the fallout from the duke lacrosse scandal will be lost in the upcoming weeks.  in just a few days, as the legal proceedings wrap up, the names of the accused, the accusor, and all those involved in this situation will evaporate into the warm summer air. 

after all, with the nhl playoffs underway, the nba playoffs about to begin, the nfl draft in two weeks, and the baseball season just getting underway, sports networks will focus their attention on these events.

likewise, racist comments made by don imus, paternity tests for anna nicole's baby, and the inevitable paris hilton crotch shot (aren't we due) will hinder the news networks' ability to continue coverage on the duke case.

this is an inescapable truth.  with new 24-hour networks dedicated to news, and augmented by internet sites and  cell phone and blackberry updates of the same ilk, there will enough news created in the next few days (however insignificant) to hide the consequences form the duke lacrosse scandal.

knowing full well this will be the case, i say: let's not allow that to happen.

as sports bloggers, we would all consider ourselves fans, and most of us write about social themes derived from sports.  we have, and will continue to, comment upon the racial, political, and personal undertones in the world of sports.  we give our opinions as to how these events and their consequences affect teams, players, and fans in both on- and off-field situations.  in short, we as bloggers and fans run the gamut of opinion making and sharing on a daily basis.

not to say that we have the power to sway the opinions of so many casual fans, but we do have a propensity for (or at least an interest in) writing about these issues.  those who read the site, as well as our families, friends, and colleagues, are influenced by our opinions, and we should do our best to keep the duke case within the crosshairs of public opinion.

you may ask why...why should we drag this on any further?  why should we continue to focus on something that only hurt those involved?  why should we contribute to the thousands who have already shared their opinion in a public venue, be it television, written page, or the internet?

because, as jemele hill of espn.com wrote so well today, "we're sorry" just doesn't cut it.

just because no one was killed, raped, assaulted, or otherwise physically harmed does not equate to the common schoolyard epitaph "no harm, no foul."  i don't believe the national public understands the consequences for these three young men. 

they were smart enough to attend duke university, and well-rounded and athletically gifted enough to play a division 1 sport while there.  this is not a slouch of a division 1 school, nor is it a case of their athletic prowess pushing them through classes on their way to fame and fortune at the next level.  despite their talent in this area, nike sponsorships and games on national networks aren't in their future.  although their status as athletes affords them scholarship money, training gear, and notoriety amongst their peers, it does not ensure (or, in many cases, even offer) them a career.

this is not to say that these three student-athletes were angels..in fact, they were blue devils by trade.  i have no idea as to how these students were perceived, and i have never met a single one of them.  i have no authority to comment on their personalities, both individually and as a group.  in fact, no one seemed to have an opinion about them - until they were accused of henous and unspeakable crimes.  it's funny to see public perception change in these instances; in the blink of an eye, it becomes posh to kick them while they are down.  after all, it puts people in the majority, for what it seems are all the right reasons.

however, when the tides turn, those who let unwarranted criticism flow forth unabated from their tongues clam up.  in the same instant it took for them to join the public bashing, they join the new public humility, awkwardly (but privately) swallowing their words of hate.  one of these students' most outspoken critics, espn's hill, publicly ate her words, and while her original comments remain irresponsibly hurtful, she deserves respect for her ability to open up and admit wrongdoing, all while ackowledging the inconsequential nature of the apology.

while i will say that i never assumed these three young men were guilty of anything, i will not dwell on it, because that isn't the purpose of this post.  i will say that after all they have been through, they are guilty of the following thing: as a team, they hired a stripper, under her own freewill and for monetary compensation, to perform and entertain their team at a function.  that's it.  period.  something that i, as a conservative, college-educated, american male, have done several times, spiraled into a lifetime of ill repute for them.

the funny thing about these accusations - these words - is that they hurt without truth.  its like taking caution to never trip up, never fall - and yet receiving scars, as if you had, that mangle you for the rest of your life.  there will never be a time when their names or a recollection of the incident do not evoke memories of the house, and all the false reports we heard for months while these boys, their families, their teammates, and their school stewed in public humiliation.  think about anyone you know who was falsely accused of something terrible, even though it was later found to be untrue.  i bet you still associate that person with the event, instead of freeing him/her from it following their proof of innocence.  

