Bring “Dream Job” Back, Bristol.

I’m not quite sure whom that is with Stu Scott up there — I think dude’s name was Mike Hill or something, but he won that reality show Dream Job that ESPN ran for a couple of seasons a few years back, and frankly, it needs to return right now, not because it was the most enjoyable of show or because the wanna-bes on it were highly compelling once they left the Box in Bristol (question for you: where is Zach Selwyn now?)  Here’s why: there was one season where the competition was between former NBA ballers for an analyst gig on the Association, and former Celtic Dee Brown won (and I think he’s still throwing down on Fastbreak from time to time.) He had to go through the grilling process with Al Jaffe (some exec with ESPN), Kit Hoover, and either Woody Paige or Tony Kornheiser on this show — and it was public evidence of how on your game you needed to be in order to do the analyst job.

That’s kinda slipping. Eduardo Perez is proof of this. He’s completely falling down on this World Series analysis, mispronouncing names, getting tongue twisted, and other things that scream lack of smoothness with the gig.

After watching him bungle so much of the World Series highlights and having observed Emmitt Smith and Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Countdown a couple of times (I try to limit my exposure; Chris Berman is harmful to your health in two-hour doses), I’m convinced the Lazy Eye and a motley judging crew need to be put together for every analyst position that opens up there, and it needs to be broadcast again, so we can make sure stupidity like Perez and the lack of prep that Emmitt and Keyshawn do aren’t allowed to go without a public vote.

C’mon, ESPN. You can get ratings by giving the fans another stake in which athlete should get the analyst position when someone leaves to coach. Dusty Baker’s got a managing gig next season — start this right now with your list of replacements for “old codgy managerial type.” Get Jim Tracy, Joe Girardi (if the Yanks don’t hire him), maybe Sam Perlozzo and a couple others in a room, and make the process very public.

Because clearly, y’all can’t be trusted with your own hiring decisions this year. Perez and Fernando Vina have contributed to make Baseball Tonight unwatchable (along with John Kruk’s hair), Emmitt’s always making the worst of on-air errors, and Keyshawn just conducted that shitty interview with Chad Johnson.

And if you want, you can even get Erin Andrews to help judge, draw some extra eyeballs. I won’t complain.

An “Exceptional Play” Stat Is Exceptionally Idiotic.

First it was the truly bad idea of holding a nine-game World Series, complete with a “World Series Weekend” at a neutral field in order to create a Gross Baseball Spectacle akin to the Super Bowl (which completely ignored the reasons why the Super Bowl works the way it does). Now, agent Scott Boras is interested in inventing new statistical categories, probably out of a desire to have another quantitative stat to jack the asking price for his stable of baseball studs every off-season. It’s not that I have a problem with Boras as an agent — yes, he may be the most recognizable face of the group that drives up salaries to absolutely ridiculous heights, but it’s not on him that owners are willing to pay them. The devil, he is not.

However, if he thinks adding a stat called an EP, or exceptional play, is actually a good idea, questioning his actual intelligence regarding the game of baseball is at least acceptable.

The official scorer would be asked to distinguish between an exceptional play and a routine one in the same way he is asked to distinguish between a hit and error.

In that way, Boras said, fans can debate whether a play should merit an “EP” and compare a player with 20 EPs to another with 10 EPs, whether an EP saved a game just as a big hit might have won it. The only common defensive statistic is an error, he says, and zone ratings and other such new defensive metrics are neither instantly identifiable or widely understood.

Fans can look to blocked shots in basketball, he said, or interceptions or sacks in football.

“One thing we do not do well in this game: We do not recognize defense,” Boras said. “We need to bring defense to the fans. Give them a statistic, and they’ll recognize the player for it. The fans get something else to enjoy the game with.”

Actually, we do recognize defense and we do have a stat for it, Scott — it’s called fielding percentage, and when you don’t make errors, that fielding percentage stays high. Granted, it is not glamorous like batting average, home runs, RBIs, etc., but when those fielding percentages stay high, people win Gold Gloves, and those equal defensive recognition. We talk about them pretty frequently. The EP would actually be harder to qualify than an error currently is; when you see Derek Jeter make another throw across his body to nail a speedy runner at first, or Torii Hunter robs another home run, when it does it stop being exceptional and just expected of the player? We don’t know. We can look at whether someone bobbled the ball and cost their team an out. That’s fairly simple.

