Sampson Should Have Called Indiana -- On The Clue Phone

In a way, Indiana got exactly what it wanted out of Kelvin Sampson.

In fact, it got that in a lot of ways. Hoosier Nation got highly sought-after recruits, such as Eric Gordon. They got a return to national prominence, with a Top 20 ranking throughout the season and a serious chance at a Big Ten championship. They got -- eventually -- the coach many of them really wanted, Dan Dakich, after Sampson agreed to a $750,000 buyout in the wake of an NCAA investigation alleging illegal phone contact with recruits.

And, most of all, they got a chance to put on very public display how much they pretend to care about other things besides winning.

Part of the reason that Hoosier fans loved Bob Knight so much is that he did just enough to give people a reason to believe that he was a decent, upstanding citizen who was just misunderstood. That’s all they ever asked of a coach who won three national championships. (If you don’t believe me, just ask Mike Davis, who had exactly the same surly, selfish personality with more restraint and still didn’t last more than a couple graduating classes.)

Everyone knew Sampson was a cheater at Oklahoma; heck, he ran to Bloomington in a failed attempt to avoid NCAA sanctions. Indiana hired him anyway, without a second thought, because deep down they only care about winning, just like they always have.

When he got caught cheating again at Indiana, the fans pretended to be mortified, much like the wife of a philanderer who doesn’t care about her husband’s exploits until they become public knowledge, at which point she puts on a very good show of emotional distress for anyone who will listen.

Not that Sampson’s crimes were all that great. Too many phone calls to recruits? This is now a fireable offense? One of the babbling bubbleheads on the Big Ten network made a very poignant Freudian slip when he inadvertently referred to “NCAA instigators” (when he meant to say “NCAA investigators”) while discussing the issue.

If Sampson was even a marginally sympathetic figure, this would be held high as yet another example of the NCAA’s overbearing dictatorship. But he isn’t, and because of that no one in Bloomington or through the Big Ten is going to miss him.

And if Hoosier Nation were a sympathetic figure, I might be signing on to this blog to cry that there’s not necessarily anything wrong with just wanting to win. That is, as long as you’re at least honest about it. Which Indiana isn’t. Never has been. And the loathing of the Hoosiers carries on to yet another regime.

Sports Notes, 2/10/08: Brief Break From Hibernation Edition

-- Pitchers and catchers report on Thursday, Feb. 14, Valentine's Day, which is fitting since that's a day that's always been made for -- ahem -- pitchers and catchers.

-- But all kidding aside, baseball is huge because we're at a serious lull in the Chicago sports scene. The Blackhawks and Bulls are losing regularly, I'm getting sick of talking about Illinois' lack of senior leadership and inability to hit free throws, and Nortwestern and DePaul aren't going to be relevant for a long, long time.

-- Brian Urlacher has neck surgery the other day. The weight of carrying that team must have finally gotten to him.

-- Mike Huckabee is the George Mason of the presidential Final Four, except for the part where people liked George Mason.

-- Quitting on his kids in the middle of the season was the final selfish act in the selfish career of the most selfish man to ever coach a college basketball game, Bob Knight.

-- And don't tell me about his extraordinary acts of kindness. Among truly kind people, those acts are ordinary.

Barack The Vote

I’m not going to make a point of veering off into politics in the space very often. But the presidential race is more important than any athletic contest, and we do have two Democratic candidates with strong ties to Chicago, and our local teams certainly aren’t giving me anything to write about, and the Illinois primary is on Tuesday, so here goes.

My vote goes to Barack Obama, and around here I’m not the only one. Obama had my vote sealed up from the day that he announced his candidacy, solely on the fact that he’s running for president as a senator from Illinois. That’s where I live and where my whole base of operations is, so I figure it can’t possibly hurt to have a president who plays politics here.

Similarly, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Park Ridge native, lost my vote way back in 2000 when she turned her back on my home state to run for the Senate from New York. Until then I always had a slightly positive opinion of Clinton, and likely still would if she had waited until the next Senate opening in her home state in 2004 (which, in a delicious twist, would have relegated Obama to an also-ran in that race, preventing the groundswell that now threatens her campaign). I also would have forgiven her for turning away from Illinois to run from Arkansas, where she clearly has true political ties. But she cherry-picked a state purely to further her own political career, and it makes me wonder what other constituencies she’s willing to sell out.

If the candidates had no geographic ties and I had to pick purely on the campaigns, I’d probably still turn to Obama, or perhaps John Edwards until he dropped out of the race. I’ve been very turned off by Clinton’s hardball tactics, legalistics and willingness to jettison the spirit of fair play even if she technically has played within the rules.

Now, I realize that there are men who do these things, too. Sometimes it turns me off when they do it. Of course, it didn’t stop me from voting for Hillary’s husband twice, but you know what? That guy was hilarious. He just made people feel good about themselves, and that’s why people gave him a free pass. It’s entirely unfair, but it’s human nature and it’s truly not a gender issue. There are women (Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Pelosi, maybe even ol’ Christie Whitman) who also have the personality to play hardball and get a free pass if they chose to do so, and there are men (Dennis Kucinich, Mike Huckabee, me) who don’t. Hillary Clinton happens to be a woman who doesn’t have that personality.