that will be the case for these young men for the rest of their lives, which is precisely why i have refrained from using their names in this post.  not to say that the readers don't already have these monikers ingrained in their heads, but rather that i don't wish to contribute to this process.  think of it like vegetarians...they know that they aren't going to save a cow by not eating a steak - its too late in the process - but its the principle of the matter.

these three students will be marked with this event for the rest of their lives, as will all those who are related to, or associated with, them.  it will hinder them from getting jobs, engaging in social functions, establishing relationships, and functioning as they grow up and continue to mature.  the book signings, talk show appearances, and straight-to-tv drama movies based on the event will only go so far to build back what was irretrievably lost.  this incident will affect them in all aspects of life, and it exists only as a creation of an over-zealous district attorney and a malicious young woman.

i won't hesitate to mention their names - mike nifong and crystal gail mangum.  we all need to know who they are, as it is vitally important to remember those two names as we move forward.  it would be easy to retaliate against these individuals  in a venue such as this, but it would be just as egregious an offense as was committed by those who unfairly criticized the accused in the first place.  to assign these two a myriad of harmful labels (of which i have plenty), and relegate their fate in the future would be a contradiction of my argument against those who did just this when the charges were originally filed. 

we do not know which one of these two lied and which one chose to keep going, turning the knife into these young mens' backs with each press conference and public appearance.  both could be equally at fault, only one could be mostly responsible, or this could be the work of both these two, as well as other forces of which were are currently unaware. 

the bottom line is: beyond the role of  these two, we don't know.  we may never know what each exactly contributed to this disaster.  we may never know who else was directly involved in ruining three innocent young mens' lives.  what we do know is that all those who came out in support of ms. mangum and d.a. nifong without a proper conscious and with an ideal that stretched beyond the facts should taste as much of the same hurt that they placed upon these young men as possible. 

jesse jackson, rev. al sharpton, and all others who blindly took up the fictitious cause of a cunning young woman should not be permitted to end their penance with an apology.  more accountability is needed if one is willing to spout off unfounded accusations without due diligence.  this is precisely why, despite the neverending onslaught of news from around the world, we must not allow this event to fade from our minds.  it is certainly not on the same level as other widespread human indecencies throughout history, but just as the remembrance of them contributes to prevention of the same in the future, hopefully the same process will work for this scandal.  

this may affect the aformentioned detractors inasmuch as harming their pride, political ambitions, or personal agendas for a few days.  it devastated these three young men for the rest of their lives.        

much has been made of competition throughout the history of sports.  the idea of setting, developing, and retaining a solid and consistent level of competition is at the heart of every sporting culture.  without riveting contests, the sports world implodes, as all elements of its subculture implode upon itself. 

without the realistic chance of victory, teams, players, and coaches fail to focus their energy and attention on their craft, thus lowering both quality of play and expectations.  these lowered expectations and general apathy towards a sport fails to capture the attention of its fan base, whether it be a city, region, or nation.

cases like these occur frequently in sports.  each year, there are teams designated and relegated to fail before competition begins.  as spring training is upon us and baseball season less than two weeks away, the kansas city royals once again find themselves in this cycle.  their owner has spent little money, thus the quality of players is subpar, thus the coaching and existing players will begin to exert less energy in a few months, thus the city will fail to rally behind its team.  everyone who knows baseball knows this, and it is an inevitability.

a point of contention in this debate is the existence of dynasties.  namely, the issue of dynasties as they relate to the popularity and advancement of a sport or league is paramount in dissecting parity within the sporting realm.  i believe that if a team or competitor is viewed as doing things "the right way," he/she/it is exalted and praised.  the patriots built their teams through the draft and were led to three championships in four years by a designated backup qb and a failed nfl coach.  tiger woods values only hard work and family, and exudes class each time he steps into the tee box.  these are but two examples of "the right way" to go about building a dynasty.  parity is sacrificed for the continued success of one entity in one sport, and the public accepts this because it sets a good example and warms the hearts of many.

