As some of you know, I've decided to boycott the Super Bowl this year. Don't try to talk me out of it; it's non-negotiable. I can't root for the Giants, because any quarterback that refuses to play for the team with the #1 pick has to suffer the same fate as John Elway: early success with an above-average team in the NFL's weaker conference, but no ring until at least his 15th year. I can't root for the Patriots either, because their team photo appears next to "evil" in the dictionary. No, nothing short of Cheap Trick being called in as a last-minute replacement for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers as the halftime entertainment could get me to watch this Super Bowl. The question that remains though, is what am I going to do on Sunday night?

Let's see what's on the schedule for the other channels I normally watch.

Hmmm...it looks like the other major networks are showing news during the Super Bowl. Oh wait, NBC is showing "The Biggest Loser: Couples." That sounds like a good alternate name for Super Bowl XLII. ABC is also showing "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," A.K.A. The Show That's Half Commercials. They're following that with "America's Funniest Home Videos." No thanks.

Zoinks! The Cartoon Network is showing a Scooby Doo marathon. In all honesty, that might be the best option I've come across so far.

CMT is showing Fried Green Tomatoes. Sorry, I'm not into "chick flicks." After that they're rerunning episodes of "Gone Country" which I've already seen. Any show where the likes of Dee Snider, Sisqo and Marcia from "The Brady Bunch" attempt to become country singers is can't-miss entertainment. I don't know if I feel like watching them again though.

Versus is showing something other than hockey. Pass.

Hey, there's a Wizards-Lakers game on the local sports channel. The Lakers' resurgence this year has gotten me depressed though, so I don't know if I can stand to watch that game.

Scooby, you may have some competition for your spot at the top of the power rankings. TV Land is showing "The Beverly Hillbillies," "The Andy Griffith Show" and "M*A*S*H." I'm not a huge fan of any of those shows, but they're usually a nice way to pass the time.

TBS is showing some "Bridget Jones" movie. See my comment on Fried Green Tomatoes.

C-SPAN is showing "Road to the White House 2008." Hey, now there's an idea. I could get caught up on the current political race. I have a feeling though, that after it's all said and done I still won't like any of the candidates they're hyping.

How about my old hometown's local channel, WGN? Oh great. More "America's Funniest Home Videos," and then, if that weren't enough, it's followed by "Funniest Pets and People," which is essentially the same show. Hey, "American Idol Rewind" is on after that. The description says "Wildcard Show." Wow, there's a change. Whenever I checked out "AI Rewind" in the past it was always a compilation show of those oh-so-hilarious bad auditions. You know, the ones with poor deluded souls who think screeching at the top of their lungs is actual singing? Those are funny once or twice, but after a while you just want to hit the mute button. I might tune in if indeed they're showing an episode with real performances.

How about the movie channels? Oh look, the Beatles' movie Help! is on. I've seen it before though. There's Facing the Giants, a football movie. I've heard it's good, but I think I'm done with football (and any gridiron team nicknamed "the Giants") until September. Stop the presses! Howard the Duck is on! I'm sure Ed Hardiman would be proud if I watched that. The Flintstones is on too. Remember that masterpiece starring John Goodman and Rick Moranis? I actually saw that in theaters when it came out. I don't think I've seen it since then. I think that streak will continue. Then there's An American in Paris, which I've also seen before. While Gene Kelly is much more entertaining than Bill Belichick, I don't think I feel like watching that particular movie.

The NHL Network is mostly showing "NHL on the Fly," which, for anyone who doesn't know, is just a show that gives you updates on the day's NHL games. I'm not going to sit and watch the same highlights over and over. I'd rather watch one of their random lists like "The Top Ten Left-Handed European Defensemen of the 1993-94 Season."

NBA TV is showing "NBA Vault" and that same Lakers-Wizards game I'm avoiding. I suppose some retro basketball stuff could be interesting.

The Game Show Network is showing "Greed," "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" and "Lingo." Those shows are OK, but nothing I'd go out of my way to watch.

Finally, the Hallmark Channel is showing a "Murder, She Wrote" marathon. If they were showing one of their formulaic feelgood movies I might watch just so I could be cheered up from the dismal reality that two teams I hate are playing for the NFL's championship, but if Angela Lansbury is the best they can give me I think I'll pass.

The Super Bowl is the biggest event in American sports, and as such it leaves a big gap to fill. There are some decent options on TV, but most aren't so great. The more I think about it the more I'm leaning toward just reading a book.

