Gregg Doyel

Here I go again with my finger firmly on the pulse -- I said pulse -- of America.

Rick Pitino does his thing with the media the other day and everyone hates him for it ... except for me. Michael Beasley seeks treatment for depression, and everyone loves him for it ... except for me.

Now, Milton Bradley.

Everyone thinks he's a ginormous a--hole. The Chicago Sun-Times blasts him on Thursday. The Chicago Tribune says he should be released on Friday. Mike Freeman is writing today on Milton Bradley and will rip him a new earhole. I said earhole.

But me? I'm wondering what everyone's problem is.

I mean, I get the general problem with Milton Bradley. He has been a buffoon for years, angry and inappropriate and all of that. But his latest transgression was, basically, this quote:

"It's hard to be comfortable when you don't get a hit and get booed every time," he said. "When I go home and look in the mirror, I like what I see. My family is there. I have people I can talk to who are very supportive, in spite of everything and all the adversity and the hatred you face on a daily basis."

Does he come across as sensitive? Sure he does. But I've never understood why the home crowd would boo a player for anything less than maximum effort. If a guy isn't hustling, by all means hammer him. But if a guy isn't hitting well enough? Leave him alone. Support him. You do want him to succeed, right? Don't made it harder by jumping on his back, home crowd.

Bradley was basically saying he doesn't feel supported at home, and I understand his frustration. What I don't understand is everyone else's fury.

I'm going to gloat about the dumbest thing a human being has ever gloated about:

Jay Mariotti doesn't think like I do.

Oh what a relief that is.

In the last few weeks, Mariotti and I have had polar opposite viewpoints on at least two stories, most recently the Oakland Raiders' current mess with Tom Cable apparently attacking an assistant coach. My column comes out soon, where I urge Roger Goodell to butt out. Mariotti's column is out now, urging Goodell to take action.

It reminds me of a week ago, when Rick Pitino was linked to an affair and an abortion and I said that, as ugly as the situation might be, you don't fire a guy in my America for that. Mariotti had the opposite take, urging as he regularly does that anyone and everyone should be fired, and specifically saying Pitino should resign in shame.

Why am I linking to a guy I clearly don't like? One reason, mainly. I'm not afraid of competition. I'm not going to ignore his presence, or the presence of others, out of fear that you'll read him or someone else and decide I suck and never come back here again. By all means, read some of these idiots.

I'll be here when you come back.

Here's an example of a guy in the media piling on Rick Pitino just ... because.

Pitino's down, this guy fairly clearly doesn't like him, so ... it's time to put on the steel-toed boots and start kicking. I don't care if I'm a bully for singling out this dude from the newspaper in Nashville.

Here it is.

I mean, I liked everything about it.

I liked the guts it took, and the insight it required, to ask that question of that athlete. He's not just an athlete. He's the most famous Christian athlete in the country, and he's walking on a campus -- I went there -- teeming with temptation. Are you saving yourself for marriage? is the wrong question to ask every athlete but one in college football. But it's the right question to ask Tebow. He's The One.

I like the poise Tebow showed in answering it, and in making fun of the media for being so uncomfortable with the moment.

I liked the passion Dennis Dodd showed in his takedown of the questioner, Clay Travis. Dodd can write, friends. He can really write.

I liked the debate it has stirred up around the country. Was the question fair? Was Tebow even telling the truth? Lots of interesting points to banter about.

Liked it. All of it. Not sure I'd have asked it, but only because of my own weaknesses. However, if it had occurred to me, and I was there, sure. I'd have asked.

That's the crux of this column from Chicago, which isn't a solitary opinion by the way: America is all about second chances, and Vick has paid for his crime with prison/bankruptcy/humiliation, therefore let's welcome him back to the NFL.

I agree with the first part. America is about second chances. And the second part. Vick has paid a staggering price.

But the third part? The blithe assumption that, because of the first two parts, he is owed another shot at the NFL?

Sorry. Can't agree with that.

