mr. fatty".

And as the master would say....

book it.

I haven't seen this discussed before, so let's put it on the table.

There has been much discussion of whether or not the Blazers should retire Terry Porter's number 30 (despite the fact that the number was used by Rasheed Wallace after Porter's Portland career ended).   One might be able to make the case of the other mainstays of the 90-92 teams (Jerome Kersey--#25--presently worn by Trout; Buck Williams--#52--presently worn by Greg Oden).  But with the unfortunate demise of Kevin Duckworth--should his jersey (#00) be retired posthumously?  Nobody since has worn #00 for the Blazers.

Thoughts to consider:

* Duck participated in two All-Star games as a Blazer--the number--same as Terry Porter, Jim Paxson, Geoff Petrie, and Bill Walton.  Petrie and Walton are retired; the former for his role as a charter member of the franchise; the latter for leading the team to a title.  TP has often been discussed, as mentioned above, as a retirement candidate.  Paxson left the team on somewhat acrimonious terms, and never accomplished much postseason-wise while here.

* Sidney Wicks (4 All-Star appearances as a Blazer) never had his number retired.  Rasheed Wallace (3 appearances, 2 as a Blazer) probably won't, either, for obvious reasons.

* Other than Lucas and Walton; the guys who played for the '77 champions (Steele, Hollins, Twardzik, and Neal) all had less successful NBA careers.  Lionel Hollins comes closest.

* Duck did win the 1988 Most Improved award.

Were I to list the 20 greatest Blazers--Duck would probably be on that list.  (Petrie, Wicks, Walton, Lucas, Hollins, Kermit, Thompson, Paxson, Lever, Drexler, Porter, Duck, Williams, Kersey?, Uncle Cliffy, Sheed, Damon, Sabonis, Pippen, Roy).  Were I to limit myself to the Top Ten (Walton, Drexler, Wallace, Wicks, Petrie, Roy, Porter, Cliffy, Paxson, Hollins)--Duck misses the cut.

So--an appropriate honor?  Or sentimental nonsense?

Right after the draft, I did a poll concerning when and if J-Rex would find himself in the starting lineup.  (Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding a link to that poll)

Now that he's the Vegas MVP and helping the Olympians train, it's time to ask the question again.

When/if will Bayless crack the starting lineup on a full-time basis.  Starts due to injury of someone ahead of him on the depth chart don't count; I'm only interested in when he'll be at the top of the depth chart.

My thoughts:  It may not be on opening night--JB will have to beat Blake for the position--but it will be this season.  The main thing for JB will be to become a competent NBA defender; at least better than Blake, which he should be able to do.  Especially against smaller guards; as bigger guards will probably have little trouble shooting over Bayless and his teeny tiny arms.

Greg Oden has been conspicuous in summer league--by his absence.  Many theories as to why; it's time for a poll to see what y'all think.

Kevin Durant did, of course, have a cameo appearance in Orlando; but KD is already an established NBA talent who has no need to play in summer league for development or evaluation.  (He may or may not reach the superlative "cross between Bird, Jordan, and KG" heights predicted for him in the runup to the 2007 draft, but he has shown he's a legit NBA player--and despite a rough early part of his rookie year, looks promising).

But we still ain't seen what GO can do on the basketball court against the big boys, other than a few games in last year's summer league on a bad knee.

So... it's voting time.

As mentioned in this fanpost, BlazersEdge poster-in-exile fatty has been caught lurking.  Apparently he has been reading, and participating in a poll; though he has not yet posted.

In his farewell post, after Greg Oden got microfractured, fatty gave a specific date for his return:  September 18, 2008--one year after Oden's surgery.

So... when will fatty be back--i.e. posting under his own moniker?  When will we get to enjoy (as it is) his never-ending stream of fattitude?  The polls are now open:

And a few other questions to discuss in the polls:

* Will fatty ever learn to use punctuation?  (My guess is he does, and simply prefers not to, like the artist he is)

* Does he still hate "emannuel lewis", i.e. Martell Webster?  Can he ever forgive #8 for the mortal sin of Not Being Chris Paul?