By now we've all heard that the Celtics are trying to lure Reggie Miller out of retirement. Danny Ainge is doing his best to put together a veteran supporting cast for his new "Big Three" of Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Miller would assume a bench role behind Allen, filling in as a three-point specialist for short minutes every night. A lot of fans want to see it happen, since Reggie Miller in his prime was one of the NBA's most exciting players and this might be a shot for him to get the championship he never won with the Pacers. This fan, however, is not one of them.

Even though the Bulls are my team, I could never bring myself to hate our division rivals, the Pacers. I always wanted to see them win a championship after the Bulls' run ended. I was disappointed when they lost to the Lakers in the 2000 Finals, since that season was the last chance that particular core of players got and they weren't able to close the deal. Sure, I "hated" the Pacers when they played the Bulls, but I always respected them.

Their leader during all these contending years was Mr. Pacer himself, Reggie Miller. He was a deadly three-point shooter, well-known for coming through in the clutch. He had a cocky persona, but to me it always seemed like an act he was putting on for show. While a lot of basketball stars back then wore numbers 32, 33 or 34 he wore number 31, an unusual prime number without much symmetry that you didn't see stars wear as often. Put it all together and there was something really cool and unique about him that I liked.

When Reggie Miller retired he was a few months short of 40. He had spent 18 years in the NBA, all of them with the Pacers. He had also managed to average double-figure scoring in each of those years, an impressive feat. Ron Artest's suspension during Miller's last season may have helped him there, but the stats are what they are.

His last game was a Playoff loss to the Pistons, and I remember all the talk after it ended. The Pacers lost the series in six games, with Reggie scoring 27 points in the last one. After that performance some speculated that he still had enough to keep playing, but he pointed to his poor performances in Games 4 and 5 as evidence that he didn't. I liked that, since it indicated that he wanted to go out on top. On ESPN radio one of the guys said that Reggie Miller didn't seem to have the ego of a Michael Jordan, who would keep retiring and returning. He was confident that when Reggie retired he planned to stay that way. I hoped it was true, since it seemed like just the right time for him to call it quits.

I'm not sure how serious Reggie Miller is about the possibility of a return, but I don't think it's a good idea. For one thing, he'll be 42 years old next season. Few players have ever played at that age, much less been effective. He might still be able to hit an occasional three-pointer, but he'll also be an injury risk. The argument to counter this is that he won't be asked to play very many minutes, so it shouldn't be as much of a strain on his body. What I wonder though, is what skills a 42-year-old Reggie Miller has that a younger player couldn't provide for the same price? Perhaps Reggie has more "veteran leadership" or something, but who would you rather rely on in the Playoffs? A 30-year-old three-point specialist or a 42-year-old former star playing the role of a three-point specialist? You might take Reggie because of his reputation, but clutch shots can come from anyone. Look at Travis Best against the Bucks during the Pacers' 2000 Finals run. How about Steve Kerr? He was just a journeyman before the Bulls picked him up and gave him some playing time. We remember him now as a dangerous three-point shooter, but his career might have ended had the Bulls not given him a chance. It's my belief that there are plenty of guys who could do the same thing the Celtics are asking Reggie Miller to do for the same price. All they need is the opportunity to prove themselves.

Michael Jordan's stint with the Wizards always comes to mind when the subject o####reat player returning from retirement comes up. I remember all the hype preceding his decision. Analysts loved the idea. They "knew" that Michael Jordan still had the skills to play at the same level. He was arguably the greatest player in NBA history. Who wouldn't want to see him play again? I, for one, didn't want to see him return for many of the same reasons I don't want Reggie to. He'd established himself as the greatest player in the history of one franchise, spending his entire career with them. He'd gone out on top, hitting the game-winner in the NBA Finals. Where else could he go but down? After he announced his return several people picked the Wizards to be a contender. They'd been through some lean years at the time, but they hadn't had a player like Michael Jordan either. The results ended up being pretty much what I'd expected. While Jordan still had the talent to score 20 points a game he just wasn't the same player. If you look at the numbers, he was already starting to decline in his last year with the Bulls. He only got worse in Washington, and the team never made the Playoffs either. Looking back on the whole fiasco I feel like Jordan tainted his career somewhat. While Reggie Miller was never the player Jordan was, I think his career was about as good as one could hope for without winning a championship. I don't want to look back on it and remember that disappointing stint he had with the Celtics.

