Archive for September, 2011

Let’s Talk About Real Inspiration

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

October  16, 2010.  This date will be remembered by many Scarlet Knight football fans as the day that forever changed Rutgers football.  October 16 was the day that the Knights would play one of their toughest games of the season against Army.  It also is the day that Eric LeGrand became paralyzed below the neck.

The injury occurred with just over five minutes remaining in the fourth quarter of Saturday’s game, just after Rutgers had scored a touchdown to tie the game at 17. LeGrand was attempting to make a tackle on the ensuing kickoff, and was involved in a violent collision with Army’s Malcolm Brown. LeGrand lay motionless on the field for several minutes before being carted off.

Rutgers\’ Eric LeGrand Injured Vs Army 2010

Eric had emergency surgery that night to stabilize his spinal cord.  He was placed on a ventilator to help regulate his breathing as he was unable to do so on his own.  Doctors told his mother that there was less than 5% chance of him ever regaining feeling in his extremities and only a 2% chance of him ever walking again.

With the help of his family, teammates, and the entire Rutgers community, Eric has not only regained feeling in his extremities but is able to stand up for approximately 45 minutes and is able to move is hands and fingers.

Eric has been an inspiration to not only the Rutgers football team but to everyone who has been able to sit with him for a few minutes and talk to him.  Eric refused to give up even though his chances of ever being “normal” were nearly impossible to recover.  If there was any one who deserved the recognition for being a “sports hero” it would be Eric LeGrand because he has shown the world that perseverance does make a difference. #Believe
Rutger\’s Guard Eric LeGrand talks recovery after football paralysis

Don’t Let Your Love of Athletes Cloud Your Judgement

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Athletes are consistently used in commercials and advertisements to support different products. They are used as a sort of expert testimony, even though in most circumstances they have no expertise in the particular field of the product they are pitching. What vast knowledge does Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning have on Sony products? Yet the audience is meant to be swayed by his appearance in a Sony television commercial because one of the greatest signal callers of all-time is pimping the product, so that must mean that it really is fantastic. The company expects the public to overlook the fact that they are throwing gobs of money at Manning to get him to show his support for them, and instead hope that people will simply make the connection between Manning (great QB) and Sony (great entertainment company). Now I’m not saying Sony isn’t a quality company, but if I was selling you a rug, and I paid Joe Blow (who has no expertise on rugs) $50 to tell you that it was the greatest rug ever and it had fantastic stitching that would make it last for years, would you believe that statement or deduce that he is only saying that because I paid him $50? The same inference should be reached when these athletes do commercials.

So the question than becomes, why do we trust Manning and other athletes who keep cropping up in the vast number ads to support different products? Sure he’s an excellent quarterback, he appears to be a standup guy, he comes off both as well spoken and funny in most of his commercial appearances, but again he lacks expertise in that particular field and is far from unbiased considering the amounts of money he takes in per advertisement. It all connects back to the idea that we discussed in class about athletes as role models. America loves it’s football, Manning is one of the best to ever play that sport, and because he comes off as honest and hardworking he is admired by millions across the nation. But there is a difference between admiring an athlete’s skills and performance and elevating that to another level where they are these superior beings who have this expansive knowledge on the world that the general population doesn’t have access to. We deify these elite athletes who play a sport for a living. Even if some in the sports world are intelligent, I don’t think anyone would argue that they are the brightest minds on the planet. And despite how much of a standup guy Manning may be, he’s not exactly Gandhi.

My point is that we need to be careful with the way we look at athletes. Just because we enjoy their athletic prowess and watching them compete doesn’t mean we should make the leap to elevating these figures to a higher status than they deserve. As a sports fanatic I totally understand obsessing about sports, but we don’t need to model our lives after the likes of Peyton Manning, or take what he says as though it’s the word of God itself.  Manning is great at what he does, just be sure to remember that what he does is football. When you try to jump past that and take it further based on who he appears to be as a human being when really we have no idea what he’s like, you open the possibility up for another Tiger Woods situation. These people aren’t always who they seem, so just be forewarned.

