I think we've established that ESPN should have reported on Ben Roethlisberger's lawsuit last week, and that we've all moved on. Well apparently the Sports Reporters haven't. The civil suit was the opening topic on the show over the weekend, and it sparked a war of words between, Mitch Albom (Detroit Free Press) and Bill Rhoden (NY Times). Tom Jones of TampaBay.com took notes....

ESPN's Sports Reporters got a little testy Sunday when Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom and New York Times columnist Bill Rhoden got into an argument about Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger who is being accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting a woman. The argument essentially started because Rhoden came off highly critical of Roethlisberger. Albom, who made a point of saying he didn't know whether Roethlisberger was guilty, brought up the possibility that the allegations are false, saying, "There are many women who make false claims.''

To which Rhoden said: "Many? Name five.''

Albom said, "You sound as if you already presume he has already done this.''

Rhoden: "I'm presuming he put himself in a bad position.''

Jones notes that Mike Lupica then pulled the reins in on the argument, and the topic was quickly switched (presumably to Brett Favre). It's actually a bit ironic that ESPN decided to ignore the fact the whole week, and then when it's finally brought up in a debating format, the kibosh was quickly put on the topic. To say ESPN's stance and reporting on this has been schizophrenic, is an understatement.

Shooting from the Lip/Monday edition (TampaBay.com)

This is just about the toughest argument in the history of Sports, but Charles Barkley knows where he stands. The AZ Central asked Chuck about the careers of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, and while you'd think someone who played against Jordan in his prime would pick "His Airness", Barkley decided to throw a curveball....

On Tiger Woods missing the cut at the British Open:

"It bothers me right now that people make such a big deal out of that. He missed one other cut in a major, and that was after his dad died. So that doesn't really count. And to go 13 years and miss one cut in the majors has to be one of the most remakrable achievements out there. That's really impressive. And it shows you the stupidity of certain people who are questionging him. I'll bet every pro has missed 10 or more cuts. but it just shows you the double standard. Some of those guys have probably missed 25 cuts. This is really his first one, and when I talk to him, I'll tell him, 'Bro, you're probably down and have the red ass right now, but to go 13 years and only miss one cut, that's one of your major accomplishments. You're talking about the world's hardest golf courses, and to go 13 years and only miss one cut is remarkable."

On who's more impressive, Tiger or Michael Jordan:

"I think Tiger is more impressive. He has to play against 130 guys or more every week. He can't control what other people are doing. He can only do his thing. They're the two greatest athletes I've seen in my generation. For me, it's cool to have competed against Michael and watched Tiger in his prime."

That's a tough one to answer, and Charles makes a couple of great points, but I would call it a dead heat. Michael Jordan was flat out unbeatable from age 23 to 33 (minus the attempt at Baseball), and Tiger just turned 33 himself. My personal view is that Tiger is starting his decline at the same time as Jordan's, and now that he has an injury to wrestle with and a growing family, winning might not be everything. Still though, it's a great topic to debate.

Sir Charles Speaks (AZ Central)

With the O's on an off-night last evening, I decided to watch the Nationals-Astros game. After watching the Nats squander about five runs, and blow a three run lead in the sixth, I decided to turn it off. Luckily, I had that option, but Nationals announcer Rob Dibble didn't, and he made sure the viewing audience knew that.

Dibble spoke with Ray Knight on the post game show after the loss, and not only called the team tough to watch, but even accused players of "mailing it in". Via DC Sports Bog....

"Well, I've seen it all year," Dibble said. "You have a team that came off a 102-loss season....Guys just aren't getting to balls, they're not trying, they're not diving, and more importantly, guys aren't calling them out....

"Listen, our guys aren't doing as well as the other team," he continued. "They need to be playing a lot harder than they are. What I'm saying is, it's not so much mailing it in physically, but mentally, some of these guys, they're happy after a ball game when they get their butts whipped, they're happy and smiling like it's funny when they're getting beat in day in and day out and embarrassed on that field. I know Manny Acta and I know these coaches are busting their butts to get the most out of these guys, but the players, they don't expect that out of each other in that locker room. That's what I'm saying.

