Could Sid Hartman be wrong?

What?

It sounds impossible, I know, but it may actually be true.

Now, Sid gets accused of being a "homer" all the time, but I have no problem with that.

After all, if MN sportwriters can't support MN teams & MN atheletes who will?

Does anyone think Green Bay beat writers are going to start lavishing praise on the Vikes? Put down the crack pipe, please.

So I agree with Sid most of the time, but one thing I've disagreed with him for years has been his stance on team chemistry.

He always says that team chemistry don't mean much, and that superior talent will always prevail.

Well, where does he derive that opinion? He always seems to have a close, personal relationship with the most talented, yet troubled atheletes. Take Randy Moss for instance.

It's the supremely talented reprobates who tell him chemistry doesn't count, it's a Moss, not a David Dixon, where he gets that idea.

I've played lots of different sports in my life, and I've always been of the opinion that good chemistry trumps superior talent nearly every time.

Let's check out the NFL, Dan Synder spends the big money on Redskin free agents, and they're terrible; while the lunch bucket Patriots dominate.

That's my segue to the Gopher Men's Basketball team, and their fantastic NCAA season.

Wow!

I admit, I sure didn't see this breakout season coming, but how deserving it is for this team.

We've gone through the superstar phase, with Rick Rickert & Kris Humpheries and little team success.

Now we're going through the TEAM phase, and an amazing season culminating with an NCAA tournament bid.

Brent Lawson even stated: "Chemistry was the biggest factor" in their success.

I couldn't be prouder of these kids, maybe they can even teach Sid a little bit about team chemistry.