Scouring the post-NBA finals media coverage over the last few days, I've noticed a disturbing new trend: bashing of Euro Basketball players. For instance, the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy, slipped in this gem in his finals recap: "Kobe Bryant scored 22 for the losers, but ultimately LA just had too many Europeans."

Too many Europeans? Is that a legitimate way to criticize the failures of the Los Angeles Lakers to appropriately compete in the NBA finals, particularly from such an accomplished columnist? This isn't limited to Shaughnessy, either. ESPN's Colin Cowherd, one of my favorites, has repeatedly ripped European NBA players and the Euro lifestyle in general, labeling them as soft as a result of the supposedly cushier living conditions (El Subliminal can better attest to this).

I'm all for freedom of speech, and certainly the Lakers deserved to be criticized for their poor effort throughout the series, particularly in game 6, but such blanket statements amount to racism, don't they? If such similar statements had been made about African American players, the public outrage would not be contained, and guys like Shaughnessy would probably be suspended or fired. In fact, see the backlash after former Green Bay Packer's great Paul Hornung uttered these comments. And we're just over a year removed from the Don Imus controversy. At any rate, I don't think this substitutes for actual game analysis, and we should expect better from sports opinion columns (or should we?).

Word.
While I generally detest Scoop's writing, this one time I have to give him credit. Got a nice one in for KG.

Enjoy your moment, KG. You deserved it. Its nice to know good guys sometimes get their due.

I've always wondered why sports fans in certain places are so much more passionate than others, why sports, and particularly following sports, weighs more heavily on some people's minds than others. After all culturally, Americans are relatively (to European and Asian cultures) homogeneous; and yet there are geographical differences in their behavioral patterns. I don't have the background to do a psychological or sociological analysis, and my observations are somewhat un-scientific, but I think sports obsession can essentially be correlated with the local climate.

Having lived in the United States for the majority of my life, having traveled the country's length and breadth, and having followed the history of sports in the US fairly closely, I feel comfortable in speculating where the most passionate, obsessive sports fans live. In my experience, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, and other nearby big cities are the homes of teams considered to have the most impassioned sports fans. Through thick and thin, winning seasons and losing seasons alike, the fans in these cities are considered to stick by their teams and players. I've spent extensive time in about half on those, and I can speculate that this is probably true. You could probably through Seattle into that mix.

Conversely, the cities where fans are considered to be fair-weather and fickle, are places like Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and towns in those locales. Dallas fans are rather famous in this regard. Similarly, Los Angeles, the country's largest media market, couldn't sustain enough interest to keep an NFL team in town, despite that league's rise to the most popular in the country. In fact, LA lost both its football teams, both of which have been fairly successful since departing town.

So what's the constant theme here? The weather, of course. Where the temperature is colder, where the winters are harsher, and where people are more often confined to their homes due to inclement weather conditions, the fans tend to be more obsessive (i.e. true sports fans). I don't blame them. After all, when your favorite teams are losing, and you're stuck at home, I can envision scenarios where the gloom and doom weighs you down more. Consequently, I think the successes of their sports teams weigh more heavily on their minds. These folks don't have a lot of distractions.

On the other hand, in cities with warmer weather, where folks can get out more, the fans tend to have more perspective. After all, with all the distractions, what incentive would fans have to follow a poor sports team? If the Lakers didn't have Kobe Bryant and constantly finished in the bottom half of the standings, would fans fight traffic to get to the Staples Center and watch games? Or would they rather take the trouble to go to LA's numerous beaches and enjoy the sea and sun? That's what I thought. I think people in these towns are also able to deal with sports disappointments better, because of all the distractions. On the other hand, when the teams do well, attending games becomes a hip, trendy thing to do, a place to be seen, and that's usually what games in LA or Dallas are like when the teams are winning. On top of that, I think there is a greater percentage of transplants out west, and they feel less loyalty to the local sports teams and would tend not to go unless, again, there was some social impact or quality experience to be had by attending.

So where the weather is fairer, the fans tend to be more fair-weather (I wonder if that is the origin of that phrase), but is that such a bad thing? And which would you rather be, and where would you rather live? Of course, you're welcome to poke holes in these arguments.

