Labels: Charlie Weis, ESPN sucks, Notre Dame

Here's a quick recap of today's 5pm SportsCenter:

-Pat Forde--who I typically like--had a three-minute or so "story" (?) about Dana Torres. Torres, as most in Omaha know, qualified for the Olympics in swimming at the age of 41 and just two years removed from having a child, and just 8 months removed from having shoulder surgery. They had Forde on and he talked about how something is fishy about this story, and it's fishy because of the Mark McGuires and Barry Bonds' of the world.

What?? You're going on national television, on the most influential sports show in the United States, insinuating someone used steroids with LITERALLY no proof? All you have is a couple of anonymous swimmers that were at the meet that made "funny faces" during the medal ceremony? That thought it was odd that someone like that can come in and swim her best race of her career?

This was stunningly irresponsible by Forde, and even more so by the producers of SportsCenter that allowed this to air. I just did a Google news check, and nowhere is this even remotely insinuated. But because it is such a great story, Forde sees it as "suspicious," and is allowed to all but accuse her of using steroids? On live TV?

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but I hope Torres goes after ESPN. Just terrible.

--Then, there's A-Rod filing for divorce. OK, A-Rod is one of the biggest stars on the planet and he's an athlete. I suppose this kind of story on a sports show needs special treatment...time to bring on the expert at being a celebrity and an athlete...Mike Golic? What the hell is going on here? Mike Greenburg interviewing Mike Golic about how this will affect A-Rod and the Yankees, and how it will affect A-Rod's and Madonna's families? (By the way, he said it won't affect the Yankees because them and the Dallas Cowboys (?????) are used to a "circus tent" being around their clubhouses at all times." Oh. OK.)

This is not egregious or anything, just f'ing annoying. A-Rod getting a divorce gets 5 minutes on a show that used to feature sports teams and the highlights of their games. But I believe this has been pointed out a time or two.

Anyway, the Forde thing is disgusting. Even if he's right, there's literally no proof whatsoever anywhere to even thinking about throwing around accusations like this one. This, my friends, is libel to the nth degree. It's amazing how in the world this segment got on the air.

Labels: ESPN, ESPN sucks, Pat Forde, Reputation Destruction, SportsCenter

As a Twins fan I tuned in a little late to tonight's Twins-Yanks broadcast on The World Wide Leader, and before I could realize Steve Phillips was involved in the broadcast and hit 'mute' I watched Derek Jeter hit a single, giving him 2,411 hits for his career. This is noteworthy because he is closing in on Mantle, who has 2,415.

Anyway, Steve Phillips said that Jeter has a "legitimate shot" at 4,000 hits. 4,000!

A quick look at the facts as I see them: Derek Jeter will be 34 years old on June 26.

If he averages 200 hits per season from today, he will reach 4,000 sometime in late May, 2016.

He will be 41 years, 11 months old.

He is hitting .271 as of this second on the season, and is on pace to get 165 hits this year.

Although it may be too early to tell, it does appear that he is on the decline ever since his .343/.417/.483 2006 campaign.

At any rate, we can say with close to certainty that his numbers will get worse before they get better, especially on the other side of 35, not to mention 40.

What are the odds he even gets 3,500? 10 percent, if we're being generous?

As I sit here with the TV muted, I'm no longer surprised, just saddened.

Labels: eclipsing 4000 models banged not hits, ESPN sucks, Minnesota Twins, mute button

I don't know if either of our readers have seen this, but the world of Internet Sportswriting has been shaken. The Sports Guy is launching an assault directed toward his employer, ESPN over what appears to be their editing of his articles.

1. A week ago, he emailed this quote in to Deadspin:

"I still love writing my column and only re-signed last year because I really did believe that we had hashed out all the behind the scenes bullshit and come to some sort of agreement on creative lines, media criticism rules, the promotion of the column and everything else on ESPN.com. Within a few months, all of those things changed and certain promises were not kept. It's as simple as that."

2. Then, he began posting old columns he had written on his new blog.

3. This weekend, this photo hilariously appeared on his new blog.

4. Now, the following statement is posted on his new blog.

"I thought it would be fun to post some of my old columns from the "Boston Sports Guy" site (where I wrote columns from May '97 to June '01), if only because none of them have a home on the internet right now. This particular one was written right as I was starting to find a groove and my column was starting to resemble what it's like now, only if nobody was killing five of the best jokes or making me re-write them so they weren't as funny."

