Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

February 28, 2006

Throwing Basketballs at Kevin Garnett

I was planning on doing a piece today on Stuart Scott and exposing that he does not respect you, but again, that has to be tabled. I just want to make it clear that I'm not delaying it because I'm intimidated by ESPN ombudsman George Solomon or because I've had a change of heart. Things are still the same, Stuart Scott is still a fraud, and he still doesn't respect you, but I won't tell you why until Thursday. Today, there are more pressing needs to address for sports fans.

It's time to throw the basketball back at Kevin Garnett.

By now, surely most people have seen the highlight of Kevin Garnett throwing a basketball into the stands after getting called for a phantom charge. It drilled a fan squarely in the face and caused much grief for him and his family. It was surely the defining moment of his life, and now that man will never be the same. What may have been a careless act to Garnett has totally disrupted the life of a paying fan who did nothing to deserve this heinous act.

Am I over exaggerating it a bit? Absolutely. I thought it was fitting after the performance the fan put on. He looked stunned for a while, too stunned to attend to his crying daughter, and eventually was carried out on a gurney. There are several things with this whole situation that have me utterly confused.

First, the fan. No matter how hard the ball hit him, make no mistake, the hardest hit he took that night was to his self-respect, as he actually got on a gurney to be administered first aid. The guy was a little on the bigger side, so I have a hard time believing this was his first time being hit in the face with a ball. I'd wager a fair amount that he was hit in the face with a ball every single gym class he has participated in or witnessed.

Even if this is his first time being hit in the face with a ball, I still think he may have overreacted a tad. This isn't entirely bad for him, as I think he could have a chance to spin this into a reality TV show. The premise, like most reality TV, is simple: cameras follow him around to record his interactions with other people on a daily basis.

Imagine an elderly woman bumps into him on the subway: he responds with the blank, confused stare (as if the stranger just revealed she was his mother), eventually needing a wheelchair to be transported to a waiting ambulance. He bumps into a wall in his house, he gives it the blank, confused stare (as if the wall revealed it was really his mother), eventually needing a wheelchair to be transported to a waiting ambulance. His daughter gives him a hug and he responds with the blank, confused stare ... I think you can see where this is going.

Second, the daughter's incessant crying. I know it's traumatic seeing Kevin Garnett casually toss a ball in your father's general direction, only to see his slow reflexes allow the ball to hit him squarely in the face. I know that's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed, and I don't even know anything about this guy. Still, he looks like the type of guy who may have been in an embarrassing incident or two in his years, so his daughter (or whatever her relation was) should be used to it by now. Actually, I'm quite certain that she wasn't crying because of what happened to him, but that it was actually something that Garnett said.

Everyone seems to accept he apologized, but why take his word for it? You can only really see him walk up to the guy and the daughter and say a few words — he could've been saying anything. My theory is Garnett didn't walk up to them to apologize — he was simply looking to add insult to injury and told the little girl one of two things that could produce the amount of tears the girl had — that Santa Claus is fake or that Clay Aiken is gay. Make no mistake, those tears had nothing to do with the old guy that got hit in the face with the basketball.

I imagine that Commissioner David Stern's office is working on something right now to make the girl feel better. It will probably be something along the lines of an NBA executive stopping by her house to deliver an assortment of balloons. Of course, the employee would then have to immediately pop all of the balloons so the little girl can learn a valuable lesson — David Stern has the power to bring happiness, but can take it away at the drop of a hat.

I'm still in shock over this whole situation. I think the reason Kevin Garnett feels so terrible about this is because of the hit the male sex took from this fan's embarrassing move. Personally, after spending several years as a wrestling fan, I thought he was a plant. I was expecting the gurney to get near the tunnel, and then for the fan to heroically rise up and limp back to the playing surface. The crowd would erupt at this courageous feat, Jim Ross would lose control over all of his bodily functions, and then this fan would sneak up on an oblivious Kevin Garnett and extract his revenge with a folding chair shot to the head. He would then leave the arena to the thunderous cheers from the rest of the arena. Unfortunately, it didn't play out that way.

