Folks... the Sports Rant is shuttering.

This will be my last entry. I also will write one final column, which will run in Saturday's P-I.

I have been hired by ESPN.com to cover the Pac-10, which I've been doing for the past six years as a freelancer.

I've enjoyed my eight-year tenure at the P-I. It's not an easy place to leave, but this is an exciting opportunity for me.

The blog has been fun. It's a great way to interact with readers -- even the trolls.

Obviously, a lot of you didn't always -- or even sometimes -- agree with me. That's OK.

(Not that I wasn't always right, mind you).

Kidding. Mostly.

Anyway... what I mean to say is this: Thanks for reading.

Cheers.

The Mariners optimists say: Look at the rotation with the additions of Erik Bedard and Carlos Silva! Awesome!

The Mariners pessimists say: Look at the everyday lineup.

The optimists say: Ok. Ichiro is the best leadoff hitter in baseball. He's a sure thing. And he'll steal more bases this year because skipper John McLaren says so.

The pessimists say: Ichiro is 34. It's hard to imagine his decline won't shortly begin. Also, it's not a matter of him merely matching last year's .351 average. It's about him improving his .396 on-base percentage. He won't because he doesn't take walks. And center field is looking awfully big when you flank him with the aging Ibanez and defensively-limited Brad Wilkerson.

The optimists say: Adrian Beltre rediscovered his stroke last year. He's not even 30! He'll be on the uptick -- 30 HR, 100-plus RBI.

The pessimists say: Beltre was solid last year at the plate and fantastic with the glove. Hoping for more doesn't make sense considering his career numbers.

The optimists say: DH Jose Vidro hit .314 last year!

The pessimists say: A DH with six homers and 59 RBI. Yuck. And those seeing-eye grounders won't be back anyway.

The optimists say: I just love Raul Ibanez! He tries so hard in left field and he led the Mariners with 105 RBI.

The pessimists say: He turns 36 in June. The chances of him matching last year's numbers are remote.

The optimists say: OK, Richie Sexson was lousy last year. But what do you expect when fans boo him so! He's going to bounce back.

The pessimists say: He had 89 hits and 100 strikeouts last year. And was paid $15.5 million for it.

The optimists say: OK Mr. Numbers. Sure, the Mariners shouldn't have let Jose Guillen walk if they were going to trade Adam Jones, but consider this: Brad Wilkerson had a higher slugging percentage last year than Guillen, even when you adjust for his more forgiving homefield in Texas.

The pessimists say: And he'll give it all back with his glove in right.

The optimists say: What can you possibly say bad about Kenji Johjima behind the plate?

The pessimists say: Not too much, actually, other than his second-half dip last year probably represented him more accurately than his superior pre-All-Star break numbers.

The optimists say: Well if you're going to put so much stock in post-All-Star break numbers, what about Yuniesky Betancourt? He hit .311 in the second half of 2007 and settled down on defense. I say he's an All-Star this season.

The pessimists say: Perhaps. But let's talk about his double-play partner...

The optimists interrupt: Get off Jose Lopez's back! He just turned 24 and he was an All-Star in 2006. He was dealing with some personal issues last year.

The pessimists say: I'm not sold on his focus or work ethic.

The optimists say: Willie Bloomquist!

The pessimists say: Willie Bloomquist!

The optimists say: I hate you.

The pessimists say: I know. Everybody does. Thanks.

It's not often a journalist writes about a competing paper, but many of you seem interested in what I think about the Times series on the 2000 Rose Bowl team.

Many things. Many contradictory things.

First, holding big-time college sports accountable is always good. Stories like this remind us of the behind-the-scenes compromises programs often make.

So kudos.

You probably expect me to again defend Rick Neuheisel, but most fair readers recognize that the series failed in its attempt to dump the predominant blame on Neuheisel, starting with the damning fact that he didn't recruit any of the players they profiled and the majority of transgressions detailed either 1) didn't happen on his watch (Curtis Williams); or, 2) He was unaware of (Jeremiah Pharms).

