Wasif's World

Game 7 between Boston and Los Angeles stands to highlight the similarities between the two teams. At alternating times, each has battled, each has struggled, each has looked unstoppable, and each has won three times.

But over the past two weeks, the gap between the two cities has revealed itself to be broad enough to drive “Big Baby” Davis through. And such, glaring differences between the fans spark the realization that they are truly the representatives of their citywide personalities.

Boston is known as a blue-collar town, from its intellectual capacities to its passion, sometimes to the point of obsession, for all things sports, frequently exhibiting encyclopedic knowledge of even the most trivial statistics.

Los Angeles is a sprawling city where the residents are more carefree, laid back. They’re known to maintain a more laissez-faire attitude toward their teams. They show their support when the season begins to wind down, if not later, with a flag or two on their cars. Not that they don’t root like crazy for their Lakers, but you will be less inclined to speak intellectually about the sport with them. Mainly, it’s the factual inconsistencies that spout from their mouths that really make you take notice.

To understand this, you must take note that Los Angeles is a town where everything seems perfect – the weather, the beautiful people, the abundance of outdoor activities, (well, maybe not the traffic), and their basketball team. The city’s main industry, TV and film production, goes to great lengths to make sure everything is perfect. If they need rain, they can make it rain; if they want laughter, they’ll flash a sign and the audience will laugh; if they want the superhero to win, they’ll just write it in the script.

Living there, you begin to ignore items of irrelevance, like facts. Just believe what you want and it will be so.

That statement becomes more palpable over the past few weeks as the Lakers advance through the playoffs. Listening to their announcers, their fans and even their coaches, I’m amazed at the number of times they’ve said something to be blatantly untrue. For example:

One radio host said after Game 5, “The Lakers don’t want to lose the Finals at home two of the last three years.” Impossible, since they were in Boston when they lost in 2008.

Another one praised the ratings as being at their highest since 2004 because “America loves to see the Lakers win.” Uh, they won last year and the ratings weren’t that high. Could it be that America likes the idea of the Boston versus Los Angeles storyline? What was it about 2004 that made America watch? Oh, yeah ... Detroit beat LA. How about it America, do you like to watch the Lakers win or lose?

Even their head coach has been making stuff up. Game 5 famously had him lambasting the Celtics’ inability to hold leads. “This team has blown more fourth-quarter leads than any other team in the league.” Actually, they were 14th in that category.

(Though this is the same man whose team got almost twice as many foul shots as the other team, and he still blamed the refs, so take that with a grain of salt.)

It got so bad, even their color commentator said in respect to the Lakers needing to win one game at a time before Game 6, “Like Steppenwolf said, ‘One is the loneliest number.’” Actually, that was Three Dog Night. Fortunately, he was corrected a minute later, which was a pleasant surprise.

These inaccuracies trickle down to the fans, making it difficult to have a decent basketball conversation with them.

On my May 16 blog titled "Why Lakers Fans Are So Hateable," one Lakers fan commented, “LA is number one in everything, even in the off years in a particular sport, we are the best. From high school sports to the pros ...” Would those pro teams be including the St. Louis Rams and Oakland Raiders?

Bostonians check their facts. They may not like what they have to say, but they use them. Los Angeles fans can’t be bothered. “It’s all good, baby!”

When in LA, things are rosier. It’s contagious. Perhaps the refs start to feel it, thinking, “Hey, that elbow to the face isn’t a foul. It’s just “good, clean basketball.’” It’s a view clouded by happiness (and smog, of course). Though surprisingly, Dodgers fans are not quite the same. Their fans are more reasonable. That’s another blog for another day.

One fascinating point that sums up the disparity lies in the anthems for the two cities. Boston’s prideful song boasts “I love that dirty water, oh, Boston you’re my home.” It speaks of muggers and thieves along the banks of what was once the filthiest waterway in the country. Boston fans embrace this song. They wear the authentic and less than classy lyrics as a badge of honor. Pretty, no. But truthful, yes.

