Intro

I love the idea of this blog because there is very little doubt in my mind that my opinions are going to greatly differ from everyone else's on this blog. Unlike the rest of you, I did not grow up in New York City. I grew up in the South - Dallas to be exact. At the age of 18 I moved to LA to go to USC. I have graduated and still live in the Los Angeles area. I root for the Cowboys, Rangers, Stars, and Mavericks. And those are not the same Rangers you guys root for.

Before I start ranting, and I must warn all, I am prone to rant, I would also like to say that I am a numbers guy. I love numbers and I try to analyze them as much as I can. Saying that, I am not a supporter of Billy Beane. I think the time to tell whether he is a great GM or not is from today on. My thinking on that is the reasons the A's have been winning for the last 5 years is because of the Big Three - Mulder, Hudson, and Zito. He drafted none of them. So why doesn't the guy who drafted them go no credit? My guess is as good as yours. In my mind Beane inherited what made the A's win. Now is the time to really judge him. Not after a book where he made himself seem like a God. Nonetheless, his theories interest me and I do agree with a lot of them. I love what Depodesta did when he signed Derek Lowe. He straight up said, I signed Lowe because his numbers are perfect for Dodgers Stadium. Lowe is a pitcher who doesn't walk people and does not give up a lot of doubles and triples. He does give up a lot of home runs. Dodger Stadium is a doubles and triples park that takes away the home runs. This signing was pure off the numbers and I want to see how it turns out. Lowe may fail, or he might give up more doubles and triples than before, but it will be interesting to see his numbers at the end of the season compared to his numbers in past years.

I'm white and I believe that race no longer has much of an impact on anything, especially in the sports world.

Barry Bonds constantly digs himself into holes. He says stupid shit that angers others. His quote from Wed. when he said, "I'm 40 years old. I'm not 20 or 30 anymore." was absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, your 40 but you were 39 last year and 38 the year before that. Does it really surprise anyone, that the year he stops using steroids he gets hurt. Doesn't surprise me. I was kind of expecting it. And then shifting blame to the media. That's baloney - it's his own damn fault. I don't think him or McGwire or anyone other steroid user should make the Hall of Fame. And while I'm at it, I think Bonds, both Giambi's, Sheffield, and any other steroid user should be banned from baseball the way Pete Rose was banned from baseball, the way Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox were banned from baseball. I think that Canseco and Caminitti and Giambi and Bonds and Sheffield should lose any award they have previously won, including MVP's. This is a little of a side note, but college basketball did this once in the '70's taking away a Final Four MVP from someone. I believe Roger Maris should hold the single season home run record. I hate the argument that it wasn't cheating because steroids weren't made illegal by baseball back then. They were made illegal by the government of the United States of America, the government we all abide to. And my argument is far from a racist one against Bonds. You must remember, I graduated from USC as did Big Mac and I have always been a supporter of his, but after what he did at the hearings he should punished. What McGwire said was a disgrace. I'm not trying to punish just Bonds, I won't any and every baseball player who has used steroids banned from the game. I think if anyone other than Bud Selig was the commissioner of baseball these men would have been banned long ago.

Regarding the best athlete of all time argument, I first would like to say I have never seen a lot of those people play. But as I said earlier, I am a numbers person. Because of this I believe that Babe Ruth is the best athlete of all time. One number can explain my thinking - 60 home runs. That was more home runs that year than every other team (not player, but team) in the Major Leagues. That's right, he outhomered every team in the majors.

I love watching games on TV, but I have a soft spot for the radio. I used to sneak a radio to bed with me so I could listen to the end of Ranger games when I was little. I loved it when a game would go to extra innings - that was my childhood dream, that all games would go to extra innings and I could listen to baseball all night. I have bought the baseball package and have had it for the last two years. I love it, and I think I can fairly say I watch about 6 hours of baseball every day. But I still think there is nothing like going to a ballgame. My senior year I went to every USC football game (the first year we won a national championship). That included trips to Notre Dame and Auburn. I have now been to the Orange Bowl twice and the Rose Bowl once. I got lucky this year and the LA Angels start the year against the Rangers and I will be in attendance on opening day and the subsequent two games. There is nothing like being at a ballgame.