So following up on El Subliminal's post on Boston sports fans...it's an interesting debate as to why the Red Sox are revered over all other Boston-area teams. I really don't know why that is. More interesting, perhaps, is what happens to the fear and self-loathing that has come to be associated with disgruntled Boston sports fans over the past several decades (e.g. ESPN's Bill Simmons, who has essentially built his career on this). It's time to appreciate what you have, Boston. As for what I have to say regarding fickle sports fans, that deserves its own post, and I'll do so next time.

Alright, now for my finals postmortem. I predicted a Celtics victory in an earlier post, but rather that tooting my own horn, let me register my surprise that Boston was able to shut down Kobe Bryant so completely during the series. I really didn't see that coming, especially since many believed this would be a signature, career-defining series for Bryant. It never happened, putting the Kobe vs. MJ debate on ice (for now). Having said that, the Celtics clearly deserved to win, and any team that plays with such intensity and demonstrates such unity should have our admiration.

It's never too early to look forward to next year, is it? Which team is more likely to return to the finals? The Lakers have a far more daunting task: although the return of young Andrew Bynum will bolster their line-up, they still play in the far more competitive conference, with the likes of the Spurs, Suns, Hornets, Jazz, and Mavericks to contend with. The Celtics, interestingly enough, may prove to be more enigmatic. They succeeded largely due to emotion and intensity, both of which hardly ever waned. Although they possess tremendous talent, their bread-winner was an abundance of those qualities, neither of which the Lakers could match. Can they continue that for a second straight year? I say no, but I'd love to be proved wrong. They certainly don't have as much competition in the Eastern conference. A Celtics-Spurs match-up in the '09 finals would be pretty fascinating. At any rate, let Boston sports fans complain no longer.

So let me jump into the hot-topic-posting bandwagon and take this space to talk about a
current hot topic - underwater basket weaving.

I keed, I keed. Celtics won their 17th championship yesterday. Personally, ever since I moved to Boston, I have witnessed 2 Patriots championships, 1 Celtics championship and of all things, 2 Red Sox championships. So life in my sports world, is great to say the least (ok, not entirely, India crashed and burned in WC cricket as usual, but I digress).

But what I'd like to write about is the general apathy which people have here in Boston for all teams not called Red Sox. Don't get me wrong, fans here are great and are exceptionally loyal (say compared to the fickle Dallas fans; I will let tracer Bullit comment on that). But even while watching Celtics crushing the Lakers (or Pats crushing everyone else), you will hear the common refrain - " Yankees suck!!".

I mean cmon people. I realize most of you are sozzled but show some respect will you? What do the bloody yankees have to do with the lakers except both of them suck? or ARod has to do with Manning except both of them are losers and are pansies?

Give some credit where it is due. Congrats to the Celtics and to KG.
And ya, yankees do suck.

Alright, so a couple of things I've been mulling over the past couple of weeks...

For those who haven't discovered it yet, check out Olivia Judson's "The Wild Side" blog on NYTimes. She makes recent scientific research and breakthroughs accessible to the science newbie, and keeps us science nerds in the loop on new publications. The post that caught my eye was her May 20th post on "cybrids" - human-animal fusion embryos that may allow scientists to overcome a fundamental problem in embryonic stem cell research, namely getting sufficient embryos to conduct experiments to harvest these cells. What I found incredible was the bill to allow this research ended up being passed by British lawmakers - an impressive feat in itself. American scientists haven't had the leeway to conduct these experiments because Bush Jr. has seen fit to veto every significant embryonic stem cell research bill, primarily because he believes some "mad" scientist will create an army of clones running around or fields of babies to harvest these cells.

Also check out Roger Cohen's Op-Ed column about emerging energy superpowers. I particularly found interesting his support of sugarcane ethanol, an idea that had been slammed as recently as this article by TIME. Certainly, more recent counter-arguments suggest sugarcane ethanol might be a more viable alternative over corn ethanol. Whether or not the US lifts the tariff to allow what Cohen calls the "right" ethanol in remains a question.

Finally, my take on the finals tonight. Traditionally, the team with the best player and better coach usually win the NBA title. The Lakers have a huge advantage over the Celtics in both regards, possessing an all-time great player in his absolute prime and a coach on the precipice of becoming the all-time leader in NBA championships won. However...the Celtics may not have the best player, but they have 3 All-Stars who play off each other tremendously well, an underrated yet experienced bench, excellent team defense as well as the defensive player of the year, and players who can get hot and dominate for stretches. If Doc Rivers' can stay out of his team's way, then the Celtics not only have a shot, they should be able to win. Other than the Mamba and Phil Jackson, the Celtics have decisive advantages across the board, play well when they're ahead, and feed off their home crowd like perhaps no other team in the league. While I hate to pick against Bryant and Jackson - two of my favorites - I have to go with Celtics in 7.

