I hope the censors don't catch this one because ESPN has become the worst four-letter word in sports.  If Wayne Gretzky called the Disney owned company a "mickey mouse" organization, you'd never know about it because let's face it they never cover hockey.  What was once the great "Big Show" with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick has turned into a "Big Soap Opera," so much so that Vince McMahon should sue for copyright infringement. 

Here is a bevy of reasons why I cannot stand ESPN:

1.) Brett Favre, Brett Favre, Brett Favre.  Oh sure they've done this before with Michael Jordan and Roger Clemens, but I don't need to hear  from everyone from Chris Mortensen to Joe Beercan from Madison, Wisconsin on every single angle possible.  Here's something that takes ten seconds boys and girls, if he's not playing he's retired, if he's playing, he's playing, just let me know that and I'm fine ok.

2.) Gimmicks.  What do I mean by gimmicks?  Does "Title Town" come to mind?  How about "Who's Now?"  Remember what a doozie that one was?

3.) The so-called "experts."  You know the self-aggrandizing ex-jocks and or execs. who think that since they played the game that they know everything and that you're too stupid to know anything because you never played the game.  Steve Phillips has to be the worst, John Kruk is pretty awful and Sean Salisbury a scrub quarterback and self-proclaimed know-it-all, Mel Kiper Jr. and I can keep going on and on and on. 

4.) The Rush Limbaugh wannabees.  In fact ESPN even went so far as to hire Rush awhile back, while I don't agree ideologically with Mr. Limbaugh, he at least is an expert at his craft.  However a lot of these personalities on ESPN are trying to be edgy and opinionated and in your face just for the sake doing it.  Names that come to mind are Stephen A. "everything I have to say is important," Jemele "racist" Hill, Skip "clueless" Bayless, etc.

5.) Virtually no hockey highlights.  I understand you don't cover the sport ESPN, but show me some highlights.

6.) Same old story, same old song and dance.  Favre, T.O., Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Manny, Spygate, Steroids.  Can a man get some sports highlights please?

7.) Poker all the time, even on ESPN Classic.  Remember when ESPN Classic (formerly classic sports) used to actually show classic games and events?

8.) They even managed to ruin ESPN News!  I used to flip over there to get away from the garbage, apparently someone found out because I can't escape it there either.

9.) Kobe and Shaq soap opera.  Fine so the Shaq rapping video was funny, but I don't need 20 minutes of analysis on it.  Heck as a Celtics fan it almost cost me a championship, because Paul Pierce almost blew out his knee slipping on all of that drool they were foistering on Kobe.

10.) ESPN2 has become irrelevant.

11.) ESPN original entertainment.  Memo to ESPN, you are not HBO and you never will be.

12.) Showing 20 minutes of NFL Live in June instead of an hour of Baseball Tonight.

13.) My wish segments.  Great captivating stories, very well done packages, but does it belong on an "all sports network?"

14.) Firing Harold Reynolds over nothing.  He must've been too good and too knowledgeable for that network. 

15.) The Outdoor Games.  Stop trying to force people to like stuff and stop pretending that they actually do or care.

16.) Fake news conferences, especially using that fake baseball GM Steve Phillips.

17.) ESPN deportes on SportsCenter.  If ESPN deportes was so great, I'd be watching it right now.  But oh yeah funny thing is, I never do!

18.) The fact that they still cover the WNBA as if someone other than lesbians are still watching.

19.) Their eye candy isn't hot enough to be that stupid.  If you're going to have attractive people on that don't know what they're talking about that's fine, just make sure that they can at least hack it in the SI Swimsuit Issue ok? 

20.) Disney owns them and Disney is evil, need I say more?

Patriots fans can now find solace in that according to most NBA experts that they and the Celtics were underdogs when playing for the championship in their respective leagues.  Sounds pretty laughable doesn't it?  An 18-0 and 78-24 team viewed as the presumptive underdog?  As a fan of both the Celtics and Giants, all I need now is for the Steve Phillips' of the world to tell me how the Yankees won't win the World Series in 2008 and I'll be a very happy man.

If you've read my earlier columns, you'd know I've made clear my displeasure of these so-called "experts" not giving enough credit to the Boston Celtics.  Whether it was the league not liking the "bland, pale, un-marketable" franchise, which boasts the most tradition and titles.  Or ex-coaches, execs, players and commentators harboring old bitter feelings of jealousy, racism and hatred of the once and now proud franchise. 

The experts said the Celtics were stuck after the lottery balls went awry.  Blasted them for only getting Ray Allen and then questioned if they'd gotten rid of too much for Kevin Garnett.  Then went on to criticize the team as having no depth, "The Big Three and Scalabrine."  After that it was questions of age or if they could all jell and co-exist on the floor at the same time.

There were then questions as to whether the Celtics could topple teams in the Eastern Conference such as the Cavs, Pistons and Bulls.  Following that it was the matter of the Celtics being able to win against quality teams, then quality teams from the Western Conference, then win against quality teams on the road, then quality teams from the Western Conference on the road. 

Had the Celtics not lost KG to injury for a short stretch after the All-Star game and had they not just coasted down the stretch (though they won more of those games than not at the end) the Celtics probably could've bested or tied the Bulls record of 72 wins.  But it wasn't about the regular season for these Celtics, they had far greater aspirations as mentioned right from the beginning but few seemed to be listening or believed their lying eyes.

When the Celtics got to the playoffs questions arose about Doc Rivers ability to win in the post-season.  The Celtics at times during the Atlanta series never looked better or worse than they did the entire season.  The naysayers rose up again, if the Celts couldn't win on the road they were toast.