The Times scored a point with Neuheisel's coddling of Jerramy Stevens, but Neuheisel's enabling was enabled by law enforcement and the prosecutor's office.

As for academics, I would encourage you to e-mail the Times and ask them how graduation rates under Neuheisel compared to Don James and Jim Lambright.

This time, my prime concern is... me.

The Times dragged me into this fight. But my karate is better.

Here's a line from the Times story on Pharms.

In January 2004, a P-I sportswriter wrote a lengthy story about Pharms and his time in prison. The story raised a series of questions that suggested Pharms might be innocent.

Hey... that was my story.

Here's a line from it:

What happened next remains an unresolved issue, a question not of innocence but of degree of guilt.

"...not a question of innocence."

What was and remains questionable is what happened on March 14, 2000, inside a drug dealer's apartment.

Here's the short version of my quibble: The Times presentation of what happened that day added nothing new -- ZERO -- but it did willfully subtract significant issues.

You decide.

The Times goes entirely with the "official" version: that Pharms and an unnamed accomplice burst in with guns draw and shot and robbed this "small-time" drug dealer, Kerry Sullivan, who was, ahem, studying calculus.

Here's something from my story that wasn't in the Times story:

Defense attorneys contend the then-24-year-old Seattle Central Community College student made approximately $60,000 a year from selling pot and kept large stashes of cash and drugs on hand.

His criminal record extended to 1991 and included convictions for theft, forgery, felony trespass and assault.

By every fair measure of their lives to that point, the so-called victim in this incident was the criminal in that room and Pharms was not. That's why Sullivan's background is material, and it's negligent that the Times reporters and editors didn't include it.

Let's continue.

Wrote the Times:

(Sullivan) saw a masked man with a silver automatic, jumped up and grabbed for the gun.
The two men wrestled, then the robber pulled away and pistol-whipped Sullivan. As Sullivan fell, the robber fired a shot that went through Sullivan's right thigh and lodged in his chest, just missing his liver.

All that was in my story. Oh, I didn't mention the gun was silver. Sorry.

Pause, though, and imagine the scene with me: Pharms, a buffed 250 pounds, stands before the slightly built drug dealer with a gun drawn.

Two words: Paralyzing fear.

How can you possibly believe said drug dealer's next move was to attack Pharms?

Or, just maybe, that silver gun, which was never recovered so we really don't know its color, didn't start off in Pharms' hand?

The Times opted not to smell the fish, writing "Prosecutors called the evidence against Pharms 'overwhelming.'"

Really?

From my story:

"It wasn't a slam-dunk case by any means," (King County Prosecutor) chief of staff Dan Satterberg said.

Hopefully, Satterberg's legitimacy here won't be questioned, considering he is now the King County Prosecutor.

Despite that, er, "overwhelming" evidence, for which guilt could mean 20 years in prison, prosecutors handed Pharms a extremely sympathetic plea deal. From my story: "if he pleaded guilty, the firearm enhancement would be dropped and he'd get no more than 3 1/2 years with the possibility of parole in 29 months."

Pharms also, despite "overwhelming" evidence, was allowed to enter an "Alford plea" (not admitting guilt but acknowledging there was sufficient evidence for a conviction) and to begin his sentencing statement by asserting: "I am not guilty of this crime."

Hmm.

When I asked Satterberg about issues in the drug dealer's story and the police report he said this:

"You're speculating, which is what jurors would do, particularly when the main prosecution witness is from a less-than-trustworthy background," said Satterberg, of the King County Prosecutor's office. "That's why we made a deal."

I also interviewed the drug dealer's roommate and other acquaintances of the drug dealer. If the Times did the same, it's unfathomable to me that a red flag didn't at least flicker in their mind's eye.

The Times then wrote this about the prosecutors' reaction to my story:

The story steamed the case's two prosecutors. They drafted a letter to the P-I's editor, but decided not to send it. The letter said the story vilified the victim "while glorifying the man who shot him." It added: "Mr. Pharms is a lucky man: lucky that his victim didn't die, lucky that his victim wasn't permanently disabled, lucky we had mercy on him."