Even if the guy acted like a complete and utter tool, what Garnett did is wrong. It's about time that players are held responsible for their actions. I don't think fans should be able to sue players for thousands and thousands of dollars, but they deserve justice. They shouldn't have to cheer in fear that Garnett will get fed up with officiating and throw a ball at them, or that Kenyon Martin will dispatch members of his posse to "deal" with his hecklers.

The simple way for sports fans to get this justice is to adhere to the rules established by an 18th century B.C. Babylonian king by the name of Hammurabi. Garnett did apologize, which was kind of him, but the only way to make things right here is if the fan gets the chance to throw a ball at Kevin Garnett. The fan only gets one shot to hit him, from the same distance, if he misses, too bad (after all, Garnett was able to hit him in one attempt, it's not like he was throwing balls at the fan all night long). An eye for an eye, or in this case, a throw for a throw.

This would be applied to any incident where athletes overstepped their bounds and affected sports fans. Kenyon Martin sends someone to rough up a heckler? The heckler gets to pick someone from his posse to rough up Kenyon Martin. If this sounds extreme, it's because it is. Frankly, fines and suspensions just won't get through to players with an abundance of cash and an indifference to playing.

They will think twice, however, if they know the victims of their tantrums and outburst would get the shot to knock them down a peg. It's one thing to pay a fine and move on, it's an entirely different matter when the highlight of an average fan pelting an athlete in the face with a basketball becomes America's favorite download. The entire process would be so demeaning to an athlete that fans everywhere could take comfort in heckling players and ignoring courtside action at games.

The next time a Garnett or any other athlete makes the fan a target of their outburst, there's only one fair thing to do — throw the ball back.

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday and Thursday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 5:39 PM | Comments (1)

Clevelanders Look Stupid Booing James

I've always had a problem with stupid people. Ignorance is acceptable, because it can be cured with knowledge. There is, though, no excuse for stupidity. The Cleveland Cavaliers fans who booed LeBron James last week, when he went 0-8 from the field in the second half of a game and 8-19 from the free throw line, demonstrated historic stupidity.

What is it with you boobirds, anyway? You go to a sporting event to watch your favorite team and your favorite players, and the second a player makes a mistake, you start booing. Have you ever even considered how stupid you sound when you boo? It's like someone with a speech impediment, attempting to impersonate a cow.

But I digress ... back to the numbskulls from Cleveland. Of course, these people have never been known for their intelligence, but let's take a careful examination of just how truly stupid they are. As previously stated, booing athletes in and of itself is a ridiculous act, but booing LeBron James because he misses a few shots in one game is tantamount to cursing a nude Halle Berry because she flubbed a line during a love scene. It just makes no sense.

Since these brainless fans obviously don't understand much of anything, let me make a couple of things very clear. Unless you are old enough that you saw Jim Brown play football in Cleveland, you have never seen the likes of a LeBron James this close. You've never had the good fortune to watch the greatest at what he does, night in and night out. You've never seen this many eye-popping, jaw-dropping, seemingly-impossible plays by one individual every time his team takes the floor.

Oh, and by he way, he's 21, and he is in his third year in the NBA. Booing LeBron is unconscionable (excuse the boobirds from Cleveland, who just went scrambling for their dictionaries). He makes more spectacular plays every time he puts on the wine and gold uniform than the rest of the Cavaliers have in the combined history of the franchise. Yet he misses a few free throws in one contest, and possibly the stupidest people on the planet earth start booing.

For his part, James can't believe it. He's far too mature, though, to ever complain about it, but he may not forget, especailly if it continues when other poor nights come, which they inevitably will. Then, when the time comes for him to sign a new contract, he may decide to take his uncanny talent to a city where the fans will apprreciate his greatness.

In the event that you boobirds forgot or just never paid enough attention to know, let me point out a few other reasons to sew your lips shut, the next time you think about booing LeBron.

First, in just three years, he's already the best player in the NBA, bar none. He's 31 points, nearly 7 rebounds, 7 assists per game, and shoots better than 48 percent from the field. Kobe Bryant doesn't do this, Allen Iverson doesn't do it, and neither does Tracy McGrady.

This year, LeBron is in the top 10 in virtually every offensive category — the only player in the NBA with this distinction. He can shoot the three, attack the basket against players both big and small, and he is the most unstoppable player since Michael Jordan.