Vick earned the right to get out of jail, I suppose. A life prison sentence for Vick wouldn't have cost me a wink of sleep, but that's not the point. The courts spoke, so I'll listen. Vick has earned his freedom. Fine.

But the NFL? He has earned the right to play in the greatest sports league in this country? To travel first class and to play on national television and to be cheered for touchdowns?

He hasn't earned that. And he never will. Some crimes are so horrific to the senses that the perpetrator simply doesn't deserve the full "American way" treatment. Vick deserves his freedom and the chance to work an honest job and pay his taxes and raise a family. But he doesn't deserve to return to the prestige and fortune and glamour of the NFL. He never will deserve that.

Will he return? Probably.

But that won't make it right.

Speaking of Dumb and Dumber ...

This guy made it into the Basketball Hall of Fame, media wing. If he can make it, I've got a shot.

Hell, if he can make it, you've got a shot. Even if you can't write sensically. Just throw lots of rumors out there and use lots of exclamation marks.

It worked for him!

Very rarely will a person finish a story, unless they're finishing one of mine, and say out loud, "Damn that was good."

But I just finished this story about the Ariza-Artest trade and said, out loud, "Damn that was good."

Oh, and I got the link to this story from a blog. RealClearSports.com.

See. I'm not a liar.

And I'm not just saying that. Who in my position would just say that? But it's true. Not counting this fine website, which is my employer and my home page and my reason for reason, I now find myself reading blogs before I read the "real" media, whatever that is, and if I run out of time at the end of the day ... it was just blogs, baby.

Basically, I want to read a voice. I don't want to be told what happened last night or this morning, because like you, I already know. I saw it on TV or read about it on CBSSports.com. Ahem.

Point being, I know what happened. I want to know what to think about what happened. What are some possible analyses of what happened? I want to know the most original analyses of all. That's why I go to blogs. For the voices. I'm a guy who likes to hear several voices, clearly.

Which brings me to my point, and it's a damn silly point. I'm reading Deadspin just now, and there are items on two different "real" sports writers, both of AOL Fun Zone. Jay Mariotti apparently, allegedly, insanely, is going to the Chicago Tribune. Possibly. And that fellow named B. Kevin B. Blackistone B. made a basketball shot and then crowed about it and demanded that Deadspin or KSK post it and then for some reason he put it on YouTube. So Deadspin did post it. So I read about it.

That's not why I go to blogs, actually.

But I will say this: If Mariotti ends up back in print after the crap he's pulled -- bashing newspapers as a dying medium, basically acting like a spoiled wittle bratty-watty since being shown the door by the other paper in Chicago -- I'll be blogging again. And there will be a point. And when you are done reading it, you will know my point.

Unless it happens when I'm on vacation next week. I'm off.

On second thought, I'll come off vacation to write that blogg post. With two g's.

Because I'm so darned mean. Even to this guy, who sort of seemed to like the USC hire of Kevin O'Neill.

I can't say for sure, because Plaschke was tough on O'Neill and yet nice to O'Neill. In other words, he couched his opinion -- whatever it is; we still don't know -- in such a way that whatever happens with O'Neill and USC, Plaschke will be able to say he was right. Meantime, I have no idea how he feels about O'Neill. None.

Say what you want about me -- and people have -- but when you finish one of my columns, you know how I feel about the topic.

And because I'm mean, let me point out how much Plaschke loved a recent USC basketball hire.

Damn, Plaschke. You were wrong then on Majerus. You're wrong now on O'Neill ... because you don't have the guts to say what I think you wanted to say. Did you love the Tim Floyd hire, too? I bet you did. That would give you the Wrong Triple Crown.

I'm starting to hate me, too. I'm too mean.

This guy.

This column.

This guy, a "baseball guy" through and through, has the nerve to say that outgoing union boss Donald Fehr was good for the game, and by extension, good for you. In an hour or so I'll have a column up that demonstrates, beyond argument, why Fehr was horrible for you.

Horrible.

But that guy, in that column, doesn't get it. And why? Because he has spent his career going to games for free. He has no idea what it's like to be a paying customer, which makes his column nothing but insulting.