"Somebody needs to point a finger in there and say, 'Enough's enough. You guys are on my team, you've got to go out there and back me up.' John Lannan deserved better out of his bullpen, he deserves better defensively, and he definitely damn well deserves better offensively after what he's done the last six outings on a bad ballclub....So for me to watch a guy like John Lannan, who I think has a huge heart, and he goes out there, he never mails it in, I think there's a lot of guys who should apologize to him."

Obviously I'm not able to agree, because I've been to one Nats game all year (against the O's), but as Ray Knight pointed out later in the talk....when you have 90 errors at the All-Star break AND a .298 winning percentage....something has to change. It's refreshing to hear an announcer tell the truth on-air, but if I were Rob Dibble, I'd watch my back. People who are bash their employer like that usually don't last too long.

You can also watch the video here, if you'd like.

Rob Dibble on the Nats: "It's Pathetic" (DC Sports Bog)

There are certain monikers that stick with a team/player, and every time you hear some one utter the phrase, it makes you think of them and them alone. One of the more famous ones, "America's Team" has been associated with the Dallas Cowboys since 1979, and one that's unmistakable. Well that is until ESPN gets their hands on it. The "Leader" posted an article yesterday titled "The Great Debate: 'America's Team'", and is trying to make cases for the Pittsburgh Steelers, Green Bay Packers and New England Patriots (!), as the heirs to the title. Seriously....

It's time to rescind the Cowboys' honor and turn it over to the Patriots. The Cowboys are known for wanton spending and attention-mongering with zero results. The Patriots are widely regarded as the NFL's most efficiently run organization. Their owner, Robert Kraft, was a season-ticket holder who aspired to buy the team one day -- and did. The American dream and capitalism all in one.

What's more, the Patriots were formed in Boston, a.k.a. "The Cradle of Liberty" and crucible for the American Revolution.

They were an original member of the American Football League, which is celebrating its golden anniversary this year.

They changed their name to New England to reflect their meaning to a region where Pilgrims landed. Some teams, such as Minnesota and Arizona, claim a state. The Patriots claim six.

The Patriots wear red, white and blue. When they score, Minutemen line up behind the end zone and fire their muskets into the air.

They're loved. They're despised. They give a nation of sports fans plenty to talk about. They win.

They're called the Patriots, for crying out loud.

What's more American than all of that?

The thing that's so dumb about this isn't just that they've had the term since the 70s, but rather that they're just using Football teams. Shouldn't you consider the Yankees (perhaps more fans out there), the Red Wings (the American working man's team), and/or the Celtics?

As much as I hate the Cowboys, that nickname is theirs and theirs alone.

The Great Debate: 'America's Team' (ESPN)

I've had back and forths with people on Twitter, but I've never had a fight with someone. In fact, I didn't really know it was something that went down on a regular basis. Well, ESPN's Rob Neyer decided to combine a Twitter feed and a column to attack Rob Dibble, and the analyst decided that he need to respond via the social networking platform....

Rob Neyer: "Really, I just wanted an excuse to write about Rob Dibble. For years, I was less than a fan of his work at various networks. So you can imagine my shock, when I realized that I sort of like him in his current role with the Nationals. Yes, he's still a blowhard who believes that if you didn't play the game, you don't know anything about it. But he's got a good voice, he's quite a bit smarter than you probably think, and he's not been pulling his punches while the Nationals have become the biggest joke in the game."

Rob Dibble: "It's funny to have college dropout Rob Neyer transcribe MASN broadcasts*, hey Rob, I've got a leaky roof, can you come over and fix it? lol"

"The fact that Neyer and Keith Law have HOF votes proves writers should no longer have the right to vote..."

Well then. I understand that journalists fight with each other from time to time, but that's taking it a bit too far on both ends. The funny thing about Twitter, is that certain people almost act like people won't see what they write. Until you know how to use a technology, it's best to be a tad more careful. What you don't know, could really get you in trouble.

Twitter Fight! (Federal Baseball)
Nats Dunn Can't Fight City Hall (ESPN)

Every year I take great pride in picking apart the Madden player ratings, and this year's crop of scores is pretty darn interesting. The biggest shock has to be Nnamdi Asomugha in a tie as the top defensive player with Albert Haynesworth), Polamalu and Ed Reed, but there are certainly a lot more to debate as well. Two to discuss are Donovan McNabb being higher than Philip Rivers, and DeAngelo Williams tied for the third best RB ahead of Portis, Jackson and Gore. Here are the top ten for each position....

