After letting it sink in that UConn is finally out, I have to say they're lucky to have gotten this far. A team with several NBA-caliber players, size advantage and championship pedigree played at times like, well dogs. Some might say it's easy to say that's because of coaching, but I just don't know. At the end of the day, there's only so much coach Jim Calhoun can do - the players have to step up and play the game. In watching them, there were three things that seemed to jump out at me: 1) Inside game success, or lack thereof - I don't think it's a coincidence there's a correlation between the number of attempts and points scored in the paint and field goal percentage. Except for Josh Boone, they we're not getting consistent deep penetration as a team, and when they were, it was heavily contested. This forced them to go to the perimeter game almost exclusively in many of their sets. 2) Full-court press They couldn't handle it, and they didn't run it. First, on offense, they took their time moving the ball up court and often times were intimidated by opponents into making bad passes. Many times, they tended to inbound the ball with almost no sense of urgency. As for running it on defense, this is one of the most frustrating aspects of watching UConn. They seem to view using it like most NFL teams (besides Pittsburgh) hate running the blitz all the time. You know the excuse, "Live by the blitz, die by the bltiz." Ok, so you don't press the entire game. It tires guys out. I get that. But when you have a small lead in a tight game and a size advantage, why not pressure and force turnovers? Surely it can't be conditioning? UConn isn't in the same shape as George Mason, or the Washington Huskies? I don't buy it. If they ran a serious press in any of the games, I didn't see it. Yet several earlier-round teams had great success against the them doing just that. 3) Team unity They didn't have any. Sure, some of the role players stepped up, but for the most part, this team seemed to play like their minds were focused elsewhere. Role players can only do so much. Look at Morrison for Gonzaga. That guy carried his team, and how was he rewarded? Someone gets careless inbounding a ball and then someone else get lazy holding onto it and loses it. I can't blame him for that loss, just like the I can't totally dog the UConn starters here. Where was the great depth they had used effectively all year? Misfiring on several cylinders, that's where. You know how sometimes teams in a tourney get a scare early from a 16 seed, and then come out on fire for the next game? I kept waiting for UConn to show they got that message, but it never happened. Not that it matters. Rudy Gay will go into the draft as an odds-on fav top-5 pick, and Calhoun will be out looking for new high-school talent to come join the Huskies with stories of tournament glory past - just not from this one.

I never heard it from him, but has Bonds ever said "I'm not guilty" or "I'm innocent"? I can't recall. Google doesn't think so either after I tried to search for it. Yet today, he plans to sue Gotham Books regarding profits of the release of Game of Shadows, sure to be a best seller. I don't think it really matters anymore though. At one point early on, it may have. But with athletes lying to congress and a MLB system from a commish on down seemingly turning a blind eye all this time, would you believe Bonds even if he came out today and said he wasn't guilty? It's amazing how many players fight to the bitter end to protect a lie. Of course, there's the presumption of innocence arguement, and I understand it. In this case though, c'mon, with other athletes coming forward in Grand Juries, noticable differences in player size and performance, doesn't that arguement quickly run out of gas? And of all the things you sue for, not that a book possibly reports a bunch of lies about a person, but, you sue to stop the profits from going to the publisher. Why not just admit guilt then if all you care about is the profits surrounding it and not its facts? He may or may not be guilty. Who am I to judge. All I know is if I was accused of something like that and I knew I was innocent, I'd sure be using the mass of reporters around my locker to my advantage and shout pretty loudly that I was innocent - not shout at them and evade questions with "You're going to write what you want about me anyway" or "You just don't want to see the home run record broke". No, we just want to hear you say "I didn't do it."

Knick fans, I feel for ya', I really do. It's like watching the Bills play hoops. I mean, really. You acquire Steve Francis, then sit him against his old team last night. Your Player of the Game scores 0 points. I said 0. I really didn't think they could get any worse, but I seriously doubt that the Knicks would even be able to beat Gonzaga right now, let alone George Mason. Maybe the Knicks should skip the night games at home this week and see if they can get a guest pass to enter the NIT. They don't deserve any more bandwidth than this.

Depending on your point of view, soccer did something either really brilliant recently - or really sad. The sport that few in this country love, of which I am one, allowed one of its teams, the MetroStars, to be purchased and renamed Red Bull New York. If you're part of the majority who hate soccer, you may not care. There's a good reason why you should though. It's one thing to rename a stadium FedEx Field or Heinz Field and have a Nike or Pepsi logo on everything in the stadium. But when you rename a team, you take its identity away. And it's all made possible by the introduction of those logos on merchandise in the first place. And if it can happen in soccer, it can happen anywhere. I'll play devil's advocate and say yes, a brand buying a team that is struggling in attendance can help with sponsors, promotions and financial support. Without it, the alternative is a pro sport that might fold - again. And with free agency in sports, there's no loyalty on the part of players anymore, after all, it's a business right? However, the integrity of the sport takes a hit. Not to mention a loss of a personal connection you make with that team when its name can be bought and sold at will. Sure players come and go, but one thing was always for sure, you could count on the team being there, just like the city you grew up in. The Buffalo Bills. The New York Yankees. The Los Angeles Lakers. Think it can happen? If a field or stadium routinely loses its naming rights and puts them up for sale, how soon before Red Bull sells to Pizza Hut? Google? Little by little, what if your favorite team becomes just another corporate logo. Imagine the Mets becoming The Metropolitan Life. Wait and see. It's like the alien ships in Independence Day moving into position and preparing to attack: Look at how Nike sponsors NCAA coaches and their shoe deals, player uniforms and camps. Jerry Jones was the first NFL owner to break ranks and cut his own deal for concessions in Texas Stadium, going against existing league arrangements. How long before he sells other rights away? How long before AAU teams have a Taco Bell logo? Little League is covered on ESPN routinely now. What's next? Kindergarden kickball teams with Coke logos? This move may save a franchise, it may not. As a purist though, I'd have to say I'd prefer the league to not have gone down this road. Ultimately, no matter how many endorsement deals you throw at a team, that won't make them win. Then what will Red Bull do? I guess move on to the next league, say, like the NBA and buy the Chicago Bulls! No need to change colors either. A perfect fit.