Los Angeles, on the other hand, reveres the great Randy Newman tune, “I Love LA.” It speaks of the sunshine and the greatness every day ... on the outside. But it’s really a song about the excesses and extravagances of life in the 80s, a brilliantly done sarcastic shot at the superficial nature of the culture at that time, especially in Los Angeles. I don’t think the residents and certainly the fans grasp the irony. It gets in the way of their perfect view of their lives.

Boston fans will live with a loss tonight for long time, even though they will still be the most accomplished NBA franchise of all-time. To them, it’s personal. Los Angeles fans will deal with it for a short time and then hit the beach “cuz the sun is shinin’ all the time. Looks like another perfect day. I love LA!” We love it!

Okay, so here it is, the Match Up of the Century! (again) This one is for all the marbles. The Big Three are making one final stand, a last chance to show their dominance. Kobe’s chasing Magic for five championships and the “greatest Laker of all-time” moniker, though playing with Shaq and having the allegations of Tim Donaghy render at least two of those championships iffy make this a moot point. Kobe will never be Magic. (And this from a guy who spent his childhood thinking Magic was overrated.)

The experts are all weighing in and forming their hypotheses based on sight analysis and statistics. And the fans are running with whichever argument best suits their cases.

Fans need to convince themselves of the outcome before it takes place. They call in to talk shows to say, “I’m really worried about the Lakers defensive lapses. Do you think they can beat the Celtics?” And if the talk show host responds in the affirmative, the caller will think, “Phew! I’m glad that’s decided” and they can sleep well at night.

But most of the arguments out there can be eliminated as they have nothing to do with the matter at hand. I’ll go over most of these and tell you who each point sees winning the series, why that is, the counterargument, and why it’s relevant or just a bunch of jibberjabber. (Yes, I said “jibberjabber.” I’m getting jazzed for the “A-Team” movie!)

So let’s begin:

Outcome: Lakers
Reason: Revenge
Chatter: The Lakers are upset that the Celtics beat them in 2008, in fact, humiliating them during the clinching game. Now, they want revenge.
Counterargument: Oh, now they want to win? In 2008, they were indifferent to winning? They weren’t sufficiently perturbed before? Why would you need excess motivation to win a championship?
Verdict: I do not wish to degrade my level of education and literary skills by just calling this argument stupid. Therefore, I will say it’s really stupid. When’s the last time you arm wrestled a guy who was stronger than you and actually won the rematch? If the Celtics are better, then no amount of wanting to win is going to help.

One parallel I find interesting is how the run of the last three years is similar to 1985 to1987. You might remember the peak of the Show Time Era when the two teams battled in 1985 leaving the Lakers victorious.

The next year, the Rockets snuck into the Finals, first beating the Lakers only to lose to the Celtics. But in 1987, the Lakers returned and caused a repeat of 1985.

Were the Celtics extra motivated to beat Los Angeles as revenge for 1985? Sure. Did it matter? No.

The Celtics believe the only reason the Lakers won last year was because Garnett was hurt. The Magic beat them and then went on to lose to the Lakers. Sound familiar?

Outcome: Lakers
Reason: Team Improvement
Chatter: The Lakers defense is better now with Ron Artest in the fold.
Counterargument: Yes, it’s better. The Celtics just beat the three teams that led the NBA in opponent’s field goal percentage. With or without Artest, the Celtics have already taken down tougher defenses.
Verdict: That same argument could be used to explain why the Celtics are going to win.

Outcome: Lakers
Reason: Age
Chatter: The Celtics are old. Garnett doesn’t look the same.
Counterargument: Garnett doesn’t look the same, but you have to figure a Hall of Famer like Garnett still matches up very well against Gasol. But the very claim acts as if the Lakers are composed of all these young pups. Their one superstar has logged almost as many minutes as the Big Three, if not more with his extracurricular play in international tournaments.
Verdict: Age is a push.

Outcome: Celtics
Reason: History
Chatter: This works on two fronts. First of all, this starting five, as currently constituted, has yet to lose a playoff series. Secondly, when the Lakers and Celtics face each other in the late spring, the Celtics win over 85% of the time.
Counterargument: This Lakers team has yet to lose a playoff series as well.
Verdict: If past history declared a winner, then the New York Jets would have almost 20 Super Bowl titles by now.