5. The Worldwide Leader has not commented. In other news, the sky is blue.

This is a really disappointing turn of events but is certainly not surprising given ESPN's noted interest in sterilizing all creativity stemming from any actual talent they employ. The network would seemingly much rather employ an entire roster of Mike and Mike-style blandness than give anything to anyone with anything slightly edgy or off-the-cuff to say. (By the way, Jason Whitlock's quote, "The next time Greenberg or Golic say something insightful or provocative will be the first time," is easily one of my favorite media moments of the last year. The full quote is hilarious, google it.) Kenny Mayne? Give him horses and three minutes on game day. Dan Patrick? Gone. Sports Guy? Ruining his columns. Allegedly. Jalen Rose? Bowtie. (Nevermind, but that is my favorite development of the NBA playoffs by far.) Considering we are dealing with Disney, it's no surprise but its a waste of some of their best employees.

I will give them credit because they have done some really good investigative pieces with E:60 and the O.J. Mayo story recently, but they are making it abundantly clear that when it comes to their stable of talent, only company men will run the races for them.

Labels: Attica, ESPN, ESPN sucks, John Grisham, Sports Guy

My "Suns Trade For Shaq, Because That Makes Sense" post feels even better now than when I first wrote it.

Why?

Because Scoop Jackson says "Guess What? The Suns just made a fantastic trade"

Here's an excerpt:

The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years.

The Suns trading for Shaq, his $40+ MILLION remaining on his contract, his jacked up hip, and his inability to jump more than 5" off the ground may be the most ingenious move made in the NBA in the past 10 years.

These are the writings of a crazy person.

I can name three moves made this season better than this one: Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Pau Gasol. Particularly Gasol, considering the Lakers gave up nothing for him.

I've got to wonder if this is a ESPN directive column; i.e. "we've got to have someone say this was a great trade. Scoop, you're on it." But if you read the whole thing, he sounds too passionate about this for me to think that he doesn't really believe it.

It is stunning to me that Scoop Jackson--his name is Scoop, for chrissakes!--makes more than everyone on this blog (well, I'm guessing, anyways). If you want me to write like a fifth grader and have "controversial" viewpoints, I'll do it for $10 a column.

Give me a call, ESPN. I cannot promise to produce genuine levels of crazy like my man Scoop, but I'll give it my best shot, and save you some money. Let me know.

Labels: ESPN, ESPN sucks, Scoop Jackson, Shaquille O'Neil

...since we've had some good ESPN hatin' around here. I don't have anything new to add, but columnist Jason Whitlock--who I'm a big fan of anyway--does:

5. The best thing about ESPN host Dana Jacobson's meltdown at the Mike and Mike roast is that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that women can be just as publicly stupid and vulgar as men.

Jacobson, in a drunken attempt at humor, F-bombed Notre Dame and Jesus. ESPN suspended the "First Take" host for a week. You drop a woman in ESPN's locker-room environment and "surprisingly" she acts just like Sean Salisbury and everyone else. Personally I like Salisbury. The trouble he got into at ESPN for showing off his manhood reminded me of my college playing days when everyone would rush to get naked when the cleaning lady ran late tidying our locker room.

The second-best thing about Jacobson's rant is that it drew attention to the lame Mike and Mike roast. ESPN desperately wants you to believe Greenberg and Golic are big stars. They're not. If they were, they wouldn't have an F-list celebrity/assclown like Jacobson roasting them.

The next time Greenberg or Golic say something insightful or provocative will be the first time.

Well, that about sums it up. I'm just glad we're not the only ones who notice this shit.

Labels: Dana Jacobson, ESPN sucks, Jason Whitlock, Mike and Mike in the Morning

I love Awful Announcing. And I love this report from the Mike & Mike "Roast." In particular, this line from Eddie Griffin:

"I kind of know my career is over when I'm hired to roast two white guys I never f**king heard of."

That is hilarious.

Labels: Awful Announcing, ESPN sucks, Mike and Mike in the Morning

I simply cannot keep track of what number we're on regarding "why ESPN sucks," but this one may take the cake.