There are other reasons I don't want Reggie to return which are petty by comparison, but they matter to me. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to wear his familiar number 31. Like too many other numbers the Celtics have retired it, for Cedric Maxwell no less. On a side note, Cedric Maxwell is a stupid number retirement. Sure, he was good. Sure, he had a cool nickname ("Cornbread"). Sure, he was an important contributor on two Celtic championships. Was he ever an elite player? No. Could he have led the Celtics to a championship without Larry Bird? No. Having his number retired would be like the Bulls retiring Toni Kukoc's number, but I digress. I like it when guys wear the same number their entire careers, and I can't see Reggie Miller wearing something other than his old 31.

Another thing is the double-figure scoring average streak. It would almost certainly end with the Celtics, as it was already in jeopardy during his last years with the Pacers. He wouldn't be playing enough minutes or getting enough shots to score at least 10 points consistently, and as we've already covered, he's not getting any younger. You may say that they're just stats, but I think it's cool when the numbers reflect a guy staying above a certain level of play for his entire career. Reggie has that right now, and all it takes is one subpar season to destroy it.

In the same vein, there's the issue of him playing his entire career with one team. Not many guys can say they played 18 years in the NBA, and even fewer can say they spent them all with one team. The only other one I can think of is John Stockton, who spent all 19 of his seasons with the Jazz. This is a rare combination of longevity and loyalty which he'd be giving up by playing for Boston.

If Reggie Miller really wants to return it's his choice. Maybe he'll be a piece to the championship puzzle that was never quite assembled in Indiana. Maybe he'll have fun playing the game he's given so much of his life to again. Maybe he'll even surprise us by averaging 10 points a game. On the other hand, maybe he'll get injured and miss out on everything. Maybe the Celtics will end up like the Larry Brown-era Knicks. Maybe he'll be a shell of his former self that looks out of place on the court. Maybe we'll think of him the same way we remember Babe Ruth with the Braves, Emmitt Smith with the Cardinals or Karl Malone with the Lakers: a once-great athlete sadly hanging on too long. I personally hope he doesn't suit up for the Celtics next season, but it won't shock me if he does. If Reggie returns, he had better hope it's worth it.

By now we all know that the Golden State Warriors have accomplished a rare feat: they beat the top-seeded team in the first round of the NBA Playoffs. While the Warriors are only the third team in NBA history to do that, this same franchise has dished out several upsets in its time. One only needs to look at history to see that the Warriors often saved their best ball for the times when they weren't favored. By the same token, they've also come up short when they were favored a few times. Let's take a look:

1975. The Eastern Conference was clearly the stronger one this season, with both the Celtics and Bullets winning 60 games while the Warriors led the West with 48 wins. After the Bullets beat the Celtics for the East title, they were heavily favored over the Warriors in the Finals. The Warriors ended up sweeping the Bullets for their only NBA title since moving to the Bay Area.

1976. As defending champions the Warriors looked even better. They went 59-23 to finish with both the NBA's best record and the West's best record by 16 games. Surely the Warriors were headed back to the NBA Finals. The Phoenix Suns had other ideas though, upsetting them in the Conference Finals.

Fast-forward to the Chris Mullin era.

1987. The fifth-seeded Warriors made their first Playoff appearance in ten years and beat the Utah Jazz. This one wasn't a huge upset, as the Jazz' record was only two games better than the Warriors', but they went to the second round for the first time in a long time and got to face the juggernaut Lakers in the Semifinals. They avoided a sweep thanks to guard Eric "Sleepy" Floyd's 51 points in Game 4, but the Lakers weren't to be denied that year.

1989. After missing the Playoffs the previous year the Warriors returned as the seventh seed in their first year under head coach Don Nelson. Again they faced the Utah Jazz, but this time the difference between their records was eight games. Interestingly enough, the Warriors were even more dominant this time, sweeping the second-seeded Jazz in three straight (the series had gone the full five in 1987). As they did two years earlier, the Warriors bowed out in the second round in five games, this time against the Suns.

1991. Coming off a season where they narrowly missed the Playoffs, the Warriors returned as the seventh seed. This time they went up against the Spurs, beating them in four games. Once again they were eliminated in a five-game Semifinal series to a Finals-bound Lakers team. This was the only Playoff appearance for "Run-T.M.C.", the Warriors' trio of high-scoring stars Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond and Chris Mullin.

1992. The Warriors finished with a 55-27 record and the third seed in the Western Conference. It looked like this young team was finally maturing and ready to move past "spoiler" status. This time though, the Seattle Supersonics did to them what they had done to other teams in the past: made them the victims of a first-round upset.

