Mikey D

WE ARE GOING TO DETROIT!!! FINAL FOUR!!!!!

This has to be one of my most favorite blog posts to type to date. I cannot believe the game we just had against Louisville. I knew we had to be perfect to win, and we were, but I didn't think if we were perfect we'd win by 15. That was an amazing performance by a group of guys that didn't want to lose. And now we get to play in our backyard!

And the streak of Final Fours continues for Mr. Izzo. 14 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Championship. You are the best.

Our route to the Final Four has been tough, too:
Robert Morris- Northeast Conference Champions
USC- Pac 10 Tournament Champions
Kansas- Big 12 Champions
Louisville- Big East Champions, Big East Tournament Champions, #1 Overall Seed

~Mikey D

We are elite!

Next up: Louisville (gulp). My only hope is they are a tad bid overconfident coming into the game and they are not as on-target as they were against Arizona. That being said, I know we will play better defense than anyone they've faced thus far this tournament. But with Louisville's zone, the only way we really have a chance at winning this game is if Lucas, Allen, and Summers (and perhaps Suton when he steps out) hit their perimeter shots. If they are hitting from deep, we'll be in the game. If not...I don't even want to think about it. I want to see us play like the last three minutes of that Kansas game for a full 40 against Louisville- you could really tell we wanted that game.

~Mikey D

-So the debate rages on who the Lions should take with their first pick. If I had to handicap it all right now, I'd say Stafford has an 80% chance of being the guy, and Jason Smith about a 20%. That's off no hard evidence or data, just my own personal gut feeling. And I'm desperately hoping the guy with the 20% chance wins out. I really want Jason Smith, not only because we need an offensive tackle, but I'm just not sold on Stafford quite yet. I just can't shake the game he had against MSU in the Capital One Bowl from my mind...and then I read this from ESPN.com on Jason Smith:

"He is really one of those 10-year left tackle type guys," said one NFC general manager who requested anonymity. "He is really in my eyes a No. 1 guy. You'd love to have a guy like that. He's a Walter Jones left tackle who could play forever. He's got it all with the size and athletic ability. He's clean."

Ask yourself: Why wouldn't you take that guy??? With the questions abound about Stafford, go with the safest thing at number one, since you're throwing around shit-tons of money.

-Colin Cowherd on the radio said that Curt Schilling is a "no-brainer" for the Hall of Fame. He had an interesting theory on if a player is Hall-worthy. It's called the "Three Sentence" theory. If you have to spend 3 or more sentences describing the candidacy of a player for the Hall, he's not Hall worthy. Think about that for a second...it's interesting.

The example he used was Jeff Kent. Most homers by a second basemen. Won an MVP award. Multiple-times All-Star. Not a Hall of Famer. On some level, it makes sense. You shouldn't have to dig deep to find stats about players to convince others about their worthiness. So in that respect, I agree with Colin.

I do not, however, agree with him that Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame (nor do I appreciate being called an idiot for not thinking so). Cowherd can sum up Schilling's career in one sentence: Greatest postseason pitcher ever. And it's true; Schilling has been remarkable. But here's my problem: Jack Morris isn't in the Hall yet.

Jack Morris had 254 wins (Schilling had 216), 28 shutouts (20 for Schilling), and 175 complete games (!?!?) (Shilling had 83) throughout his career. All of this while pitching 18 years to Schillings 20. Now there are plenty of other stats that Schilling tops Morris in (like having a 1/2 run better era), but my feeling is this: If you don't put in Jack Morris into Hall, you don't put in Curt Schilling. If you put Schilling in based on his postseason merits (pitching practically every game for Arizona in 01' and the bloody sock year of the Red Sox), then you have to give similar props for the work that Morris did in the 84' and 91' World Series.

Perhaps I'm just a little nostalgic with Morris. The 1991 World Series was the first I can actually remember vividly- I can still name you most of the starters off each squad. And I remember watching Morris pitch in Game 7 of that series...And I'm sorry, bloody sock or not, it was the greateast pitching performance in the postseason I've ever seen. The Twins won that game, and the World Series, in ten innings 1-0. Jack Morris pitched all ten innings, a complete game shut-out, to win the World Series for the Twins, as well as World Series MVP honors for himself. With the pressure he had...unbelievable.

And this was 7 years after he was 3-0 with a 1.80 era with Detroit in the World Series against San Diego, pitching 2 complete games there!

Look, I'm not saying Schilling shouldn't ever be in the Hall, just only after Jack Morris. I would be very sad if the voters voted in Schilling, but not Morris. So for now, Schillings not a Hall of Famer. We can discuss Schilling's merits after Jack gets in.

-Yes, MSU's win over Duke was a tad bit unfair being that it was on our home court. To me, however, it only feels like poetic justice.

