I love March Madness as much as anyone, it's my 3rd favorite holiday after Christmas and Thanksgiving... but there is no bigger waste of productivity in the workplace than the 2 weeks leading up to the start of the NFL season, otherwise known as Fantasy Football Draft Preparation.

I am in 2 fantasy football leagues...year six for my 10-team league and year four for my 12-team league. In my 10-team league, I won the championship the first 2 years (largely in part due to Duante Culpepper) and have made it to the final game in one of the other 3 years. I have the best historical record in the league.

In my 12-team league, I'm a bust. A joke. A doormat. I've made the playoffs only once-as the #1 seed and lost in the first round (to the #8 seed, so yes that tells you how many make the playoffs in that league). I present this as my background to explain the strategy that I employ which is the identical one used to select my teams in both leagues.

For the record is there anyone reading this, that doesn't participate in fantasy football (that isn't paid to write...believe me, I'd give it up for a sports writing job)? The printer at my company spit out no less than three reams of paper of material over the last month. ESPN, CBSSportsline, RotoWorld, FFToolbox, and any joker that called himself an "expert" and threw up a rankings on some random website got printed out by me or a co-worker. What is the result of all of this time, effort, tree-killing, and research?

I end up picking the guys I like and avoiding the guys I don't like. I go with my gut.

Do you know why Jay Cutler is my QB in my 10 team league? Because at the time I should have taken Ben Roethlisberger according to all the fantasy gurus, I took Calvin Johnson-even though I already had 2 top notch WRs (Colston and Welker). Why did I do this? Because even being a RedSKIN alum, I would have thrown up knowing that I needed a hated Steeler to come through for me in a real game to win a fake one. My Calvin Johnson "fantasy man-crush" notwithstanding, I feel much better about my team even though it's likely weaker than someone who is less stubborn and more unbiased.

One guy at our draft kept announcing to the room that he was taking all the guys that "no one believes in anymore" as he drafted Derek Anderson, Larry Johnson, Ronnie Brown, and Torry Holt. Why? Because they were on some list. You know what, he's right-I don't believe in any of those guys and wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole. I think he'll be picking up his team like shattered glass by the Bengals bye week.

What's my point? Do a little research. Know that LenDale White is still getting bigger in the waistline and that there's this guy Chris Johnson allegedly setting the world on fire in Tennessee, know that Kevin Curtis for the Eagles has a Chris Perry like sports hernia, but more important when it comes down to a decision: just take who you want and avoid who you don't. You'll have more fun, and hell you might just win like I have using this strategy. You might lose too. Diversify and you may do both. Ironically, I like my 12-team league team much better than my 10-team league this year...but we'll see. Critique away...

My starters in my 10-team league:

QB- Jay Cutler (backup-Garrard)

RB- Brian Westbrook, Ryan Grant (backups- Chris Johnson, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton)

WR-Colston, Welker, Calvin Johnson (backups-D. Stallworth, Devin Hester)

TE-Dallas Clark

K-Shayne Graham

DEF- Arizona or Tampa Bay

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My starters in my 12-team league:

QB-Carson Palmer (backup-Jason Campbell)

RB-Adrian Peterson, L. Maroney (backups-Deuce McAlister, Kevin Smith, Felix Jones, Brandon Jackson)

WR-Braylon Edwards, Santana Moss, Anthony Gonzales (backups- A. Toomer, DeSean Jackson)

TE-Jason Witten (backup-Ben Watson)

K-Shayne Graham

DEF- Tennessee

Is there any other major sports city with less hope than Cincinnati? Think about it. Try to think of another city with multiple professional franchises in which none of them have a glimmer of hope of making it to the sports "promise land". Can you? I can't.

I will preface this by saying that I was born in Jewish Hospital, grew up with the Big Red Machine and Kenny Anderson posters on my wall, attended Miami University, and live in the thriving metropolis of West Chester, which with the exception of those sports teams offers everything that downtown Cincinnati does. At least until the Banks project is done in 2028-ish. So I am a fan, born and bred.

Unfortunately those posters were almost the last evidence of good memories of pro sports in this town. For almost 2 decades, the closest we've been to a championship was an Al Leiter pitching performance in game #163 and a destroyed knee on the first pass of a Steeler game. I had the privilege (and pain) of attending both events.

But all I'm looking for, asking for, pleading for is hope...on the Reds front, management is begging for patience while they put their plan and players in place. I have heard this before...a few times. The fact that someone who has "done it before" is saying it, doesn't make me feel one bit better. Lots of things have been done only once.

Remember when Marvin Lewis was making as much as other head coaches just coordinating a defense because of his "guru" status? Now he can't get his defense out of the bottom 10 in the league. Sometimes, things only happen once.