...But McCain wins the election?

Last night, the Democratic nomination race held pretty much to serve, with Clinton cleaning up in Kentucky and Obama completing his Pacific Northwest sweep. Obama has also won the majority of votes, meaning he could potentially hit the magic number of pledged delegates in the next few weeks (particularly after May 31, when Michigan and Florida are decided). However, the only candidate who can be thrilled with this outcome is John McCain.

To whit: It's clear both Democratic candidates have well-established support bases. The problem? Over the past few weeks, Obama has essentially conceded the "working-class" white voter bloc, particularly in West Virginia and Kentucky, and Clinton has basically locked up the mid-Atlantic white vote. The risk? If and when Obama locks up the nomination, he has no readily apparent strategy, other than the full-fledged support of Senator Clinton, to lock up these votes.

The latter part is no lock, either. Whatever the final decision regarding Michigan and Florida, Senator Clinton (or, more likely, folks from her camp) will contend that she won the popular vote (as it stands currently in those two states, she would), and her nomination was stolen from her by the pledged delegate system, in the same way Al Gore was cost the presidency in 2000. If her key support demographic feels their nominee was somehow gypped by the system, they could decide to stay home in November and not vote at all, or worse, throw their support behind McCain, whose party suddenly looks well-run in light of the fiasco that has become the Democratic nomination. Only the Dems could screw up an election in which they had the two most popular candidates with record-setting turn-outs and the other party had the ancient, once-unpopular guy and was responsible for a recession, a well-bungled war, and a disgruntled electorate fighting off Bush-fatigue.

So I love making sports analogies. To me, the '08 Dems are like the '03-'04 Los Angeles Lakers. Remember them? That Lakers team had arguably the two best players in the NBA (Shaq, Kobe), where the Dems have perhaps the two best candidates (Clinton, Obama). The Lakers also had two past-their-prime stars (Gary Payton, Karl Malone) looking to hitch their wagon to Shaq and Kobe for one last shot at glory, much like the Dems (John Edwards, Bill Clinton). Both had two wise elderly statesman-like leaders staunchly refusing to support either star (Phil Jackson, Al Gore).

So where am I going with this? The '04 Lakers greatly underachieved: their in-house squabbles cost them the chemistry needed to win the NBA championship, allowing a less-talented but more unified Detroit team to capture the glory. After the season, the team was broken up, with the aged, established star jettisoned in favor of the young, rising star. While the decision was the correct one, the team slipped into mediocrity and malaise and, though they eventually rebuilt around the young star and paired him with the right supporting cast, they did not rise again for another four years.

And will that scary parallel come to fruition this November?

How am I not supposed to buy and devour this after this review?
It combines NYC with cricket. 'nuff said.

While the reviewer claims the writing about the game is 'lovely', I would have to confess
I'm more than a little skeptical. What would an Irishman know about cricket?
Ok so he plays the game. There is only one way to find out.
B&N, here I come..

Lot has been said on why only cricket looms large on the Indian psyche, why other sports are languishing, and why its not good to put all eggs in one basket ; cricket.

However, I would also like to blame people in other sports not really caring enough or not voicing their concerns enough. Case in point: this interview with Vishy Anand.
Time and again Karan Thapar gives Anand many opportunities to lash out against cricket, and
generally use his status and his celebrity to represent his sport and other sports as well to make a strong point - enough is enough, we need to develop and foster other sports as well.

What does Anand do though? Gives dumb diplomatic answers. Anand, dude, we like you and we are really proud of you. You've earned all your kudos (and money) the hard way and you deserve it.
But please, for the love of all that is good, grow a pair and say what is obvious -
"what is being done for other sports is not enough you bitches! We need more, lots more!"

Me thinks it is morally incumbent on Anand, being in the unique position he is, to lead the way. Instead he opts out. Disappointing.

Perhaps i'll find where he lives in Spain and TP his house..

First watch this: Grown man bawling