I don’t want this to be construed as anti-woman, anti-reporter, or a blind attack on the very field I love.

And I don’t want my words to be misinterpreted, so before I rant, if Ines Sainz was in fact verbally abused - yes, including something that may seem completely harmless on the surface - the Jets should be punished in some way, and Sainz, as well as the Association for Women in Sports Media, deserve big apologies.

But I have two problems with the coverage of this soap opera.

First, the demonization of all sports athletes in general for what, so far, is an accusation coming from a member of what, from all signs, seems like the National Enquirer of sports reporting.

TV Azteca has a storied past from what I’ve read, including the infamous wedding-dress-proposal in 2008, when a reporter asked Tom Brady for his hand in marriage. I know that Super Bowl Media Day is a circus, but if you send a JOURNALIST on-site for those shenanigans, you have some sort of integrity-based responsibility. That was obviously ignored.

Point being? This accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Until an admission of guilt is made, an investigation produces some sort of results or there is evidence that Sainz was messed with, no parties are guilty.

Furthermore, reports have suggested that Sainz has backtracked slightly on her initial claims. She qualified, as Mark Kriegel wrote, that she “never felt” like she was attacked, and that the situation has been blown out of proportion. Moreover, as a plethora of tweeps have noted, she has taken the opportunity to go on talk show-after-talk show to talk about the incident. Something that wreaks of a publicity move.

Despite all of these questions, nearly universally, reporters, male and female, have come out chastising not only the Jets, but in a way, all NFL players in general. Not necessarily directly, but read between the lines and you’ll get the feeling that some of the remarks made on Twitter and in public statements have an air of “All athletes are pigs.” I don’t want to single out writers in the industry, but there have been plenty of over-blown attacks resulting from this storm. Just read your feeds and blog rolls.

I think the attacks are borne out of an implied obligation from all journalists that when a female reporter is attacked, if you don’t come to her defense, you’re a bigot. What they’re missing is a fundamental principle of journalism; Sainz wasn’t definitely verbally abused yet. She was allegedly abused. Let’s keep that in mind.

Secondly, the Clinton Portis reaction has been ridiculous. Listen, the dude is an idiot if he believes what he said. Journalists are professionals. They’re not sex-craving nymphos looking for a glance at a dude’s naked parts. And if they are, I’m sure the NFL has means of anonymously reporting them.

That being said, don’t completely black list the guy. He shouldn’t have said what he said the way he said it. But maybe he has, in some roundabout way, a point. Maybe some male athletes feel some sort of vulnerability when being covered by female athletes. I’ve been in an NFL locker room. I know some dudes aren’t afraid to walk around buck naked. But at the same time, I’m sure there are just as many guys that would rather a female reporter (or male) not even see a belly button, let alone a backside.

What I’m getting at here is that Portis has shown his outspoken ways before. This is his personality. He doesn’t have a filter. But he shouldn’t be attacked so universally for it. He feels this way, and he said it. He deserves some credit for speaking his mind, instead of censoring stuff. Isn’t that what journalists want?

Yes, Portis owes an apology for the way he said it. And he did. But, if he really feels that way, maybe he should follow it up with some sort of mention of how he feels, and what he meant to say.

Maybe I’m putting words in his mouth. But if Portis was speaking for some percentage of professional male athletes, perhaps some sort of changes can be made; allowing more time for male athletes to get dressed in the locker room; opening a fully-clothed area of the locker room where ALL interviews - not just those conducted by female reporters - be conducted; something to allow for more privacy.

As far as I know, the rules in women’s locker rooms are that male reporters - with their female counterparts - speak to all female athletes when they are clothed.

Is it time for a male locker room to be looked at with the same sensitivity?

We’ve seen the amateur video more than Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance. We’ve heard more analysis than Slick Willy’s sex scandal. All that’s left is a letter from the ACLU.

Why is this taser thing such a BFD?

The facts: A fan ran on to the field, and couldn’t be controlled by security. He was near athletes, and his intentions were unknown. As Howard Stern pointed out this morning, nobody has any idea he was a 17-year-old with a towel - it could have easily been a Monica Seles repeat.

No shots were fired. The dude wasn’t knocked unconscious. There was no police brutality. A simple non-lethal weapon was used to subdue a guy who, to that point, was un-subdueable.

Additionally, the PARENTS of this kid have said the kid was stupid to run on the field. They haven’t threatened lawsuits, haven’t persecuted the police, and haven’t sought airtime.

