I just got to witness the Miami Heat lose the NBA Championship.  That's the headline I'll remember from this miraculous series.

After six amazing games, I'm not sure if I'm happier the Heat lost or saddened in fact that I don't get to continue watching LeBron James fail at the pinnacle moment of his career.

Some people may disagree with my sentiments and say, "How can a person rejoice over another person's failures?"

I can and I feel there's nothing wrong in doing so.

If there was one thing I learned from the NBA Finals it's that people aren't accepting of the truth.

Sorry to break the news to you, but over 75% of the population dislike the Miami Heat.  So stop trying to change my opinion on them.

Ever since The Decision it's been a constant back and forth battle between the LeBron James bashers and the The King's defenders.  The bashers disliked how he handled the situation, thought he made a mockery of Cleveland and most of all, thought it was an ego driven production that took place in Greenwich, CT.  The defenders on the other hand praised his decision for allowing him to play where he wanted to play, play who he wanted to play with and most of all, play for a championship and not for the money.

The funny thing about the entire situation is that both the bashers and defenders are correct in their assessments.

That's the exact point I'm trying to make.

People create opinions for their own reasoning.  If I dislike LeBron for the sole factor that he left the Cleveland Cavaliers, and that's the team I root for, then so be it.  

Why should you tell me I can't feel this way?

As long as I can justify to myself the reasoning behind my thinking then what anyone else thinks shouldn't matter to me.

I'm tired of playing the pros and cons game with every issue in the world.  You can't have an opinion anymore unless you can rebut the opposition.  No longer can you just like or dislike something because of the way you feel about it, you have to fully be aware of everything that it is and stands for before you can throw your two cents in.

To me that's not an opinion.

I don't need to be like everyone else and have the same thought process.  I know what I like, I know what I dislike, and I know the reasons for both.  You can try to persuade me otherwise, but I don't really care.  If I'm going to change my mind on an issue, I'll do it on my own.

It seems odd to me that 75% of the population can dislike a person, but we're wrong for doing so.  Maybe that other 25% just hasn't seen the light.

I'm a firm believer that the public opinion is usually the correct one.  If the majority of people are anti-LeBron then it's probably for good reason.  Most people don't just dislike someone for no reason.  It may not be a good reason they dislike him, but there's always a reason.  The same goes with everything else in this world.

Go visit Rotten Tomatos and check the reviews out on movies.  Only 35% of people recommended The Hangover II.  Should those 35% of people start defending the movie to everyone who disagrees with them?

I'm fine with accepting that 2/3 of the people who saw the movie didn't like it and 1/3 did.  I can live with different people having different views on the movie.

LeBron James didn't live up to the hype or potential that he has.  That's what I believe.  Maybe what we saw in these last six games is exactly who LeBron James is though.  All I can go on is what I saw him do and what I expected from him.  He failed in my eyes.

Others may feel differently, which is fine.  That's what I love about sports.  Everything doesn't have to be so definitive.  People can view things in different perspectives.

All I want people to do is be truthful in their assessments.  Too many times people aren't, especially analysts on television.

At this point during LeBron James career he choked.  Perceive it otherwise, but to me and many others, he choked.  This doesn't mean that five years from now he won't have the greatest finals performance we've ever seen before and totally change the perception of himself.

That's exactly what he should do.

Too many times people are afraid to say how they feel because eventually their opinion will change and then they'll be considered a hypocrite.  I just feel it's part of growing as a person to have differing views than you once had.

People change every day.  I change every day.

I know I'm not the person I was one year ago from today and I won't be the same person a year from now.  

I might change a little, I might change a lot, but I'll change one way or another. 

If right now, you weigh 500lbs then I'd consider you fat.  If in five year, you weight 150lbs, I'd consider you skinny.  Was I wrong in my initial characterization of you?  Should I not feel this way because eventually you may change and lose the weight?

Right now LeBron is the fat person when everyone wants him to be the skinny guy.  One day he might be the skinny guy, but right now he isn't fitting into those size 32 jeans.