Perhaps you could say I'm bitter that Joanne P. left us for Duke. In fact, I am. We hired her from the University of Maine and gave her a big-time opportunity. I guess I always felt like she would stay with State, kind of like Izzo, and build something special to go alongside the men's program. I mean, our facilities and love for basketball do not take a backseat to any program, and while Duke may lead in the prestige category, I do not see the jump to Duke as a major step-up. Sorry, but I don't. Maybe it's these green-and-white glasses that are making my vision foggy, but Duke and all zero of their women's championships just doesn't seem like a "dream job" (to quote McCallie) to me.

But then she left, and like a spurned lover, I want her to do poorly and fail. Some would say that's a classless wish, and that I should show some integrity and just move on. Well fuck that. WE ARE MICHIGAN FUCKING STATE. WE ARE NOBODY'S STEPPING STONE! At least not when it comes to college basketball.

So to have the basketball gods send Joanne P. McCallie and her Blue Pussies to East Lansing was a true gift from the heavens. To watch our gals out-everything Duke- from rebounding, to hustle, to execution, to- and yes, this is true- coaching, was awesome. To watch Izzo and Dantonio, two guys I think will be at MSU for many years to come, watch from the boxes, along with the men's team down on the sideline, and a packed Breslin full of fans booing McCallie...it was great. I'm sorry, but it was great, and I hope Joanne had a good glimpse of everything she had left behind in East Lansing. Watching the joy on our teams faces and having the fans rush the court (a true rush the court moment) to celebrate was just icing on the cake. It's not often you get to punch an ex-girlfriend that cheated on you right in the face.

Unfair home court advantage? You could say that. But justice was served last night, and I'm ready to get over McCallie now.

~Mikey D

Ridiculously happy with the effort we put forth against USC. Walton was more than huge. The big men all played well, and Summers and Allen were dynamite from the outside. I seriously could not have asked for more (okay, perhaps a few less turnovers...and for Suton to stay out of foul trouble...and maybe for Raymar to actually show up to the game...). USC was a good team and had a lot of mismatches on the floor, but we more than held our own and played solid Spartan basketball. That's a credit to you and your staff, Mr. Izzo.

Up next: Kansas. Rock-Chalk-Jay...ah shut the fuck up.

Oh USC, Michigan State, on behalf of the Big Ten, will make you pay for the Rose Bowl-beatdowns you have administered these past few years...

I have to admit, I was highly entertained by the basketball I watched on Thursday. It was a good day/night of basketball. My heart (and my bracket hopes) was pounding as I watched American drill three after three against Villanova and during Nova's comeback. Clemson's comeback against Michigan (and Michigan holding on) kept me on the edge of my seat. Actually rooting for Purdue to win as they hung on against Northern Iowa. Memphis outlasting Cal St. Northridge. I'm probably not going to remember any of these games a year from now, let alone a week from now, but still, I was entertained as a basketball fan.

So when I woke up this morning to ESPN.com and CBS Sports headlines about the first round being boring and a "yawner", I shook my head. Were they watching the same games as me?

As I read on, I found that most felt Thursday's basketball was boring because no upsets by super-tiny schools had occurred. Yes, Western Kentucky "upset" Illinois, but that wasn't enough. Only one major upset means a bad day for college basketball and tournament viewers? Please.

Perhaps the reason for so little David over Goliath upsets is because there aren't as many Davids in the tourney anymore. By now you've seen the graphic on ESPN or read about the trend of the dwindling amount of mid-majors that receive at-large bids. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have less Cinderella schools in the tournament, you will probably have less slippers fitting. No wonder there were so few upsets.

So just fucking deal with it. It just irks me to hear people complain. You can't have 5 buzzer-beater games every round, every year. There are so many games played throughout this tournament that you just have to sit back and appreciate the basketball that is being played. Like Pitt and ETSU today. 10-point Pitt win, but fun as hell to watch. Just enjoy the games, with four on at once, you can find a good one, and when the good moments come, enjoy them.

And if not, well, fuckoffanddie.

One word.

~Mikey D

I'm ready to go; let's get this thing started!

Sorry, Robert Morris, you're up first...

~Mikey D

You know, I thought Facebook was bad (and I tried it!), but Twitter has to be the most retarded thing yet. When I hear people say, "I'm on Twitter now!", I think about all the time they are going to waste updating their lives with things nobody truly cares about reading, like "I'm going to dinner with Jill" or "About to watch a rerun of Seinfeld". Then of course are all the people that take the time to read all the mundane shit that people post.

I don't get it. Staying connected? Seems like a gigantic waste of time and energy. Like this post. If there was no Twitter, I'd have two minutes of my life back to waste on ESPN.com. Thanks for nothing, Twitter.

~Mikey D

I crack up whenever this comes on TV. Nannerpuss!



~Mikey D

More to come?




