Nick's Six: Most Underrated Douchebags In Sports

Let's play a little word association. Pacman Jones. Douchebag. Kobe Bryant. Douchebag. Alex Rodriguez. Uber-douche. You get the point. Many popular sports figures are guilty of douchebaggery. But there a few that you should put on your douche-dar. I don't want to have to say I told you so.

But I will.

1. Eric Devendorf: No, this is not because I am a UConn fan. No, this is not because I hate (HATE) Syracuse. This is because Eric Devendorf is simply a huge douchebag. There's no getting around it. So let me get this straight. Deven-douche punches a woman in the face THIS YEAR, and is still enrolled at the University of Syracuse, and still playing for Jim "I should give my Hall of Fame plaque to Carmelo Anthony" Boeheim. I bet I could make an entire Nick's Six of douchebags from that program alone. Then again, I don't think six slots would be enough.

2. Jon Gruden: When Tony Dungy became the first black man to win a Super Bowl, it had to feel good doing it just years after being replaced in Tampa by Gruden, who in his first year became the first douchebag to win a Super Bowl.

Disclaimer: Mike Ditka is not a douchebag. Well he was until he appeared on the SI cover with Ricky Williams, and made a hilarious appearance in a Will Ferrell movie.

Anyway, back to Gruden. There's just something about the guy that I can't stand. Maybe it's the fact that he reminds me of Gordon Gecko in Wall Street. Or maybe the fact that after Chris Simms almost died on the football field, Gruden demoted him, and then wouldn't let him leave.

3. Andy Roddick: OK, first of all...ANDY ROD-DICK. I could rest my case. But I won't. It starts with the hat. Any player who cares about the position of his HAT on his head won't win jack. Other examples include Pokey Reese, and (this year) C.C. Sabathia. At least those guys wear New Era, and not Lacoste (ultimate douchebaggery). But the real reason for Roddick landing on this list is breaking up with Mandy Moore. Also, his nickname is A-ROD.

4. Michael Phelps: I would like to start by saying that I thought Michael Phelps was a douchebag way before everyone else. I would also like to say that I enjoyed his 8-medal run. It was good for America, and the Olympics. But holy (bong) smokes. You just look at this guy and think of every douchebag you've ever met. The douchebagginess of this guy is thicker than Mark Spitz's mustache during a monsoon. And if you're not sold yet, he appears in an incredibly douchebaggerian commercial with fellow douchebags Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez.

5. Every white guy that ever played for Duke: I know, I know. This was originally supposed to be a list of individuals. But I can't take it anymore. If Miami is football's running back U, than Duke is definitely basketball's douchebag U. Here is their all-time douchebag team: 1. J.J. Reddick; 2. Greg Paulus; 3. Christian Laettner; 4. Josh McRoberts; 5. Jay Bilas. I will say that Shane Battier, who is half white, was actually pretty likeable. But that's it.

6. Stephen A. Smith: Right, Stephen A. Smith is not an athlete. But he's still on ESPN more than most professional sports figures. His show "Quite Frankly," was almost as bad as CNN giving a show to D.L. Hughley -- almost. And speaking of his athleticism, apparently he played some college hoops at Winston-Salem University. In fact, he played for Hall of Fame coach Clarence Gaines. He then wrote an article for the school newspaper claiming Gaines should retire for health reasons.

Douche-BAG.

February: The worst month ever (Nick's Six Edition)

While sitting on my couch (OK, my mother's couch) this morning and eating Honey Nut Cheerios, I realized something about this little (no really, it's pretty brief) month they call February.

It sucks.

Honestly, what have we got to look forward to in February? If anyone just said, "the Pro Bowl," I will personally force you to watch every Pro Bowl until you realize why it should be banned. Aside from football's February farse, here are six other sporting "events" that allow more time for me to be whipped in to a March Madness frenzy.

Disclaimer: If the Stimulus Bill happened every February, it would be No. 1 on this list. Also, in keeping with the sports theme, I could not include the Oscars, and Valentine's Day...But I digress.

1. The NFL COMBINE: Until MTV's "Bromance" (were you really expecting a link to that? come on) came out this winter, there was no rival programming for a bunch of grown men running around trying to impress other grown men. When I (my parents) paid for our cable to include the NFL Network, I did not envision having to watch the desk toss to Steve "Thank you Brett Favre and Steve Young for my career" Mariucci for live updates on a 40-yard dash. NFL.com actually describes the combine as an "annual job fair." I've been to job fairs. I never had to complete a shuttle run. Then again, I still don't have a job, so maybe I should have.