on the other hand, think of a team or player who achieves greatness through what we deem as "improper" behavior or attitude.  all of a sudden, their acceptance is not assured, and we wait and hope for their skills to fade, replaced by a newer, fresher, and more "proper" set of competitors.  teams that employ unorthodox or unacceptable practices are not readily accepted as leaders of dynasties.  the raiders of the 70s (cheap, dirty), the pistons of the 80s (brash, inflammatory), and the unlv runnin' rebels of the early 90s (thugs, showboats) all showed the nations what we didn't want in a champion.  likewise, as barry bonds sits less than 30 home runs from immortality, we wish and pray that something breaks down, whether it is his body, psyche, or cloud of ambiguity surrounding his performance enhancer use.  we wish that innocent ryan howard or philanthropic albert pujols would increase their output enough to force barry out of our minds and off of our print pages.  aside from charging, trying, and convicting these champions in the court of public opinion, there isn't much fans can do besides wait and hope.

but what if a dynasty doesn't exist?  what if the competition is (in theory) wide open?  at that point, whether it is the retirement or movement of a key figure (think jordan leaving the bulls or montana leaving the 49ers), or simply a case of a league or the field "catching up" to the current champion, competition sets in. 

as was aforementioned, the level of competition is important to many elements of the congruity of a team and its fans.  it is also crucial to the success of the marketing of said team or athlete, and affects both the league and city which has a vested interest in his/her/its success.  in short, maintaining competition is invaluable to the success of all those associated with the sport.

certainly, the major leagues and governing bodies in both collegiate and professional sports control the element of competition in different manners.  there exist a myriad of examples - both on-field and off - to support this.  when bob gibson and pitchers became too dominant, mlb lowered the pitching mound.  when tiger outdrove everyone on the tour, the pga lengthened its courses.  when individual defenders couldn't keep up with quick guards, the nba allowed (albeit limited) zone defense. when injured quarterbacks prevented teams (without contingency plans) to compete for the remainder of a season, the nfl instituted more stringent "roughing the passer" rules.  various leagues' attempt to change rules on the field have gone a long way to maintain competition amongst its teams.

however, i would argue that off-field guidelines have done more to reach and keep a balance amongst teams.  there exists a ceiling as to how much a league's administrators can alter on-field rulings without tainting or manipulating the outcomes of games.  many of the rules have been met with disdain (i.e. steelers' lb jack lambert remarks after being informed of rules against hitting the qb: "all quarterbacks should wear dresses"), leagues risk driving away fans of the current game with too much change in a short period of time.

instead, the off-field rules, specifically economically-driven statues, have been more effective in maintaining competition.  the salary cap and free agency, now commonplace in sports, was once an exceedingly revolutionary idea.  loyalty between a team and its players was accepted and expected, and many times, the city or area where an athlete grew up and honed his skills was the same place where he showcased them.  however, some areas produce more stars than others, more prestigious institutions could easily recruit them, and more accomplished, thriving, metropolitan cities could attract them.  this created areas (and teams) of vast superiority, with little mobility possible between teams.  once a team got strong, it remained so for the foreseeable future. 

with free agency and a salary cap, players could move to teams with more need and money under the cap.  this system works exceptionally well in balancing talent amongst teams in a given league, and creates a cyclical effect capable of managing competition.  the more money a team has, the better players it can attract.  the better players it can attract, the more success it experiences.  the more success it experiences, the more money players, coaches, and personnel request.  the more money they request, the less likely the team is to be able to accommodate their needs.  the less needs that are met, the more they want to leave.  and when they leave, they go to teams with the most money (theoretically) less current levels of success.  as long as teams remain under the cap and thoroughly invested in their own success, this system will continue to work.

three of the four major sports leagues currently have this system in place.  the nhl, nba, and nfl sees a fair amount of turnover within its ranks, and even if it does not for a period of time, there still exist great expectations year in and year out due to big free agent signings or coaching overhauls (see: arizona cardinals).  however, mlb does not have a salary cap, a fact which is the main contributor to my displeasure with the sport and the league.  while the yankees and red sox and cubs spend exorbitant amounts on the best players each year, teams like the pirates, royals, and devil rays do not or cannot, rendering them irrelevant most years (the tigers' run last year and the marlins' world series in the late 90s notwithstanding).  media deals, merchandise sales, and other revenue streams that the yankees experience are not possible for smaller markets.  however, since they have no league-enforced spending limit, they are able to use this advantage to bring in the best of the best each year.  this does little to enhance parity amongst teams in baseball.