Regarding point guards - and I'm not a big basketball person, i think Steve Nash is the best point guard in the league. I think Jason Kidd is a great point guard, but he needs to work on his shot. I have no love for Stephon Marbury or anyone who proclaims themselves to be the best at something. Marbury, as much talent as the man has, is a loser. He has always been a loser and historically when he has left a team, they have gotten a lot better. Case in point - Timberwolves, Nets, and Suns. I know that's not the greatest argument but it's a good one. The only one it doesn't really work for is the Suns because they turned around and got Nash and Richardson. But the Nets improved over night when they swapped him for Kidd and Wolves improved over night when they shipped off Marbury for Terrell Brandon.

I'm done for now and I'm open to criticism on anything I write so feel free to attack if you wish to do so.

Combo

In addition to postings from my partnas-in-crime, I read another posting that grabbed my attention this afternoon. By the way, we spit fire around here...

Slate Magazine's Dennis Hans wrote a very intriguing, albeit fantasy, post which bridged old and new school. Old school: Oscar Robertson, one the the all-time greats in basketball history. New school: LeBron James, the young star of the rebounded Cleveland Cavaliers. Hans proposed that in the current NBA, it would be a nearly impossible task to accomplish what the Big O had done in the 1961-62 season, where he averaged a triple-double for the entire season. The only player, in his view, that could brush that record would be James. Now, you can see for yourself if you agree.

However, this post is not going to delve into Hans' thought, though I would be intrigued to see if it could really happen. I do want to write about this bridge of old school and new school. And how some folks refuse to walk across it.

A few months ago, I was fortunate enough to have read Robertson's autobiography, which while towards the end sounded slightly bitter because of the state of the game now, reminded me of a belief about sports. The arguments don't change much. For the past few years, there has been an undercurrent of backlash against several players in the NBA. There has been a widely held belief that there are few "pure" point guards and an increase of "combo" guards. "Experts" believe that successful college guards making the move to the NBA have a problem: are they point guards who can shoot or shooting guards that can pass? Though some of the same can be said for the forward position, no debate is as hot in draft rooms as with the guards.

Allen Iverson, Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury bring about some of this confusion (or to be blunt, hating). As said, though, this debate is nothing new. After all, it was really the comparison between Robertson and Hall-of-Fame guard Bob Cousy that brought this on.

When Robertson was drafted by the Cincinnati Royals (your Sacramento Kings of today), Bob Cousy was his biggest critic. Robertson's size at 6'5" and 220 made him a bull against opposing point and shooting guards trying to defend him. On defense himself, players were forced to think a little more about how to move around him. Should I use quickness? Damn, he just stole the ball from me!... Should I move to the outside? I can't see over him!... Cousy was in his final season, and his farewell tour was riddled with comments about Oscar, very few positive. Cousy was in the mold of the "pure" point guard. Pass, pass, pass... consider taking the shot... pass some more... take the shot... pass. He was more crafty than gifted, but he is one of the most successful players in history. Having Bill Russell at center and Red Aurebach as coach helped, too.

Robertson played both guard positions in his first few seasons, mostly because the team's talent was lacking and management was inconsistent. In face-to-face contest, Robertson won those battles, but the Celtics usually won the war. As time passed and Cousy stepped back from the game, he began to not only respect Oscar's game, but respect the revolution. No longer were shooting duties resting with the shooting guard, small forward and center (power forwards rebounded and played enforcer for the centers). Now, defenses had to truly think of how to play against this "combo" guard.