2. Spring Training: There's nothing like knowing that a bunch of unathletic white guys are being paid millions to go to Florida and Arizona, work for two hours, golf for four hours and drink for 24 hours. And somehow the majority of them still do not know how to run from the mound to cover first base. Go figure.

3. The aforementioned Pro Bowl: Oh the Pro Bowl. Remember that time in the 1995 Pro Bowl when...uh...wait...I've never actually watched a Pro Bowl in its entirety. I think I watched some guy from Connecticut hit a halftime field goal for money once. Or maybe he missed it, I really don't know. Reaching far back in to my memory bank (centralized, of course), I recall crying in the first grade when I realized I had missed the previous night's Pro Bowl. By the next year I had grown smart enough to realize that the Pro Bowl was like my school's cursive writing curriculum-- it's completely irrelevant, and has no contribution to society. And yes still I hold a grudge because of Robert Edwards.

4. Signing Day: Oh my! Which school will the 57th-rated defensive back choose to receive his all-expense paid trip to la-la land from?! Now we've even got live coverage of such decisions. Although I am against such publicity for 17-year-olds, I did like this young man's way to make a decision. In fact, it appears it's how George W. Bush made the majority of his.

5. The NBA All-Star Game: Yes, I went there. I will say that I have become a bigger fan of the NBA now that it's become the only sport not linked to steroids in a big way (yet). It's got plenty of good characters and there is a nice balance of power among league teams, yet still, it's winter classic doesn't do it for me. The dunk contest is great and the pre-game intros are hilarious. There's just one problem. The NBA All-Star Game lacks one aspect of basketball that I'm pretty sure Dr. James Naismith had in mind -- defense.

6. Bracketology: Apparently ESPN, in another attempt to take over the world, has created a new form of science. So until the games are actually played, we must hear about the bracket busters, the on the bubbles, the longshots, one seeds, two seeds, three seeds, four seeds, must-wins, RPI, key losses, etc. They've even got us believing that a 12-seed over a four-seed is more likely than your next paycheck. Then again, in these times, they might be right.

To Tell The Truth

My mother would often tell me not to lie.

So I would do something wrong, get caught, come out with a half-truth, and call it even.

I recently found the transcript of a lie I told my mother many years ago. I looked it over, and it looks a lot like Mr. Alex Rodriguez's current plight. Mr. Rod, I encourage you to take a look at this dialogue. Maybe you'll realize it's important to tell the whole truth.

Enter my mother (MM). After working all day just to feed me, she has returned home to find out that I may or may not have eaten the entire box of frosted animal crackers that she bought.

MM: Did you eat all of the animal crackers?

Me: No! I would never do that! I'm confident in my ability to climb the playscape faster than everyone else without the assistance of a box of sugar-coated wafers.

MM: So you're sure, you didn't eat the animal crackers?

Me: *Looking her straight in the face* Nope, not at all.

MM: So why were you so hyper from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.? What could possibly explain that?

Me: I'm not sure. I mean, I was feeling pretty good from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. I guess I was in the prime of my day.

MM: OK. Well the thing is, I know your brother and sister have eaten an entire box of frosted animal crackers before. I would be mad, but would certainly understand why you would do it too.

Me: Like I said, I'm pretty confident in my abilities, as a superior sibling when it comes to the playscape. Why would I even need to eat an entire box of frosted animal crackers?

*Dad enters kitchen home from work. Tells my mom he knows for a fact I ate the entire box of frosted animal crackers. I'm pretty upset now. My dad was supposed to keep it a secret!*

MM: So you DID eat the frosted animal crackers!

Me: Yeah I did, but it was only once I swear! It was a stupid mistake! I'm so young!

MM: Why did you lie to me?!

Me: Mom, I convinced myself I hadn't eaten the frosted animal crackers! How am I supposed to tell you the truth, If I'm not truthful to myself?!

MM: Who gave you such an idea?!

Me: Well, my cousin said it would be a good idea. We took the box of frosted animal crackers off the counter, and he showed me how to bite all of the legs off first. Looking back, we had no idea how to properly eat them.

MM: Your cousin is 5!

Me: I'd rather not get in to my cousin, mom. And also, my brother and sister at entire boxes of frosted animal crackers! I had to keep up with their intense sugar highs if I wanted to be able to climb the playscape as fast as they were!

MM: So if you said you didn't NEED the crackers, why did you eat them?

Me: *Pause. Long Pause. Head turn. Mouth quiver. Eye watering. Lip bite.* Good question.

MM: You know, this is going to make me reconsider letting you in to the museum next week.

Me: No! Not that! Anything but that! That's what I've wanted my whole life! I'll do anything to get in to that museum!

MM: Anything huh? Like eating an entire box of frosted animal crackers?