in collegiate sports, the same system applies.  while notre dame is the only ncaa school to have its own television marketing rights (with nbc), conferences have agreements with networks and media, making their schools more popular during the recruitment process.  in addition to that element, recruiting at larger, more accomplished schools is also bolstered by past success and current notoriety.  for example, roy williams can point to unc's grooming of michael jordan, record number of ncaa tournament appearances, or promise of future success, compared with thad matta selling a recruit only on the potential of "success to come" if he attends ohio state.  while there is a distinct division between the "haves" and "have nots" in collegiate athletics, that line is blurred in some sports more so than in others.

a solid case study can be seen between college football and basketball.  first of all, recruitment is the major force behind a team's success in either pursuit.  the more quality players brought in (especially since they only stay for one to four years, thus having less time to hone their skills), the more success that school will see.  as was stated before, larger and more accomplished schools have an easier time than others at attracting the best players.  one would assume that this system prevents upward or downward mobility. 

however, in only one of these sports is that the case.  in college football, there is a lack of a playoff system beyond one game.  thus, if a team has the best players and simply plays out its schedule without a hiccup, they find themselves in a bcs game.  many teams start, remain, and end on top.  that is vastly different than college basketball, where a team may begin the year on top and never fall out of the top five in either poll, but still must contend with 63 other teams each will an equal chance at the trophy to conclude their season.  they must win six games in a row to end their season if they want to be named the champions.  this is the ultimate case of injecting parity into an otherwise caste sport.

the same applies to professional sports.  like college basketball, the nfl and atp require a series of wins to earn a title.  the regular season may decide seeding, homefield, and byes, but it cannot win playoff games or matches.  a team or player must come together and focus to beat the best of the best, in succession, to win it all.  in the pga and nascar, world ranking or poll times may determine when one tees off or where one starts, but an athlete still must beat the entire field on a given day or weekend.  

the professional sports with a lower level of competition and parity are the nba and nhl, where the regular season earns homecourt or homeice and a better seeding, and there are a series of games during which some may be lost and a title still achieved.  consecutive wins are not necessary, and playing a series usually heavily favors the better of the two teams (at least more so than in the aforementioned sports).  the lowest form of parity can be found in mlb, where an abundance of regular season games determine seeding and homefield for the playoffs, but with the added spending imbalance.  again, another reason for my distaste for mlb.

every fan has their own view on issues of parity and competition.  i argue that it is a fan's loyalties which shape his or her perspective on these two elements of sport.  it just so happens that my loyalties lie with teams in various sports who do not benefit from their given league's parity rules.  basically, i am a fan of elite teams in leagues which value parity and i am a fan of fledgling teams in leagues which do not place as much importance on enhancing competition.  as a steelers and tarheels fan, i revel in their success year after year, but cringe when i know their season comes down to a series of one-game playoffs.  likewise, as an athletics and timberwolves fan, i like their ability to make the playoffs, but their consistent first-round exits to superior teams can grow old quickly.  

there is no major point to this post, just to share my thoughts about the confluent issues of parity and competition in sports.  i suppose that, come tournament time, it helps to share my bi-daily nervousness with an audience.  it just so happens that my teams never seem to benefit from the increasing or decreasing parity in any of the major sports.        

on this, a sports blogging site, many authors tend to steer clear of stretching "athletics" into other realms and spheres of influence.  as is the case with many posts on this site (as well as my own), the vast majority deal with statistics, rings, controversies, contests, and other topics that dominate the sports media market on a daily basis.

occasionally, some attempt to look further into a sports story or event, and explain why said event is occurring on a deeper level.  whether this explanation leads the audience into sociology, psychology, criminology, or any other measure of study, these are worth exploring, and i believe a greater percentage of the sports media circuit ought to be dedicated to this pursuit (much like the series "outside the lines" on espn).