So, with that rationale out the window, is there another explanation that would actually make sense in explaining this particular proposal?

The EP, Boras said, should be an easy sell.

“ESPN has told us we need to do this,” he said. “They have web gems.”

Say no more. Where’s the rule book?

Stupidity Deserves To Be Mocked Openly And Often.

SlickBomb has already noted the possible hallucinogenic/narcotic possibilities that would cause agent Scott Boras to even suggest something as stupid as a nine-game World Series, with the first two games being at a neutral site as some form of “World Series Weekend”, but it deserves a bit more attention and derision so it can hopefully die a very painful death upon arrival at the MLB offices. However, given the fact that Bud Selig is still in charge of MLB, this idea will be entertained, and thus, requires even more derision and scorn due to Boras’ fundamental misunderstanding of what makes the Super Bowl not only popular, but tolerable.

1. It’s two weeks of hype post-conference championships and ONE GAME only. Even then, the NFL’s self-congratulatory masturbation is hard to deal with at times, and let’s not even get to the periphery that is the halftime show and the hours upon hours of pre-game.
2. It’s bad enough that baseball extends into November as is. All neutral sites will eventually have to be warm-weather for the WSW to reduce the risk of snow-outs.
3. The whole reason the Super Bowl and All-Star Games for basketball and baseball work as marketing spectacles is because they are one-offs per season, with novelty involved.

Boras’ interest is purely in increasing the baseball coffers at the actual expense of the game, which isn’t really surprising in the least. Frankly, with regard to the playoffs, if you really want to be innovative and do this neutral-site thing, borrow from the NCAA’s approach to the College World Series — throw the four teams in each league into a round-robin, two games a day, four losses and you’re out. Keep the best of seven for the final World Series. Now there’s something that might actually be exciting to watch.

The Same Old Song And Dance.

Spurs 83, Cavaliers 82 – I don’t think anyone really predicted a sweep; I certainly didn’t. Maybe I should have been a little less kind to the Cavaliers. Even when the last two games were close, they didn’t really seem THAT close. LeBron shot 10-for-30 in this game, and while Cleveland opened with a 11-0 rally in the fourth quarter to take the lead, but the Spurs came back and fought off all Cleveland attempts to take the sweep away from them.

Are the Spurs a dynasty? In the modern era, possibly. I reserve dynasty status for a franchise that has a back-to-back championship somewhere along the line. They’re certainly one of the most dominant teams and of a select few to win four titles in the NBA, but if this squad does it again next year, it will be a dynasty, although if they do win back to back next season, do you think anyone will be watching or care — Paulsen at Sports Media Watch certainly doesn’t, and depending on how the ratings come back for Game Four, I may be inclined to support his dour thesis, but I don’t think leagues die based on that alone. It’s just that most sports beyond the NFL these days are niche ones, and I suspect so much of that is due to the fact that we know NFL games will almost always be on Sunday and Monday, despite holiday games and the NFL Network’s Thursday scheduling — it’s something to anticipate and tune in for.

Competitors in Pro Football Have Not Fared Well.

I feel like I should state from the get-go that I like Mark Cuban as an owner in the NBA. He runs a team like I imagine I would run it if I were a giant fan with a ton of money and wanted to own a team — giving his players the best equipment, the coolest locker room, and showing up at the games damn near every night in the stands, and not in a luxury box.

That said, I think he’s fucking nuts to even consider being part of a group to develop a new football league to compete with the NFL. The new league would play on Friday nights, which the NFL doesn’t do, because that’s high school football nights, and there are certain parts of the country where fucking with high school football is not looked upon well — why do you think, despite bad ratings, that Friday Night Lights is a cult fave as a TV show? (Well, aside from gawking at Minka Kelly.) For Mark, it’s simply supply and demand:

Cuban said in his e-mail he believes the salary cap makes it easier to compete financially with the NFL because of the salary imbalance that leaves lower-level players with lower salaries. That would allow the new league to fill its rosters with players taken lower than the second round, as well as late NFL cuts and free agents who escape the NFL draft.