Fast forward to this season where Stephon Marbury declared himself the best point guard in the NBA. As expected, he was scoffed at by pretty much everyone. Mitch Lawrence of the New York Daily News decided to interject himself by interviewing Cousy a day later. Cousy, as does most, feels that this distinction goes to a healthy Jason Kidd. Kidd, being a creator with the pass, quick hands-wise and a strong team defender, follows this mold of "purity".

Though his game has never changed from Dallas to Phoenix to New Jersey, it is only because of the Nets' recent rise that has prompted many to anoint him the best PG and purest in the game. Other point guards that go into this mold for some are Mike Bibby and Andre Miller. However, Cousy did say that though Marbury is a "combo", he is a future Hall-of-Famer.

Basketball fans stand on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to "combo" players. Most have a negative view because the player that leads the offense has the skill to shoot/score(except _ason Kidd). Negative views also stem from the idea of "pure". However, many appreciate the idea of the floor general having the skills to have more than six points plus six assists. Robertson was as much of an evolution of guard play as Wilt Chamberlain was for centers. A new body for a new game. What's exactly the problem with that? There should be no debate. "Pure" point guards work with certain teams as "combos" with others. The only question at the end of the day is who do they have to face for the next game.

In the fourth quarter, with 5 seconds left, who would you want with the ball? If the best scorer is your center, give it to him/her where (s)he needs it. If your best shooter is your forward, give him/her the wings to make his/her magic. If your best scorer or shooter happens to be 6'2" and already has eight assists, let the fun begin.

Sports Ramblings...

9th wonder here.

I do not really have a specific issue to address in the world of sports at this moment. But I do have several issues I would love to comment on. Like the notoriousjtb said, these are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. Feel free to love them or hate them.

On the front page of ESPN.com there is an article devoted to West Virgina player Mike Gansey. As you all know from my first post I attend St. Bonaventure University. Gansey was a part of the team that voted to not play the final two games of the 2002-2003 season. That season of course involved the scandal with Jamil Terell who was not eligible to play for the Bonnies. Welding certificates, national ridicule...you know the rest of the story.

I'm glad to see that he is doing well and I'm glad to know that he still talks to former teammates from Bonaventure.

And I'm even happier that he said that he does not regret the decision he made.

The players were right for doing what they did. Their job is to play basketball with the idea that the university is looking out for them and their interests. The university did not hold up their end of the bargain so the players don't have to hold up theirs.

Usually I like to debate and hear other opinions on this issue, but I'm right on this one. No question about it.

What do people mean when they say "playing the game the way it was meant to be played"? I didn't realize that there wasn't any room for expansion and/or change. I guess critics of the NBA would still have players shooting two-hand jumpers, free throws underhanded, and would have the dunk banned.

Speaking of which, why are so many people critical of players who dunk a lot, but want players to shoot more high percentage shots?

The dunk is as high percentage as it gets.

This steriod issue is not going to go away for a long time, but I hope folks get one thing clear: steriods was not illegal in baseball until last year. You can't change the past, but you can fix the present and possibly the future. Get over it.

By the way, since everyone has been getting on Barry Bonds back about this steriod thing (which he says he "mistakenly" took in 2000, which means that if he was on the cream it was for only 3 plus years...He's STILL a hall of famer excluding those years), I would like to point out that last season, when the policy was implemented, these were Bonds's numbers: .362, 45 HR's, 101 RBI's, and 232 walks.

He is the greatest baseball player of this era. Face it.

Am I the only one who sees the blatant racism in last night's sportsnation poll question? (Would baseball be better off without Barry Bonds?)

Here's a quote by Dan Shanoff from the Page 2's Daily Quickie, which sums up my feelings on Bonds: "...when the media can break the will of someone as strong as Bonds, that's a unique achievement -- and not something to be proud of. Congratulations! We've driven the era's best baseball player out of the game."

I could not have said it better myself.