You can hate Mark Cuban one year and love him five years later.  You can love Lance Armstrong five years ago and despise him now.

Instead of worrying about having the wrong opinion eventually, stop being afraid of having the right opinion now. 

I got the reaction I was looking for.

Some people loved what I said, some people hated what I said, but thankfully, the majority of people were intrigued from what I said.

If you didn’t read Part 1 of Does Everyone Need a Podcast? then check it out and come back to this column when you’re finished.

Immediately, the question I was asked from most people was, “If you find the format boring, then what do you want to hear?”

My answer seemed vague to them.

I kept saying that I wanted to hear something original, something different; I just don’t want to hear the same thing that everyone else is doing.  Easier said than done -- I know.

I explained that it wasn’t about my ideas of what I want to hear, it’s about your ideas of bringing something unique to the table.

People still couldn’t fully grasp what I was saying.

To me it’s as simple as this.  If I replace you on your podcast, ask the same questions to the same guest and nothing is different, then you’re doing something wrong.

Go ahead and analyze that statement.  It’s simple, yet it’s oh so true.

My hope is that I will listen to your show, each and every episode, because of you.  If you’re good enough, and the format is good enough to bring me back no matter the guest or the subject matter, then you’ve succeeded.

Think about this.

All the best podcasts and radio shows that people listen to have an audience because of the person running the show.  Howard Stern’s listeners listen because of Howard Stern.  Bill Simmons’ listeners listen because of Bill Simmons.

The majority of other successful podcasts create the same effect. 

They have a quality product because of themselves, not because of who they’re talking to or what they’re talking about.

If Rex Ryan is doing his book tour and doing interviews on 50 different shows, why will I listen to your interview of Rex rather than the other 49?  That’s what podcasters need to figure out.

Some people were upset with me for my attack on Jimmy Traina and Michelle Beadle.

Yes, I was critical of both of their podcasts, but hopefully they understand where I'm coming from.

Maybe they’ll ask themselves, “Why am I doing this podcast?”

As long as they're dedicated, doing it for the right reason and not just using it for an easy added paycheck for them and their company then I can't really complain.  If they truly want to give us listeners a podcast that is meaningful and different then I'm all for it.  

Once they decide on their reasoning for doing a podcast, and are happy with the answer, then hopefully they'll ask themselves how they can set themselves apart from everyone else out there.

Am I asking too much of these two?

I don’t expect podcasters to be overnight successes; I understand there’s a process you have to work through in any craft.  I do expect podcasters to be themselves and give me something I can’t get from every other podcast out there.

One of the most hits I ever got in one day on my website was when I created the Tiger Woods Mistress Slots game; a game that was featured on Jimmy Traina’s Hot Clicks.

After I created that popular post I said to myself, “I don’t ever want to create anything like that this again.”

To me it was a gimmick post.  Anyone can create gimmick posts.

If my site is to be recognized then I want it to be for my writing.  I’d rather get 50 readers every day who appreciate my style of writing then 50,000 readers who come to my site because I can create a funny casino game.

My writing should set me apart and not be gimmick that everyone else can do.

Sometimes when you're successful and it seems like you're doing everything the right way, you forgot the reason you started doing what you're doing in the first place. 

So make me want to listen to your podcast because of you, not because of who you're talking to.

Don’t be replaceable.  It’s as straightforward as that.

Because right now, when I listen to most podcasts, most of you are replaceable.

Have you checked out my latest podcast yet?

You haven’t?

Actually there’s no way you could have listened to it because I don’t have a podcast.

I actually attempted to start a podcast about two months ago, but it didn’t end up so well.

I got a guest, recorded a lengthy 90 minutes worth of material and I was ready to post it.  I opened up the file upon the completion of the discussion and I could hear myself loud and clear, but as for my guest, a low whisper was about all that was audible.

I spent another six hours attempting to resurrect the recording with Audacity.  It didn’t work.

At that moment I realized that my podcast career was over.

