Around the Arena (Championship Game ... Winner: ApolloSmieGirl)

Inty - a reminder for you, Juli hasn't been able to be around long enough to get an answer written. She's trying though and will be here shortly.

I haven't been around much either, and don't have time/energy to score and post a new prompt right now. My computer is getting fixed right now, so I'm sharing one at the moment.

By the way, Rogue, I'm guessing the lack of scoring on ATH was in response to the day before, when Woody used his face time to talk about how poor the scoring is on ATH and how they need to standardize it.

First off, Kobe's got a good, young team around him now. It's very doubtful that you'll see the same antics and frustrations that he's shown the last two seasons in this offseason. I'd be completely surprised if the word trade even came up.

Boston has a good chance of success next season, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the threeparty will automatically repeat. Allen, Garnett, and Pierce are all well into their careers. In fact, this season may have been one of the last chances any of the had at a title. It's not to say they can't do it, but the chances are 50/50 at best. You also have to consider that the three of them are prone to injuries, especially Garnett and Allen. You lose any of the three for a significant amount of time, you could lose your season right there.

Not to sound overly negative on Jackson, but he's been extremely fortunate to be placed on teams that had a team built before he got there, that had extreme talent. He's never built a team, other than contributing to the team this past season. It's hard to call him overrated, but you do have to look at those points.

Until Kobe wins a championship without Shaq, he should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Jordan.

I'd say there's a better than 75% chance as all five starters for the Celtics are coming back and the Big Three were there when they were needed. Like I said earlier, they need to solve the road game playoff loss problem that plauged them in earlier rounds.

Of course LeBron and the Cavs gave them fits in some of those road losses so maybe LeBron and Co. will be able to get back to the finals next year.

Still buying the Champs getting back next year as that was the question asked.

Well, if I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post, I don't think they'll have a back to back.

The big three are all prone to injuries, and the starting five coming back means nothing if they lose one of the key three.

It's possible, but more than likely, not going to happen.

Let's (finally) score those arguments ...

Juliet: True, they are the champs until they're Marlined or someone beats them ... (+2)
horsey: good point on other teams on the up, when Boston is, at best, peaking (+3) and I love the dig at Boston (+1)
Trika: Great info all around (+3)
ASG: A bit all over the place, but good info as well (+3)

Scoreboard

This round:

horsey: 4
Trika: 3
ASG: 3
Juliet: 2

Overall:

Trika_Kenobi: 24
ApolloSmileGirl: 23
Juliet316: 17
s65horsey: 16

One more Buy or Sell before one lady hits the road ... to a gameban

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0622/ten_g_federer_580.jpg">

To tennis now, and rumors of the downfall of Roger Federer. He's coming off the worst beatdown of his career at the French, and some of saying that if he loses at Wimbledon, it signals the beginning of the end for Roger.

You buy or sell Wimbledon as a must win for Federer, ladies?

I'll buy it. Federer has had some pretty big losses this year, Nadal is catching up to him on all courts and he's also had some injuries off and on this past year. With his mindset being so similar to Tiger Woods it wouldn't surprise if they weren't more serious then he lets on.

But yes, Federer must win. It may not be the end of his career if he loses, but it will signal the end of his dominance.

Ladies?

I'm selling this one. Sure, Federer has had a rough season. Starting with mono and getting ripped apart at the French Open... yeah, it's been tough. For a guy who has won five Wimbledons and only lacks three major titles to pass Pete Sampras, though, he's still all right. Sure, winning Wimbledon would definitely to help get him on track, but I am in no way saying that this lackluster year so far is the beginning of his imminent downfall, even if he were to lose. Players who rank number one are allowed to have their lulls sometimes... Federer is going to be turning twenty-seven this year and has stressed repeatedly that he feels good enough to play into his thirties. Once he gets out of this funk he'll be back to dominating the court, and with a few years to chase Sampras's record, he's going to have fun doing it.

Winning Wimbledon, while it would be an important win, isn't a necessary one to make Federer's career.

Having a mediocre season does not sully his career in any way. It also doesn't mean that the decline of his career is anywhere near imminent. He's dominant on so many levels that he's already considered one of, if the not the future best player to ever play the game. He's going through a losing streak, every great player does. It doesn't mean that it automatically has repercussions for the immediate future.

He'll pull out of it, and he'll get his game back together.

Well ... horsey is out of town, and about to lose anyways, so I'm not waiting for her this time ...

Juliet: Love the Tiger comparison for a possible serious injury (+2)
Trika: Love the stats, love 'em (+3)
ASG: Good info all around (+2)
horsey: Already in Vegas (-1)

Scoreboard:

This round:

Trika: 3
ASG: 2
Juliet: 2
Horsey: -1

Overall:

Trika_Kenobi: 27
ApolloSmileGirl: 25
Juliet316: 19
s65horsey: 15

And horsey is gone ... from the game and to Vegas. And another of you is set to join her, just not in Vegas. We'll find out who in Out of Bounds

Shaq vs. Kobe is back ... maybe. sort of. Kind of. Perhaps. Or at least Shaq wants Kobe to know that he's number one, and Kobe can eat where #2 comes from. Or something like that.