Experience

The first live game I had ever attended was in 1992. It was a Labor Day affair between the Mets and the Giants. The Straw Man makes his return to Queens as a member of the Giants after a contentious time with the Mets. The Mets, themselves, were World Series contenders... until the season began and they lost 90 games. A seemingly anti-climatic game since both teams were going nowhere at the end of the month turned out to be a back-and-forth thriller that the Amazins' pulled out with a Howard Johnson blast.

Considering that kids who attended the game received free Mets binders, I was pretty happy. Considering that security allowed ten or twelve children and adults into Shea Stadium with chicken and sodas (take that, concessions!), I had more reason to smile.

Considering that the Mets won to save face, I was pleased.

Being that this was the first time I had ever attended a sporting event outside of Castle Hill Houses' summer basketball tournament, I was amazed at how many people were in attendance, even if there were more empty seats than filled. I was entralled by how huge the field was, even more because we sat in nosebleed seats so high, you could touch the planes taking off from nearby LaGuardia Airport. Most of all, I was in the zone as soon as that home run apple in the right field bleachers rose and lit up. Thankfully, it still does.

So, why do I appreciate the television experience more?

Radio is dead, says some pundits who are peddling their opinions on the Web (like ourselves). Of course, I disagree somewhat since radio proved to be vital in the most dire emergencies of the last few years as well as a staple in music, but it isn't necessarily the most visible media these days. Radio actually meant something to me in the early nineties. Growing up without cable for a huge portion of my life, I can remember trying to adjust the antenna when a Knicks or Rangers game would come on. I listened to the Stanley Cup finals for four years so that I can keep a strong overall knowledge of the major sports. In elementary and junior high school, I was not the most popular, but I was the sports encylopedia of the class. Yet, the one year radio struck a chord was in 1994.

The Knicks are in the NBA Finals against the Houston Rockets while the Rangers and Vancouver Canucks battled for Lord Stanley's silver. The Yankees were a hot team, though the strike prevented the Montreal Expos from spanking them in the World Series. And New York football was... well, there... The NBA Finals were on NBC, meaning that watching was religion. The widely-loved A.C. Cowlings and some cat named O.J. were about to become infamous during Game 5. As much as I remember those moments, I remember listening intently to Game 6 at the Garden as the Rangers were on their way to their first title in 54 years. Even if it is a white (Canadian) sport, everyone in the City was cheering. My radio was on blast as the Cup was clinched. And the projects never seemed so unified as people chanted "Go, New York, go New York, go" to remind the Knicks to do their part.

So why do I still rever the television experience?

I can't actually recall moment-by-moment the first time I watched a game on television. I do, however, remember watching highlights of Super Bowl XXIII between the 49ers and the Bengals. My father, who used to play semi-pro football with many eventual NFL and college stars in the late 50s and 60s, would point out each play. He was his own illustrator of the already completed piece, showing the deceptive form of the offensive lines, the calculated passing and the single-motion defense. Though from here on out, I was forever a Niners fan, I began to pay much attention to every game thereafter on a bit more than a casual fan's psyche. The presentation of the game from the broadcasters drew me in, either enjoying it or wanting to bumrush the network because of a stupid comment. Camera angles and replays, instant graphics detailing the scores and random (many times, pointless) stats, collections of older games. Television drew me in, allowing me to see what I wanted to see.

It's not that I think that television is better than seeing a game live or listening while on the road. It's the dominant medium to tell the story when not in person, but can be shaped so terribly that you wish you were standing outside the stadium instead of watching. Because you can't see radio waves, this too leads people to TV. I see television broadcasts as meaningful only because of one thing... $$$.

Yes, the TV contracts are insane and there seem to be few game enough to invest. But for those of us that cannot afford to go to the game, it's the only real means. For those of us who rather save on concessions and not have anything spilled on you, television proves to be beneficial. Yet, we want to be there live, being our own commentators.