So why does ESPN, CNN, and all of the major - and minor - news outlets seemingly have an undying affection for this irrelevant story?

Fans running on the field presents a REAL danger. Had the kid been a whacko with a knife, he could have done some damage. Fortunately, he was a teen looking to get on t.v. If the media doesn’t tread carefully, though, next time it will be a whacko with a knife, and he’ll wind up hurting an athlete.

Again, as Stern mentioned - I agreed with him on all times, other than his suggestion that the kid be shot on the spot - had this been a deranged individual that caused harm, the officer would have been chastised for NOT using more effective force.

In the age we’re in today, where there are clearly more safety concerns than there were five, 10, 20 years ago, appropriate measures need to be taken. In this case, they were. So let’s stop talking about it.

Let’s just get the poison out.

Yep, I’m still perfect. Provided the Hawks can hold homecourt advantage, my first-round NBA Playoff predictions will be a pretty eight-for-eight.

All right, enough with the ego-boosting. I’ll get more in-depth at the end of this weekend regarding the second round of the NBA Playoffs - although I assure you I won’t touch what I’ve predicted - but I do have one worry.

The Celts.

Cleveland without Shaq would have no problem with this team. Cleveland with Shaq, I’m a little nervous.

The offense isn’t nearly as fluid with the big man in there, and running the floor with Shaq instead of a far-more athletic J.J. Hickson or Anderson Varejao could handcuff Cleveland.

Moreover, Paul Pierce is playing the best basketball he has in a few years. Add in Rajon Rondo’s point play, Glenn Davis’ performance off the bench, and Ray Ray’s three-point stroke, and you have the high possibility of an upset.

Will it happen? I’m afraid it will. Am I going to change my pick? No, I’m sticking with Cleveland.

This will be a hard-fought series, though. Miami’s not a great team, but they’re not a bad team, and Boston made them look pitiful. Cleveland, meanwhile, looked underwhelming at times against Chicago.

We’ll see if the King’s drive for a ring continues into the Eastern Conference Finals against the Magic.

(Yes, disrespect meant toward the Hawks. As Alan Hahn, Newsday’s Knicks writer, tweeted this week, Orlando will win that series in 3.5)

Overheard the other day at Newsday was the following argument from a co-worker (paraphrased):

The NBA needs to follow in the NHL’s steps and re-seed in the playoffs. Why should the No. 1 seed have to play the No. 4 seed if the seventh seed tops the No. 2 seed?

Well, unnamed co-worker, you’re wrong, because the NBA’s got it right, and the NHL’s got it wrong.

The simple reason here is that when a seven-seed tops a two-seed in a seven-game series, chances are the seventh seed is probably BETTER than the two seed.

I understand that when a 14-seed (ie. Ohio) tops a 3-seed (ie. Georgetown) in the NCAA Tournament, it is an upset, and the next nine times the two teams play, the Hoyas would probably win. I understand that in a three-game series, an inferior team could win two times out of three. I’ll even by a lesser-quality team having a shot at winning a five-game series.

When you get to seven-game series, though, I’d argue that 100 times out of 100, the better team is going to win.

A perfect example is in this year’s playoffs. The second-seeded Dallas Mavericks are on their way to being ousted by the seventh-seeded San Antonio Spurs (as correctly predicted by yours truly).

Why? The Mavericks are a solid, solid team, well-deserving of the second seed in the Western Conference. However, with Tony Parker, a healthy Manu Ginobili, a damn-good George Hill, and of course Tim Duncan, San Antonio is a really solid team.

It isn’t a secret that one of the reasons San Antonio is seeded seventh is because of the lack of Parker for a large portion of the season. And it isn’t a secret that when San Antonio moves on, it won’t be shocking to anybody.

Now, let me ask you. Do you think the Lakers (assuming they move past the Thunder, which they will) would rather take on the Jazz or Spurs in the second round?

It’s definitely close, and no clearcut answer. I’d argue the Spurs, but if you’re taking the Jazz, you’re not crazy. But no way will Phil Jackson be complaining to David Stern that the second round should be reseeded because his team earned the right to play the Spurs. While San Antonio was the seventh best team in the West during the regular season, they took down the second-ranked team in the postseason, and thus, are the second-best team in the Western Conference during the postseason.

So don’t start pitching for re-seeding in the NBA playoffs, because if you force a team to win four games out of seven against another team, the side that comes out on top IS the better team.