Do I think Jocketty and Castellini want to win? Of course! But passion doesn't always lead to positive results. What leads you to believe they will win next year, or the year after? The team you are looking at is the team they will field for the next 3 years essentially. If they improve by 8 games a year over the next 3 years, they would still not be in first place based on the Cubs record this year.

Without Dunn, Jr. and David Ross on the books, they have almost $30 million a  year freed up in salary. Last time I checked there was no one in MLB making that much (yet), so in theory they can go after anyone right? Vlad Guerrero? Brandon Webb next year? But when you mention those names, the general public response is "Well of course we're not going to get them." I know this is true but why does it have to be? It is this mentality that is making the Reds the same as the Royals. A team who can bring up youth and talent but once they make money-there they go to playoff contenders and the Reds get more prospects to start over yet again. What does it say about your team when your highest paid player (and by a couple million) plays in about 60 innings a season? Signing the best player out of Venezuela doesn't give me hope. I hear "just wait until the offseason, there will be a couple good new signings", no one big but a couple of "solid contributors". Well I'm tired of waiting. God Bless Jay Bruce when he's playing for the Dodgers in 5 years.

As far as the Bengals, why would anyone be surprised that Chris Henry is back in stripes? What else would make you believe that the character issue is important to Mike Brown? Words? Because they said so? They know the fans want to win so bad that they would bring OJ back if they knew he could be productive.

Do you think Mike Brown cares what you think? He cares if you buy a ticket...and for this year, his work is already done. Every ticket is sold for the season...he doesn't even have to show up and he won't lose a dime. Sure people can not go and he'll lose a bit of concession money but in the long run, once people like me quit going to the circus, there will be a line of others waiting to take my ticket and experience the frustration for themselves.

I weep for Carson Palmer, the face of this franchise, who will be the next Dan Marino...the next best QB to not win a Super Bowl (or even play in one). People will say, "Weeping for a millionaire? Please!". But he is basically putting his effort and life's work on display for an organization who does not have the ability to help him succeed. Mike Brown wants to be a "redeemer". Admirable...but how about "redeeming" some value to those season ticket holders whose prices you have raised by almost 50% since PBS opened up with it's sandy field?

Hire a GM that is not a relative or the head coach, get some scouts that are not coaches, and give us hope. Or hell, give me the $600,000 you are giving to Chris Henry...I can do a lot of good for a lot of deserving people with that. Key word....deserving. The Chinese proverb only made it to "fool me twice, shame on me." It didn't go so far to say, "Fool me five times...

Hope. A glimmer of hope. That is all I pray for. As I cross the threshold of 40, I think back to all the good memories I had as a kid going to Riverfront and watching a team that you could talk about and know that in the last quarter of their seasons, you could watch and hope knowing that the games were meaningful. My son is 8 and becoming a sports fanatic. All I want it to take him to a game late in the season that was meaningful or even, dare I say it, a World Series or Super Bowl? Hell at this point I'd take a wild card game...

When I was a kid, I never understood why people would go to a Reds or Bengals game and just stand around and talk instead of watching the game. "Why don't these people just go to a bar?" Now I know, because the majority of the games don't mean anything. They are social gatherings...why? Because there is no hope.

See you at the bar...

Terrific movie...but not the issue. Nor is Oscar Pistorius's heart, courage, or ability to overcome adversity. His mental toughness would qualify him for any Olympics; however, this issue is about whether he should physically be permitted to run in the Olympics-should he qualify. Look at the facts, not the "heart warming story" or the "political correctness" of the issue.

I'm not saying definitively that he should be allowed to run. I am merely offering food for thought to those who think it is so clear cut that he shouldn't. A German professor ran studies that showed the carbon fiber "legs" were energy efficient and therefore unfair. An MIT professor showed that he gains no advantage with the devices than any other runner. If these two people (who are clearly smarter than us average sports fans) can't agree on the issue, is it really that open and shut?

If you agree that you or I couldn't "strap these things on" and qualify for the Olympics or even cut a second off of your 40 time, then you can perhaps open your mind to some other thoughts. If you think, "Hell, I could run the 100 in 10 flat with those things..." then you are beyond any help that can be provided by sensible thought.

Can you really just look at tell that he's getting an advantage? He sure looks fast with those things, but maybe it's because...well he IS fast. Can you tell if an Olympic skier is using a banned length or type of ski vs. a legal one when they are flying down the mountain? Let's come back to this...