I am curious to see what people prefer when it comes to being in the game. Yet, I am also curious on means to make each experience more worthwhile. While I enjoy attending games, I'd love to see the television product improved. How about you?

The Difference

Since we started this blog, I had been thinking of what my first official post would discuss. Where as baseball and the NCAA tournament are fighting for centerstage while the NBA is winding down, I thought that maybe a specific sport should not be the focus. But in the introduction post, the idea was born.

When it's said that sports athletes, players and figures* lose their luster, I always ask back to the TV to whom exactly?

Well, the "to whom" part is not what I had in mind. But the asterisk? Ah, what the heck does he mean, you ask?

My generation (the twentysomethings born in the early 1980s) have dissected and soaked in every debate there is about the best in sports across generations. After all, unlike seeing Bill Russell's eleven championship dominance, we had Michael Jordan. Instead of Babe Ruth and after Hank Aaron, we have Barry Bonds. For as long as I can remember, debates ensued about who is truly the greatest athlete of all time. This question always seemed a bit strange to me. In retrospect, I see why.

Many consider Michael Jordan to be the greatest athlete in the history of basketball (and all of sports). Ask why and you'll hear about the buzzer beater shots, the six championships and Olympic medal, the MVP and Defensive Player of the Year awards, the scoring titles, etc. Yet, that would come from the fans, and with good reason. Ask the "fan" that stopped watching when Jordan retired the second time and they will say a few of the same aspects, but they will also say the marketability, the political correctness, the media-friendliness, the way he broke Knick fans hearts... sigh.

Many consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. Sure, he defeated four all time greats in Sonny Liston, Ken Norton, George Foreman and Joe Frazier, but what really makes him the greatest in the eyes of many was his bravado, his (again) media-friendliness and his highly-publicized political stances.

Some still say Babe Ruth. Though a few of us have never seen the man play, the idea that he held the sacred home run record gives enough credence. Not to mention the so-called Curse.

Folks, I'll be for real and say I don't believe any of this is true to be called the greatest athlete of all time. For one, the definition of an athlete:
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
Some have just as great a natural ability as the aforementioned, even if the success may not equal theirs. There are nothing but phenomenal athletes throughout the annals of the NBA. One can say that Julius Erving was more agile than Mike, that Dominique had greater hops, that younger players have greater bodies. But, there is something amazing about what these athletes had done.

Greatest players? Again, something to think about. In my eyes, a player is someone who is able to get in the game and stay in the game. So with the average pro sports career spanning about three years, I'd say that limits the pool much more. Yet, to be great, the player has to be savvy, has to know the nuances better than everyone else. Someone who seems to see the game before it's even played. Someone like... Ray Lewis? Greg Maddux? Pele? Mario Lemieux?

What truly separated guys like Jordan and Ali from everyone else was not the on-court/in-ring feats, but the figures they molded themselves as. They are the reasons why you pay attention outside of the game. Throw Tiger Woods in that mold thanks to his Buick endorsements. Serena Williams for her fashion. Lance Armstrong for his plight against cancer.

So, the more I think of who is the greatest athlete, the more I tend to separate between athlete, player and figure. The great athletes aren't always known, mainly because they play games that are not part of the seven biggest sports in the world (basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, tennis, cricket and American football). They are cyclists and mountain climbers, exerting their bodies through much more than what we consider. They are runners who scour the globe for 26-mile marathons year-round.

The greatest players? Well, there is no doubt in my mind that those whose names are thrown out are great players. In understanding the game better than the rest, they rightfully take their places. Barry Bonds is simply the most patient and consistent power hitter as the years have passed. Familiarity with pitchers and minimizing strikeouts have made his push for Aaron's record compelling. Even more so is that he is hitting when it matters: during a push for the playoffs. Walter Payton used to sit that extra second in the backfield before he pushed through the line of scrimmage. Heck, Patrick Roy's gambling in front of the net would be quickly neutralized with his cat-like relfexes. He dared the offense enough to frustrate, and evenutually make the save.

