Lutz

* What’s happened to the Wichita Thunder? This was a dominant regular-season and playoff team before meeting up with the Fort Wayne Komets in the CHL Finals, but Fort Wayne has dominated the Thunder in a way I didn’t believe the Thunder could be dominated. True, injuries to Alex Bourret and goalie Adam Russo haven’t helped, to say the least, but this is a team that has prided itself on quality depth and, more importantly, toughness all season long.

* Now the Thunder finds itself down 3-0 in the best-of-seven series with Game 4 to be played Saturday night in Fort Wayne. The last two games have been blowouts, over almost immediately. There’s nothing that feels like the Thunder will be able to eek out a win in this series, which would be a difficult way to end what had been a marvelous season.

* Playoff sweeps stink, no matter whether they come in the first round or the finals. I expected more fight from this bunch. I never thought a team coached by Kevin McClelland would be pushed around like the Thunder has been pushed around by Fort Wayne.

* This curiosity about the Thunder’s plight isn’t to short-change the way Fort Wayne has played in this series. The Komets have taken it to Wichita from the very first puck-drop for Game 1 at Intrust Bank Arena. It’s been a thorough and complete domination.

* It would be a shame if the career of New York Yankees reliever Mariano Rivera ends like this. Rivera, for those who don’t know, suffered a torn ACL in his right knew while shagging balls during the Yankees’ batting practice session before Thursday night’s game against the Kansas City Royals at Kauffman Stadium. Rivera has been shagging fly balls for years and calls it one of his most enjoyable experiences. But at 42, and with at least a year needed to recover, it’s possible that Rivera’s career is finished.

* If it is over for Rivera, his legacy as baseball’s all-time best closer is entrenched. Rivera might be the best postseason pitcher – starter or reliever – in history. He is the game’s all-time leader in appearances (1,051), bullpen ERA (2.21), saves (608) and, believe it or not, blown saves (73).

* Sorry to hear about the passing of Adam Yauch, one of the three founding members of the Beastie Boys. He died Friday at 43 after battling cancer since 2009.

* Four contestants remain on “American Idol.” I believe Joshua Ledet and Jessica Sanchez are far and away the two most talented and should be in the finale. They could be superstar singers, in my opinion. I also think Skylar Laine and Elise Testone, eliminated in back-to-back weeks, have what it takes to be stars. I’m not so sure about Phillip Phillips, who just doesn’t connect with me. And I go back and forth with the fourth remaining singer, Hollie Cavanagh. There are times I think she’ll be star and times when I doubt she’ll even get a record deal.

* The “American Idol” tour hits Kansas City’s Sprint Center on July 12. Am I going? Let me get back to you on that. There’s a chance I will. A decent chance, because my wife always really enjoys the show. Road trip, anyone?

* Tiger Woods and Albert Pujols need to become buddies.

* As I write this, it appears Woods will miss the cut at the Wells Fargo Championship in Charlotte after a second-round 73 on Friday and a two-day total of 144, even par. That is expected to be one shot short of making the cut and would be only the eighth time Woods has missed the cut for a PGA Tour event.

* Pujols, meanwhile, has now topped 100 at-bats for the season (104) and is still without a home run for the Los Angeles Angels. I have no idea how this is even possible for a guy who had homered once every 14.8 at-bats previously in his career. It’s way, way too early to think Pujols is in major trouble with this lack of power production, but it’s a fascinating start to his Angels career, to say the least. Pujols also has only five RBIs and has walked only six times in 26 games. And the more he denies the frustration, the more evident it becomes that it’s something he’s struggling with.

* It doesn’t help that the Angels are off to a 10-16 start after being expected to contend with the Texas Rangers in the American League West. Barely more than a month into the season, LA trails the Rangers by 7 1/2 games. That’s going to be nearly impossible to make up on what might be the best team in baseball.

* It also doesn’t help that Pujols has not been able to gain a comfort level in his new digs. Trust me, going homer-less in 26 games to start a season with a new team after signing a 10-year, $240 million deal is not comfortable. Baseball is a team game, of course, but you have to wonder what the rest of the Angels are thinking about Pujols. Sometimes, it’s what isn’t said that can drive a guy crazy.