Maybe not everyone’s cut out to run their own show.  Book me as a guest.  I can talk sports for as long as you can record, but I’m never attempting another go at a Favre Dollar Footlongs podcast.

It’s a shame too; I had an amazing intro for it.

Does every blogger, every sports personality and every web site, really need a podcast?

It seems so.

Every week a new podcast arises onto the Internet, but for what purpose?

I think some people start podcasts because they see the success that other people have from doing them.

Others I believe start theirs because they want another medium to get their point across.

Then there are the podcasts that seem to start because their company wants to capitalize on their success.

For whatever reason they’re started, a podcast doesn’t seem unique anymore.  The same thing that happened with the blog boom is happening with podcasts and because of this so many of them are basically conversations with no substance.

I was listening to Michelle Beadle’s new podcast and her entire episode with Matthew Berry consisted of her asking him questions about how to run a podcast.

Is this really what I tuned in for?

How about I write a book and instead of writing anything with interesting content I just have quotes from people telling me how to write a book?

Should I make a documentary film where I just go out and ask other people how to make a documentary and that’s what you get to watch?

Does Michelle Beadle really need a podcast?

Beadle works on SportsNation because first and foremost she is attractive and secondly she has a great personality.  People aren’t tuning into SportsNation each day for her point of view on sports issues though.  We enjoy the off the cuff nature of the show, mixed with opposing views from her and Colin Cowherd.

I’m sorry Michelle, but please stick to TV, a podcast doesn’t work for you.  On the other hand, her first guest, Linda Cohn, would be much better suited for a podcast.  Linda’s actually interesting to listen to.

Did Michelle really want to do a podcast or was she pressured into doing one due to her success on ESPN?  I think you know what my thoughts are.

Jimmy Traina of Sports Illustrated’s Hot Clicks started a podcast within this past year for what reason?

Traina is known around the sports blogosphere for taking interesting sports related links and videos and placing them in a column twice-a-day.  Most of the time people are emailing him the links so he doesn’t even have to search for them.  I love Hot Clicks, but never once have I thought, hmmm, I wonder what Jimmy thinks about this sports issue.

Hot Clicks--great, original idea.  Jimmy Traina Podcast--opposite of Hot Clicks.

I’ve listened to Jimmy Traina on various podcasts discussing how Hot Clicks was created and the purpose of it.  The whole goal of his publication format is to bring us original, creative content that we don’t get to read about on the normal sports media sites.

How can someone whose career focuses on original content bring us a podcast that is so unoriginal? All the podcast offers is the exact same format as every other sports personality out there.

Get a notable guest, talk about some sports stuff that is going on, have them promote what their doing, the end.

Is anyone else bored with this format?

Many of my fellow bloggers, including some on the Bloguin network, are creating podcasts that are uninspired as well.

Some of the better ones have gone out and got guests that speak on specific issues that not every other site is talking about.

The majority of them are just going out and getting other bloggers on their podcasts each week.  It seems that the podcasts are used as a way for them to network with each other instead of using it as a resource to connect with their readers.

If you really want to go back and forth on each other’s podcast and recap the team’s performances from the past week then do so, but there are plenty of other people that are doing the exact same thing.  No matter who is doing it, recapping games is tiresome anyway.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t do podcasts; some people are great at them.  Bill Simmons has found a way to talk sports, pop culture and have normal conversations with friends that is still captivating at the same time.  His approach is innovative.

Jason Whitlock started a podcast within the last year that at first I thought was terrible, but now it’s starting to grow on me.  Although I’d rather not hear his terrible rap intro at the beginning that includes the lines, “It’s more then bald heads, it’s more then baggy shorts, it’s more then taking advantage of kids and raggedy sports.  It ain’t bout controversy, more like stating the facts, yep; the difference is you hold your tongue and he tell you its whack.”

That’s the intro you’re going with?

I still don’t think he necessarily needs a podcast to express the opinions, but at least the guests that are on his podcast and the discussions that he has are thought provoking and not typical dialogues that every other site is having.