The greatest figures is what the masses are truly debating. A combination of athletic skill, on-court instincts and a pearly-white smile (or a bravado that invites cameras) makes a great sports figure. The people we think of just did it better than everyone else.

So who would I say is the greatest of all time in each? Again, difficult to say. Jordan had the savvy, but eleven rings for Bill Russell is still unparalled. Muhammed Ali was an unrelenting public figure, but as he once said: "You think I'm bad?!?! Jack Johnson was the baddest of them all!" The Babe was the womanizing drunk everyone loved... until he was traded to the Boston Braves at career's end. I can say that I have an idea for who are the best right now.

I think Lance Armstrong is the best athlete on Earth.
I think Ray Lewis is the best player (even if he only plays defense).
I think David Beckham is the best figure in the world.

But this is right now. In this decade. In this capsule of our generation.

Understated No More

When you're in New York, there is a great tendancy to believe that all there is to see is skyscrapers, homeless people without medication and Brooklyn. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you when I say I'm a true blue-and-orange blooded Uptowner. I grew up in the Bronx, where people don't talk it, they do it. A big part of my life has been spent in Harlem as well, being raised in the church until mid-1997 when my family finally moved there after 20+ years of the BX grind.

I lay this down because I think of this blog (as many things I delve into) as I do of the places of my upbringing. The Bronx is greatly understated: it doesn't have much when it comes to tourist-friendliness (except for Yankee Stadium and the Bronx Zoo) nor does it have much on the hype scale such as Brooklyn, Queens or Manhattan. Folks don't even joke about it as they do with Staten Island. It's to itself, with a fighting spirit that even Philly has to respect. Considering that it is essentially a big-assed housing project (and growing up in one, I can say this), there's a grain of toughness and hustle in each Bronxite.

It also helps that it is the birthplace of rap and the hip-hop culture that grew from the music. Yet, it's underrepresented when it comes to its social status amongst the boroughs and the metro region. So what the hell does this have to do with anything in this blog? Well, plenty.

The Bronx, just as Harlem, Bed-Stuy, Tottenville and South Ozone (50 Cent is soft compared to some of these cats) is underrepresented when it comes to sports media. Just as the case in North Philly or Southside Chicago or Houston or Universal City in St. Louis... West Nowhere, Wyoming, Alberquerque, northern Louisiana... get the picture, yet? When it's said that sports athletes, players and figures* lose their luster, I always ask back to the TV to whom exactly? Ratings are down: really? Quality of play has suffered: are you sure? Apparently, no one comes to ask the folks in the neighborhoods where the athletes are from and where the people religiously follow their moves.

While on the business side, it seems important for TD Waterhouse to have luxury seats and for suburbanites to glue themselves to the TV screen, folks forget who buys the jerseys year-round and watch constantly. I won't sugarcoat it and say that there isn't race involved... but the folks who play it should be able to discuss it as much as the rest. That's what this is about.

The 9th Wonder broke down his flow for this, which will be mostly from a social impact. I will partake in that as well, but also I will break down the sports business. It's more than salary caps and naming rights, it's about why those caps exist and the rights are a fundamental part of the business now (or have always been). Why did the Magic change unis two years ago? What's with the ads on the screen? That's me, baby! You'll see some breakdowns of games, players and leagues as well.

My first post will be coming soon... I'll get at you later.

*There is a difference between the three, I believe, but that is for another post.

Hello To All...

As I type this post, officially introducing myself as 9thwonder on this brand new blog, the sports world is gearing up for March Madness. I am gearing up for the upcoming baseball season and the NBA playoff push. I do not like college basketball for several reasons. I will not get into those now, but all you need to know is that I am about to graduate from St. Bonaventure University. Now it is time to move on to the purpose of this post.