Er, no. They know very well what I did: I presented the prosecution and defense cases. They're angry that both sides got aired.

The Times includes this unsent letter among its lists of "revelations".

Think about that: An angry, unsent letter to its rival newspaper.

Holy Woodward and Bernstein!

The prosecutors were so enraged by the P-I story that they... didn't mail us a letter. That's equivalent to writing a diary entry about how unfair things are.

Why was the letter unsent?

I'll answer for the prosecutors, who turned down multiple requests for interviews from me at the time (shuttling me to Satterberg instead).

They didn't send the letter because I would have called them to respond and then they'd have to defend their case on the record.

Ah... but why produce the letter now FOUR YEARS LATER?

Naturally, because Pharms apparently is in the midst of another self-destructive spiral.

The beginnings of that self-destructive spiral was first reported in the P-I due to a now embarrassing column I wrote: This hurts to read. Needless to say, during our interview Pharms didn't mention he'd been arrested for DUI, which I reported after an email tip from an administrator in King County Superior Court.

So, yes, I was duped by Pharms while he was in jail (and again afterward) into thinking that he wanted to become a responsible, mature father, husband and member of society.

But at least I didn't try to dupe you, fair reader.

Most mainstream sportswriters sniff at recruiting services and recruiting rankings. Why?

1) It's impossible for newspaper beat writers to provide the blanket coverage on-line sites do when they already spend 60 hours a week keeping up with their team; 2) Most reporters/columnists don't know much about recruiting, which means they have to take shots at it so they don't have to answer questions about it; 3) For some reason, many newspaper folk think it's completely reasonable to insult consumers who enjoy recruiting news.

You might guess that I feel differently about recruiting gurus. I respect them. I think they work hard and the vast majority conduct themselves with integrity. And I think it's great that they've carved out a profitable niche on the Internet.

I also believe recruiting rankings are fairly accurate measures of something that defies easy analysis.

All of this is prelude to this: Another study of recruiting rankings... some good stuff here at SundayMorningQuarterback, one of the best breakdowns I've seen.

One of the interesting factoids: Pac-10 bigwigs should pay more attention to players Oregon State is recruiting.

---Bill Plaschke sips the Neuheisel Kool-Aid... and he likes it.

---Chicago Tribune reports that the Cubs are not competing with the Mariners for Baltimore pitcher Erik Bedard.

Here's the tidbit:

Cubs general manager Jim Hendry also shot down a published report that Baltimore owner Peter Angelos had nixed a seven-for-two swap between the Cubs and the Orioles, presumably for Brian Roberts and Erik Bedard. He said the Cubs had not pursued Bedard or talked of a nine-player trade.

"That certainly hasn't been a path we've been on," Hendry said. "And certainly I don't think [a deal] would ever get to the ownership type of level. I think (Orioles executive and former Cubs President) Andy MacPhail is certainly capable of makings his deals or not. That is not accurate."

Or.... maybe not.

---Over at USS Mariner they're fretting about the Seahawks.... wait... actually, they're doing numbers on the 2008 Mariners.

---ESPN's Dana Jacobson isn't a Notre Dame fan....and she's got a potty mouth. So do I like her more now than before?

Cheers

This might surprise you, but I caught a lot of grief from Green Bay fans for predicting the Packers' demise against the Seahawks two weeks ago.

That after-the-fact gloating --- complete with lots of "your (sic) an idiot" boomerang shots -- hung almost entirely on the Packers apparent physical dominance: see 201 yards rushing from some guy named Ryan Grant. Fair enough: The scoreboard suggested the Seahawks were completely incompetent.

Only no one said: Gosh, the pass-first Seahawks might have been hurt just a tad by the FREAKING BLIZZARD that exactly ZERO pregame weather reports predicted.