Quarterbacks:

1. Peyton Manning- 99
2. Tom Brady- 98
3. Drew Brees- 97
4. Kurt Warner- 94
5. Ben Roethlisberger- 93
6. Donovan McNabb- 91
7. Philip Rivers- 88
8. Carson Palmer- 87
8. Jay Cutler- 87
8. Tony Romo- 87

Running Backs:

1. Adrian Peterson- 97
2. Michael Turner- 95
3. LaDainian Tomlinson- 94
3. Brian Westbrook- 94
3. DeAngelo Williams- 94
6. Clinton Portis- 93
7. Steven Jackson- 92
8. Frank Gore- 91
9. Brandon Jacobs- 90
9. Thomas Jones- 90

Wide Receivers:

1. Larry Fitzgerald- 99
2. Andre Johnson- 98
3. Steve Smith- 97
4. Randy Moss- 96
5. Reggie Wayne- 95
6. Anquan Boldin- 94
6. Roddy White- 94
8. Brandon Marshall- 92
8. Calvin Johnson- 92
10. Terrell Owens- 91

Tight Ends:

1. Tony Gonzalez- 98
2. Jason Witten- 97
3. Antonio Gates- 95
4. Chris Cooley- 91
4. Dallas Clark- 91
6. Kellen Winslow- 90 7. Heath Miller- 88 8. John Carlson- 87
9. Zach Miller- 86
9. Owen Daniels- 86

Defense:

1. Nnamdi Asomugha (CB, Oakland Raiders)- 99
1. Albert Haynesworth (DT, Washington Redskins) - 99
1. Ed Reed (S, Baltimore Ravens)- 99
1. Troy Polamalu (S, Pittsburgh Steelers)- 99
5. Patrick Willis (LB, San Francisco 49ers)- 98
5. Jared Allen (DE, Minnesota Vikings)- 98
5. DeMarcus Ware (LB, Dallas Cowboys)- 98
8. Kevin Williams (DT, Minnesota Vikings)- 97
8. Ray Lewis (LB, Baltimore Ravens)- 97
8. Julius Peppers (DE, Carolina Panthers)- 97

Madden '10 Ratings (ESPN Video Games)

I love discussions of completely different eras within Sports, but this might be my favorite. While many are in awe of the way Lebron James and the Cavs roll through the Playoffs, there's one person who doesn't seem that impressed. That person is former Cavs Center, and current ESPN Nascar analyst, Brad Daugherty. Brad conducted an interview with his own employer, for an ESPN Media website called the Water Cooler, and had this to say about King James....

“It’d be very difficult matching up and defending LeBron, much like the problems we had to guard Michael Jordan,” said Daugherty, whose teams were eliminated from the NBA playoffs multiple times by Jordan’s Chicago Bulls. “LeBron continues to groom his outside shot, being able to make 15 to 18-footers, and that’s what’s making the difference in him being the player he is today as opposed to the player he was three years ago.

“If we played them, and he started making 18-foot shots consistently, he’d be a problem. But I think we could have altered some of his shots, and we could have thrown a couple of really top-notch defenders at him. Larry Nance could guard out on the perimeter, he could guard a 3 or a 4, and “Hot Rod” Williams was an excellent defender. When you got past them to go to the basket, the game was still on because they could come from behind you and block your shot.”

“LeBron offers all kinds of problems for anyone who has to guard him, but I think with our basketball team, especially if we had Ron Harper, there’s just no way that they could have matched up with us to stop our offense because we were too efficient,” Daugherty said. “But like I said, it’s ok for me to sit here now and say this.”

The Cavs teams of the late 80s were pretty strong defensively, but there was not a person like Lebron in the NBA back then. It is a good debate though, because Daugherty's supporting cast was definitely better offensively than Lebron's. I'm still thinking Lebron would go for 40, 12 and 8, and the current Cavs would win in six games, but I'm rooting for any team that has Mark Price on it.

LeBron vs. ESPN’s ex-Cav Brad? Let the Debate Begin! (Water Cooler)

I personally think that both Bert Blyleven and Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame, but unfortunately that's probably not going to happen for one of them. Well that person is Blyleven, and the current Twins announcer has something to say about it....

Again, I don't think Jack Morris pitched enough to qualify, but both Bly and Schil definitely deserve to be in. It must be gut wrenching to be on the cusp like that and never get in.