an event that triggered this type of reaction within me was witnessed at steelers' training camp during the past few years.  my father and i have made it an annual trip (a "pilgrimage to latrobe," if you will), and we enjoy seeing the new draft picks, free agents, and coaches, as well as our favorites, like hines, troy, and alan faneca.

we first went two years ago, and we didn't know what to expect.  we didn't know what we were doing, where to go, or what other people around us were thinking or doing themselves.  when the gates to the camp opened, everyone (who was able) started sprinting up a hill toward the facility.  not knowing what was going on, i joined in and was one of the first to reach a fence outside the the player's dining hall. 

i soon realized this stampede was all a battle for position closest to the fence and the building to line up for autographs.  the players all walked from their position meetings, breakfast, and weight room in the building out onto the practice field.  i was lucky enough to get some signatures and talk to some players, then joined my father on our chairs to watch practice.

at the beginning and end of every practice, this race to meet the players and get autographs commenced once again.  combined with the limited space, unyielding heat, and large crowds, the players' discretion as to who gets "face time" and signatures puts many fans over the edge.  after competing in the first few races to the fence, i realized that it was safer and more relaxing and enjoyable to simply find a nice spot with my father, watch practice, and talk steelers football.

however, i didn't stop observing this ritualistic chase to five seconds of glory.  i noticed where players went, with whom they spoke, and to whom they granted autographs and meetings among the fans.  not surprisingly, players gave more attention (in the form of pictures, signatures, and talk time) to children in attendance. 

i never thought twice about this fact, since it seems so rational and routine.  athletes (and adults in general) warm up when they see children and grant them more attention.  this is a common theme amongst society as a whole and is taken as fact.  after i left camp and thought more about it, i came up with other reasons (other than the aforementioned) that children might be granted preferential treatment in this environment.

1) Good Public Relations - whether this derives from an athlete's own sense of morality, or it is pressured through by an agent, team official, or teammate, it makes sense for an athlete to show good nature towards children.  just as a political candidate will often take the time to pick up and hug a child before shaking an adult's hand, and just as a group seeking funding will use a child as their example of the severity of a problem (i.e. the term "posterchild"), athletes instantly gain credibility as a "family man," as well as being "down to earth," "personable," and "approachable."  in a sport as violent as football, and with a lifestyle that often mirrors on-the-field exploits, this is crucial to how the public perceives a player.

2) Ability to Identify - most players in the nfl have been football stars their entire lives.  from excelling in high school to attending a college with a free ride to entering the draft, these individuals have been focused on football and all that surrounds the sport for their entire lives...except from their early childhood.  if a player sees a middle-aged man with a nine-to-five job and a family standing next to an 8 year-old boy totally enthralled with their presence, the player can only identify with what the 8 year-old is thinking.  the player himself has been an 8-year-old with a favorite team and player, and can empathize with what the boy is thinking and feeling.  he has never been (and will most likely never be) a middle-aged man with a nine-to-five, since his career and financial situation will never require this type of work.  thus, he grants the child the autograph because he knows how he would feel if he received one as a child himself.

3) Solidifying Name - just as an athlete can better identify with what a younger fan is thinking, he also knows what it feels like to have one favorite player himself.  an athlete is aware, from his own experience, that one game, play, or personal interaction can "lock in" his name with a young fan for a longer period of time than it could with an adult.  oftentimes, athletes have undying praise and adulation for a player of a previous era, and should their eras overlap, the athlete is awestruck at the chance to play (alongside or against) his childhood idol.  adult fans are more likely to judge a player based on his body of work on the field, as well as keep athletes on a shorter leash.  they are more critical and less forgiving than children.  thus, it is easier for an athlete to indelibly mark himself as a child's favorite, and also make sure he is considered the child's favorite for a longer period of time, irregardless of quality of play, on-field success, and off-field incidents