O'Neal says it was all in fun, and he has no ill-intentions towards Kobe. It did, however, cost Shaq his honorary badge

So, tell me ladies does this story do anything for you? Make you more interested in a Shaq-Kobe basketball game? Make you think the feud is back? Or is this just a one-time thing? And undeserving of any coverage?

Let's go Around the Arena and find out ...

Does this story do anything for me? Ugh. What an immature and unprofessional "act." That's just for starters. How lame can someone really be? I think the last time I heard such childish language was back when half of my nose-picking fifth-grade peers were talking about girls having cooties.

"Everyone that knows Shaq knows two things about me: One, that I'm a rapper, and two, that I'm a comedian." Yeah. 'Cause Shaq was always on my top-ten list for candidates I hope to be on Comedy Central one day. Is that what he hoped to achieve? It apparently cost him another badge... news flash here: people tend to avoid associating with people who use racial slurs and crude language in public, especially when it comes to promoting family- or community-friendly projects, such as the ones for which he was originally given the badges.

Re-igniting the feud? Psssh. Was I supposed to pay attention to the last one? Or anything that spews from the mouth of Shaq? More interested in a Shaq-Kobe ball game? No. Just "no." Ugh. I can't stand to look at Shaq's cross-eyed free throws any more than I already have to on the highlight reels.

I don't have an issue with this in any way. It wasn't something done on a nationally syndicated stage. It was done in a small nightclub. It was joke, based off of a feud that the media blew up way bigger then the two involved(Kobe and Shaq) made it out to be.

The fact that Kobe hasn't even made a comment about it suggests the two have probably already spoken to each other about it, and that it's a non-issue. Why make a big deal about it, when it's not even an argument being discussed openly between the two?

Kobe probably thought it was funny and took it as a joke, and Shaq has already openly said that he meant it as a joke, and that the two of them, as well as other teammates used to do rap battles in the past, which usually involved insulting each other in a friendly way.

Until Kobe openly complains, it's not even an issue.

Slow news day.

Move along, move along.

At one point in time I was intrigued by the feud, but not enough to watch, that ship has sailed a long time ago. I really thought that all this was behind them. Maybe not best buds, but enough to where they respected one another. This was really juvenile of Shaq to do especially right after the crushing defeat the Lakers had in the Finals, almost like pouring salt on a fresh wound. Could it be that Shaq's a little bitter about his fortunes this year?

Plus one has to wonder, why would Shaq do this stunt, say THAT word. knowing that in this day and age of where anybody can be a paperazzi, there could have and indeed was a cameraphone monitoring his every word.

All and all not really a good PR move for Shaq as it takes the focus off Kobe's own semi - childish behavior in his post Finals press conference.

No one cares enough about what Shaq has to say anymore either way. This wouldn't even be an issue if some random club goer hadn't recorded this with his camera phone.

Shaq is lucky to make it through half of a season these last 3 or 4 years, true. He has no reason to be talking about the star of the Rapers, but who cares? Seriously.

Until Kobe makes a fuss about this "Stunt" that Shaq pulled, what's the point of even paying attention to it?

Trika: great stuff (+3)
ASG: Fantastic Stuff (+4)
Juliet: great stuff (+3)

Scoreboard:

Overall:

Trika_Kenobi: 30
ApolloSmileGirl: 29
Juliet316: 22


And so we move on to showdown. Two women enter, and everyone else hopes for a mud pit ending.

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0625/ncaa_ap_fresnostate_celebrate_412.jpg">

Fresno State are National Champions of the baseball world. After coming back from a 5-0 deficit to avoid elimination in Game 2, they dominate game 3 against Georgia and win 6-1. This makes Fresno State the lowest seed to win a title in any NCAA sport, and makes them the National Champion with the most losses ever.

So tell me, Trika_Kenobi, what's the better fitting description: best Cinderella ever, or worst National Champion ever?

The better fitting description for this amazing ending is that Fresno State is likely the worst national champion ever. While "Cinderella" implies that you've sort of sneaked your way into the "ball" and charmed everyone, there's really nothing charming about having more losses than any other national champion ever. They won the games that mattered, though, and for that, I salute them. However, was anybody relatively rooting for Fresno State at all? Dodging bullet after bullet of elimination tends to make fans cringe, not cheer. There seemed to be a general air of agony watching this team advance into the finals. With Cinderellas grabbing attention for being amazing despite the grand stage, this particular one was grabbing attention for all the wrong reasons... particularly thirty-one losses and the anticipation of another to end their season. Wins are wins, however, and their hard work wound up paying off when they needed it.

Congratulations, however, Fresno. You made me el-oh-el.