* As a Cardinals fan, am I getting any satisfaction from Pujols’ early struggles in LA? Yes, I suppose I am. And I’m not proud of what that says about me. But I just can’t help it. I’m petty in some ways.

* Former Wingnuts right-hander Will Savage is 5-0 for the Triple-A Albuquerque Isotopes with a 3.34 ERA. He’s started three games and been in relief in five others. It’s always a great story when a player or pitcher who spend time in the independent leagues gets a shot at getting to the majors, and Savage could be on the cusp.

* Also good to see former Wichita State third baseman Conor Gillaspie getting an early-season promotion to the San Francisco Giants after SF third baseman Pablo Sandoval suffered an injury. Gillaspie, who was 1-for-3 in his Giants debut on Thursday, was batting .362 at Triple-A Fresno with three homers and 13 RBI. He figures to get a long look with the Giants now that Sandoval is on the shelf. Gillaspie has always been able to hit and I doubt that changes in San Francisco. Whether he’ll generate enough power to be an every-day player has always been the question for Gillaspie.

* Rumors are swirling about the possibility of Florida State and Clemson leaving the ACC for the Big 12. Those rumors are everywhere. I just did a Google search and found dozens of references, though it’s not a story that has gotten much run from major websites or publications. But it sounds like it’s something to keep your ears open about.

* You know one of the first tasks for incoming Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, formerly the athletic director at Stanford, will be to find a way to expand the conference to at least 12 teams so as to re-establish the Big 12 football championship game. Florida State and Clemson seems far-fetched. But most of the changes that have led to conference re-alignment across the country have seemed far-fetched. I’m just saying, this could happen.

Thanks for reading, everyone. And have a great early-May weekend.

It’s playoff time in the NBA, the only time when the NBA really matters to me.

I’m especially looking forward to some second-round match-ups in the Western Conference, but some of these first-round series are compelling.

Here are my Top 10 postseason questions moving forward:

Is San Antonio for real?

What a ridiculous question, on the surface. The Spurs tied Chicago for the best record in the NBA during the regular season at 50-16.

Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs are my pick to win the NBA championship. But there's a long way to go.

They’re almost unbeatable at home and were the hottest team in the league going into the playoffs. But last year, SA was unceremoniously dumped in the first round by the Memphis Grizzlies after compiling the league’s best regular-season mark. It’s an older team, although the sprinkling of youth the Spurs have mixed in with Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. This is a much deeper team than the one that lost early last season. I think San Antonio has as much a chance of winning a championship as any other team with the possible exception of Miami. And Gregg Popovich is one of the greatest coaches in NBA history. I challenge you to dispute me on that.

Is Miami this good?

 The Heat are one of those teams that can sleep-walk a bit during the regular season, making you wonder if all the great parts really add up to a championship-caliber team. But, finally, LeBron, Dwyane and (to a much lesser extent) Chris look capable of bringing a championship to South Beach. Miami has manhandled a mystified New York Knicks team so far in the first round, building a 2-0 lead. And with Derrick Rose injured in Chicago and the Boston Celtics getting older by the breath, it looks like Miami has clear sailing to the Finals. But we all know clear sailing can quickly turn turbulent. But it looks like the Heat are focused on winning a championship and that a good-but-not-great regular season is in their rear-view mirror.

Which of the underdogs could make a run?

Tough one. I suppose Philadelphia has a chance against the Rose-less Bulls, even though the 76ers are down 1-0 in that series going into tonight’s Game 2. I don’t sense a lot of upsets in the first round, though. Do you consider Atlanta to be an underdog to Boston? Seeding suggests that isn’t the case. But Atlanta’s not a team I take seriously at playoff time. The Hawks have a way of under-achieving. I would love to see Denver make a series of it with the Los Angeles Lakers. I think Dallas is an underdog in its series against Oklahoma City, although the Mavericks are the defending NBA champion and made Games 1 and 2 difficult for the Thunder in OKC.