Let's go way back in history...I'm going to assume that at some point some runner was the first one to wear shoes. Was this an unfair advantage over those who didn't? I'm sure at some point spikes were introduced into track shoes. Did this create an unfair advantage? The aero dynamic helmets that the US introduced in skiing and cycling in the past decade were lauded as benefits to the American athletes. What is the difference between an unfair advantage and a technological advancement?

Ok, the next thing you are going to say is that steroids can be considered a "technological advancement", and you would be 100% correct. The difference is that this specific "technological advancement" can cause permanent damage to your body and has been ruled illegal.

Comparing the legs in Mr. Pistorius's case to carbon fiber flippers in swimming or spring loaded cheetah's in a high jump contest is absurd. Those are enhancements, not replacements. Pitchers come back after Tommy John surgery in some cases with more velocity than they had before, is this creating an unfair advantage? Will pitchers ask for the tendon to be a "bit tighter" so they can have a little more pop on their heater? You don't think this is/will happen? If so, does that mean all baseball players with this surgery get banished to the Paralympic team?

Clearly there is a line somewhere. You are allowed to put pine tar on a bat, but not cork. You are allowed to put resin on your hands as a pitcher, but not spit. Wide recievers are allowed to wear gloves, but not "stick-em". Spikes have maximum lengths, golf clubs have maximum sizes, and hockey sticks have maximum amounts of curve to them. These lines are determined by governing bodies, but they are certainly not the same as they were 20 or even 5 years ago. Sports advance with technology and vice-versa...Bjorn Borg wouldn't play with a wooden racket today even though he won 5 Wimbledon titles with one. So before you automatically dismiss this case as an unfair advantage, ask yourself a few questions:

• Is this unfair just because it looks unfair or is it just the first instance of making the playing field level for an athlete who has the ability to compete at this high level?
• If a physics professor at MIT and the board in charge of assuring, first and foremost, that the Olympics are fair are saying that there is no unfair advantage, what proof can I offer that it is?
• If a world class athlete's body naturally produces an abnormally high level of testosterone above an acceptable testing level that makes him stronger and faster than his competitors...is he to be relegated to the Paralympics? Someone with an extra leg muscle? What if a study is performed on athletes from a specific country and they are found to be "more energy efficient" in some way (insert your own former East German female comment here)? Are we to ban them from competing? Be careful with your answer to this one...taking a level playing field to an extreme is very dangerous.

My last point...before you throw around words like "carbon fiber" or "space age alloy" to justify your case against Mr. Pistorius, check out the latest "technological advancement" being unveiled in the Olympic pool this year. Is there a difference?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-25-voa35.cfm

I guess the only true way to solve this is to go back to the ancient Olympic days where everyone competed naked to see who is truly the most gifted...so to speak.

If you spent the time to read my lengthy profile you will see that gambling/Vegas/wagering is a hobby (or vice depending on your point of view) of mine. But this is not a pro-gambling or anti-gambling rant, it's a rant about responsibility. Even if you aren't a fan of Charles Barkley's, in the wake of all the stories you hear about current and pro-athletes shirking responsibilities, it is actually refreshing to hear a story about accepting responsibility and taking care of a problem, albeit a self-inflicted one.

If you are a Bengals fan like I am, in the last two weeks you've been inundated by stories of Chris Henry and Odell Thurman, ex-Bengals getting suspended at local high schools, ad nauseum. It seems whenever the term "Bengal" or "former Bengal" is mentioned in the news, fans cringe instinctively because another tale of irresponsibility is forthcoming.

Charles Barkley will end up paying $440,000 to take responsibility for his inability to gamble well. Before you pass judgement on him for not spending his money on more worthwhile pursuits (which many seem to do), look up his charitable record. He gives away million dollar gifts to charity like my dentist gives away toothbrushes. He gave a million dollars to families in Lake Tahoe last year who lost their homes in wildfires. He's built houses in his home state of Alabama and given them away to needy families. If he is able and chooses to gamble, who can begrudge him especially since he pays his debts? Ask Art Schlister about this concept. Is that heroic in this day in age? Maybe not, but Darnay Scott, James Brooks, James Francis make a short list of former Bengals who at some point haven't seen fit to provide to their own families by showing up on the "deadbeat dad" list.

You may not like what he says, agree with what he thinks, or stand to listen to him speak. In an interview with Bill Hemmer 5 years ago he was quoted as saying, "Parents today suck." You may find this appalling (I tend to lean towards agreeing). But all he does his take responsibility for his actions and words, admit and correct his mistakes, provide for many who can't provide for themselves, and is up front enough to say what he thinks and stand behind it. In this day of age, that's like a career .280 hitter, with 300 home runs and 1000 RBI's...is it good enough to be in the Hall of Fame? Maybe not, but it's something that you can be proud of and it's enough that I'd want my kid to be more like him than most.