Mr. Gumbel's remarks notwithstanding. Is anyone watching the Olympics anymore, winter or summer? I'm not watching anywhere near what I have in the past. Dog's my new dawg. The 24/Lost vice of mine for this year, along with 50 other reality-based shows. And I suspect I'm not alone. CNN confirms it here. Half of America might be watching American Idol while the other half is watching Dog kick ass on the Islands, bra'. Now, it might just be that the summer games are just better than the winter ones for popularity. There's hoops and that high-dive thing. (Hey, c'mon, we all watch hoping for a 35-foot belly flop, don't lie.) But after a timeout and upon further review, I don't think it's only that. Consider: 1) Proliferation of reality TV shows. These shows appeal to our 'gossipy-baser instinct' side, and have now given the Olympics a run for their money in terms of traditional audience share. Think back every four years from this point through '98, '94, etc. The shows back then were traditional sitcoms and dramas, before cable got huge and offered 800 channels. When the Olympics would come along then, we had something extravagant to watch for two weeks, something special. Now? Turn on any channel and you have Simon bitching, couples fighting, cops beating someone and people crawling through worms. Those shows have created their own special characters we identify with, not Bode Miller simply because Nike tells me I should. And for us couch-potato remote-control flipping sports nuts like me, Spike TV even has a new sports reality show coming out called Pros vs. Joes, where you get a shot at being the receiver you always bitched should've caught the damn ball! We used to laugh at Julia, queen of the reality-based cooking show. But now she's been replaced by Hell's Kitchen. How's the luge ever supposed to compete with that unless they show one crashing? 2) Format is outdated. NBC no longer knows how to cover or promote the Olympics in a way that speaks to today's sports fan. They need to be more innovative with actual TV coverage and reinvigorate the fan base. I suggest turning it over to Fox sports. (No, I don't expect to see topless women on green plastic discs going downhill either, although some might.) But CBS, NBC and ABC? You've hogged the remote for long enough. Hand it over. What I mean by innovative is that most of the sports freaks and the casual fans out there have been exposed to so many different sports programs already, that you better bring it if you want to compete as a network. They've seen a lot of new camera angles and technological advances that make the Olympics appear aloof and tame by comparison. Instead, we get: "Two blue lines down the hill so we could see where they turn - just like Fox's first-down yellow stripe, hmmm!" "Hey look, a camera on the bottom of the hill for the men's downhill - there's something you never see." "Oh hey look, figure skaters in a wide shot." No, no, no. I want a damn spin-cam on the skater's ankle people! A luge cam! A wipe-out cam when Shaun's pulling a 900 fakie! That's just not enough though. This model of having one single Bob Costas-type sportscaster figure sitting in a chalet setting by the fire talking slowly... calmly... reserved about the day's events is something from the 1970's. (Bob's great by the way, no knock on him, just the format.) Maybe get Jimmy Johnson, Howie Long and Bradshaw involved in a roundtable discussion back-and-forth arguement about ice skaters. (On second thought, the whole Bradshaw/figure-skater thing might not be a good idea.) Maybe even mix winter and summer sports in a UFC-type cage match: let the little speed skaters have at it for three rounds. (No eye-gouging please.) Something, anything. These Olmpics need an Eddie the Eagle. Instead, I get a Grandma Luge. 3) Too slow. This isn't just NBC's problem, but the internet news services now more than ever make it possible to trump any network coverage later that evening, because they give realtime results almost eight hours earlier. I thought that the media this year might respect NBC's broadcast and wait on giving results, but I guess that's just a pipe dream. At the risk of biting the hand here, Fox, ESPN and the rest constantly show results well before the broadcast and fed the beast that us up-to-the-minute news junkies have become. Almost as if they're mad they don't get to cover the games so they figure they'll ruin it for NBC. That's cool fellows, but it's the fan who sufferes because they couldn't cover their ears or look away from the screen fast enough to avoid the results. It's also kind of ironic that extreme sports have been added to the games in an attempt to broaden the overall appeal, while the actual coverage of them seems stuck in a time warp. Until they fix these things, I doubt anyone who loves watching a bounty hunter named Dog will ever care too much about a skier name Franz. Shoot. Gotta' run. Dog's on.