Outcome: Lakers
Reason: Coaching
Chatter: Phil Jackson is the greatest coach of all-time.
Counterargument: That is the dumbest argument of all-time. First off, Phil has already lost a Finals series to Doc Rivers. Wouldn’t that make Doc a better coach? Or perhaps Doc just had the better team, in which case Phil won past championships only because he had the better team. So if it’s the team that made Phil great, then one could reason that given the opportunity, Doc would’ve taken Michael and Scottie to six championships and then Shaq and Kobe to three more had he been there instead of the Zen Master. Counterargument: Michael didn’t win before Phil. Sure, but Scottie Pippen wasn’t his Sundance Kid yet. And you’ll add Shaq and Kobe didn’t win before Phil.
Countercounterargument: Yes, Del Harris is no Phil. But Gregg Popovich (a really valid argument for the actual best coach in the league) could have presumably taken Shaq and Kobe to three titles as well. He did it with less in San Antonio.
Verdict: Both coaches are excellent. Phil may be the most successful coach of all-time, but saying he’s the best is just for empty braggadocio and bar talk.

Outcome: Celtics
Reason: Pedigree
Chatter: The Celtics collectively have three Hall of Famers in their rotation. The Lakers have one, maybe two.
Counterargument: The Lakers can neutralize Pierce with Artest, Ray Allen with Kobe, and Garnett with Gasol.
Alternate counterargument: The Celtics are old. [See above.]
Verdict: The Lakers have been unable to neutralize all three on a consistent basis before. It’s not going to start this week as the Celtics are firing on all cylinders and see the prize put forth before them.

Outcome: Lakers
Reason: Home Cookin’
Chatter: This time, the Lakers have home court advantage.
Counterargument: A. The Celtics have taken home court advantage away from their last two opponents, who, it should be noted, finished with better records than the Lakers. B. The Celtics/Lakers series in 2008 didn’t go seven games because the Celtics won a game in Los Angeles.
Verdict: The Celtics may win in Los Angeles, but may also lose at home. That said, they are not intimidated by being in the visitors locker room.

Outcome: Celtics
Reason: Basketball is about matchups
Chatter: Going down the rosters, we see that Perkins can handle a hobbling Bynum, Kobe is better than Allen (but that’s closer than people think), Pierce is better than Artest, Gasol and Garnett may be a push, and that leaves the one dominating match up in the series – Rondo v. Fisher. If you want to further take it to the bench, Rasheed can handle Odom, Nate Robinson can counter Shannon Brown, and then Tony Allen can play Jordan Farmar, if that’s who it comes down to. That leaves Big Baby as someone off the bench the Lakers don’t have an answer for.
Counterargument: Even a hobbling Bynum is way better than Perkins.
Verdict: This argument makes a lot of sense. Basketball is about matchups (and shoddy refereeing and nonsensical scheduling). The only question is, who is hurt? Will the rest between games be enough for the Celtics? Can the Lakers play more physical than they did two years ago? Will it matter? Will the Big Four continue to alternate having big nights? Which Celtic role player will save the day like Nate Robinson did against the Magic?

(Okay, that’s more than one question.)

So soaking all this in like a Calgon bubble bath complete with rubber duckie, the picture becomes clearer, though still murky.

As I see it, the way the referees have been fix—er, calling the games these days, Perkins will be assessed one half of a double technical at some point this series (I’ll guess that it will be either Artest or Odom that does the honors) and thus, be forced to sit. If the Celtics can win the games Perkins plays, they’ll be the ones celebrating.

And if the Lakers can score more points than the Celtics on no fewer than four of the seven scheduled games, then they will win.

I hope this puts those minds at ease that have been held sleepless the last few nights waiting for the endless NBA Playoffs to continue. Now go tend to more pressing needs, like the electrical fire coming out of your wall socket due to the radio, television, and computer being plugged in at once while seeking as much info about the Finals as you can possibly get.

We’re getting close to the end of the NBA playoffs. You can tell because the Lakers flags are in full bloom in Los Angeles.