4) Knowledge of Signature Use - when an athlete gives someone his signature, it is an extension of himself.  with the market for signed memorabilia skyrocketing, the simple act of adding a scribbled mark to an item instantly and exponentially increases its value.  athletes are told what they can and can't sign, how many items they can sign, and what they can charge per signature.  the sports memorabilia market is flooded with fake and real signatures from any athlete imaginable, and the purveyors of these goods see to make a significant profit on their sale.  if an autograph dealer buys a signed item and resells it for a higher price, he makes a profit equal to the difference in the transactions.  however, if he obtains it at a public event, such as a training camp, he then sells it for a 100% profit.  athletes know this fact, since they oftentimes deal directly with these businesses.  approached by a man with a binder full of hundreds of photos waiting to be signed and a child with a cap or trading card, the athlete will choose to give his signature to the child.  he is more confident that the signed item will be cherished and proudly displayed for a long period of time versus taken to a store, framed, and resold to another fan unable to make the trip to meet the player at a 100% profit to a man with the means to do so. 

5) Memorabilia Sales - most teams judge the popularity of their players based on the sales of that player's memorabilia.  nfl teams receive a royalty from each piece of memorabilia sold by their organization, retail stories, nfl shops, online, or any other venue.  they know how many fans are buying what items, and if a given item (such as a jersey or bobblehead doll) is player-specific, they can gauge a player's measurable popularity versus his peers on the team and within the league as a whole.  being that a higher percentage of disposable income is spent on sports- and team-related gifts and items for children than for adults, athletes know that if an 8-year-old tells his parents that he likes that athlete,  more memorabilia bearing his name and likeness will move off the shelves versus the outcome if a middle-aged man tells his wife the same.  this increases sales of said athletes' products, and the team judges him as more popular amongst the fan base, increasing his stock and bargaining power during contract negotiations.

6) Legacy - just as a player's popularity can be strengthened during his career by means of interaction with children (through good p.r. and increased memorabilia sales), his legacy has a greater chance of success following his retirement as well.  the topic of an athlete's increased ability to "lock in" his namesake with younger fans has already been discussed, but this oftentimes extends well past his playing career.  when this young fan grows up to have influence over other fans, he will spread his knowledge and conviction about his favorite childhood player with others.  if he is a simple fan of sports, he can reminisce with friends or blog on a site such as this.  if he is a father and husband, he can share his affinity for this player with his family (like my father did with jack lambert and like i will do with hines ward), creating a brand new fan base in another generation for the given athlete.  if he acquires a position in sports media or administration, then he can have even greater influence over a broader audience of sports fans and the public alike.  let's say the young fan in question is the 8 year-old who attends training camp and his favorite athlete is a 3rd-year player who is 24 years old.  that means that when the fan is in his late 20s and early 30s, the athlete will be in his mid- and late-40s, the prime time for an athlete to become a coach, media personality, or voted into the hall of fame.  personality and popularity matter a great deal in all of these pursuits, and any candidate for any of these positions requires a solid and broad fan base to support their cause. 

i don't know if all of these assertions are accurate, as i do not claim to be a sociologist or psychologist.  i simply wanted to share my thoughts with this audience, with the hope that you all would provide feedback about this issue from personal experiences or thoughts of your own.  at the very least, this post shows how a simple act or interaction with a fan more than 20 years prior can do quite a bit to alter the athlete's career and post-career life in many ways.  perhaps next time you see mean joe greene throw a child his jersey in the famous coke commercial from over a quarter century ago, you will think about what is going through mean joe's mind, and how it has impacted his legacy to this day.   

lost in the current state of affairs in the nba is the true magnificence of one of the greatest players of all time.  with so much focus on other topics - the new ball, league expansion, globalization - as well as individuals - stern, cuban, riley, artest, bryant, james, nash - the biggest ticket gets lost in the shuffle.

many analysts, league officials, coaches, scouts, and fans are likely to mention kevin garnett when talking about the league's better players...it would be foolish to think that he isn't a premier player in the nba.  but too often, those comments are followed by a qualifying statement, such as "yea, but he's never won anything" or "what a waste of talent" or "too bad he played during the same period as tim duncan." 