What is Amar’e Stoudamire thinking?

Clearly, he’s not. I don’t give the Knicks much of a chance to come back in their East series with Miami. But thanks to Stoudamire’s bone-headed decision to punch a glass case that housed a fire extinguisher after a Game 2 loss on Monday night, any chance the Knicks have has been, well, extinguished. Way to think of your team, Amar’e.

Did the LA Clippers really come back from 27 points down to beat Memphis?

Yes, that really happened. I didn’t see it with my own eyes, because when I saw the Grizzlies leading by 20-plus points in the fourth quarter, I went to bed. This looked like the most entertaining of all the first-round match-ups going in and Game 1 certainly didn’t disappoint. I think this will go seven games. I think it’ll be a lot of fun. It’s great that the Clippers and Grizzlies are playing one another. I love this series.

Does Boston have one more run?

Down 1-0 to Atlanta and without spark plug point guard Rajon Rondo in Game 2, the easy answer is “no.” And that’s also probably the right answer. I think the Celtics have finally hit the wall, even though the Hawks or another team will have to stab this proud, veteran team in the heart to get them to die. Any team with Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Rondo – as long as he’s not bumping officials – is going to be difficult to beat.

Why, Bob, don’t you like the LA Lakers?

I kind of grapple with this one. I guess it goes back to the great Lakers-Celtics rivalry of the 1980s when Larry Bird, my guy, battled Magic Johnson, their guy. I’ve grown to love Magic, but at the time I was against everything the Lakers stood for. I suppose I haven’t been able to let that go. And let’s be real here, it’s not easy to love a team that Andrew Bynum plays for. The guy’s a child, in my opinion. A very big child who can really rebound. I do respect Kobe Bryant and consider him one of the top 10 players of all-time. But I don’t care for Pau Gasol and I think Meta World Peace is a joke.

Is there a real dark horse to win it all?

Does Indiana count? Can a 3-seed in the East be a dark horse? I think so and since this is my blog, I’m making the rules. I was shocked that the Pacers lost Game 1 at home to a Dwight Howard-less Orlando Magic team. And the Pacers struggled some with Orlando in Game 2 before taking charge. I’m guessing most people, even NBA fans, can’t name more than two or three players on the Pacers. But it’s a team I kind of like, again probably more for the association with Larry Bird, the general manager, than anything else. I do think Danny Granger, David West, Roy Hibbert and Paul George – that’s four players, somebody stop me – are a nice foundation. And the Pacers have a bunch of other guys who can contribute. I think Indiana might be heard from.

Who do you like in the Finals?

Oklahoma City is a sexy pick in the West, but I don’t think the Thunder is there yet. OKC isn’t good enough in the half-court to win a title, I don’t believe. I think the Spurs and Lakers will meet in the Western Conference finals, with San Antonio winning in seven games. In the East, it looks like a Miami walk in the park. Can any other team in the East get in the Heat’s way? Chicago can’t, not without its best player. Boston can’t. Indiana? Atlanta? Oh, who am I kidding. It’s a Miami-San Antonio Finals.

OK, then, so who wins?

Gotta be the Heat, right? Not necessarily. I think San Antonio matches up well with Miami, although I’m not sure the Spurs have an answer for James and Wade. But who does? This would be a fantastic series, one that I could easily see going seven games. Since San Antonio would have the home-court advantage, how can I pick against the Spurs? Yet I’m hesitating. I’m doubting. I’m thinking too much, to the point of making myself queasy. Can I really pick San Antonio? Sure, why not? Spurs in seven.

Thanks for reading.

People don’t believe me when I tell them I enjoy Facebook. People don’t believe me when I tell them a lot of things, but that’s another story.

Truth is, I like Facebook a lot. Many of my stodgy friends, who are about the same age, don’t relate at all to Facebook. Their belief is that we’re too old and too set in our ways to adapt to something on the cutting edge. I try to tell them we’re not that old, but they just look at me. At least I think they’re looking at me. They’re so old I can’t really tell.

Anyway, I spend a good amount of time on Facebook. Why?