MIB and I were talking the other day when ESPN/ABC announced that Barry Sanders was the second-greatest college football player of all time. We both reasoned--pretty rationally, regardless of our fan affiliation--that since Tommy Frazier was not on the list yet, he was going to get the credit he deserves, and wear the crown of the greatest college football player of all time.

Welp, we were wrong. They named the Galloping Ghost Red Grange as the greatest player of all time.

I guess it makes sense that Tommy Frazier wasn't on the list. I mean, he only was the MVP in three straight National Championship games, winning two of them in a row. I guess the fact that Vince Young won one against the greatest team in the history of team sports USC deserved to be on the list more than Tommy.

Mike Rozier wasn't on there, either. Which also makes sense, seeing he only had--according to Sports Illustrated--"maybe the best senior year ever" en route to his Heisman Trophy.

I suppose that this was ESPN's payback to Nebraska for having the nerve to have voted for their teams in that ridiculous "Greatest Teams Tournament" or whatever that was.

Whatever, I guess. If ESPN wants to reduce their credibility as the self-proclaimed "World Wide Leader In Sports" one silly Top 25 list at a time, so be it. Because the fact is that anyone that knows anything about college football knows that the 1995 Huskers belong in any conversation regarding the greatest teams of all time, and Tommy Touchdown Frazier is, by God, one of the greatest college football players ever. Period.

Suck it, ESPN.

Labels: ESPN, ESPN sucks, Mike Rozier, Nebraska Cornhuskers, Tommy Frazier

It is incredible to me to read the following top story headline on ESPN.com (referring to the College GameDay article):

UP FOR GRABS

How the mighty have fallen. USC's Trojans have been knocked off their horse, replaced at the top of the Pac-10 with Devils and Ducks. Surprised? Not us.

Yes you are too fucking surprised, ESPN! You fucking liars!

I mean, I am just speechless reading that. How in the hell can you have this on the front page of your website when you spent the entire pre-season talking about how this year's USC team will be the best of them all, they are the concensus #1, blah blah blah.

The arrogance of that company is mind-blowing sometimes.

Labels: ESPN, ESPN sucks, Ridiculous

...I'm not taking your ridiculous column on ESPN.com ("College World Series should hit the road," 6/22/07) sitting down, you douche. Rather, I am going to take it on Ken Tremendous-style and debunk your entire non-argument, pathetic little paragraph by pathetic little paragraph.

Change of venue could broaden College World Series' appeal
By David Albright
ESPN.com
Updated: June 22, 2007

The time has come for the College World Series to leave Omaha.

GA: Sweet opening paragraph. When did it become trendy for sports columnists (I'm looking at you, Tom Shattel!) to use one-sentence paragraphs all the time, again?

There, it needed to be said.

GA: Two in a row? Dave, buddy--we've got to work on your creativity. I mean, your total bad-ass, "I'm a rebel, and am going to say outrageous things to grab the readers' attention!" intro is probably necessary to get anyone to read this garbage, but come on man...you sound like you should be on "Around The Horn" or something (by the way, not a compliment. I'm sure you understand.).

And I did so at the risk of never again being able to show my face at Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium, or take a stroll through the Old Market, or drink in the slice of Americana that is Zesto's.

GA: Um, yep. Pretty much.

And I also did so at the risk of seriously offending some of my ESPN brethren who (to put it kindly) wax poetic about the prospect of spending nearly two weeks in Nebraska every year.

But seriously, why should Omaha have a stranglehold on one of the premier college sports championship events?

Some would argue that it is -- or has become -- a top-tier event because of everything that Omaha brings to the table each June. And they would be right. Seemingly everyone associated with this event is as welcoming and hospitable as the chamber of commerce ads would lead you to believe.

GA: Alright, Dave, you're losing me a bit here: you're making the argument for keeping the CWS in Omaha. I thought this was about moving the CWS out of Omaha. Let's see what you've got waiting for me in the next paragraph.

But that doesn't mean another community couldn't take all of the great things that already exist about the CWS and put its own stamp on the annual festival.

GA: Totally. Except for Omaha having the perfect-sized stadium whose empty seats (12,000 to 18,000 a game) are filled with people from Omaha. Like, the only people on the planet that care to watch as many college baseball games as possible in a two-week period. Oh, and except for the fact that Omaha built this event, and NOT the other way around.