Hockey Enforcers: Between A Rock and a Hard Place

Monday, September 26th, 2011

Hockey enforcers were born in order to add just a little more gusto to the game of ice hockey. Their job is to be the tough guy, the one that they fear in order to prevent any false telling of a play to the referee. This list of hockey instigators is a long one…

1) Stu Grimson

2) Rob Ray

3) Terry O’Reilly

4) Bob Probert

5) Tiger Williams

And the list continues…

Our world today has warped the sport watcher’s perspective on violence within games. What difference is there in brawls outside of a game and in one? Hockey enforcers are put in a difficult situation. Take this article from CNN for example:

Hockey enforcers have died. In fact, their history isn’t exactly a positive story. They’re placed underneath a spotlight for all of the NHL community to see. Their career, their love for the game, and their personal beliefs and ethics are put on the line. Many enforcers are unhappy and to the worse extent, depressed beyond belief, that regardless of their wants, they have to fight. They commit themselves to violent acts for what? Because they want to or because they have to? According to the CNN article, George Laraquat hated to fight. He was a hockey enforcer that was pressured into doing this job that continued to make his life a jail cell. He was trapped within a sport that he fell in love with and here it was spiting him for everything he was worth. As many call it, it was a love hate relationship.

Take this quote from Laraquat: “It’s the night before, the day of the game, before it starts,” he said. “It’s the shivers that it gives you, the worry in the head and the brain. It’s when you go to a movie and you can’t watch it because you’re thinking the next game about having to fight Derek Boogaard or someone like that. Or you don’t feel well, but something happens and you have to go out there. … It’s that pressure that’s nonstop that you live with.”

In what way is this right? To take away a man’s belief and throw it out the window? Is it right because the crowd loves it and it’s “just a game”? There are three sides to this story. One side are the spectators, who want this so bad they bang in encouragement. Their love for the game of hockey feeds off of a rush of adrenaline that is picked off of the competing players. They see no long term effects to this, they just want to see a good beating. The worse, the better.

The second side is the hockey enforcer. They’re living a lie to themselves and to the world as they know it. Men that drown themselves in alcohol as a solution to numb this feeling of loss and detachment from the outside world. They have the respect of the fans, but for nothing more than because they can throw a good punch. Long term effects contribute to many enforcers’ deaths, ages ranging from early 20s to late 30s. A short life lived due to a few seconds of entertainment.

The third perspective is the NHL business. The attraction is a money bringer. They thrive in the millions that are brought into this national business. Is hockey not the same without the on ice fights? To throw out the sentiments of the players, to turn their heads when an enforcer dies, to look down when it’s clear that what many cheer on is wrong…is it not clear that a player’s ethics are being ignored? Their life is an expensive pawn. Hell with their happiness, bring in the money.

The debate runs on…to have enforcers or to not have enforcers? To have fights or to not have fights? The death list won’t be stagnant for long. The need for violence continues to increase quickly. Has culture molded a love for human ferocity? How does this affect our ethical behaviors in everyday situations?


Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

A Yogi-ism is described as a malapropism, derived
from the name of a character in the plays The
, Mrs. Malaprop whose name was derived from the word malapropos. The word
malapropos means “inappropriate” so
in this road map of word connections I have described the meaning of Yogi-ism.
Yogi-ism is the inappropriate twists of words that take more time to think
about than they do to read.

“I never said most of the things I

What does
that mean? Simple. Read quickly, easily. However, what could that mean? Besides
letting your eyes flow over the words, look into the words, look between each vertical
line, under each curve. Find true meaning. Taking that Yogi was in the spot
light, although he could have said some things, his side of the story was told
by someone else, so looking through the words he may not have said some things
that he was quoted for saying. Even if you put it in quotes it may not be the
exact phrase, or context could be left out, leading toward misinterpretation.
The story was told after he said it. With the words he used, somewhat. We all
know what to believe about true stories, which really happened. Truth is not
truth, even though it is. Your truth may not be my truth. His truth may not be
her truth. To a quarterback being rushed by a 300 pound man who had to duck
down to get into the stadium that day on 3rd down with a tie game
hovering on the score board, 3 Mississippi is much different than to a 5 year
old playing hide and seek in the back yard. To a fisherman, this big becomes This Big the second time the story is

All of
this thought from nine words however, the way I interpret Yogi-isms may be
different from the way you do, which is why Yogi’s words become inappropriate. Not
like too much cleavage in class inappropriate, like misinterpretation of true
meaning inappropriate.

“If the world was perfect, it
wouldn’t be.”

Someone could
find something wrong with perfection.

this one.

In theory there is no difference
between theory and practice. In practice there is.”