It's hard to want to pretend to care about college baseball. It's not my thing, and it never will be. However, like Trika said they won the game that mattered to win them the championship. It's especially important to notice that they beat several seeds superior to them, to get them that championship. They may be the team with the most losses to win a championship, but what does that say about the other college teams? They're the ones that choked when they shouldn't have. I don't really think it's fair to call Fresno lucky. They won when it mattered, and they beat teams that shouldn't have had a problem beating them.

If anything, it's el-o-el at every team that couldn't get it done against them.

I guess you could laugh about the state of college baseball, but at least Fresno is laughing with the trophy and a championship under their belt.

Not gonna lie, both strong arguments, but at least Trika pretends to care about the subject matter at hand. So, she gets the point.

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0626/nba_split_top_1_sw_412.jpg">

The NBA Draft was last night, and for the first time ever, freshman went one-two-three. Following on this trend, ten freshman went in the first round, and twelve freshman overall. This surge, of course, thanks to the recent rule change prohibiting high schoolers from being drafted to NBA teams. Is the one-and-done rule helping the NBA, or hurting the NBA, ASG?

I don't think it's hurting or helping tbh Inty.

Look, I can see the reasoning with making potential players get at least a year or two of college culture before they join the NBA. However, what does that really accomplish? Yes, they get a few more years of life on a campus. However, how many stories about athletes being busted for drugs, theft, alcohol related incidents, rape, and murders, while in college, have we had since this rule has passed? I'm not going to say they've greatly increased, because they may just be more publicized then in the past, but they certainly haven't decreased.

The theory of letting a young man, or woman mature a little more before they get into a professional sport works in theory, but it doesn't seem to work on policy. The NCAA turns it's head wherever they can to get away with it, and some of these athletes push and push, while screwing around, that they finally go to far and completely ruin their future.

This by no means is meant to degrade those athletes that want to get a college education, because the majority of them want to get one. I'm just saying that one, they may be better off getting that education during summer school sessions, and online classes(while they're playing), and then completing that education after they retire from their prospective sport.

It hasn't necessarily been a detriment to the game of basketball, but it hasn't changed the leagues image in many people's(if any) eyes at all.

It's like the "No bling" rule. What's the point? If people want to call players in the NBA a collective group of thugs, they'll find another reason to do so. I mean I guess you can't really complain so much about making your players have a dress code, when other professional environments require them, but it's not like Stern's changed the NBA for the better, by either one of these recent rules.

The NBA will always have its drama, but that's what gives us yet another good el-oh-el in the sports world. This definitely doesn't hurt the NBA, but like ASG, I assess that it definitely doesn't help, either. The idea is solid, but I'll take this question from a unique perspective: talent development. While there will always be immature young adults who decide to stretch the limits of the rules just to get by in order to play ball, even if there were stricter rules in place, you can be sure that someone will figure out a way to abuse the policies and manipulate them to fit their immediate wants and desires. Immaturity can't be helped by a year of college any more than the NBA's image can be helped by an extra David Stern press conference. It is what it is, and most professional sports suffer from various cultures of drugs and crime. It comes with the territory of large sums of money and fame.

Taking this question from a totally talent-related perspective, I'm definitely focusing on the new urge to jump to the NBA so early in a young player's development. So, a high school player goes to college for a year, just so he can get drafted the next year. This rule encourages players to merely reach the age of eligibility without regard to basketball smarts or maturity. "After a year, I'm ready for pro ball, right?" That's the impression young players are getting from this rule. Only extraordinary high schoolers got drafted in years past... they were otherwise ignored. Now, if a player shows impressive stats his first year in college, he's highly likely to forget that he's still a learner in a great big game when the talk starts up about the potential to jump to the NBA. There's always going to be a Rookie of the Year, right? Does that mean every Rookie of the Year should go pro?

So, an inexperienced player with a large chip on his shoulder gets drafted. Joseph Forte, anyone? He even last two years. Two years of amazing statistics and awards gets him nowhere. Even already-amazing players in college have a hard time adjusting sometimes, let alone a player with an attitude, like Michael Beasley. Sure, the kid's got heart and has the stats to back up his big mouth, but imagine a world where developing his basketball thought was paramount. If he really cherished the game, he'd understand already that basketball is not a one-man program. He should have learned that playing Kansas this year. Instead, we've got a culture that's encouraging young players to anticipate the draft instead of focusing on their skill sets and anticipating the years provided by a college program that will develop those skills.

Greg Oden would be a super awesome example, I'm sure, if he didn't ride the pine this past season. The hype surrounding him versus his actual performance in the NBA is sure to be a joke in the coming years. One-and-done? Think again, young ones.

Good points, there, Trika. But still, you say that to support the PoV that it neither helps nor hurts. And I've heard that argument before. And I like it better the first time. Point to ASG

So we'll settle it with one more:

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/media/ncw/2004/0330/photo/a_cparker_i.jpg">

(I can't believe I'm doing a WNBA question ... what has become of me?)

Candace Parker recently dunked in consecutive games, and with a decent amount of flair and flash to her throw downs. Some are suggesting this could be her first steps towards being the transcendental player women's hoops needs. Are you buying the dunks as a big deal, or as no deal, Trika?