So all I can say to anyone out there who has a podcast or is contemplating starting a one; try something different.  Just because everyone seems to be doing it one way doesn’t mean you have to.  Podcasts are a new enough medium that there is no right or wrong yet to be successful.

I’m glad my podcast career came and went without anyone hearing an episode.  It seems like not having a podcast is actually one of the most original things you can do these days.

And I’m all about being original.

What did I get myself into?

I asked myself that question almost immediately once I concluded the fifteen mile drive to go play cricket for the first time in my life.

I’m sure other people have been in the same predicament as me.  The idea of something new sounds good at the time, but once it’s time to actually do it, it’s a different story.

The funny part of this situation was that initially I thought I was going golfing.  I was speaking earlier in the week to my old manager and he mentioned that we should go golfing soon.  A day later he IM’s me and says, “Want to play Cricket Saturday?”

Thinking Cricket was a name of a golf course I replied and told him “Definitely.  Anytime works for me.”

Twenty minutes later I learned our proposed Saturday tee time was in actuality a cricket match.  I already said yes.  I wasn’t going to back out now.

When I arrived at the park where the cricket match was to take place there were only four people in the field warming up and setting up the field.  I decided to sit in my car and wait for my manager to arrive.

I knew beforehand that we were playing with all Indian guys from work, only 1 or 2 of them that I had actually met before, but I never realized how out of my element I’d really be in.

My manager arrived and we walked to the field to join everyone playing.  We got a crash course into cricket from one of my co-workers and took a few swings to try to get acclimated to the new style of swinging.  The first pitch I crushed for a homerun or whatever it’s called in cricket.  All I knew was that it was worth 6 runs.  The next 5 pitches or bowls didn’t go as well.

The time had come to finally get the game started and of course they picked the two white guys to be team captains and select teams.

Is there any better way to make me feel more uncomfortable then to have me choose players for my team whose names I can’t pronounce so I have to select by calling people based on their clothing?

I’ll take red shirt. Okay give me blue jeans. I guess I’ll take tattered tee.  That’s seriously how I had to choose.

The game started and my team took the field first.  I stood in the outfield just hoping I’d catch the ball.  Immediately I was confused.  The batter would hit the ball, but would just stand there in the batter’s box.  After some more instruction, I learned that if you don’t think you can score a run (run down to the bowler, while the other runner comes to the batter’s box), then you can stay in the box.

After watching the same two batters (batsmen) go back and forth for what seemed ten swings a piece someone new finally came up and I was always to capture the first ball that came my way.

Eight more batters and 44 runs later, my team finally got their chance to bat.

Our team’s first two batters scored multiple runs for our team.  It was now my turn to step up to the plate.

I stepped in, had my cricket bat in hand, and waited on that first bowl.   I connected with a nice line drive to the outfield.  Unfortunately I reverted back to my baseball days and dropped the bat, not remembering that I was supposed to run with it in hand.

Quickly I turned around to get the bat and run back toward the pitch, but it was too late.  My day was done with one out thanks to my base running, bat dropping error.

The team finished strong and we ended up winning 45-44.  Little did I know that a cricket game only consists of a single inning.

I can definitively say that the cricket game was one of my most disappointing sport experiences in my life.  I was bored, didn’t understand it, and from what I did understand, didn’t like it.

My day would’ve been much more gratifying if I would’ve participated in a pogo stick contest, hopscotch, or a four square match.  That’s how much I disliked this game.

As I took the fifteen mile drive back home I was contemplating why I even came.  Was it because I accidently seemed enthused to come?  Did I do it because my old manager asked me to?

The real reason I participated was that I wanted to try a new game.

Just because I didn’t like it doesn’t mean I wasn’t glad I went.  I may have felt that way initially, but reflecting now I’m glad I got to somewhat understand the game of cricket.

More importantly I got to see the passion a different culture has for a game that we barely understand.

Most of the Indian guys were extremely competitive throughout the day.  There’d be conflicts about if a ball was wide, which scored a run, or of the wicket was knocked over in time.  Some verbal arguments ensued which were interesting, even though I couldn’t understand them since the combatants were speaking in Hindi.