The phenomenon, known as “fakeritis” is like a sundial in the streets to the Gregorian calendar. They appear when the flowers are in bloom and the Lakers move deep into the playoffs. (Notice I didn’t say “make” the playoffs because that would be premature presentation. Sometimes you’ll see two on a car for those really, really die-hard fans.

With the Lakers in the conference championships, now natives start to show their fanhood by spending ten dollars on the chatchke, and proclaiming proudly, “I’m a huge fan. I watch both months of the NBA season. I’ll even watch all three quarters of each game.”

Let’s be honest, they are the sports fan equivalent of the high school senior showing up at the prom with toilet paper tucked into his pants hanging over his belt. They’re an embarrassment, but they don’t quite realize it, mainly because they keep getting rewarded for their efforts in the form of championships and contending teams.

Cleveland fans brave the wind, snow, and, well, living in Cleveland and what do they have to show for it? Bubkes!

All the other fan bases are sick of the disproportionate success-to-fanliness ratio for the Lakers. (Well, not Portland. Nothing really rattles them. They’re just so nice.)

Truth be told, no one really hates the Lakers. Aside from Kobe, the team seems to have a bunch of good eggs on it and Ron Artest is a nice sideshow, a poor man’s Rodman, so to speak. No one really cares about them at all. It’s the fans that get the people’s goat. Mainly from the use of the word “fan.” It seems a misappropriation of the term when describing them.

And what’s weird is, Dodgers fans don’t have the same reputation so, though there’s an overlap, there isn’t the same collective personality at Chavez Ravine as there is at the Staples Center.

Now, before you decry haterism, I’m trying to help here. Instead of just random stereotypes (like the one above), I intend to prove this epidemic with the help of first-hand experiences among living breathing representatives of Laketown.

Yes, it’s easy to generalize. I’m from the East Coast and we’re a more passionate fan base overall (though we have our own issues), but each fan base is comprised of individuals and this is about those that we mock as “fakers.”

Over the past few years, I’ve been surrounded by Lakers fans in “the Southland” as they call it; I’ve gone to games, I’ve spoken to them, and I’ve listened to radio. That’s a good place to start, because much of the attitude of the fans comes from sports talk show hosts.

Let’s deconstruct a typical talk radio show, such as that on the East Coast – there is a host that makes a point and opens it up to the audience who may call to revel in a good win, but there is always a segment of the population that approaches a topic this way – “Yes, we may be good, but there are still problems that concern us.” It’s the cynicism inherent in that region of the country.

But listen to a Lakers station and it is decidedly more “glass is totally full – “Here’s why our team is so great.” And then after they’re done pouring the bottomless cup of adulation, they have a guest call in – “Calling in now, we have so-and-so ... why don’t you tell us why our team is so great?

It’s such an LA ritual, the abundant praising. It’s almost like an infomercial.

“Hey, Gary?”

“Hi, Bob.”

“What if I told you there was a team that shot threes, pounded the ball inside, had the best closer in the game, had the best coach, and was unstoppable, what would you say?”

“I’d be dubious, Bob.”

“No, it’s true. The Los Angeles Lakers are that team. Order now and you can be a fan of the greatest team in the history of mankind. We’ll send you a team flag, a pamphlet with the names of a few of the greats on it, and another team flag.”

“Wow! That’s an incredible offer!”

It seeps into the culture of the fans. Case in point, the day after the Lakers won the trophy in 2009, a friend told me that the team would three-peat. That’s right, they’d win the next two! And he was so sure of this, that he bet me ... five dollars. Who does that?!

I felt like Randolph and Mortimer Duke’s butler in “Trading Places” after they gave him his Christmas Bonus. “Ooo, five dollars. Now I can go to the movies ... by myself.”

That’s misplaced confidence. But they weren’t always so confident; hence, their reputation for being fair-weather fans. The only problem is, they don’t understand the word.

Sometime around 2006, I heard this exchange on the frequency modulation dial:

Caller: "I believe I have the right to not root for my team when they’re not winning. If they’re not putting the best product on the court, I’m not being a fair-weather fan if I don’t show up to endorse that."