Excuse me while I yawn

A-Rod did steroids. Now, Red Sox fans are supposed to point out what a cheater he is. Now, Red Sox fans are supposed to really hate him.

Weren't both of these already true? He cheated in 2004 and didn't get away with it; apparently he cheated in 2003 and eventually didn't get away with it. Red Sox fans didn't particularly like A-Rod even before he joined the Yankees. Every time he would bat in Boston, Fenway would chant, "Nomar's better."

Maybe it's because I'm a libertarian. Maybe it's because he helped me win in fantasy last year. Maybe it's for the same reasons that I don't hate Barry Bonds. Whatever the reason, I just don't care about A-Rod. He's in great financial shape, but he's always struggled with personal relations. I've always felt kind of bad for the guy.

He's never been accused of intentionally hurting someone else. Most people who hate him do so mainly out of jealousy of his contract, which they would obviously have too if they had his talent.

New face, same dirty tricks

I guess the good news this time around is that Tennessee isn't getting away with cheating.

Maybe everything that Lane Kiffin does at UT should have an asterisk next to it.

No, we only feel extreme moral outrage at cheating when it involves baseball players.

Bud's outrage and outrage over some bud

Bud Selig is so incensed by A-Rod's confession that he's considering a measure so abominable that the Framers banned it from government (see: Article I, Section 9). Obviously, the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws isn't binding against the MLB Commissioner, but given the extreme violation of A-Rod's privacy (not to mention the 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement) to this point in this scandal, I think Bud owes it to A-Rod to just let this die.

Meanwhile, the Richland County Sherrif's department is considering bringing charges against Michael Phelps for being photographed allegedly doing something less dangerous than drinking alcohol. This is the same city whose cops brought you the excessive beating of Kevin Young in August of last year.

It's a dark day in sports for the rights of the individual.

Hold Me, Thrill Me, Foul Me, Bench Me

Let me just open this by saying that of all the major sports to which I have devoted strategic thought, my opinions on baseball strategy are probably the most well-formed, with football a distant second and basketball an even more distant third.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I've always thought the behavior of basketball coaches in one particular area of the game somewhat odd: benching players after accumulating a certain number of fouls.

***Disclaimer 2: I have no data supporting the assertions made in this paragraph*** If a player accumulates 2 fouls within the first couple minutes of the game, he is often benched. If at any point during the first half he accumulates 3 fouls, foolish is thought the coach that fails to bench this player for the greater part of the half's remainder. And, like Devan Downey at the mid-point of the second half against Florida, a player that acquires a fourth foul in a close game is sure to see the bench until the game is getting close to its end.

To make sense, this modus operandi would have to assume at least one of the following:

1) Benching the player will ultimately increase the amount of his playing time
2) Having the player available late in the game is more important than having him available at any other time
3) Players are less effective when they have a large number of fouls relative to the time elapsed in the game

I don't really see how you could make an argument that #1 is true, so I will omit analyzing it in detail. It seems to me that the act of benching such a player merely shifts his contribution to the team along a timeline and may inadvertently cut short the potential impact that he may have on the game.

Imagine a world in which athletes do not get fatigued. Player X can play 38 minutes before committing 5 fouls. But when Player X commits his fourth foul, the coach takes him out of the game for five minutes before subbing him back in for the last four minutes of the game. In this scenario, Player X is only on the floor for 35 minutes instead of 38 minutes. After all, neither the coach nor the player can know when he will commit his fifth and final foul.

For the decision to pay off in this scenario, the player's contribution in the final two minutes would need to be at least 1.75 times as valuable as his contribution from the 9 minute mark to the four minute mark*. I'm having difficulty coming up with a possible reason that the final two minutes would be that much more valuable. After all, aren't points scored or prevented in the first minute of the game just as valuable as points scored or prevented in the final minute of the game?

The only real problem that I see with my theory is that players might not perform at their peak level when they are saddled with a large number of fouls for a fear of the consequences of committing subsequent fouls. But I feel that, to some extent, this fear may be exacerbated by the prevailing coaching heuristic in which players with a certain number of fouls at a certain point in the game get sent to the bench.

To summarize: if players are much less effective when they have a large number of fouls and/or it is much more valuable to have a player available at the end of the game than at any other time, then benching players with fouls is a good idea. But those gains would have to be so large (if they exist) that they would outweigh the cost of potentially shortening the amount of time the player is on the floor.

Thoughts? Criticisms?


*Am I thinking about this right? With 9 minutes to go in the game, you could bench the player for 5 minutes (9-5=4) or let the player foul out (9-2=7), giving 7/4=1.75