~Mikey D

Do you know how I know MSU will beat Purdue tomorrow? No, not because of the revenge factor (although that would be nice). Not because of the home court advantage, either (doesn't hurt though). And no, it isn't because we are a vastly superior team (which in my biased opinion we totally are). It is because I, the great prognosticator, predicted MSU to finish a little something like this:

2008-2009 Michigan State Spartans:
Record: 25-5 (#2 seed in the NCAA Tournament)
Losses: North Carolina, Texas, @Iowa, @Illinois, @Purdue
Big 10 Record: 15-3 (1st Place)
Big 10 Tournament Champs
National Champions

We are sitting at a lovely 24-5, with a 14-3 record in the Big Ten, and according to our "Bracketology" seeding, we are a number two seed. Come on now, for a preseason prediction, that's pretty darn good. Yes I predicted some of our losses wrong, but still, not too shabby. So in order for my prediction to hold true, we will beat Purdue tomorrow. Which we will.

Switching gears, I began preparing filling out my bracket for this year's tournament about one year ago- during last year's tournament. I am obsessed with the tournament, and during last year's I began to take some notes on some trends that I noticed. Today I busted out my one-year old notes, just to start to get a feel for some of the teams I should have an eye on.

Note #1: Guards are better than bigs. When two teams are matched up, and one has strong guard play, while the other has excellent big men, go with the team with the guards. Guards beat bigs (see Stephon Curry, Western Kentucky, etc.). Of course if a team has strong guard play and big men, well, go with that team. But if I'm looking at teams like Oklahoma or UConn who are dominate inside but are lacking a little outside, and they get paired with some teams that can shoot from outside, don't be surprised if they are sent packing early.

Note #2: When deciding on which mid-major to choose for an upset, go with the one that has a "superstar". Obviously, Davidson was that team last year. But during the tournament analysis you'll hear experts talk about mid-majors and when they do, listen for them to mention a certain player that carries the load for that team. Go with that mid-major over another mid-major that doesn't have that true go-to guy. Like St. Mary's has Patty Mills. Mid-major with a go-to guy.

Note #3: Big East, Big Ten, and SEC flamed out after first two rounds last year. You hear all the hype about the Big East conference, and it is the deepest. Last year was no different, and despite all the teams that made it, only Louisville made it past the sweet sixteen to the Elite Eight. For a conference that was supposedly top-notch, that was a poor showing. Honestly, I don't see much difference from this year to the last. Same teams basically, same hype. All are beatable. So when you hear the talk about the Big East getting 3 number one seeds, don't buy into the superiority. It's been a very mediocre year for college basketball's elite. The Big Ten and SEC are also down again this year, so don't push too many teams that far. Except for MSU, of course (and no, I'm not talking about Mississippi St.).

Note #4: When you're picking Elite 8, Final 4, and Championship rounds, cool your jets on upset picks. When teams get this far, there's not much of an upset factor. Teams are good, and they're ready to play. When picking, go with the teams that are the most complete. Good coaching, good guards, and good bigs. Ride those teams to the promise land, not your instinct pick "I think if they play out of their minds they can win!" type team.

Note #5: Let Grace pick the first two rounds, then me after. Okay, this note is more for me than you. Grace owned me last year in bracket picking...for two rounds. Instead of over-thinking and over-analyzing, I should just let Grace choose and watch the wins pile up. Now that's probably the smartest thing I've said yet.

There ya go. Take my notes for what they're worth.

And go State!

~Mikey D

NHL teams are starting to develop "Ice Girls". Instead over overweight, hairy guys stumbling across the ice to pick up random crap thrown down by the fans, it's now young, beautiful girls skating around in next to nothing.

How long has this been going on in hockey?

Apparently since 2005, starting with the New York Islanders.

Now as a man I will not object to such a change, but it seems that some of these crews...are well, subpar, for lack of a better term.

First, the Chicago Blackhawks Ice Crew.

At first glance, you might say to yourself, "Now that's what I'm talking about..."

But upon closer inspection of the Blackhawk's Ice Crew, tell me which of these girls is either, a)attractive, b) not ridiculously made up (make up, fake baked, etc.), or c) looks like they weren't straight out of a "Girls Gone Wild" video. The answer, to me, is none. Sheesh.

Okay, that's just one team's lot of ladies. Big deal. Except that the Chicago Blackhawk's Ice Crew girls were voted the "hottest" crew in the NHL! Huh???

How can that be, I ask myself. Well look no further than Vancouver's submission into the competition:

Ummm...there are four dudes in this picture. Ummm and only four girls. I think someone in the marketing department up there kind of missed the boat on this one. A physical sport that men love...yes, let's put some men on the ice team. That'll be a big draw.

And why the hell is Smirnoff sponsering them?

Anyway, if you look at some of the other crews around the league, you see that none of them have particularly attractive women...again, in my opinion.

Now I'm sure nobody is going to buy a ticket to an NHL game just to watch the Ice Girls "perform", but I'm just saying, if you're going to have something like that, might as well do it right.

Andddd once again I'm probably going to go to hell for being a shallow pig.

~Mikey D