UC Irvine's extra-inning heroics would be a great story in any town in America. So, too, would Oregon State's run from nowhere to last year's national title.

GA: Yeah, that's why it's on ESPN.

It's no different than George Mason's historic run to the 2006 Final Four in Indianapolis.

Ah, Indy.

It's home base for the NCAA and it's constantly striving to be the "Amateur Sports Capital of the World" -- making it no surprise that the nonprofit Indiana Sports Corporation would love an opportunity to have a piece of the great story that the CWS has become.

Indianapolis also has Victory Field.

GA: Daaaaave--I thought we talked about the one sentence guys earlier, didn't we? I guess you're right, they really pound that point home. "Indianapolis also has Victory Field." Fuck me. You really woke me up in the middle of all this drivel. I forgot Indy had Victory Field. It is awesome. So awesome, I've never heard of it, along with 99.987% of Americans, and 97.89% of baseball fans*. Well, hopefully you'll give me some third-party opinions that hold up this ever-shakier argument of yours.

Opened in 1996 in a section of downtown that rivals everything Omaha has to offer, it is "the best of everything in one ballpark," according to Baseball America. And Sports Illustrated called it "the best minor league ballpark in America."

GA: Here's the hard-hitting, meat-of-the-argument stuff I was looking for! Indianapolis has a sweet minor league ballpark! Sweet Christ, how has the NCAA not thought of this! I mean, hello!!! The NCAA home offices are in Indy! What are they doing there? They have to have enough time after a long day of making college athletics as hard on college athletes as possible to realize that Victory Field kicks ass, don't they?

Dave, here's the bummer of the deal. There are a lot of sweet ballparks in America. In fact, Baseball America named Hawks Field in Lincoln the fourth-best college ballpark in America. It looks exactly like a mini-Victory Field. But guess what? There is no one in America--including anyone in Lincoln--trying to argue that because they have a sweet college baseball stadium, it should be the home of the College World Series.

And specifically for your argument and Victory Field...have you ever even researched this park? It's capacity is 15,500 (only 12,500 of which being permanent seats) and there is no parking, except random parking lots and peoples' yards. Sounds exactly like...Rosenblatt! Unless they decide to expand the field of teams participating in the CWS, it is looking like the NCAA would be bringing in 53% of paying fans into the games. And that is if they completely sell out every game, which flat-out would not happen. It doesn't even happen in Omaha. So, in other words...Indy is out. Sorry.

I don't care if the CWS moves to Indy. I really don't.

GA: Damn it, Dave...oh well, I guess you are showing you're impartial. You just need to see some change!

There are plenty of other great minor league parks that could host this event. There's AT&T Bricktown Ballpark (Oklahoma City), AutoZone Park (Memphis), Dell Diamond (Round Rock, Texas), Durham Bulls Athletic Park, Louisville Slugger Field and Zephyr Field (New Orleans).

GA: Really? Round Rock, Texas. Really. And New Orleans...well, I'll tell you what: when New Orleans can boast a population of Omaha's again, then we can talk. As for the others:

Bricktown. Great place, by all accounts. That's about it. It seats 13,066 (you can fit more than two of these guys in Rosenblatt), and more importantly, cannot even sell out Big XII Championship games. If they can't fill the place up to see the title game of Texas A&M and Baylor, why the hell would one think that they would go to see Cal-Irvine? There were 5,713 people there for the Big XII title game. I'll repeat that. There were 5,713 people there for the TITLE GAME. In Omaha, there were 17,000 people at a game on a Tuesday that started at 1:07 PM.

AutoZone. Besides the fact it is called AutoZone Park? I guess since it is in America's hotbed of baseball, Memphis. But, again, it holds 14,320 people. And, again, you can fit more than two of these into Rosenblatt.

Dell Diamond. Well, again: Round Rock, Texas? Really? I'm not even going to research the capacity, because it is not even worth it. In fact, I'm not even going to investigate the rest of your stupid locations, Dave, because it is a waste of time. There is--literally--no possible way to continue these incredible attendance records that are being set in Omaha at any of your "alternates." It is starting to sound like you're writing a column simply to be controversial and because you think the CWS should be played in other venues...offering not a single compelling argument to back up your opinion.