I waited for the talk show host to politely explain to him that he was wrong, that he could protest in other ways (See: wear a paper bag on his head at the game) or at least continue to support them from afar, but what he got was this:

Host: "You’re absolutely right."

WHAT?!

Actually, what he’s doing is the definition of “fair-weather fans,” guys. (At that point, the FCC should’ve revoked the host’s broadcasting license.)

These talk show hosts are enablers. I’m sure thousands of Lakers supporters driving around in their cars were nodding their heads in agreement at that time.

It’s this sort of disrespect for the unwritten rules of one’s fantitude that contribute to the hatredity towards them. They just don’t get it.

In 2008, when the Celtics were about to meet the Lakers in the NBA Finals, a Lakers fan, sure of his team’s ability, bet me that they would take the best-of-seven series in three games. (He was not kidding.) Though that would have been quite impressive, I didn’t have the heart to take that bet.

I did, however, take a different bet from another guy who bet the Lakers because, in his words, they had “the best defense in the league.” Evidently, he didn’t see the stats, which had them 11th ... or watch the games. That bet, I took.

Where did he get the idea the Lakers had a great defense? Maybe the talk show hosts or maybe it was the shills who called in to validate the phony claim. Either way, it was easy money.

Or maybe it’s their coach. Phil Jackson continues to whine about the star of each new team his team is facing in the upcoming round. First, Kevin Durant got away with too many fouls and now Steve Nash carries the ball when he runs.

“Hi, Phil, come over here, I’d like you to meet Kobe Bryant.” “Kobe, Phil, Phil, Kobe.”

It gets extremely frustrating when Lakers fans try to pull the smug card. We’re talking about a team, who, according to disgraced-referee Tim Donaghy’s book, were handed at least two championships, or at least the opportunity to play for them, and their fans try to bring up inequities against them. (The Lakers technically have 13 titles, while referee Dick Bavetta has two.)

Even Yankees fans know not to bash other teams for signing free agents. The only time they use it is when Boston fans try to bash them on spending and so they bring up Daisuke Matsuzaka. (That is a road uniform-gray area as the Red Sox didn’t technically overspend to sign him, but only to talk to him, which may seem ridiculous, but in actuality, it’s kinda ridiculous, but may have been necessary.)

Anyway, the knock on Lakers fans is legendary. They do get there late and leave early. I was at a game when they were down by three with 14 seconds left. Not since Charleton Heston tried to escape Yul Brenner have I seen such a mass Exodus. (I’m not referring to Jack, of course, as he had left long before halftime.) And the Lakers had the ball!

I’m not saying Boston fans are perfect, but you can have a decent basketball conversation with them. I mean, Lakers fans try to be like other fans. They talk trash, they look to point out the traveling violation on the other team, they clap in unison, etc. And with a team that wins, it helps their cause. They see no reason to improve.

Call it haterism, call it a fountain of bile being spewed, but it is what it is. I’ll open it up to the masses on this one. Although, please, for the love of Bill Russell, if Lakers fans are going to post, please say something intelligent. Your team is not the best defense in the league, Kobe is not better than Michael Jordan, and he certainly doesn’t get called for more travels and fouls than any other superstar.

There, I’ve said my piece, I can go back to complaining about deficiencies in the Celtics game even as they start the Eastern Conference finals against the Magic and whining that they shouldn’t have signed Rasheed Wallace.

The NBA Playoffs begin Saturday night and the big question is whether two of the pre-season favorites-cum-faders have been cruising into May before hitting their strides by simply “flicking the switch.”

For those of you unfamiliar with this “switch,” it’s quite a technological marvel. If you don’t have one, I’d recommend you look into acquiring one. In fact, I’ve heard Apple is working on mass producing an economical version for the consumer – the iSwitch.

In the realm of basketball, the switch heals injuries, it sharpens shooting eyes, it tightens defenses. The switch knocks away in-bounds passes, it fills passing lanes, it executes pick-and-rolls with precision. The switch piles on points, it fills highlight reels, it rises above the rim. In summation, it takes no prisoners.