* How does he regard the departure of Jarrett Jack, who also suffers from a terminal case of Not Chris Paul Syndrome?

* How many times per week will he casually mention his wild and woolly social life--all the parties he goes to, all the bee-yoootiful women who desire him intensely, all the Allen-esque buckets of money he makes, all the rich and famous people he knows and has connections with?

Inquiring minds, as they say, wanna know.

But whenever he does come back, it will be interesting.. especially for the many new folks who have joined us in the past year, and are not used to the fatty experience.

Book it.

Normally, when George Will writes on politics, I tend to hold my nose when I read it.  While Will is a gifted wordsmith, his politics tend to run the gamut between "nazi" and "caveman", at least in my estimation. 

However, when his brilliant pen is put towards cultural topics largely devoid of political content, he's an entertaining read.  He's one of the better baseball writers out there (despite not having "sportswriter" as his daily job).  And today, he penned a brilliant piece on the subject of beer.

It appeared on the editorial pages of this morning's Oregonian, but you can read it here (this one is on the Sacramento Bee's website; which was the first one to come up in google).

Brilliant stuff.

Andrew Perna at RealGM has released his list of Top Ten Careers of Players Picked Sixth--and our boy Roy is at #10.

The entire list:

10. Roy

9. Shane Battier

8. Downtown Freddie Brown

7. Hersey Hawkins

6. Antoine Walker

5. Kenny Smith

4. Orlando Woolridge

3. Adrian Dantley

2. Lenny Wilkens

1. Larry Bird

Now, this is a *career* achievement award, so the three active players on the list (Roy, Battier, and to lesser etent, 'Toine) probably have room to move up.   Roy is better than Battier today overall (though Battier's a far better defender); and I see Roy vaulting up to #4 rather swiftly.  The top 3 are all HOFers, and Bird is of course the best at his position.  (LeBron may challenge him one day as best-ever SF, but not yet).

I can see Roy eventually being considered a better player than Dantley--who was a bit of a one trick pony, but damn he did that one think (score) well.  Wilkens playing career occurred mostly before I was born--I know him far better as a coach than as a player.

Happy fourth!  As we celebrate that which makes America America--greed, capitalism, and hot dogs--here is my final poll on the subject of the ex Seattle SeahawksSonics (doh!--es), and their imminent departure for Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain, and the waving wheat can sure smell swee... (whack! whack! whack! STOP THAT).

Anyway, the final question concerning the Sonics decision to reverse the steps of Tom Joad is--who is the villian?

Before you give the obvious answer (it's Clay!), permit me to list a few candidates.  Some of them are listed twice, for different reasons.  However, we will start in Oklahoma (every night, my honey lamb and I... OW!  OK, no more showtunes!) with the man who is now grinning like a hawk, with a rabbit in its beak, making lazy circles in the sky.

• Clay Bennett, for moving a team from a city that loved it

Why Clay is the villain:  It's understandable that Clay wanted a basketball team for his hometown; we don't begrudge him that.  But when he goes and rips an established franchise from a fanbase, that is simply not acceptable.  Boo!

Why he is not:  Clay is an Oklahoman.  His civic duty is to Oklahoma, not to Seattle.  Seattle has no right to make demands on Clay, and forfeited any right when Howard Schulz sold the team.  Seattlites should look elsewhere for blame.

• Clay Bennett, for not being honest about the whole thing

Why he is the villain:  Even if we accept that he's an Oklahoman doing good for his own community--he still committed fraud on Seattle (and possibly on the league--who knows) with his ruse of trying to find a "local solution".  It's patently obvious that his proposal was calculated to be unacceptable; and he simply lied to a) get Schulz to sell the team in the first place, and b) to dupe Seattle fans into attending games and supporting him until he could break the Key Arena lease.  BOO!