After watching the Packers feckless effort against the Giants on Sunday, my feeling is that if the Packers and Seahawks played a seven-game series the team that would win would be the one with homefield advantage four times.

Sure, the Seahawks run defense was awful in the snow.

But, the week before, it held Washington to 75 yards on the ground.

So what?

Well, Washington whipped the homestanding Giants 22-10 on Dec. 16 and Clinton Portis rushed for 126 of the Redskins 153 yards on 25 carries.

Yet... then the Giants hold Green Bay to 28 yards rushing on 14 carries, with Grant averaging 2.2 yards per carry.

Go figure.

Obviously, the Giants don't benefit terribly from playing at home, particularly on defense. The opposite is true for the Seahawks -- inside Qwest Field, the Seahawks play elite defense. On the road, not so much.

Still, that feels insufficient.

So much of football is matchups. The Seahawks apparently matched up better with Washington than the Packers, just as the Giants apparently match up better with the Packers than the Redskins.

And then there's scheme. The Seahawks defensive scheme against the Packers obviously didn't work on any level -- see six consecutive touchdown drives. Guessing coordinator John Marshall would do some things differently the next time he sees Green Bay. He might consider some of what the Giants did.

Finally, there's this: Favre vs. the Seahawks in the snow was perhaps his best playoff performance in an illustrious career. Favre vs. the Giants in zero degrees, however, showed his 38 years, see that terrible interception that set up the winning field goal in overtime.

The larger point here is Seahawks fans don't need to panic over the nature of the blowout defeat at Green Bay and imagine the roster needs to be blown up.

The distance between the Seahawks and the Packers... and the Super Bowl sacrificial lamb Giants... just isn't that great.

---DeadSpin takes a shot at Favre.

---Enjoy a good cheap shot? Or are you not a sociopath? Anyway. Here you can vote on the cheapest shot of the college football season.

---Chow down!
Things are getting REALLY interesting at UCLA. Score another for Neuheisel, who's now got the best tandem of coordinators in the Pac-10... and maybe in the nation.

---Speaking of Neuheisel... Grading the college coaching hires...

---Turns out Roger Clemens doesn't actually have any friends.

---Finally, let's here it for B-Roy. Or I-Roy.

Cheers.

Mike Holmgren will give his 2007 season recap to reporters today at 3 p.m.

Don't expect a big news event...such as him announcing his resignation to spend a year in Tibet.

That said, I've become increasingly convinced that he's seriously considering bailing out. I'd rate it only a 25 percent chance he won't coach the Seahawks next year, but he'd have to be seriously selfish to be broadcasting his ambiguity this much if there were no depth to his feelings.

Not sure about how much detail he'll provide about what the Seahawks need to do to get better, but here are some quick thoughts (I'm, of course, writing about this for tomorrow's P-I in greater depth).

-Not sure that running back needs to be THE PRIME priority, and I write that believing it's not unwise to seriously consider cutting Shaun Alexander. I think a good back can be obtained after the first round, and this year's draft class is particularly deep at the position.

-To me, there are two priorities: guard and tight end.

-I think tight end is the first priority. Why? Because many are high on third-year guard Ray Willis and believe he would have displaced the aging Chris Gray if he hadn't suffered a knee injury.

That said: If the Seahawks went after Steelers free agent Alan Faneca, I wouldn't poop on the party.

-As for tight end: It's just such an important position in Holmgren's offense and the Seahawks could get a good one at No. 25 in the draft -- perhaps USC's Fred Davis or Notre Dame's John Carlson (based on most mock drafts I've seen, however, this is a reach for both of those guys).

It should be an interesting off-season...

---Anyone else notice that Eli Manning started playing better when he put on Jake Locker's jersey?

---The Reggie Bush Scandal keeps getting stickier. In the the latest, Slimeball Lloyd Lake speaks to the Orange County Register. Understand: Lake is the bad guy here. He's an absolute sleaze. But that won't help USC if it's found coaches or administrators knew that Bush and his family were consorting with lowlifes.

And, by the way, if much of this proves true, shame on Bush's parents for leaching off their son's talent.

