Blog Entry


Posted on: March 17, 2009 6:32 pm

I used to be very old fashioned. There was a time when I would've had the same reaction Scott Skiles did when he learned that Charlie Villanueva was tweeting at halftime of a game.

There was a time -- oh, about 17 days ago -- when my reaction would've been, "What's tweeting?" Now, I say to myself as I read Skiles' comments condemning this transgression, "What's the big deal?"

Skiles said Villanueva sneaking a tweet at halftime would lead "reasonable people" to conclude that he wasn't paying attention or focusing on the game.

Really? Since when do players pay attention at halftime? Aren't they all busy texting and emailing their friends? In any event, with his first full season three-fourths over, I would've guessed that Skiles' players tuned him out months ago. That's what happened to him in Chicago.

Anyway, technology is charging past me so fast that I sometimes formulate opinions I can't believe. A purist would say that players shouldn't be messing around with Twitter at halftime. They should be paying attention to the coach. But that's boring. Plus, today's players are fully capable of paying attention to the coach and texting at the same time. Today's players are multi-taskers, baby!

It's a losing battle for any coach who wants to curtail his players' texting, emailing and the like. And an impossible one to win. If Villanueva can't post on Twitter at halftime, what about all his teammates who were texting their friends, wives, and um, girlfriends?

Now you have to draw the line somewhere, and here's where I draw it: During the All-Star Game, Chris Bosh was conspicuously and constantly texting and emailing throughout the game on the East's bench. It didn't matter that he was injured and wearing a suit. That's just wrong. When you are in public view on the court, your cell phone stays in your pocket. That's just the way it is.

But what do we make of this? During halftime of the Bucks' victory over Boston Sunday, Villanueva grabbed his PDA and transmitted the following to his Twitter feed:

In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We're playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up.

Now, if there are Pulitzers for Tweeting, I think it's safe to say the other finalists are safe. But at least he did step up and deliver a team-high 19 points as the Bucks beat the listless Celtcs 86-77.

"I was very into the game -- as you can tell, the way I played," Villanueva said.

Twitter -- and much worse things that haven't been invented yet -- may very well succeed in bringing Western civilization to its knees. Until then, I don't see much wrong with tweeting a couple of thoughts at halftime. Just make it better next time.

In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. Close game at da half. I'm about to light up Pierce for 40. No way that stiff can guard me. 

Then we'd have something to tweet about.  







Since: Feb 14, 2008
Posted on: March 18, 2009 10:39 am


What would have happened if he did not "step-up" and ended up with something like 12 turnovers and shot 0-22 from the field, and 0-12 from the free-throw line?  Then what?  Then would it be a big deal?  I am sure some would agree that these columns and posts may be different.  Let's say he had a key turnover in the last few seconds of the game to top it all off.  Then, it came out that he was playing with twitter at half time?  Then people would be screaming about his lack of focus, right?  Maybe...

While I think it is really not that big of a deal that he was "twittering" (is that what you call it?), I do not think Skiles overreacted.  He wants his team to listen and prepare for the second half during halftime of the game.  That is not unreasonable.

Why is it a big deal then?  Thanks to the media again... and me, I guess, since I am spending one of my breaks typing about it...

Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: March 18, 2009 6:23 am


Whatever, the guy performed so I say let him 'twitter' all he's not like he disrupted anything anyway. As a coach myself I would have been pretty mad at something like that a few years ago but I figure as long as he's not being a disruptive presence and is playing well then I don't really care. More importantly, where did the terms 'twitter' and 'tweet' come from anyway? That's the real travesty in all of this and is something I've always wanted to know...what rediculous terminology!

Since: Sep 25, 2006
Posted on: March 18, 2009 6:13 am


On one hand it's really not a big deal, but on the other you are showing disrespect towards your team by doing non-game related stuff.  When you're getting paid a salary most of us can only dream of is it really that hard to put away the phone for a few hours twice a week?



Since: Dec 16, 2006
Posted on: March 18, 2009 5:34 am


You try telling a guy who's getting paid more in one year than you'll earn in your entire lifetime to pay attention, let alone pay attention to a coach who's a pauper by comparison ...



Since: Mar 31, 2008
Posted on: March 17, 2009 7:58 pm


I don't think players should be doing anything except focusing on the game. They have plenty of time to screw around with their millions after the game is over. We as fans regardless of what team we root for are paying for these players to play. They should be paying attention not twittering and texting. 

Since: Jul 30, 2007
Posted on: March 17, 2009 7:28 pm


Skiles definitely overreacted.  If he was tweeting about his post game plans or something like that I could understand it more, but his tweet was game focused so I don't see a problem with it. 

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or