But some teams don’t have a switch. It’s only the good teams teams that have won before, that have a switch. They know what it takes to win, unlike those other teams like the 1995 Houston Rockets or the 1999 San Antonio Spurs.

In fact, along with a championship trophy, these victors are given a switch by the league. It’s one of those hush-hush jobs, though, as the league owns only a thin supply of switches and they don’t want irrelevant teams like the Clippers begging for one. (That’s why the league frequently engineers the Lakers winning, because they already have a switch.)

The Lakers are one of the teams people are questioning. This batch of superstars can play in regular-season, totally over-rated, sluggish mode and then they can shift to bulldozer, juggernaut, high-flying legends mode. The transition from one to the other is seamless, usually done with the flick of a finger.

But wait, haven’t the Lakers been sucking it up lately because they’ve been banged up, uninspired and out-of-sync?

No, of course not, silly person!

So the fact that Kobe has way too many miles on his treads and Andrew Bynum can’t keep from getting hurt and Ron Artest isn’t the same defender he once was has nothing to do with their mediocre play the last few months?

Nope, they just haven’t flicked the switch yet. They’re waiting for the playoffs.

The Celtics are another team that invokes mention of the device. They’ve had their own mechanism before any other team did. The ol’ Auerbach Switch is a bit clunky, but still works. (They’ve since upgraded to Auerbach 10.0.)

The first time it was used was in 1969. The last hurrah for Bill Russell found a team with a 48-34 record winning the championship. Why? Need we go over this again?

It is for this reason that Boston fans needn’t worry as Kevin Garnett’s knee will make a full recovery and we’ll once again see the 2007-08 Defensive Player of the Year dominating opponents, but only once the playoffs start.

The Celtics figured out how to win together early in the season. They started 20-4. Once they got the handle on that, they put it on cruise control. Why waste your energy against the Knicks and the Wizards of the world? And now that it’s playoff time, I’m sure they’ll just revert back to November form. (Back when they could win at home.)

The same goes for the Lakers who still finished atop the Western Conference, though went 15-12 over the last two months of the season. They didn’t need to show off any more. That’s just bad sportsmanship, right? All those shots they missed to lose games were all part of the beauty of the switch. When it’s flicked, those shots go in.

So what does this switch run on? Is it gas-powered? If they’re like the Heat, who have been on a tear lately, they may run out of gas come the second round. Or perhaps it’s run by solar paneling installed under Sasha Vujacic's hair. That’s part of the mystery of it.

I, too, have a switch. I’m just waiting for that moment to flick it so that I may get Jessica Biel to go on a date with me. Just laying low for now, that’s what I’m doing. I haven’t been working my “A” game yet. Yes sir, but when I’m ready, I’m gonna flick that switch and watch out! Buddy Love is only one flick away.

Although it’s quite possible it might not work. I think I was supposed to store it horizontally in a cool, dark place like a bottle of wine. I think it’s because of some chemical that calibrates the magnetic doo-hickeys in the thing. I’m sure the iSwitch has taken the necessary steps to rectify such glitches.

Nevertheless, I know we’ll see the Celtics and Lakers in the NBA Finals again this year ... assuming they took greater care in storing their switches than I did.

After rigorously defending the fact that the decade has one more year in it, I have nonetheless decided to abandon my cause and write my End of the Decade blog. (Expect another one next year.)

Though for the record, decades end in 10. Let’s review the facts: When the Julian and Gregorian calendars switched over to Anno Domini – or Adrian Dantley as is the English translation – they did so at Year One. There was no Year Zero. Hence, the first new year’s celebration was January 1, 0001. And ten years later less one day, the decade ended on December 31, 0010. So we’re jumping the gun a little bit.

Although on the surface, it seems an inconsequential argument, but look closer to witness its necessity in navigating the all-too-important matter of how many championships the New York Yankees have won this decade in comparison with the total for the Boston Red Sox. As things currently stand, the tally is Boston, 2 – Yankees, 1. (Argue this fact if you will, but as we know, the Julians and Gregorians were never wrong ... except for that whole overreaching of the Roman Empire thing ... and probably also for betting long on the Latin language instead of short selling it.)