Are you
thinking what the hell does this mean? Yeah me too. Read it again. And one more
time. Come on play along. What does he mean by practice? If he means baseball
practice, I guess I understand that interpretation, well for the first
sentence, practice is like a theory of a game, what you think may happen if you
do things right and everything goes your way. Then the second sentence makes me
believe that interpretation is wrong.

with Yogi Berra’s words I see his big goofy ears and large smile and think he
said it with no meaning behind it at all, such as when talking to a friend and
telling him how to get to his home in New Jersey, Yogi said, “when
you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
It’s as if he’s just screwing with him, joking around. But when taken out of context
you can break that line down too and turn it into great, beautiful insight about
taking the road less traveled and living large without the fear of where
something new may take you. Nope. I think he just means to be a jokester. Such as
when you’re riding copilot for your Mom, who quite frankly should not have a
license in the first place, who’s waiting to turn out on to the highway and she
asks, “See anything?” and you turn your head both ways and plainly say, “Nothing
your way. How ‘bout mine?” at this points her nerves are shot, the foot she had
just casually eased off the break slams back down and she looks at you
confused. It’s funny, try it. It doesn’t work with male drivers due to most having
ease and confidence behind the wheel, women however enjoy living by
stereotypes. (I believe it’s due to the pressure of the stereotype, just living
up to expectations)

gotten myself off track. Although, I really haven’t. Yogi-isms are thought
provoking, terrible for people with ADD.

Try it

Give these
a think,

“It ain’t the heat, it’s the

Humility = estimate of importance

“It’s like deja-vu, all over again.”

“Little League baseball is a very
good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets.”

So I’m ugly. So what? I never saw
anyone hit with his face.”


“We made too many wrong mistakes.”

Word ratios you did in Elementary school.  Wrong:
is to Right: Certainty

“We have deep depth.”

you’ve ever been on a basketball team where you weren’t afraid to come out of
the game when your team was only up by a few baskets, you understand.

“You wouldn’t have won if we’d
beaten you.”

Sports: Nicknames & Stereotypes

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

When you think of basketball who do you think of? You think of great players such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Lebron James etc. What about when you think of hockey, then who do you think about? You think of great players such as Wayne Gretsky, Alex Ovechkin, Steve Yzerman, etc. Who do you think of when you think about basketball? A tall, black male with long arms and legs that can jump with decent hand-eye coordination. Who do you think of when you think about hockey? An average sized white guy, that can probably not speak English without an accent, with a terrific sense of balance. Neither of these stereotypes seems very fair to guys like Larry Byrd and David Byfuglien, both of whom don’t deserve to be stereotyped based on what game they play. Jackie Robinson didn’t stand for that and neither should they.

Jackie Robinson was the first Major League Baseball player of African American descent back when the stereotype for baseball players were guys along the lines of the Babe and Joe Dimaggio. Lanky, white males with turns of speed, suffiecient hitting ability, and the inability to miss a small, white ball when it comes near you. The world of baseball as we know it now doesn’t subscribe to that stereotype anymore with black and latino players showing they have just as much skill. The sport of baseball, incidently is home to a wide variety of nicknames, probably with it being America’s dearest old sport.

Nicknames, despite cropping up in other sports such as baseketball and hockey, are predominantly based in baseball. “The Slugger”, “The Heater”, “Hammer” and the list goes on and on with ever single player being labeled with an overarching ‘nickname’ that encompasses their whole character to those watching the sport. With a name like “Home Run” you wouldn’t really have to ask what that person did, would you? However, some went beyond sense and comprehension such as “Biscuit Pants” and “Jidge” referring, believe it or not, to Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth. These nicknames however can just be another way to stereotype somebody in their role of whatever sport they play.

Some nicknames stereotype against color or race while others mock physical features or personalities. “Fatty”, “Ugly”, “Stumpy”, “Darkie”, “Crabby”, and “Psycho” all seem to be pretty derogatory terms, right? Everyone is a legit name for a baseball player at one point in the sport’s history. The stereotyping may or may not be intentional but it is still a criticism of someone who doesn’t fit the mold of what the sport’s fans expect of him and it’s wrong.

Steroids in Sports

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

In todays culture we have scientists that have been creating different types of drugs and other supplements that are supposed to increase strength among other attributes.  But with these new and ever growing supplements comes the use by athletes.  Whether it is anabolic steroids or human growth hormones (HGH), athletes are looking for that edge that will separate them from the rest.  Since there is so much money in sports today, it makes the need for the athletes to get this edge even more valuable.