Good question. I could say it’s because I like to keep up with my family, but I only have the one wife and the one kid. Good thing on the one wife thing, by the way.

My wife, though, has a large family and I do follow them as much as I can on Facebook.

I like the spontaneity of Facebook. Being that I’m one who is long past the point of caring what people think, for the most part, I enjoy posting what I deem to be slightly humorous stuff and then reading the responses from my Facebook “friends.” That entertains me.

What are Facebook “friends,” by the way?

Again, good question.

Most of the people who are my Facebook “friends,” are people I’ve never met. Yet I am interested in them. Some of them, at least. Sorry, but not everyone who is my “friend” on Facebook interests me that much. And I’m sure I don’t interest many of my “friends,” that much, either.

So in that regard, Facebook is a peculiar place. When I read a post from someone I don’t know who says they’re going to have a knee replaced, I wonder if that’s really information that I need. It’s not, yet it’s something I learn from reading Facebook posts. But reading posts like that creates a dilemma: Should I “like” that status, should I respond to that status or should I simply ignore that status?

Most times I ignore, being that I have very little to add to the statement of the conversation the statement elicits. But sometimes, out of the blue, I respond to a complete and total stranger. There are some people on Facebook, people I wouldn’t know if they tapped me on the shoulder, with whom I establish a mild connection.

I worry, though, that I’m ignoring my real friends for my Internet friends. Real friends offer more, such as: Real conversation, facial expressions, high fives, a twinkle in the eyes, laughter, groaning, anger, resentment and all of the wonderful things that come with true friendship.

What do you get on Facebook? A few words here and there, most of which don’t amount to anything of meaning.

Yet I’m hooked. When I was in Branson, Mo., last week, it was difficult for me not to use my phone to get on Facebook. For three days, I did my very best. And I’m proud to say that I only reached out to my Facebook “friends” one time. And the sun always came up the next morning.

Another bothersome thing about Facebook is that many of my friends aren’t even people. They’re business, disguised as people. Yet I accept their friend requests because – this is shameful to admit – I want to have as many friends as Anita Cochran and Larry Hatteberg.

I never see Hatteberg posting much of anything on Facebook, yet the guy has a zillion friends. And I’m jealous. So when Mike’s Bail Bonds sends me a “friend” request, I jump on it like I haven’t seen Mike or sought bail bond money for decades.

Meanwhile, there are some people on Facebook who I have known for many, many years. And some with whom I have rekindled a long-ago friendship. Those are the biggest attributes of Facebook, I believe. Because of Facebook, nobody should have to wonder about “whatever happened to . . . ” again.

All in all, Facebook has improved my life. It’s probably much too pervasive, but that’s my problem. I could just turn the computer off. But when I do, I wonder what I’m missing. And when that happens, I usually find out that I’m not missing anything. But the notion that I think I might be missing out draws me back.

I hope your Facebook adventures are satisfying. Or perhaps you’re as mystified by this social media craze as I am. I’m all in, don’t get me wrong. I’m just not always sure why.

The answer to the question posted in this blog headline is a resounding “no.” With another four-letter word in front of it, referring to a place none of us ever want to be.

As I was getting in the elevator at the hotel today to come over to the Superdome, ESPN analyst Fran

Any team that has Thomas Robinson - and Kansas has him - has a chance to win. At least that's what I think.

Franschilla was riding, too. Fran and I are close and I, as you can tell, love to drop names.

Anyway, I’m one – one of the few – who believes Kansas has a chance in tonight’s national championship game against Kentucky. So I asked Franschilla if he was with me.

And he wasn’t. He obviously thinks this is Kentucky’s game and he’s not alone. Not only are most of the “experts” picking the Wildcats, but they’re picking them by a lot. And some are saying a KU win would be epic, like North Carolina State’s victory over the Phi Slamma Jamma Houston team in 1983 or Villanova’s upset of Georgetown two years later.

What?

I’m obviously missing something here, and it’s not respect for Kentucky. I do regard the Wildcats as a big-time team with unbelievable talent. I know six Kentucky players will be involved in the NBA draft in a couple of months and that a couple of them could be lottery picks.

