March Madness

My knowledge of college basketball is zip, zero, nada. I don't even realize that college hoops has started until the NCAA tournament starts.

I am so comfortable with my lack of NCAA hoops knowledge that I don't even bother with the brackets anymore.

I do, however, enjoy the tournament. I love the win or go home feeling of every game. It doesn't matter what you did all season long, its what you do these two weeks.

Why do I love the tournament so much?

The upsets baby!! and watching these kids play their hearts out for the pure love of the game. Sure, they know all of the NBA scouts are watching, but for 99% of these kids, this is it.

The problem I have with the tournament is that it is broadcasted on a one channel network, CBS.

If you watched the coverage over the weekend you know exactly what I am talking about. If not here are a few examples:

1. While 13 seed Siena is upsetting 4 seed Vanderbilt, we get to watch 1 seed UNC play horse against 16 seed Mount St. Mary's. The only reason CBS should have had cameras on that game was just in case MSM took a lead, other than that, show highlights.

2. While 1 seed Memphis and 8 seed Mississippi State are locked in a great battle, CBS decides to go to the tip of UNC-Arkansas.

3. Someone in the production booth had a trigger finger. They tried so hard to bring us all the action, that at one point, they kept switching from game to game only to switch over when there was no action.

All you heard was Gumble saying let's take you over to X or let's take you over to Y.

Someone at CBS management must have gotten sick from all the flipping because eventually it stopped.

The way I see it: When the current contact expires, the NCAA should only consider networks with multiple programing channels, such as NBC, ABC/ESPN, or FOX, so we, the viewers, are not at the mercy of Bryant Gumble and the bumbling producers at CBS.

Follow up to Russian Roulette - Death Sentence!

The Lead Singer read the previous blog and came up with a great argument/thought.

Even though this medical study dealt with combating the aids epidemic in Africa, we cannot think of one instance, when dealing with a life and death disease, the test included a plesebo.

What sense does including a pleseabo in this type of study really mean anyway? Either the gel/drug works or it doesn't.

If you had cancer and some Doctor/company had a drug that could help you, do you think they would give you a plecebo? No they wouldn't.

Yes, a plecebo works in non-life threatening studies such as migraines but not with the HIV!!

Why didn't they just give all the women the Gel that might protect them?? Such fools.

Also, how did they decide who got the real gel and who got the plecebo?

Crazy man, crazy.

The way the Lead Singer sees it: Its a very inhumane way to have a test. Your basically giving 50% of these people a death sentence.

The way I see it: Think how shitty your life must be if you A. Sign up for a test that puts your life in danger and B. You only have a 50% chance of getting the gel that might work.