---College football's best offensive coordinator is available again.

---HoopsHype talks to Kevin Durant.

---I have one piece of advice for Pacman Jones: Stop going to strip clubs.

---Top QB recruits don't always pan out. At least, not to the extent of their hype.

---JoeSportsFan is not a JoeMikeHolmgrenFan... see bottom of column.

---Which is the most tortured sports city... Seattle got some votes.

Cheers

First, I highly recommend this place. Few places are equal to their hype; Lambeau Field is just awesome -- in the true sense of the word. I'm fairly jaded but this doesn't feel like working.

Wandered around the tailgate outside before the game with Les Carpenter of the Washington Post and he knew a guy who knew a guy and... lo and behold I got a couple of brats out of it, thereby allowing me to check off another box on my list of things to do before I die: Eat a brat outside Lambeau Field with Packers fans while it's snowing.

A salute to Johnsonville.

Guessing they didn't know I picked the Seahawks to win, but folks are so nice here they'd probably let it slide.

As for that snow... light... off-and-on... temperatures hovering around freezing (31 degrees, wind is 4 mph). Weather won't be an issue today.

EDIT (two hours later): Looking at these super-sized snow flakes swirling around -- and a mostly white field -- the previous was another bad prediction coming from me. I'm going to blame the weatherman.

Here come the Packers.... hoist one for me.

Cheers

One of the interesting things about being a sportswriter is that folks consider you a "fan" of the teams you cover. The vast majority don't think like that.

We do root, though.

I root for two things: 1) For my prediction; 2) For good games.

So I was rooting for LSU last night. But I found myself frustrated by another bad BCS bowl game.

Could someone, please, entertain me.

What a lame BCS bowl season. The only close game, Kansas' 24-21 win over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl, earns only a "neh" because neither team was elite.

LSU beat Ohio State by 14 (and it wasn't that close); USC beat Illinois by 32; West Virginia beat Oklahoma by 20; and Georgia beat Hawaii by 31.

Yawn.

Then the final AP rankings come out and Oklahoma, perhaps on the basis of being the bowl season's biggest flop, is ranked eighth, four spots below a Missouri team the Sooners decisively beat TWICE.

Go figure.

I've also got a prediction that won't warm anyone's heart outside of the state of Ohio: Tired of Ohio State losing to an SEC team in a championship game? It's a more than reasonable bet it will happen again next year.

-The Big Ten will be mediocre (I know, breaking news).
-Ohio State started just three seniors against LSU and shouldn't be hit too hard by NFL defections.
-The Buckeyes also get an early and winnable juice game: At rebuilding USC on Sept. 13.

It all lays out very well for Ohio State, which NationalChamps.net already posted as its preseason No. 1.

My feeling is the winner of the Georgia-Florida game will take the other spot in next year's title game.

So there you have it: SEC vs. Ohio State (0-9 in bowl games vs. SEC) once again.

Yikes.

---As a Harris Poll voter, I don't have a post-season vote (Harris Poll is a creation of the BCS). But here's my final top-10:

1) LSU; 2) West Virginia; 3) USC; 4) Georgia; 5) Oklahoma; 6) Missouri; 7) Ohio State; 8) Kansas; 9) Texas; 10) Virginia Tech.

WVU pounded Oklahoma, which twice whipped Missouri, which beat Kansas. The Mountaineers also pounded Mississippi State, which was competitive in the SEC.

Flipped a mental coin with USC and Georgia. Just think the Trojans would beat Georgia if they played tomorrow.

Actually, I think USC would beat anyone if they played tomorrow.

---And here's my preseason 2008 top-10:

1) Georgia; 2) Ohio State; 3) Florida; 4) Oklahoma; 5) USC; 6) LSU; 7) Missouri; 8) West Virginia; 9) Wisconsin; 10) Texas Tech

My general feeling heading into 2008 is the gap between the SEC and the rest college football -- wildly exaggerated most years -- will be legitimately big next fall, perhaps the biggest it's been.