It’s telling that one of the group members may be Bill Hambrecht, a former USFL minority owner, because, save the AAFC and AFL, most of the attempts at competition with the NFL have not gone well.

marriage, pro sports-style.

Given the recent news of Amani Toomer’s impending nasty divorce following on the heels of teammate Michael Strahan getting taken to the cleaners and Nets guard Jason Kidd likely suffering the same fate, I feel a need to offer unqualified and out of my league advice to all athletes preparing for marriage, despite terminal single-hood and lack of a legal background.

1) Know what you’re looking for.

Mr. Toomer is making his particular claim because he feels he was lied to; his wife allegedly aborted his children, wouldn’t change her name, etc. Again, the couple were married in Vegas. I doubt there was that much consideration. As the Head Chick notes, you can get a wife or you can get a chickenhead. Know what you have.

2) Make sure you know the difference between devotion and worship.

Pro athletes, by nature, seem to have a need to feed the ego — they’ve had most things given to them on a platter due to freakish athletic talent, and sex is one of them. Before you go through with this, if you want her to wait on you hand and foot, make that clear. No need to give up half because you didn’t define the terms in advance? Unromantic? Yes. But we’re here to protect YOU. We advise devotion — less likely to ditch you after the first few years and cry for half. Something about that, isn’t it?

Today’s worshipful groupie is tomorrow’s gold-digger.

3) Come to terms with various indiscretions.

You’re gonna have groupies throwing themselves at you left and right. Either work into an agreement a number of indiscretions per year, or keep a side account that can be agreed on for a faux “Honey, I’m sorry” gift — Kobe Bryant keeps a spare couple mil on hand just in case, and it worked for him. Mr. Kidd, however, apparently played cheapskate with the apology jewelry. The sincerity of your apology as a star athlete is measured by how much you spend.

Or, do it the Andrei Kirilenko way — remember, his wife gives him one indiscretion per year, but we suspect it only lasts as long as he keeps playing well, and he’s never used it yet (Would you? This isn’t the best picture, but I wouldn’t.)

4) Get the Massey Pre-Nup.

Or its real-world equivalent. You want something so iron-clad a whole semester could be taught on it at Harvard Law. Of course, unlike Mr. Strahan, you want to make sure that Massey is written in your favor.

If you really want to be thorough, spell out every possible expectation: sex, kids, housework — anything you can think of. Weeds out the unqualified applicants. Again, unromantic, but best for your interests, and it keeps you from having to come back to see us in five years for less pleasant experiences.

(Side note: Intolerable Cruelty is really one of those movies that is gang-busters, laugh out loud funny for the first half-hour and then falls completely off the rails.)

equal pay for better work.

The All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club has, after years of semi-controversy over the issue, decided to offer equal prize money to the women. So, when Serena Williams utterly destroys everyone this year, she’ll get paid the same as Roger Federer after he decimates all comers.

I’ve believed for a while that women’s tennis has been a much better deal for viewers than the men’s division (Federer’s super skills notwithstanding). Three-set matches are just flat out better to watch and more exciting to play, because those points mean more, and some of the minor events on the men’s tour are three-set events. Hell, I believe women could do five-set matches, but would it really be in anyone’s interest? As it stands right now, Wimbledon is finally offering equal pay for better work. The women’s field in tennis has had better players and matches (despite occasional lack of starpower) for at least the past decade, despite the best efforts of Federer, Sampras, and Agassi.

(Andy Roddick is a choking lout.)

While we await Roland Garros following suit for the French Open, let’s institute a sliding scale for the men to increase their incentive, especially since not too many of them are putting up fights against Federer:

1) If you don’t break Roger, he gets a quarter of your money.
2) If you lose 6-1 or 6-0 in a set to Roger, he gets a third.
3) If you lose by 6-1 or 6-0 in straight sets to Roger, he gets half your money.

Rule #1 of strip clubs: don’t be a cheapskate.

