That's ridiculous. One guy was going for the ball with his foot, without any idea there was a player approaching. Another guy raised his foot towards the other player, when the ball wasn't even in the area.

It wasn't a "tackle" - he was trying to corral a ball with his foot without seeing another player coming in from another direction.

Wait, I take back my earlier apology. It was the Jazz announcers, which is what I meant by "hometown" announcers — the fact that the game was being played in Milwaukee is irrelevant. My point was that the Jazz announcers takeaway from the play was how exciting the young Jazz player is, and they didn't even mention…

And my point was that the Jazz announcers takeaway from the play was how exciting the young Jazz player is, and they didn't even mention the Bucks player who made an amazing block.

Umm, I was hacked? Yeah, that's the ticket.

Love the hometown announcers, whose big takeaway from the play was how exciting a player Burks is, and how he's not intimidated by shot blockers. Sanders himself isn't even an afterthought.

I didn't say his article wasn't subject to criticism - I said the opposite in my very first sentence. Rather, I said that it was strange that his history with and contribution to this website weren't acknowledged, and that the omission made the article seem more like a vendetta than it otherwise might have.

Bobby Big Wheel's article is certainly subject to legitimate criticism. But its a little weird to see the article treat Mr. Wheel as just another random idiotic internet commenter, without acknowledging that Bobby Big Wheel has contributed a hell of a lot more quality content to deadspin than Mr. Eifling ever has.

And the chain continues . . .

Yes, who cares about two great buzzer beaters in a single game? Not me! Why is a sports website wasting time with interesting sports highlights?

We have two choices here:

Ryan Gosling is NOT a star, amiright Bill?

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.

Look, this is all ancient history - the teams split the polls that year, and nothing you or I say will change that. But to suggest that Michigan came as close to losing the Washington State game as Nebraska came to losing the Missouri game is just ludicrous.