In baseball, the steroid era is by far the most widely known for the abundance of players who have been named in various reports, for example the Mitchell Report.  Mainly some very big names who were at one point first ballot Hall of Fame players who are now on the very outside looking in with most of the voters refusing to vote for any player who has been directly linked to steroid usage.  With all the various reports has brought in more extensive testing for the usage of performing enhancing drugs, but these tests still do not test for HGH in the Major League because it would require a blood test, though they have started to test for it in the Minors.  Yes, a blood test is quite evasive but if so much emphasis has been put on the “cleaning up of the game” then why not take all the necessary steps to actually do it?

Along with baseball, the NFL has had some issues with performance enhancing drugs, but if you think that the MLB’s drug policy is soft, then the NFL’s is a joke.  If you can say that barely any of the players in the NFL use steroids then you are oblivious to the situation.

This brings me to my last point, the widely overlooked NBA.  I read in an article in ESPN the Magazine or Sports Illustrated that Derrick Rose, the reigning MVP, was asked about the problem of performance enhancing drugs in the NBA.  He was asked to rate it 1-10, 10 being the most problematic.  He rated it a 9.  The idea that NBA players do not use any type of PED’s gets overlooked because fans say, “No, they are just very athletic.”  Yes they are very athletic but that does not mean that they have not gotten any help to get to that point and to think that everyone is clean, in my opinion, is rather absurd.

Jake Rudman

Paying College Players

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Brendan Prin and Chris Favole

A huge issue right now is whether or not college athletes should be paid. At the beginning of summer it was allegations against Ohio State Football. And know there is talk about giving University of Miami the death penalty for their infractions.  We do not believe they should be paid for several reasons. One reason is that are already being paid in the first place to attend the school in form of a scholarship. College athletes on the D-I level may receive full or partial scholarships to attend a four-year university and receive a quality education. There should not have to be any other incentive for an athlete to choose one school over another. For athletes to receive extra money to attend a school and receive extra money for playing well in a game on top of that full scholarship, when other students are paying there way through school, and supporting these athletes it is unfair. Why should their athletic ability give them extra benefits that everybody else cannot get because they were not born with god given athletics. Another reason they should not being paid is that it destroys the pureness of the game. When a person looks at professional sports it is clear that players do not play the same when the start getting paid for it with a few exceptions. The reason for why this is unclear, it could be due to that they just could not make an adjustment to the professional system, or they stopped working out and caring about the sport because they are being paid. In professional sports there is usually one problem that makes it corrupt. Football it lately has seemed to be drunk driving and gun possession and in baseball steroids. The game no longer seems pure and it appears as if players are no loger playing just for fun like they did in college. When players in college start getting paid who knows if they are always going to give everything they have every day. Why should they when they are getting paid?

The Woman Athlete

Monday, September 19th, 2011

  The woman athlete is a term that changes in the eyes and minds of others. To someone like me a woman athlete is someone who has the drive, the competitive mental composure, the skill, the luck, and the over all ability to handle all that comes along with being the best they can be. In the eyes of another they see a toned woman who is very attractive and would love to get a piece of her. Then in another’s mind they are wondering what she is doing playing a sport because it just isn’t right for a girl to do such a thing.

      As a woman athlete who plays both softball and field hockey I see all the looks people give me while I’m between playing lines in uniform and when I’m out walking around in public as well sporting an athletic apparel. I see people that respect what I do, recognize the hard work I put into my sports career, and even ask about how my games are going. Girls in lower leagues working their way up to where I am will look up to me and ask questions about how to improve their game. These people don’t see the sex of the player, they see a hard worker and a skilled player.

    Then you see those guys that look the athlete up and down with that judgmental eye. Some might be totally turned off by the fact she is an athlete with the thought of her sweating and getting dirty in order to succeed at what she does. He might feel like she is too “tough” for him and she might be too domineering. Now for the other guys, the ones that ogle over the toned and muscular body with desire. These aren’t the guys that suuport the female sport, they are the ones who whistle as they see the girl walk by, they are the ones who pretend to be interested in the sport in order to get closer to her, and these are the ones that are the most repulsive to me. They don’t see the woman athlete as a skilled person who plays her heart out win or lose because its what she loves. They see her body in bikini strolling on the beach with their hearts beating out of their chest. 