Let the record show that Rosenblatt Stadium, home to the Omaha Royals, is also a minor league park. And while it wouldn't be fair to call it a fixer-upper, the old ballyard on 13th Street clearly needs some fixing up.

GA: Something we can probably all agree on. Well done.

Rosenblatt has undergone nearly $35 million in renovations over the past two decades, with another $25 million proposed if College World Series of Omaha Inc. can get a commitment from the NCAA to host the Division I baseball championships beyond the current agreement that expires in 2010.

GA: Remind me again: is this column supposed to support the opinion of moving the CWS out of Omaha, or the other way around? My head is spinning at this point.

There's also been talk of putting the $25 million toward building a new ballpark in downtown Omaha, but the city politics and the prospect of leaving Rosenblatt may derail that idea before it ever really gets off the ground.

GA: Also true. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Now this is what I'm talking about, Dave! You're talking about issues that are actually plausible to write about! What is going to happen to The Johnny? How will this political theatre play out? How would all this money best be spent? You're starting to bring out some good stuff, Dave! Keep it up! Let's explore this some more!

For a radical idea, how about Chicago?

GA: Oh boy.

It's unlikely that an MLB ballpark would be available for the entire CWS run, but two stadiums could work. Play the elimination games on the South Side at U.S. Cellular Field and then move the championship series to Wrigley Field.

GA: Alright, you've hit a sensitive spot here, Dave. Everything is better at Wrigley Field. EVERYTHING. As has been said by many people before, you could open Wrigley Field up for lunch--with no game being played--and a solid 10,000 people would probably show up to eat.

That said, let's explore this a bit more. First of all, you completely took away my "there's no way any MLB team would willingly go on the road for over 2 weeks for a college tournament" argument--which deflates your entire point here--but we can go on. You're right, a championship game, along with winners' bracket games, would be fantastic at Wrigley. The players would love it, the coaches would love it, the fans would love it. But then you bring up...The Cell. Ah, The Cell. I am totally sure that South Siders would just cram that baby full and set off a few old-fashioned tire fires in celebration of having NCAA baseball loser-bracket games in South Chicago. Give me a break.

There's just no way this can happen. It is logistically impossible.

Go ahead and try to convince anyone that college baseball players wouldn't approach a shot at playing in front of the ivy-covered walls with the same fervor and zeal that they currently do in Omaha.

GA: Yeah, we get it. Wrigley Field is cooler than Rosenblatt. Holy shit, a revelation. Dave, hear this loud and clear: Wrigley Field is cooler than ANY ballpark ANYWHERE in America.

For its part, the NCAA has been relatively silent on the matter. Dennis Poppe, the managing director for baseball, told ESPN.com, "I guess when you have a commitment and a good relationship, it's kind of like a good marriage. Why would you look for another one?"

GA: Shocking. The only person injecting any sort of common sense into this argument is a man that makes a living working for the NCAA. Thanks, Dennis. Well said. It is a good marriage. In fact, I would argue it is a great marriage. It is a marriage that the couple worked really hard for many years to make work, and continue to work hard to make it work. And now, at the end of the day, things are perfect. The couple doesn't have to work as hard, have plenty of money, and now can concentrate on visiting the grandkids and taking cruises. Why ditch the old lady, marry a crazy 28-year-old chick who is just going to give you a STD and take all your money when everything is perfect as is? You don't. You enjoy what you have.

Rotating venues seems to work OK for the Final Fours and the Frozen Four, and those events are perennial sellouts. So why wouldn't it work for baseball?

GA: Because no one outside of Omaha gives two rat craps about college baseball. I thought we talked about this, Dave?

For the people who can imagine this event being played only in Omaha, the list of reasons could fill a book.

GA: What is the point of this column again?

Ultimately, the decision lies with the NCAA. And given the agendas, bureaucracy and conflicts involved, it's too early to tell how this will play out.

GA: This is kind of funny. Kind of like the JoeChats from Fire Joe Morgan, in which Joe answers every question with things like "I don't know, I haven't watched the Blue Jays enough this year to answer the question 'is Vernon Wells good?'."

Although it does bring out a white-knuckle fear of mine, knowing that things are left up to the NCAA to decide. SCARY!

The best of both worlds might be to institute a rotation that includes Omaha as a permanent fixture every two or three years.