And if he's a nice guy -- don't know him; don't care -- I apologize.

No I don't. Not unless he apologizes to all of you first. For insulting you.

Never before have I read such self-stroking by a sports writer. Hell, if this guy wrote this story in a public park, he could have been arrested for ... you know. Doing something gross with oneself.

It's a "mainstream journalism" take on the Raul Ibanez-steroid-blogger story. And it's why "mainstream journalism" sometimes, for lack of a better word, sucks.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- That's what people are calling it. A "confrontation." I was on a radio show here in Orlando this morning, clearly a desperate show that doesn't care about its listeners if they're putting me on the air, and I was told the "confrontation" had been a source of discussion in Orlando recently.

I love it.

But it's bullcrap.

There was no "confrontation." Yes, I asked Jameer some rather uncomplimentary questions after Game 3 -- story is here -- and we went back and forth for a minute, but it was civil. And better yet, afterward, before walking away, I patted him on the knee (awww) and said, "I appreciate you taking that the right way. I knew you would."

That's why I did it.

Because Nelson could handle it.

I wouldn't have done it to Rasheed Wallace, for example, because that would have been poking a snake with a stick. He would have lashed back, and it would have made for an interesting story, but what purpose would it serve? Being confrontational just for the sake of being confrontational is stupid, and no matter what you hear, I don't do that.

Except for one time ...

Jameer Nelson was a class kid at Saint Joseph's, and he's a class man in the NBA, and I knew he could handle my questions. So I asked them.

No confrontation.

Lucky for him. Because I could kick his ...

Kidding!

(Not really.)

See! Age is an adjective. Nothing more or less ... Paterno fans.

Anyway ...

I'm not a Lane Kiffin guy. Read me at all, and you know that. I seem to mention it a few times a year month week.

Here's another example.

Not the violation. I don't care about the violation. I don't even care that ESPN helped commit the violation. ESPN was, technically speaking, doing its job. Plus, it's ESPN. ESPN does what ESPN wants. I get it. No problem.

But read at the end of the story where Kiffin gives an explanation about his infamous, and alleged, "gas pumping" comment. Notice the order in which he defends himself: He defends his intelligence before he defends his integrity. Even subliminally, those are his priorities.

Which tells me he's not as smart as he thinks he is. And not as wholesome, either.

Because I could never imagine writing roughly 2,500 words or more as a daily column. Bill Simmons has made a career of it, and I'll be damned if I can explain that, but I can't worry about that B.S. because I'm still so flabbergasted by this one. It's by Jay Mariotti of AOL FanHouse, and it starts with a frankly brilliant examination of Phil Jackson's chameleon side -- but then it goes ... and goes ... and goes. It's the typical length of one of his columns, and since I'm delving into some media critiques, I'll delve into him. Just a little. Just to examine his length.

Of his COLUMNS, people.

One of the best facets of the Internet is its immediacy, and its quickness. Its efficiency. You click a link or you don't. You stay inside the link or you move on. But what you don't do, for the most part, is click a link and then settle down to read 2,500 words -- which is about like reading 12 typed pages. The Internet wasn't made for that. Not really.

Simmons gets by with it, with even longer columns than 2,500 words, and I won't pretend to understand the allure of that. But then, I don't understand the allure of wine, either. It tastes like grape-flavored rubbing alcohol to me, minus the grape, but people (claim to) love it. Maybe it's an acquired taste. Wine, I mean. And Bill Simmons. And Jay Mariotti.

Maybe it's hubris, too. Let's be honest, and call it what it is. Any writer who says to himself on a daily basis, "I need 2,500 words to get this point across," has more confidence than I do. And by confidence, I mean ego. And by ego, I mean self-love.

And I love me some me, but good grief ... I've written 267 words to this point, and I'm starting to get twitchy. I've written enough. It's time to dismount this blogg item, so here comes the dismount:

Read me. Because I'm better than Mariotti or Simmons? Hell if I know.

But I know I'm smaller.

In column length, people. Column length.