       Last are the people that take women’s sports as a joke as if they weren’t as intense as male sports. Women’s sports have come a long way from when they first began; we are setting records,  making ourselves known, and competing at higher levels of intensity. This group of people believes that girls should wear dresses and be built like a string bean. The truth is…. we have built up our muscles, we wear uniforms just like the boys, and we compete because we honestly want to beat the other team down. We can play just as good as boys and that’s just how it is now days, women athletes are a breed of their own.

    Beware! These girls are athletes, not girls scared to get dirty or sweaty. <===========Softball   <=================Soccer <================Field hockey <================Basketball <=ESPN’s highlights of women’s plays






Men vs. Women’s Lacrosse

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

I’m part of a family who is revolved around lacrosse and it’s an ongoing battle on which is better, men or women’s lacrosse. My brothers bash on girls lacrosse all the time. The girls sport will always have issues because of the fact that it isn’t as “tough” as the boys, and it has stupid rules. If I could I would change the girls to be a little more like the boys but that doesn’t mean our competition isn’t any easier.


Women’s lacrosse just as good as men’s


By: NICK O’MALLEY | February 15, 2011 | ShareThis


When a school features both a men’s and women’s team for a particular sport, what sometimes happens is that one team dominates the other. That much can be said for the Massachusetts softball team over the baseball team or the men’s basketball team over the women’s basketball team. Usually, it’s because one team’s success overshadows the other program.

Such is not the case for the women’s lacrosse team.

While the Minutemen dominate the spring sports headlines and usually has a nice, shiny national ranking next it, the Minutewomen’s accomplishments are nothing to scoff at.

Coming off back-to-back Atlantic 10 titles and a NCAA tournament play-in game last year and appearance in 2009, women’s lacrosse’s track record is more along the lines of field hockey and softball rather than baseball and men’s basketball. They may not be a heavyweight going toe-to-toe with the powerhouse conferences year after year, but they get the job done.

It’s easy to forget a program like women’s lacrosse. Lacrosse is a quickly growing game and is starting to take root in New England. However, UMass students don’t have the same mind for the game as students in Mid-Atlantic schools like Duke, Delaware or Maryland.

In her first year at the helm for the Minutewomen after leading Connecticut for two years, UMass coach Angela McMahon is seeing the fruits of that success around the athletic department.

“I think in terms of support, at least from the administrative side,  what I’ve seen so far is nothing but support for our program,” McMahon said. “People are definitely rooting for us for sure.”

Back in 2009, the Minutewomen got the opportunity to play their first night game under the lights at McGuirk Alumni Stadium against then-No. 1 Northwestern. That game broke the program’s attendance record with 893.

Since then, the program has been taking full advantage of the unused turf at McGuirk. This season, the Minutewomen are playing host at McGuirk six times compared to just two at the usual home of Garber Field.

The situation has been indicative of the positive changes McMahon has seen around the program recently.

“Having the opportunity to play in McGuirk Stadium has been great for us,” McMahon said. “It’s a great facility, now having lights, it’s great for us. We’re really happy with where we’re at as a program for sure.”

UMass opens their home slate Saturday against Vermont at McGuirk, and McMahon said that she’s happy with what she’s seen across campus, but knows that fans aren’t going to come out of the woodwork right away.

“It’s tough getting people’s attention in the middle of February,” McMahon said.

It’s particularly difficult to start buzz around sports programs when the spring season at UMass doesn’t have the headliners like football, basketball or hockey. It’s even harder when those sports are still-growing sports like the two lacrosse programs or baseball, which doesn’t get the attention as a college product the way that basketball and football do.

In a way, men’s lacrosse is the headliner for spring sports almost by default, especially with the difficulty that comes with selling women’s sports to college students (sorry softball). Women’s lacrosse, meanwhile, still has to grow its market share if it wants to make up ground against other programs.

Then again, lacrosse doesn’t exactly have the legacy of most programs on campus do, particularly in the New England region.

By the time I graduated high school, the men’s lacrosse team at my school had just finished its first winning season. By winning I mean that they had won at least one game. The women’s team, meanwhile, was struggling to meet varsity status.

So when I came to UMass, it was a surprise to see the two programs run so successfully, especially with the issues the programs have had in recent years. The men’s team has put its off-the-field incidents behind them while the women have maintained consistency, even with the program’s third coach in six seasons and some players leaving the program during then-coach Alexis Venechanos’ tenure.