Rule #2: Don’t threaten to kill a security guard after he sees you beating on a dancer for taking the bills you leave out.
Rule #3: Definitely don’t have one of your posse shoot a few people.

Unverified, but since it’s an investigation into a shooting in Las Vegas during the tail end of All-Star Weekend and Titans CB Adam “Pacman” Jones is involved, it’s curious that, as the Big Lead notes (and a hat tip to them), ESPN has done fuck-all on this yet. Usually they’re all over police blotter-worthy incidents, and boy, is this one a doozy.

The Monday morning shooting paralyzed one security guard, hit the other, and hit a female customer. How witnesses are saying it went is something like this: Jones throws tons of $1s in front of the dancers, gets pissy when one takes bills on the ground without his permission, beats on her, guard breaks it up, he threatens, gunman comes in. Now, witnesses and investigators say/think Jones knows the gunman.

These things always start because of money. If you’re going to throw it around, don’t get pissed about who comes up to take it.

UPDATE: Per With Leather, Sports by Brooks reports that there is surveillance video of this.

that boy’s gone crazy.

Has Troy Smith lost his mind? Despite (or possibly due to) his falling draft stock, he’s angling for the Cleveland Browns to pick him and make him the hometowner who gets picked to stay in state for a pro career. After the BCS championship, Smith will be lucky enough to be drafted high enough to save face; he shouldn’t be too picky or angling for his hometown team — never mind that the Browns are a mess until they figure out how to cobble an offensive or defensive line together (it’ll always be a source of wonder how Mike Shanahan could trade for the Browns’ D-line and get them to play when Cleveland couldn’t.)

Troy: be quiet, accept where you’re picked in the draft bereft of first round QBs unless your name is Brady or JaMarcus, and hope you don’t go to Cleveland or Detroit. Look, I still believe he could be a decent pro, and possibly better than either Charlie Frye or Derek Anderson, but home-state loyalty should only go so far.

(Ted Ginn is also pictured because he’d like to play for the Browns, and I think Brady Quinn is from Dublin. All these blue-chippers whom the Browns should go nowhere near early in the draft…)

your new White House press secretary.

Now that the Head FUPA in Charge has officially handed in his retirement to the Dallas Cowboys, ESPN has done the predictable oral fellation with a special edition of SportsCenter. However, one of the more redeeming features was an entertaining pack on the press conference behavior of Bill Parcells, which gave me an idea for his next career move.

(Setting: Washington, D.C., 8 AM. White House press room.)

Bill Parcells: OK, guys. We’ve made it through one hour; let’s wrap this up.
David Gregory, NBC News: Bill, what motivation could the administration and the President have for sending over 20,000 more troops to Iraq?
BP: Look, you guys have the charts right in front of you. If you’re not gonna read ’em, I’m not gonna take the time to explain them to you.
DG: But is this a real plan to win the war or another cynical calculation?
BP: David, I’ll say it again: the reason we’re doing this is because if we’re not going to give it a shot, we might as well pack up and go home. Success is never final, but failure can be. Suzanne?
Suzanne Malveaux, CNN: On the eve of the State of the Union, is the president going to re-state his goals from his last speech or are we going to hear something new?
BP: There will be changes here, there’s no doubt about that.
SM: The Iraqi Prime Minister has been saying that the U.S. needs to give the Iraqi government more money and weapons so they can handle their own security. Will the President endorse such an idea?
BP: We see a little progress. So as long as we keep seeing that, then we’re willing to give him everything we’ve got. Terry?
Terry Moran, ABC: Bill, does the President have any comment on the jury selection in the Libby case and the fact that the Vice President is expected to testify?
BP: We’re not gonna talk about that aide. We’re just not gonna talk about him. Helen?
Helen Thomas, AP: You’ll be sorry.
BP: I already am. You have no idea.
HT: Given the various reasons the administration has used to justify the war in Iraq, isn’t it fair to ask what the real reason for war was?
BP: OK, look. Isn’t liberating the Iraqi people enough? I wish I could say I had something new for you, but I don’t. When I know, you’ll know. Promise. See you guys tomorrow.

(Parcells exits stage right to flashbulbs and more questions.)