When it comes to sports I tend to look at things from a social perspective more often than not. That is why I find sports so intriguing. As much as we want sports to be a diversion from everyday life, it always reflects everyday life. It is a hard thing to look at ourselves in the mirror. Sports usually forces us to do so. Racism, sexism, and discrimination and hypocrisy of all kinds will be the theme of a lot of my posts. But that's not all I will talk about. I can also break down games, trades, and things of that nature too. I will mix it up a little bit, which I feel a good writer should.

You will also see me make music refrences on "I Dunno But.." because I am a huge music fan. You will get a taste of my music prefrences through these posts also. In other words, I will be all over the place.

I love sports as much as the next person, but I feel we take it way too seriously. We need to have fun and laugh at things that we would otherwise find appalling. Some say that my sense of humor is very twisted and offensive, but it's my way of dealing with the world. I do not wish any harm towards anyone and I believe that letting out your frustrations through humor is very theraputic. People hold in what they really feel. There will be no holding back here.

I will have no problem telling you that race definitely played into the bashing of Barry Bonds (before the testimony was leaked) and the praising of Mark McGwire.

I will have no problem telling you that the NBA is better than college basketball.

I will have no problem telling you that this blog will actually be objective from time to time.

Welcome.

The Rebirth of IDB

Somehow, someway, you have come across this fairly empty blog. And also at the moment, you are wondering about the title. Finally, you are likely asking yourself "how can something be reborn if I never heard of it?". Well, I will explain as best as I can without taking too much time.

As you have learned in the past few months, the blogging community is not only a growing facet of the Internet, but also one that has made much of an impact in a quick time (notably during the recent Presidential election). As most, this blog hopes to represent a part of the world that at times is ill-represented while leveling the playing field between the mainstream and the not-so-mainstream. Though this isn't a political blog (or as many seem to be, rant-fests) or something to that effect, we feel that the genre gives more than meets the eye. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to what we hope will become one of the most respected and popular sports blogs (and soon, websites) in the world.

While we are still in development, I would like to take a few moments to explain what "IDB" is. "I Dunno, But..." was a popular college internet radio show based out of Babson College, located in suburban Boston. While there is a fascinating story to the title itself, there is an even more fascinating story to what the show was about. Where as most college students who latch onto the radio scene are looking to become mini-Howard Sterns and Bill O'Reillys, a few of us decided to bring the worlds of sports and music together in a unique way.

Over the four years that the show was broadcasted, we had developed something that seems rare nowadays in sports media (and media in general). We came up with a show that though opinions were strong and borderline ranting, was objective about all facets of the games enjoyed in America. If you turn the dial, read the papers or watch television, there are many people who are involved with the games that have a tendancy to... well, not know a damn thing. It's not just talking about how a reigning MVP shot 2-for-15 last night or how two rivals hate each other so much that even a spring training game gets major attention.

Most folks we see that discuss sports at times are forgetful (or just plain ignorant) to the facts surrounding these games and athletes. It's as if they don't respect the game. Well, we do. That is what IDB was about as a radio show. And that is what IDB is about once again, reborn as a platform to discuss what we love. What we respect more than most.

In the coming days and weeks, we will formally introduce ourselves though our posts. We are about more than stats and ridiculous hype. We will kick more than opinions because we have participated in many ways. We've not only met, but have grown up with some of the players, coaches, managers and media that have been around for quite sometime.

We can break down the business of sports to tell you why the NBA is growing, contrary to popular belief (and why steroids is nothing new - again, contrary to popular belief). And though we are all fairly young, we have a great respect and perspective on the history of the games themselves. In other words, we can break down why the names Jack Johnson and Earl Manigault should roll off of the tongue like Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan. If you think this is a manifesto, wait until we get rolling.

Welcome to IDB... stay tuned.

Brief Introduction/Test Post

"I Dunno, But..."? What the hell is that?
Well, folks, you'll know soon enough. Currently developing what will soon become one of the hottest spots on the 'Net. Trust us...