GA: *looking around, confused*

That would open up the College World Series to some other great venues and cities while still keeping a renovated Rosenblatt and Omaha in the mix.

GA: *Stunned, glazed look, stumbling around the room* I thought the whole point of this retarded article was that the CWS needs to leave Omaha? Now you've decided that was completely retarded, so you need to retract a bit? "Well, I guess since I have debunked every argument I have brought up in the schizo column myself, I had probably back up and somehow include Omaha in my grand plan." Dave, you've left me speechless.

After all, there's only one Zesto's.

GA: You're right, and everyone at Zesto's hates you.

David Albright is the senior coordinator for college sports at ESPN.com and can be reached at david.albright@espn3.com.

*Not official polling data. As in, the author totally made up these numbers. But I'm guessing they're not far off.

Labels: College World Series, David Albright, ESPN, ESPN sucks, Omaha

While watching Jim Rome yesterday, one of his guest was explaining why the Yankees were still in the playoff hunt. His reasoning was that the AL Central was a weak division and the Yankees would be able to capture the wild card from them. What? Did I miss something? He made his point so emphatically that I had to double check the standings. Every team in the Central, except KC of course, is over .500 and has a winning record against East and West opponents. How could he make such a ridiculous claim and not get called out on it? How do these sports experts know so little? How do you confuse the strongest division as being the weakest? If your job was sports and you were going on a nationally televised show, wouldn’t you do a little homework first? I don’t know, maybe take a quick glance at the standings before going on air. It also pisses me off that no one is calling out the AL East as being weak. Why the fuck not? They only have one team over .500 and their second best team is Baltimore. Now that is a weak division.

Labels: Annoying, baseball, Douche Bags, ESPN sucks

The Bulls continued their systematic dismantling of the reigning NBA Champion Miami Heat, 107-89.

Chicago shot 55.1% from the field, including 64.7% (!) from three. Ben Gordon and Luol Deng led the way offensively with 27 and 26 points each, respectively.

I, for one, am not the slightest bit suprised by this. Yes, it is easy to write off a comment like this from me as I have always loved the Bulls. However, this year is different. I really did not watch much of the NBA this season until the final month of the season, when Pete and I began our enjoyable late night "Tyrus Thomas is sweet" and "Golden State vs. the Suns is like watching the best game of pickup basketball...ever" text message sessions.

Since then, I have felt that the Bulls are a big-time threat to make it to the NBA Finals. So I probably shouldn't have been suprised when my friends at ESPN decided to go ahead and pick against them almost across the board (I figured I would stick with a coherent theme posting over the past couple of days: ESPN sucks). Here are some examples:

--Jeff Weltman (ESPN.com/Scouts, Inc.): "In other words, this series will come down largely to controlling tempo. With Shaq, Alonzo, and a host of quality wing defenders executing Riley's defensive machine, I don't want to bet against the Heat controlling tempo. Wade's shoulder and knee will clearly determine how Heat-like Miami is this series, but I'm assuming he is OK. PREDICTION: MIAMI 4, CHICAGO 2"

What is funny about Weltman is if you continue to read down to his bio, you uncover this nugget of goodness: "NBA analyst Jeff Weltman was assistant general manager of the Denver Nuggets from 2001 to 2006. From 1988 to 2001, he served the Los Angeles Clippers in various personnel, scouting and administrative roles." Wow. No wonder you're so good at breaking down the NBA, Jeff! ESPN only pulls those with the finest sports backgrounds, don't they? (See: Phillips, Steve)

--The other ESPN.com "experts:" Mark Anthony, Heat in 6; Broussard, Heat in 6; Hollinger, Bulls in 6; Sheridan, Heat in 7; Marc Stein, Heat in 6. As far as ESPN Radio goes, I have no links, but do not recall a single host or guest picking the Bulls.

Now, am I ready to say that this series is over? Hell no. We are dealing with a Chicago team here. But the way the Bulls have just destroyed Miami so far with overwhelming team athleticism and scoring ability, I just don't see how they can blow a 2-0 lead. And further proof that ESPN employs people who are paid to have an opinion...just not one they have to back up or anything.

Labels: Awesomeness, Chicago Bulls, ESPN, ESPN sucks, Miami Heat, NBA Playoffs