Cricket was an experience that I won’t forget in a while.  I’ll probably never play it again, but that’s okay, at least I tried a game that is part of someone else’s’ culture.

Tomorrow I’m going golfing to play what I originally thought I was doing on Saturday.

Can you get anymore white than that?

The perennial John Calipari Early Entrant Draft Declaration took place last week with Brandon Knight, Terrence Jones and DeAndre Liggans all deciding to leave school early to pursue a career in the National Basketball Association.

2011 is a down year for the NBA draft and also a down year for Calipari early entrants.  A year ago Calipari made it to the Elite Eight with a team that was centered on five freshman, all who which left early and were drafted in the first round of the NBA draft.

One thing that did change for the positive was the success in the NCAA tournament.

This team was able to make a run to the Final Four before losing to the eventual National Champions, the UCONN Huskies.  Getting to the Final Four after losing five of your top players could be considered an equivalent of winning a National Championship.

As a Duke fan, I’m not used to having players leave early.

In Duke’s history there have only been nine players that have left early, including Kyrie Irving this year.  Of those nine players only three were freshman (Corey Maggette, Luol Deng and Kyrie Irving) and one of them was Shavlik Randolph, which if you know who Shavlik Randolph is then you probably wouldn’t consider him an early entrant, especially since he wasn’t even drafted.

For a program that consistently produces top talent and has the second most NBA players currently playing, only having nine players leave early seems minimal in an era of one and done players.

I remain loyal for my affinity for Coach K’s way of recruiting, but for any other coach, I’ve changed my opinion.

Now I believe that if you want to succeed and want to build your program while keeping your job, then recruiting a one and done player is the way to go.

The real dilemma is what your goal as a coach is.

Any coach that says that his ultimate goal is to make the young men he recruits a better person is lying.  That may be an intangible of their job, but I think we all know that winning is the real goal.

No athletic director is keeping a 0-20 coach just because his players have become good citizens.  Success is the determining factor and the only way to achieve the success is by building the program into a national powerhouse or by winning a National Championship, which then in turn, makes the program a national powerhouse.

We know what coaches have to do to keep their jobs, but how do they get there?

Continually recruiting one and done players is the answer.

Every year we look at the Rival or Scout Top 100 players and many times we know or assume we know which players will be one and done.  It’s not always the case, as we saw this year with Harrison Barnes, but more often than not the players that are targeted as one and done players are the ones that actually do leave in their first year and if not, their second year.

These players have a specific goal in mind as well.  The goal is to play well and to get noticed.

A coaches’ goal is program success; a players’ goal is personal success.  Finding how the two fit together is how we get both of these goals to become one.

What coaches need to do is not pretend like they can keep these recruits around.  Make it known that they have the players interest in mind, even if that interest is to leave the program after one year.

Programs can work this way.  Coaches will be able to recruit the blue chip talent year after year, due to the fact that if they continually have players leaving for the NBA then not only are they showing that they produce NBA talent, but they are also creating the roster openings to allow these incoming recruits to play immediately.

Players will want to come to these programs for the same reason.

As we’ve seen from John Calipari, he has used this strategy to produce teams that make deep runs in the NCAA tournament.

No, he hasn’t been able to capture the championship yet, but would you rather have a team that gets to the elite eight or better every year with new incoming freshman or a team that struggles to make the sweet sixteen for a few years and then once the players are seniors, makes a deep run that might get them a National Championship?

Building a program over a decade is no longer a consideration of a university.  If a coach doesn’t progress far enough in their first three years then many times the coach will be let go.  It’s the state of sports that we live in now.

If being a coach means win now and win often, then focusing on a one and done recruiting strategy is the best way to achieve this success.

Maybe I never liked Calipari for his recruiting strategy because I didn’t understand or appreciate it.  Maybe I’m just a purist and wanted things to stay how they were in college basketball.

Maybe Coach Calipari’s just ahead of the game and everyone needs to catch up to him.