The Celtics then got to what ended up being their most difficult series against Cleveland.  Yet even as Boston knocked out the Cavs in a hard fought seven game tilt against the defending Eastern Conference Champs and quite possibly the best player in the world in LeBron James.  The experts seemed to forget those two "inconvienent" facts and still wouldn't give Boston any credit.

Moving onto Detroit, most picked the Pistons because they were battle tested, playoff proven and could win on the road.  Fair enough, though Cleveland and James had singlehandedly dispatched of them with ease in last year's Conference Finals.  What did the Celtics do but win more games on the road than Detroit did, including the series clincher on in The Palace at Auburn Hills.

Finally to the NBA Finals where everybody was drooling over Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson and how they'd breezed through a seemingly tough but beat up Western Conference and this time unlike the regular season they'd be bringing Pau Gasol. 

But to paraphrase the late Senator Lloyd Bensten, "the Boston Celtics had seen the Atlanta Hawks, they'd played the Atlanta Hawks and the Los Angeles Lakers were NOT the Atlanta Hawks."  Old "Head and Shoulders" wouldn't be passing "Red."  Kobe was barely Michael Cooper let alone Michael Jordan.  There was no Shaq, no Magic, they certainly weren't Worthy and By Scott did they ever get Kareem'd!  Heck after game six the Lakers might've well been that other team from L.A.

Perhpaps the "experts" were just trying to keep everyone interested by creating far sexier storylines than a 66 win team in the regular season coasting to a championship.  Be we fans know better, we know if the C's had lost, it would've rivaled the biggest choke 'round Boston since Billy Buck.  Instead the Celtics celebrated their first title since that fabled year of 1986 and brought it back home to Beantown, even though only one in five dentists agreed that they were truly the best.

If you're a twenty-something basketball fan like myself, chances are you have a vague memory or don't remember the battles of the 1980's between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers, let alone the 1960's.  No right around when I started following the NBA the Celtics and Lakers were just miserable.

Robert Parish and James Worthy were on their last legs and winding down brilliant careers.  Instead it was Magic the coach being about as successful as Magic the TV host (by the way where have you gone Tommy Davidson?)  Dee Brown vs. Nick Van Exel didn't exactly engender any thoughts of Hondo vs. West.  And chants of "Beat L.A." were mostly limited to hopes of finishing ahead of the Los Angeles Clippers when it came time for the NBA Draft Lottery and the ping pong balls.

Those were some dark days indeed.  While the Lakers made it back with their 3-Peat, including an additional finals apperance, the Celtics though almost coming within two wins of facing the Lakers again in 2002, mostly wallowed in tragedy (Len Bias, Reggie Lewis) bad luck (Tim Duncan) and cheap stupid owners (trading Chauncey Billups and Joe Johnson).  However, now that's all over and both teams are back at the top, just like they should be.

Both teams have some striking similarities: Both coaches formerly played for the New York Knickerbockers, both Kobe Bryant and Paul Pierce either wanted out of their respective cities or were almost traded away and both Kevin Garnett and Pau Gasol have helped in shifting the burden from the other stars (Bryant, Pierce, Odom and Allen) and have raised each respective team from a middle of the pack squad to an elite contender.

I don't know that it will be as heated as in the past but for one thing it should be fun.  I mean really when's the last time in any sport recently that we got a chance to see two classic throwback rivals play for a title?  Perhaps one would have to go back to Super Bowl XXX between the Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers or back in the 1977, 1978 and 1981 season's when the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers squared off for the first time since 1963, after meeting all of those years between 1941 and 1956, where generations had heard but still had not come to see live. 

This will be a lot more historic than just a typical NBA Final.  This one is for Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Bird, McHale, Parish, Kareem, West, Baylor, Wilt, Magic and Worthy.  You want this one because you don't want to lose to "them," no matter what side you're on.  And more importantly you're not playing just for who is the best team this year in this league in this final matchup, you're playing for who is ultimately the best franchise.  Enjoy!

Kobe Bryant's father's nickname was "jellybean."  So why can't Kobe's nickname be "beantown?"  I know a Los Angeles Laker being traded to the Boston Celtics doesn't make much sense but the again neither did Celtic fans chanting MVP, MVP for Kobe this past February at Boston Garden.

When Kobe came into Boston and poured 43 points on the Celts, the crowd went wild and Bryant for his part was most appreciative.  The Celtics are at a pivotal moment in the franchise's history and are in dire need of a franchise player who is still in his prime.  Why not take a shot, what do you have to lose?

Besides the Boston fans would love the move as a comittment to winning again.  They've already lost out on the opportunity at a potential franchise player in Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.  And later next week might again be reminded for the 4th time how much it stung to miss out on Tim Duncan in the draft lottery ten years ago.

It's much easier to win in the Eastern Conference, which would be attractive to Bryant.  He could be the man in resurrecting title town of the NBA.  With the Detroit Pistons no longer invincible and the Cleveland Cavaliers made it on the back of LeBron James.  Imagine what the Celtics could do with Bryant teaming up with Paul Pierce?

Pierce could be Bryant's Pippen in a way Lamar Odom never could.  If there were to be a deal the Celtics have many chips including the 5th overall pick, Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes etc.  Even if the Celts traded Pierce who grew up a Lakers fan in California and the 5th overall for Bryant, they could still build their young nucleus around Bryant. 

The Celtics wisely passed up Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett and while it's probably a pipe dream at best, the should try to strike while the iron is hot.  Go get Kobe Bryant and team him up with Paul Pierce and make the Boston Celtics matter again!