OK, for the LAST time -

USC did not freakin' win the National Championship in 2004 as the caption on that picture indicates; LSU won it. The official national champion is the winner of the BCS Championship Game - as agreed upon by many influential groups of people including college football coaches such as Pete Carroll - and in 2004 the winner of that game was LSU, which defeated Oklahoma 21-14. Furthermore, USC won its only true national title in 2005, not 2003, as that caption indicates. Has the recession completely obliterated the need for fact-checkers and editors?

Anyway, the mainstream media's adoring obsession with Pete Carroll and his USC regime are typical of its biggest flaw: instead of performing its true task of passing on information, it instead creates a storyline (Pete Carroll's genius) and fits facts (USC's 2005 national championship) and non-facts (USC's 2004 "national championship," which should technically be listed as "USC's first-place finish in the 2004 AP poll" - and nothing more) to support that storyline.

So, mainstream media, for the last time, here are the facts: USC won only one official national championship in Pete Carroll's nine years there (2005); in 2004 it was awarded the top spot in the Associated Press writers' poll, but finished the season as the runner-up to LSU in the official national championship system. Therefore it is technically incorrect to state that Pete Carroll won two national championships during his time at USC. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

Oh, and here's one more fact: I am most certainly not an LSU fan; I am, however, a devoted fan of accuracy.

Dear Mr. Shaughnessy: In what universe is Jack Morris a better pitcher than Curt Schilling?

While I agree with almost everything you wrote in the Edgar Martinez column [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/01/04/edgar.martinez/index.html], I simply cannot accept your blasé assessment that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. Why? Because it is patently untrue to the point that I am forced to ask: do you know even the slightest bit about these two pitchers' careers?!?

Jack Morris pitched in a much more pitcher-friendly era than did Curt Schilling, whose prime coincided with the "Steroid Era" (which also partially overlaps the "Let's-Build-Little-League-Ballparks-And-Play-Major-League-Games-In- Them Era"). Furthermore, Jack Morris remained almost injury-free his entire career; Curt Schilling, on the other hand, lost a significant amount of games to injury in three seasons (and three more if you count the seasons he made only twenty-four starts). On top of those two advantages, Jack Morris pitched for teams that were more competitive than the teams for which Curt Schilling pitched. So, with all those advantages, how does Jack Morris compare to Curt Schilling? Well, he does have thirty-eight more wins than Schilling; but, then again, he started ninety-one more games than Schilling did – on more competitive teams in a more pitcher-friendly era, remember? OK, but wins aren't everything; let's look at other statistics. ERA: Morris is at 3.90, Schilling 3.46. So not only did Schilling allow fewer earned runs per nine innings in his career, he did it in an era of juiced up players and slimmed down ballparks. Strikeouts? Morris had 638 fewer strikeouts in 563 more innings. OK, but how many guys did Schilling put on base compared to Morris? Hmm . . . let' see: Morris walked 1,390 to Schilling's 711. It stands to reason, then, that Morris's career WHIP – 1.30 – does not measure up to Schilling's career WHIP of 1.14.

OK, the regular season is one thing, but what about the postseason? Well, Morris did have that unbelievable Game 7 in the 1991 World Series; but Schilling's two starts with the injured ankle in the 2004 postseason are at least equal to Morris's 1991 Game 7 start in terms of stature (you gotta give it to Schilling there: the man risked his career to win a couple of games for the Red Sox). Morris's 1984 postseason with the Tigers was remarkable as well, winning all three starts while posting a 1.80 ERA. Schilling's 2001 postseason, however, tops Morris's outstanding effort in 1984: six starts, four wins (with no losses) and a ridiculous 1.13 ERA. Throw in Schilling's 1993 performance for the Phillies – four starts (1-1 record) with a 2.61 ERA – versus Jack Morris's 1992 performance for the Blue Jays – four starts (0-3 record) with a 7.43 ERA – and Schilling was clearly the more dominant postseason pitcher as well.

So, after all of that evidence, Mr. Shaughnessy, I must ask again: do you know even the slightest bit about these two pitchers' careers? I suspect one of two things here: 1) You actually didn't know anything about their careers until just now (which seems unlikely since you’ve been writing about baseball since I was in diapers) or, more likely 2) You did know about these two pitchers' careers, but instead allowed your obvious dislike for Schilling to get in the way of your judgment (a dislike, mind you, that I share but don't let interfere with my judgment)? More importantly, after all of the evidence presented here, do you still believe Jack Morris was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling?

Please. There's a very good reason Jack Morris never finished higher than third in the Cy Young balloting: he was a very good – and occasionally dominant – pitcher who won plenty of games for consistently competitive teams while Curt Schilling, for all his bombast and self-glorification, was unquestionably the better, more consistently dominant pitcher who, for the most of his career, just happened to have pitched for less competitive teams.

Any thoughts, Mr. Shaughnessy?

Sincerely,

Murray Rizberg