Anyway, it’s still been nine years since the last time we looked back a ways, so it got me thinking that I should open up my time capsule (a “Welcome Back, Kotter” lunch box in the back of my closet) to look at what I said about the impending “oughts.” Here’s the letter I wrote and stashed away on December 31, 2000 (the end of the 90’s, according to the early Italians):

12/31/2000
Dear Self,

Hey, how’s it going? Are you over Becky Lantana yet? Boy, you really screwed that one up, didn’t you?

Okay, enough small talk. I really didn’t think we’d make it through the decade. I mean, how many times can one person watch the Yankees win the World Series without taking his own life in the most disgusting manner possible? It’s just not fair! Spread the wealth a little bit, huh? The Red Sox and Cubs and White Sox haven’t won in over 80 years. You would think that at least one of them could win, even if only by accident!

(Though I’m not sure, but some of those Yankees looked to be on some sort of chemical substance that helps athletes perform at a higher level unnaturally. Hmm, well, I’m sure I’m just being paranoid. The increase in offense can most likely be attributed to better training and keeping the baseballs in a humidor.)

Seriously, I can’t take it anymore! For the sake of my health and my sanity, I am hereby renouncing my allegiance to the Red Sox. I know that I do that every year, but this time, I mean it! What more do I have to give? How can one fan be so unlucky?

[Disclaimer: In the event of an ownership change and comeback from 3-0 playoff series deficit, all claims, decrees, and statements regarding allegiances are to be rendered null and void.]

Look at my track record: I follow the Red Sox – 82 years without a title. Oh, but hey, they always make sure to get our hopes up before dashing them, so that's nice.

Then there’s the Patriots – oh, that’s a real treat. They make the Super Bowl only as a punching bag for the eventual winners. And they hired a guy who resigned as head coach of the New York Jets at his introduction press conference! Oh, yeah, that instills confidence. I give him two years, tops! And didn’t this guy fail in Cleveland?

I will admit, I don’t know what the Celtics are doing these days since I won’t watch current games, but choose to pop in old videotapes of the "Big Three" from the 80’s into my VCR instead. I wish there were some channel on television that showed classic sports events from the past just to protect me from having to witness such a monumental fall from greatness.

Oh, and lest I forget, the one chance I had to pick a team on my own, one that would be mine through thick and thin – I was born in Boston so I was forced into that family – I had to go out and accept Syracuse University’s offer to attend college there. And what happened the night I sent them my enrollment letter? They become the first No. 2 seed to lose to a No. 15 seed in the NCAA tournament. If that’s not a bad sign, I don’t know what is.

It’s gotten to the point where I’m considering going to grad school just to have another team to root for. Maybe I’ll go to Notre Dame. They’re a lock to be great every year!

Aside from my own miserable fortune, there are some things around the sports landscape that have caught my eye. For instance, I’ve been very impressed with Tiger Woods. I mean, this guy is perfect at everything. Does he have any flaw at all? If he does, I’m sure we’ll never see it ... on the golf course, at least.

On the tennis courts, I enjoyed watching Agassi play his guts out in the last few tournaments, especially during his Australian Open win over Yegev -- Yevgev -- Yagenvy – uh, over Kafelnikov. Andre was amazing! He played like a meth addict out there.

And I think now that the Rams have won in St. Louis, it would be hilarious if the Baltimore Ravens would win the Super Bowl. (Take that Los Angeles and Cleveland!) But they’ve got Trent Dilfer at quarterback and we all know from last year that offense ... wins ... championships!

Not that I’m big into the whole college football scene, but I gotta say that this BCS system really seems to be taking hold. I think the powers that be finally got things right. I love the fact that virtually any team with a reasonably decent record can claim a share of the national title.

All right, that’s all I got. Enjoy New Year’s Eve in this hopeless town with hopeless teams. Just remember, tomorrow is another year and with it, more hope for a positive outcome. You know what they say, “You can’t spell hopeless, without hope.” (Or is it “Hope is halfway to hopeless?”)

Oh, and give it a couple of months. Maybe Becky will forget what you did.

Yours truly,

You