Are there better reasons to pick a presidential candidate? I sure hope so. I know this much, though: Race and gender are not among them. I would never vote for Obama just because he’s black, and I would never vote against him for it, either. Similarly, while I would never vote against Clinton just because she’s a woman, I wouldn’t vote for her just because she’s a woman either.

The press has not quite caught wind of this, incessantly telling us about the voting patterns of every single demographic group. I’m sure there’s a Latino guy out there somewhere rolling his eyes heavenward and asking if there can please be a way for him to vote for Clinton just because he happens to like her better, just as surely as I wonder if there is any possible way I can vote for Obama without somehow inadvertently voting against all womankind.

It would be nice to separate the two leading Democratic candidates on the issues. Ideologically, though, Clinton and Obama are basically the same candidate. Maybe that’s why it made me sad that Edwards dropped out of the race.

Now, John Edwards was never going to be president. The thing is, we’ve already had John Edwards as president. His name was Jimmy Carter, and even though everybody really likes him after the fact, it just didn’t work out.

Until the votes are cast on Tuesday, there’s no way to know for sure who will benefit from Edwards dropping out. But Edwards had a lot of really important things to say, so he should have a voice in the discussion. And unlike Carter, who ended up best serving the people in the private sector through Habitat for Humanity, I get the sense that Edwards could best serve through government, most likely as a member of the Cabinet. He may even be worthy of a Cabinet position that actually matters, like Secretary of State or Attorney General, so that he will have not only his voice but also some executive-style teeth behind it.

If I were an undecided Democratic voter, I’d be very tempted to give my vote to whichever candidate seemed more likely to include Edwards in their administration. And if I were Barack Obama, with no ties to any other key Democrats and the freedom to put any Cabinet position in play, I’d call Edwards and say name your price in exchange for your support.

Democrats also should be very mindful of picking the candidate who has the best chance to win the general election. That candidate is Obama, especially now that Republicans are pulling their heads out of their asses and leaning toward John McCain, the only candidate left who has any credible claim of being mainstream.

Obama would beat McCain in a landslide, because there are Republicans -- and lots of ’em -- who are ready to vote for a Democrat in 2008, see Obama as a good excuse to do so, and are hoping against hope that Democrats give them that opportunity. There are very few if any Republicans who feel the same way about Clinton.

And I’m not the only one who sees it that way: In the wake of Edwards’ departure from the race, I was struck by how many of his supporters expressed a preference for Obama simply because they think Clinton could not win a national election. Again, they and I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman, we think it’s because she’s Hillary Clinton.

But, the Democratic race is tight enough right now that nothing’s going to be decided for sure on Tuesday. That means your vote really does count. If you’re reading this in the Chicago area and you’d like to know who else to vote for, I like to turn to the Tribune endorsements, with one exception, the state’s attorney’s race. I think the Trib's pick, Tom Allen, seems like a good guy and all, but my good friend Lori, a Cook County prosecutor, told me that Anita Alverez would actually be the better choice. Since Lori is both in the know and very rational about these things, I’ll take her word for it. (I also like the guy who’s beholden to the casino industry, but that’s just because I really want a riverboat in Rosemont, a 20-minute Blue Line ride from my house.)

So get out and vote tomorrow, and remember that all the cool people are voting for Obama. I’m just sayin’.

Super Bowl XLII: N.Y. Giants 17, New England Patriots 14

That was the second-awesomest loss by the Patriots in Super Bowl history, because now the all-time greatest team in the NFL is still your beloved 1985 Chicago BEARS!

Commit To Keeping Your Mouth Shut

The Blackhawks may have dodged a bullet last week when they briefly considered -- and wisely rejected -- the slogan “Commit to the Indian”, a reference to an off-the-cuff remark by head coach Dennis Savard during a postgame tirade that followed a lackluster loss.

Many Native American mascots and images -- most notably, in these parts, Chief Illiniwek -- are being retired in a wave of cultural tolerance. The Blackhawk logo on the team’s sweater, for whatever reason, has never been targetted. The “Commit to the Indian” slogan almost certainly would be.

As regular readers know, I was a strong proponent of retiring the laughably innaccurate Chief. That being the case, some of you will find my next stance to be hypocritical. Others will find it to be treasonous. Still others will point out, very unnecessarily, that I’ve just accounted for more people than actually read this blog. But that doesn’t change the fact that I see nothing offensive about the Chief Blackhawk logo.

There are several reasons why I find the Blackhawk logo defensible. For one thing, it’s a reference to one guy -- Chief Blackhawk -- for whom all sorts of things in northern Illinois are named. Streets, schools, even the World War I army division that the original Blackhawks owner served in, all recall the legendary chief.

For another, the logo on the sweater is a dignified, reasonable likeness of that man, with no cartoonish features or glaring inaccuracies. And the connection goes no further than the Blackhawk image: There are no references to the team as a tribe, no goofy, artificial “dances” in between periods. Lastly, you could argue that a team in the brutal sport of hockey is a fitting tribute for a man who truly was a savage warrior.

Perhaps these are the reasons there have never been protests against the Blackhawks as there have been for the University of Illinois, the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves. It’s more likely that there’s never been a protest because nobody pays attention to hockey. Whatever the reason, let’s just forget that anyone ever said “Commit to the Indian” and go back to wearing our Blackhawks sweaters with pride and grace.