As much success as the program has seen, there remains a glass ceiling of sorts for women’s programs on college campuses, unless you’re UConn women’s basketball. Those 839 fans that attended the first game at McGuirk may be as far as the program’s potential can take it attendance-wise, barring some explosion in wins during McMahon’s tenure at UMass (possible, but unlikely).

In the meantime, women’s lacrosse has moved from a niche sport to one that’s entrenched itself at UMass and more and more so in the New England region and, more importantly for the program, atop the A-10.

Nick O’Malley is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at’s-lacrosse-just-as-good-as-men’s/


Why Michael Jordan Is the Greatest Basketball Player of All Time?

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

Ryan Henderson , Dylan Farinet, and EJ Willis

Michael Jordan is considered the best player of all time, not just the best shooting guard. Michael Jordan was the guy that every one in basketball wants to be like. He had the ability to hit clutch shots from anywhere on the floor. He had an explosive drive that left defenders wondering where he went and had unbelievable jumping ability to dunk over the defenders in his way. He won six championships all with the Chicago Bulls, a task of which very, very few NBA players have accomplished. Michael Jordan also was one of the hardest workers. He was cut from his Freshman team in high school, but he didn’t give up there. He continued to work at his game and eventually got a scholarship to North Carolina, one of the best college basketball schools available. He was picked third overall in the NBA draft, but proved in just a short amount of time that he deserved to be picked number one. His famous shot in the playoffs has been recorded and repeated many times. Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player to ever live, and only one person can even compare to him, and that man is Lebron James.

Jordan was a great clutch player. Probably the best in the clutch. But he is NOWHERE to be found on the list of triple doubles. Other players such as Wilt and Bill Russell have either more championships or FAR more 50 point games than Jordan! Jordan played in an era where Olajuwon and the mailman were the main competition. Come on.
Jordan was great in the clutch, but “greatest of all time” can definitely be debated. In basketball, how do you determine the criteria for rating a center against a shooting guard…etc? I think Jordan could be the best shooting guard ever, but there were others whose defense and championship prowess is more legendary than his.

MJ’s Career Stats/Notables 


Five-time regular season Most Valuable Player, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96, 1997-98.

Won three consecutive NBA Finals MVPs, twice, 1991-93 and 1996-98.

Second player to win seven straight scoring titles, 1986-87 to 1992-93 (Wilt Chamberlain, 1960-66). Also won scoring titles in 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98.

All-NBA first team seven straight years, 1987-93. Also 1996-1998.

All-Defense first team six straight years, 1988-93. Also 1996-1998.

NBA Defensive Player of the Year, 1988.

NBA Rookie of the Year, 1984-85.

NBA Slam Dunk Champion, 1987, 1988.

NBA All-Star Game MVP, 1988, 1996, 1998.

Sporting News College Player of the Year, 1983, 1984.

Sporting News All-America first team, 1983, 1984.


Bulls’ all-time leading scorer and 3rd all-time leading scorer in NBA with 29,277 points.

Scored a playoff-record 63 points in a 1986 first-round game against Boston.

Set NBA record with 23 consecutive points against Atlanta in 1987.

3,041 points in 1986-87 were the third-highest total in NBA history.

Holds career record for highest-points per game average in regular season, 31.5.

Shares single-game record for most free throws made in one quarter, 14, 1989 at Utah (4th quarter), and 1992 at Miami (4th quarter).

Career record for scoring average in All-Star Game, 21.3 ppg.

Highest scoring average, NBA Finals, 41.0 against Phoenix, 1993.

Most points, six-game series, NBA Finals, 246 against Phoenix, 1993.

Most field goals, NBA Finals, 101 against Phoenix, 1993.

Holds career record for highest-points per game average in playoffs, 33.4.

Holds NBA Finals single-game record for most points in one half, 35.

Other Honors

Led Bulls to three straight World Championships, twice, 1990-91 to 1992-93 and 1995-96 to 1997-98.

Member of United States gold medal-winning Olympic teams in 1984, 1992.

Member of North Carolina national championship team, 1982.

Bulls No. 1 draft pick in 1984, third player selected overall behind Hakeem Olajuwon and Sam Bowie.

Scored career-best 69 points against Cleveland, March 28, 1990.

Scored 50-or-more points 37 times.[youtube][/youtube]