i agree that it is a shame his talent and ability has been utilized thus far in a mediocre city with a mediocre (at best) team, and led by subpar management.  mchale's mismanagement of the t'wolves is well-documented.  he lost three draft picks and accrued other sanctions for his illegal signing of joe smith.  his draft choices, trades, and free agent signings are suspect at best (see: olowakandi, mike james, et al.).  he assembled one solid team (with spree and cassel), in 2004, and kg led them to the conference finals, where they were beaten by the kobe/shaq juggernaut.  this year, besides ricky davis (acquired in a trade last year) and randy foye (#1 pick this year), how many timberwolves can you name? 

i was excited when rumors of a.i. to minnesota surfaced, as i am whenever talk of kg to the lakers, bulls, or another team pops up.  i truly believe that had garnett had jerry west or brian colangelo in the front office, or had a trade or a draft pick here or there went another way, we would be looking at multiple rings on kg's fingers.  i maintain that if he was in san antonio instead of tim duncan, he would have filled a hand and started on the other by now.  and if he goes to the lakers, they will contend until he and kobe choose to hang 'em up.

however, those are the wishes of the fans and pundits who know kg's true talent and know the clock is ticking on his body and his mindset.  we are the ones who want to see kg succeed at whatever cost.  no one wants to win more than he does (as is evidenced by his unparalleled work ethic and dedication, personified most often in the form of primal shrieks), but he does not agree that his loyalty to those who drafted, shaped, and aided him should be sacrificed in the process.  mchale has done juuuust enough to maintain his interest in the city and team year after year to keep him from fully engaging his suitors.

the bottom line is that as long as the status quo remains - mchale wastes time and picks/players and garnett retains his unbridled loyalty - the timberwolves will never win a championship, and kg will be remembered as a great player whose time never came.  his supporters will say he never had the talent around him, the general manager was a failure, the city never fully embraced the team, or he never received coaching necessary to win titles.  by contrast, his detractors will proclaim that his contract ate up too much of the salary cap, that he could have singlehandedly taken over any playoff series, that he choked in said series (his numbers in most categories, including scoring and rebounds, actually increased in the postseason), that if he cared about winning he would have demanded a trade, and that he was overrated from the beginning (choosing to compare him to duncan).  

while the debate over his legacy will remain long after his playing days are through, the crucial message in this post is this: realize and comprehend the greatness of what you are seeing while kg is still around.  when talking about the best players in the nba, the truly elite, once-in-a-generation players, his name should be in the first breath without question.  when speaking about dirk, nash, arenas, kobe, d-wade, lebron, etc., kevin garnett's name should be at the top of the list.  he should absolutely be considered for the mvp each and every year.  

by no means am i saying that he is always better than those aforementioned players, but his numbers, passion, personality, and uniqueness (when was the last time you saw a 7-footer with a 7'4" wingspan and a 38" vertical leap?) combine to produce a truly unbelievable basketball player.  i am not going to delve too deeply into his statistics, so i thought i would choose just two to identify his abilities, since i believe they speak to his all-around play.  first, he is the first and only player in nba history with at least 18,000 points, 10,000 rebounds, 4,000 assists, 1,200 steals, and 1,500 blocks in his playing career.  not one other player in the history of the league, no matter his talent, supporting cast, city, coach, or any other variable, has ever displayed this kind of tenacity and ability in so many categories.  second, his player efficiency rating (PER), a widely-accepted method of judging a player's effectiveness per minute on the court, has varied between 25.50 and 29.50 this century.  according to PER creator john hollinger, that range (with an average of 27.50) places garnett in the "strong MVP candidate" category (right below the "runaway MVP candidate" level)...and he has done this for 7 years now, winning the award only once.    

aside from the 10 all-star appearances, 7 all-nba teams, 7 all-defensive teams, and all the other accolades that he has compiled in his career, i believe the above lines (in bold) truly captures what kg is all about: unselfishness and team-oriented play, playing every possession as if it were your last, showing skill and desire on both ends of the floor, and stepping on the court for each game with the mindset that you want to win more than anything and can win against anyone.