Why he is not:  Nobody believed him, anyway--should anyone be surprised?  Least of all, Howard Schulz, who should have known better.  Which brings us to:

• Howard Schulz, for selling the team to Bennett over the objections of minority owners who wanted to find a local owner

Why Schulz is the villain:  Schulz *had* to know that by selling the team to an out-of-town investor, from a city that recently had hosted the Hornets post-Katrina and was "on the market" for an NBA franchise--that there was a good chance the team might actually leave.  All Mr. Starbucks cared about during this whole fiasco was $$$--he made a boatload by selling the team for far more than he bought it for.  He'd sell his mother for money.  Oh, and his coffee sucks, too.  BOO!

Why he is not:  Schultz (does his name have a T or not?  I'm too lazy to look it up) was stuck with a franchise with a (cue Steve Patterson and repeat after me:) Broken Financial Model.  He was losing money on operations, so selling was the only way to recoup.  And there wasn't exactly a line of local billionaires looking to by the team--Ballmer, Gates, Bezos, and the rest weren't interested. And, as was established above, Bennett lied through his teeth through the whole process.

• NBA Commissioner David Stern, for screwing over The Fans in general
  

Why the commish is the villain: David Stern doesn't care for fans; just their money.  Even though he may be slowly killing the golden goose; he's only interested in getting more money from your pockets into the team owners.  His shortsightedness may damage the league; as the NBA probably lost thousands of fans yesterday.  Oh, on top of that the league is rigged.  Like Baron Davis playing in New Orleans--BOO!!!

Why he isn't:  He's just doing his job.  He serves at the pleasure of the owners, and his job is to maximize the revenue of the NBA.  He produces and markets a product, which people consume.  Simple as that.  If you don't pay for that product, you don't get it. 

• NBA Commissioner David Stern, for screwing over Seattle specifically.

Why Stern is the villain:  Even if we accept the promise that Stern's loyalty is to the owners, Seattle was still treated quite unfairly.  There was no pretense of fairness or equity in the whole process.  Boo hoo.

Why Stern is not the villain:  See above.  The fans aren't who he works for.  If his team owner in Seattle says "get me out of here", it's his job to do precisely that.

• Former Sonics owner Barry Ackerly

Why Billboard Barry is the villain:  Ackerly, who made his fortune erecting those monstrousities you see alongside the freeway, was the Sonics owner prior to Schulz, and was the guy responsible for renovating the Seattle Center Coliseum, and negotiating what would later become the "worst lease in the NBA".  The redesign was on-the-cheap on many levels--skyboxes were not included, even though it was apparent that this would be an important source of team revenue, and was (according to reports I've read) intentionally designed to be unsuitable for the NHL. (The WHL Thunderbirds do play there, but the NHL has stricter ice standards the Key cannot meet).  His shortsightedness planted the seed for the poison fruit which was forced down Seattle's throat this week.  A big ugly billboard which reads, "Boo!"

Why he is not:  He hasn't owned the team in years; it's unfair to blame him for something that happened long after he sold.  Both Schulz and Bennett knew what they were buying--it isn't as though Ackerly hoodwinked 'em into thinking the Key was a first-rate facility.

• Former Sonics officers Wally Walker and Rick Sund

Why these guys are the villains:  They--collectively--ran the team into the ground, plain and simple.  Walker was hired, of course, to replace Trader Bob Whitsitt after Trader Bob came to PDX.  While Bob is credited with doing great damage to the Portland franchise, he is widely acknowledged to have left the Sonics in better shape than he found them; indeed, the Sonics team he built would go to the NBA FInals in 1996 (losing to Da Bulls).  All that was squandered by Walker, and to a lesser extent Sund.  Legions of bad trades, wasted draft picks on project centers, and the deplorable way Nate McMillan was treated, left a sour taste in the mouth of fans.  Oh, and boo.

Why they are not.  They're too far down on the totem pole to matter for this.  They may, as the lawyers say, have contributory negligence, but blame focuses on the folks who were signing their paychecks.