Center Anthony Davis is listed at 6-foot-10 but there has to be a typo. I’m almost sure he’s 7-10. Davis is a game changer.

But Kansas isn’t coming into this game with chopped liver. Or liver and onions, that I know of.

KU is good. And it’s a veteran team with a central piece, 6-10 junior Thomas Robinson, who is as focused as any player in the tournament.

Robinson and guards Tyshawn Taylor and Elijah Johnson could actually win their one-on-one matchups against Kentucky’s Terrence Jones, Marquis Teague and Doron Lamb. It’s not out of the realm.

But how will KU 7-footer Jeff Withey hold up against Davis? Three months ago, I would have said Davis would steamroll Withey into surrender. Now I think the KU junior might be able to hold his own. That’s not saying Withey wins the match-up or that Withey is a better player than Davis. He’s not. But he’s capable of at least competing with Davis, isn’t he?

The other problematic match-up for Kansas is Travis Releford vs. Kentucky’s Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. But am I completely loony in believing Releford is physical enough and smart enough to create some doubt in Kidd-Gilchrist, who is just a freshman after all. And Releford played better in his semifinal game against Ohio State than Gilchrist did in his against Louisville, when he had nine points and four rebounds.

Kentucky has a big edge off the bench with senior Darius Miller. Wait, Kentucky has a senior? Yes, and Miller is a good one who is capable of being the Wildcats’ best player in a given game.

But try as I might, I cannot see the huge Kentucky advantage in this game that everybody else – many of whose opinions I value – are seeing.

I know Kansas has struggled mightily to score in the NCAA Tournament; the Jayhawks just aren’t shooting well. And Kentucky doesn’t play defense like a bunch of freshmen and sophomores with one foot out the door for the NBA. The Wildcats are a fantastic defensive team with one of the best shot blockers in college basketball history in Davis.

But KU’s defense is special, too. And the Jayhawks are playing like a charmed team, able to overcome even themselves to win games.

Do I think Kansas can beat Kentucky? Yes I do. Do I think the Jayhawks will?

I could be really bold and pick KU. But I don’t think I can do that, even though I’m tempted. I will pick this to be a close game. And an epic game. It will be in doubt from start to finish before Kentucky eeks out a 70-68 win.

That’s my prediction and I’m sticking to it. Have fun watching the game everyone.

Doug Gottlieb is a terrific college basketball analyst for ESPN. He’s interesting and occasionally polarizing and I enjoy listening to him. There is no question he knows the game.

ESPN's Doug Gottlieb does well behind the microphone. How would he do on the bench as a basketball coach? I have my doubts.

But is he a sensible candidate to be the next basketball coach at Kansas State?

Gottlieb has thrown his name into the ring as the potential replacement for Frank Martin. This, despite the fact he has no coaching experience.

Gottlieb was a gritty, tough, fundamentally-sound player at Oklahoma State for Eddie Sutton about 15 years ago. There’s probably a coach in there somewhere, waiting to get out.

But for that coach to get out at K-State, which plays at the highest level of college basketball, is crazy talk. There is no way the Wildcats should entertain the notion of hiring someone who has never coached.

Some K-Staters are enthusiastic about the potential of Gottlieb landing in Manhattan. Why? I’m not sure. Apparently it’s because they believe Gottlieb’s basketball knowledge and the fact his father once coached under Jack Hartman at K-State, although it was 40 years ago.

This is where the insecurities of some Kansas State fans are apparent. Those who think Gottlieb would be a viable coach might be right, but is it worth the risk? And trust me, I’m a believer in risk/reward. I just need the risk to make sense.

Imagine the fallout if K-State athletic director John Currie hired Gottlieb and it didn’t work out. Currie would be gone in a flash because he wouldn’t be able to defend the hire. I’m not saying Currie needs to be absolutely safe when hiring the next K-State coach. In fact, I think he needs to push the envelope some.

But not to the edge of the earth, which would be the case with Gottlieb.