1994. After another year where they missed the Playoffs, the Warriors returned as the sixth seed with rookie sensation Chris Webber. Even though they were the lower seed, their record was only six games worse than the Suns', who were their first round opponent. There wouldn't be any upset this time though, as the Suns won the series in a sweep. Nelson would be fired as coach next season.

Now this year we've seen the Mavericks go 67-15 and get eliminated in the first round by this 42-40 Warriors team. Nelson is back as coach and seems to be picking up where he left off. Perhaps it was in the Warriors' best interests that they got into the Playoffs thanks to a late-season surge, because if they'd played this well all season they might've fallen victim to their franchise's habit of choking. Will the Jazz or Rockets dispose of Golden State in the next round in five games? Will the Jazz avenge those first-round losses from the 80's? Will the Warriors make it to the Conference Finals for the first time since 1976? There are so many questions to be answered, and we'll have to wait to find out. Stories like these are why I always look forward to the Playoffs.

After my last post listing the top ten teams whose old uniforms were better than their current ones, I thought I'd do another post along the same lines. This time it's the top 10 teams whose uniforms I hope never change. Some of these uniforms probably will be changed someday, but one can always hope not. All the teams on my list are ones whose uniforms I think potentially could be changed someday. I didn't include any teams whose uniforms have so much history that they'll probably never have any major changes made to them. Like the last list, baseball, basketball and football are the only sports represented and photos are included.

10. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The Buccaneers made one of the best uniform changes in history when they switched from those terrible light orange jerseys to the cool red ones they have now in 1997. They fit the team's pirate theme and the colors are bold but well-balanced. I don't see any way they could do better than these.

9. Portland Trail Blazers

While they've made some slight changes in recent years (such as adding a border to the letters and making the road jerseys say "PORTLAND"), the basic design has stayed the same since 1991. I've always liked this uniform. I hope they don't make the mistake of trying to revamp it.

8. Kansas City Chiefs

I don't think the Chiefs have ever had a different uniform. That's a good thing. These yellow and red threads are a nice throwback to the old days of the AFL.

7. Detroit Pistons

The Pistons made a good move in 2002 when they got rid of those teal uniforms and returned to the look of their classic jerseys with a modern touch. It seems that it isn't uncommon for a team to make a uniform change only to realize years later that their classic look was better.

6. Washington Wizards

Ever since the Bullets changed their name to the Wizards they've had the uniforms they currently sport. I had a scare (for lack of a better word) earlier this season when I turned on the TV and saw the Wizards wearing an ugly gold version of this uniform, but was relieved to discover later that it was only an alternate and that the team still has the one pictured.

5. Detroit Lions

They've had these uniforms for a long time. That cool lion silhouette on the helmet and the "Hawaii blue" jerseys are a winner in my book.

4. Philadelphia Phillies

The Phillies are another example of a team returning to an old look after years of wearing something different. The red, white and blue color scheme is good for the team that plays in our nation's original capital, and the stars that dot the i's are a nice touch. I hope they're smart enough to stick with this design, as they have been for the past 15 years.

3. San Diego Chargers

All those lightning bolts are awesome. I was disappointed when the Chargers were eliminated in the Playoffs this year because I was pulling for them, but another minor reason to be disappointed was that we wouldn't get to see their great uniforms anymore this season.

2. Atlanta Braves

They've had the same basic uniforms since 1987, though a few alternate caps and jerseys have been added along the way. They wore a similar uniform back in the old days, but for about 20 years they experimented with different ones. This uniform has stood the test of time, so I doubt they plan to change it anytime soon, but I wouldn't put anything past Ted Turner.

1. tie-Chicago White Sox, Chicago Bulls, Chicago Bears

I'm not going to lie. These are three of my teams, and I have a strong attachment to each of their uniforms.

The White Sox have had their old-fashioned look with the pinstripes and chest logo since the 1991 season. I think they're the most likely team on this list to make a uniform change, but I also think that many of us fans have embraced the Sox' look the way it is over the years.

I'm almost inclined to put the Bulls in the class of teams whose uniforms have so much history that they'll never change, but I think a slight chance exists that the team would want something new someday.

Some people might think it impossible that the Bears could ever change their classic uniforms, but years ago I remember reading some columnist in the Chicago Tribune making suggestions to the Bears franchise, and one thing he said was (paraphrased) "Get new uniforms. The Broncos finally won a Super Bowl after they changed theirs." I read recently that Ron Wolf had planned to change the Packers' famous uniforms early on in his tenure as GM, but he changed his mind at the last minute. You never know.

If any executive from any of these teams ever reads this, I can sum up my post in a simple statement. Your uniforms look great. Don't try to mess with a good thing.