• Ownership of the Mariners and Seahawks

Why these guys are the villains:  Nintendo of America, Ken Behring, and our favorite owner--Paul Allen--all of 'em strongarmed Seattle (and Washington) taxpayers into building palaces for the Ms and the Hawks, with two results:  1) When Schultz came looking for his handout, the well was dry; and 2) David Stern was apparently rather miffed that MLB and the NFL got the red-carpet treatment from Seattle, and his league did not.  For leaving the cupboard bare for Seattle basketball, the 12th man gives a hearty Boo!

Why they are not:  Again, they are too far removed from the situation to be assigned any significant blame.  And--they were just Doing Their Job.

• Politicians and special interests

Why these guys are the villains:  Perhaps in reaction to the Safeco and Qwest deals; a coalition of anti-tax advocates on the right, and anti-corporate-welfare types on the left, have managed to stymie any attempt to get funding for the Sonics--and elected officials, either actively representing (or terrified of) said interests have repeatedly spurned the team.  Boo.

Why not:  What's wrong with that, exactly?  What is wrong with politicians and activists standing up to what even the most ardent sports fan will acknowledge, is extortion, plain and simple.  Fans fund sports at the gate.  Fans fund sports when they by merchandise.  Fans fund sports when they buy League Pass, and even when they watch games on free TV and view commercials.  Why should they fund 'em even more through taxes and fees--which are charged to people who don't care about sports?  Maybe Seattle has had enough.

• The fans

Why the fans are the villains:  They stopped caring about the team, so that the few hardcore fans that were left weren't sufficient critical mass to influence the actions of policymakers.  Teams that sell out their building every night generally don't move, especially to smaller markets--the last time a well-beloved team moved was when Art Modell took the old Browns to Baltimore.  The other franchise moves since 1990 (Expos->DC, Rams ->St. Louis, Cardinals -> Phoenix, Grizz -> Memphis, Oilers -> Nashville, Hornets -> New Orleans, the NHL leaving Canada in droves) have been either moves to much larger markets, or moves away from fanbases that largely don't care.  Seattle, despite the noisy presence of a hardcore Sonics fanbase, largely doesn't care about the NBA.  Give yourselves a round of Boo!

Why the fans are not:  Comparing the Sonics fans, who have shown some intelligence in not paying good money for a perpetually lousy product, to baseball fans in Montreal (all three of them), is silly.  Seattle has an excellent basketball tradition, and will continue to do so. This, like the Browns move, or the Dodgers and Giants leaving New York, is simply about money.  The fans are the victims here, quit blaming the victim.

• Nobody, and everybody--it's a perfect storm

Argument in favor:  This, like many catastrophes, was a systemic failure of multiple entities to do their jobs and take care of what they needed to take care of.  Remove any of the above--a succession of cheap owners, lousy management, spineless politicians, heavy-handed league management, and sometimes apathetic fans--and Bennett is buying the Grizzlies.

Argument against:  Sorry, but that lets some folks who are clearly bad actors off the hook.

Anyway, happy fourth, everybody!

Since yesterday's poll, more has come out.  Apparently, David Stern is now willing to work with the city of Seattle--they're no longer on the NBA's !@#! list.  OTOH, they won't get any special favors--if they want a new franchise, they need to get in line and compete with Las Vegas, St. Louis, and a few other NBA-less cities that might make good expansion candidates.  (OTOH, OK City didn't have to compete with anybody--and I suspect that if a Seattle businessperson were to buy a team with the intent of moving it to Seattle, and Stern tried to block it--he'd lose; just like the NFL was unable to prevent the many migrations of Al Davis' Raiders).

And one more thing.  The NBA is uninterested in expansion, at least not in North America.  (Stern has long had eyes across both oceans).

So, the poll question is:  If Seattle is to get a first-class pro team (i.e. no NBDL or such; Seattle deserves better than that)--where should it come from?  The poll assumes the current team is GONE; so "undo the sale and move the real Sonics back" is not listed as an option.