The Big 12 should be stout, followed by the Pac-10 and Big Ten. The Big East might slip a bit and the woeful ACC shows few signs of bouncing back next year.

A final phrase on 2007?

What long, strange trip it's been.

Cheers.

Didn't post yesterday, and I'm glad I didn't.

You'd be writing mean things about me today.

I planned to tell you to watch the best team in the country -- Oklahoma -- make as loud a statement as USC or Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl by pounding West Virginia.

Er... never mind.

Before we mess around with what we've seen so far, know that my ultimate feeling is folks who write too much into the bowl season -- The Big South Ten Pac went 11-0! -- are off base. I don't think the bowl season reveals definitive answers about conference strength.

That said...

West Virginia crushed Oklahoma, which twice crushed Missouri, which crushed Arkansas, which nipped LSU.

What does that mean?

That West Virginia is pretty freaking good when it's on. Recall, they also buried Mississippi State during the regular season, which was supposed to have one of those rugged SEC defenses.

How about this: Oregon posted a road beatdown at Michigan, which then rolled over Florida (the game wouldn't have been close if the Wolverines didn't twice fumble inside Florida's 5-yard line).

Or, while we're on the Ducks: Oregon, without its starting quarterback, bludgeoned South Florida in the Sun Bowl, and South Florida beat both Auburn and.... wait for it... West Virginia.

Which speaks to what previously got me in trouble with Oregon fans (no heart): When the Ducks were focused this year, they were elite. Sure, injuries were epidemic, but the Ducks should have beaten Arizona and UCLA even if they were down 18 starters.

No need to apologize, Oregon fans, about me being right and you being wrong. It's understood.

Here's another one: Tennessee posted a nice win over Wisconsin. But, of course, the Vols were drubbed at California.

See where this is going?

Point is: what you will hear from much of the national media after LSU beats Ohio State for the "National Title" is how great the SEC is after it went 7-2 in bowl games.

And, by the way, the SEC is the best conference this season, no doubt, and my guess is that Georgia likely will be 2008's preseason No. 1.

That said, the margin between the SEC and the Pac-10 is slim, as is the margin between all the BCS conferences. Heck, the Pac-10 was a blocked chip-shot field goal away from going 5-1 in the bowl season.

DA LINKS

---They mock our ways in D.C.

---Our old friend who used to work at that other paper, Les Carpenter, now typing for the Washington Post, tries to scare Seahawks fans.

---Chris DeFresne bemoans the boring BCS games... golly, anyone think USC-Georgia might have been fun?

---Another columnist joins the I Hate the Patriots Anti-Fan Club.

---JoeSportsFan looks at the media year that was.

---You can take a call from Rick Neuheisel here.

Cheers

Huskies fans shouldn't get too worked up about Dewayne Walker rejecting a job offer from Tyrone Willingham.

Ask yourself this: Why would he leave?

He's going to get the same money in LA. His son plans to play for UCLA next year. He's more secure with new coach Rick Neuheisel. He doesn't have to relocate. He knows his players and incoming recruits. He's getting to keep much of his defensive staff.

And after UCLA plays in a BCS bowl in the next couple of seasons, he'll get a Pac-10 head coaching job.

So who should Willingham turn to now?

I'm guessing it will be someone we don't know much about -- perhaps an NFL secondary coach who's dying to run his own defense.

But did anybody watch Oregon State's bowl game against Maryland? Did you see the impenetrable run defense? Or the relentless pressure? Did you see how well the Beavers backed up their pressure by blanketing the QBs' hot reads?

It was beautiful.

Mark Banker is the Pac-10's best defensive coordinator. And that includes USC's Pete Carroll.

Sure, he's attached to Mike Riley's hip, but if Willingham offered him the same money he did Walker -- reportedly a multi-year, $400,000 deal -- that would be hard for him to turn down.

And, no, I'm not Banker's agent. I think I've only talked to him once.

I am merely trying to help Willingham make a good decision.