off the court, his teammates and coaches sing nothing but his praises as well.  aside from one comment during the 2005 season, when he compared going into a game with going to war (blown out of proportion due to heated wartime debate in america), i cannot think of another time when he offended player, coach, group, or anyone with his language.  much of his charity work goes unnoticed, but he recently won the nba's citizenship award in 2006 for his work with hurrican katrina victims.  teammates have also never had any ill will with kg, aside from sam cassel joking that he was "too intense sometimes."  he doesn't have the rap sheet associated with stars who have been in the nba for about as long as he has (see iverson, allen and bryant, kobe).  personally, the biggest reason i chose kg as my favorite player way back when was his first act upon signing his long-term, $100+ million contract.  he moved his closest high school friends (known as the OBF, or "official block family") to houses next to his out in minnesota.  that solidified him in my mind as a person whose heart and compassion equal his talent in his craft.

i fully understand that those reading posts on this site are used to throwing around statistics and opinions, which is primarily what this author has provided in this writing.  so i ask that each person take the time out to watch a timberwolves game.  you will see kg run the offense, attract double-and triple-teams, set screens, look to pass, rebound at will, block shots, alter the direction and intention of driving guards, and he will stand out as by far the most valuable and multitalented player on the court.  statistics don't lie, and when you read in the box score that he led the wolves in 4 of 5 categories, and had 13 in the 4th quarter, that actually happened.  but look deeper into the game, and realize that they would be nothing without him...realize that this is someone the likes of whom we may not see for a long, long time. 

if you think next year will be the dawning of a new era, with the arrival of oden, durant, and wright, think again...each one of them would be lucky to be considered a "poor man's" kevin garnett. 

following the final snap of super bowl xli sunday night, in the commerical break between the end of the game and the trophy presentation, my friends and i discussed who should be named the mvp of the game.

"has to be rhodes or addai.  almost 200 yards between them and addai led the team in catches," i said.

"could be bob sanders...he forced a fumble and had an interception," a friend added.

after a long, contemplative pause, we all looked at each other and knew what we should have all along...it's gonna be peyton.

in that moment, we all felt pretty foolish for even considering the possibilities.  short of an otherworldly effort by another colt, all peyton needed to do was basically not lose the game singlehandedly, and he was assured the rozelle trophy, car, and immortality that accompanies those tangible items.

this game was all about him.  from the onslaught of commercials, to the legacy of his surname, to the well-documented failures in the past, he had to win this game and had to bring home the mvp for validation.  just as the red sox had to beat the cards two years ago after overturning the curse of the bambino, peyton had to overcome his nemesis (pats/brady/belichick) and then go on to win the super bowl. 

what no one will remember from this event is how close the mvp consideration was (or should have been).  we will look back on his peyton's career, this season, and even this game as being terrific for him, and forget the real reasons the colts came out the victors: running game and defense.  the defense forced 5 turnovers, and held the bears to 11 first downs and 30% on 3rd down conversions.  the running game piled up almost 200 yards on over 40 carries, controlled the clock, and wore down the bears' vaunted defense.

as for manning - take away the 53 yard bomb (on a badly blown coverage) to wayne for the first colts touchdown, and his numbers are hardly extraordinary: 24/37 for 194 yards and 1 interception.  add to that fact that 40% of his completions (and 35% of his yards) went to addai on dumpoffs, checkdowns, and screens, and you will see that he hardly shredded the bears' defense with his laser, rocket arm.  instead, the rookie running back made urlacher, briggs, etc. miss on the wet surface with a variety of moves, jukes, and spins after the catch.

this is not to say that peyton isn't an excellent quarterback.  he is certainly the best of our generation and any fan would love to have him lead his/her favorite team each week.  in an age of brashness, egotism, and laziness, he prepares tirelessly, cares so much about the integrity of the game, and is undeniably a great spokesperson for the league.  he may be remembered as the best quarterback of all time when his career is over.

however, he needed this win and this mvp trophy to solify his legacy, just as the league needed him to win it to solidify their place as the biggest and best among the 4 major sports.  for him, it means not only that he can win the big one, but that he can be the "most valuable" member of his team in that pursuit.  for the league, it means that doing things "the right way" (without performance-enhancing drugs or hidden caches of weapons, but instead with hours of preparation and a goofy "everyman" persona) will get you to the pinnacle of your desires and dreams.

its just too bad that this partnership works out well enough to blind the media and fans during their voting process.