If all of this isn't enough, consider that with career averages of 25 points and better than 6 rebounds and 6 assists, LeBron James is in a category with just one other player in the history of the NBA — Oscar Robertson.

Now, I know the Cleveland boobirds are a little slow, so let me just mention once again that King James is just 21. His legend promises to grow to heights that may transcend the sport, especially when you consider what a fine person he is in addition to his on-court prowess.

After his 8-of-19 free throw shooting night, LeBron and his Cavaliers had a difficult game at Detroit. After several more superhuman moves in the first quarter, LeBron was driving to the basket in a two-on-two fast break. Just as he passed the free throw line, he looked at his teammate, speeding alongside him on the left. James picked up the basketball in his right hand, put it behind his back, as if to make a spectacular around-the-back pass, then pulled it back and finger-rolled it up onto the rim.

The ball danced around the iron, tantalizing the crowd and millions in TV land, and then rimmed out. I gasped in amazement and tried to think of another player who could be special enough to make me sit breathless when he misses. Of course, I could think of none.

Then I wondered how many of the morons in Cleveland where watching their televisions, cursing LeBron for missing a lay-up.

Will the stupidity of Clevelanders never end?

Mark Barnes is a novelist, regular contributor to fantasy football site 4for4.com, and NFL football radio analyst. He appears weekly on ESPN radio in High Point, NC and on WBAL in Baltimore, MD, where he discusses pro football and fantasy sports. Mark's novel, "The League," is the first-ever published work of fiction with a plot based on the dangers of a multi-million-dollar fantasy football league. Learn more about "The League" and Mark's work at NFLStory.com.

Posted by Mark Barnes at 4:22 PM | Comments (11)

Big-Time Programs Still Have Work to Do

The 2006 college basketball season has been a one that has seen some sleeping giants like Villanova and Ohio State have outstanding seasons, and many of the traditional schools such as Arizona, Kentucky, and Louisville struggle. With two weeks remaining until bid day, many of the nation's most recognized programs have work left to do to receive their invitation to the NCAA tournament.

Note that records are as of 02/27/06 and numbers in parenthesis indicate RPI.

Arizona (16-10)

RPI: 17; Road record: 4-7; Last 10: 6-4

Good wins: Washington (35), Stanford (twice-89), California (65), Kansas (41)

Bad losses: Oregon (169), Oregon State (169), USC (98)

Season summary:: Lost to Michigan State and UConn after defeating Kansas to begin the season at the Maui Invitational. Lost at Houston in early December to drop to 2-3. Jawaan McClellan who was academically ineligible to begin the season, returned in January only to injure his wrist and was lost for the season after only two games. McClellan was being counted on as the Wildcats' best outside shooter.

A day after losing McClellan, Chris Rodgers was suspended. After meeting undisclosed requirements set by the UA coaching staff, Rodgers returned for Arizona's road trip to Cal and Stanford. Highly-ranked to begin the season, team has never jelled or overcome the losses of Channing Frye and Salim Stoudamire.

Key players: Hassan Adams, Ivan Radinovich, Mustafa Shakur

Players to watch: Marcus Williams, Kurt Walters

California (17-7)

RPI: 17; Road record: 4-7; Last 10: 6-4

Good wins: Arizona (17), Stanford (89), UCLA (14), San Diego State (63), Washington (35)

Bad losses: Eastern Michigan (299), DePaul (95), Oregon State (169), Arizona State (163)

Season summary: Tough team to figure out. Began the season with a loss at 6-18 Eastern Michigan, won six straight, and then lost at Kansas and to DePaul. Bad home losses to Pac-10 bottom-dwellers ASU and Oregon State could potentially be damaging. Eight wins in their last 10 games a plus. The Bears need to close the season strong and win at least one round in the Pac-10 tournament.

Key players: Leon Powe, Ayinde Ubaka

Player to watch: Richard Midgley

Indiana (14-10)

RPI: 44; Road record: 3-7; Last 10: 3-7

Good wins: Kentucky (40), Michigan (31), Ohio State (7) Illinois (12)

Bad losses: Indiana State (143), Penn State (115), Minnesota (61)

Season summary: After a 10-2 and then 13-5, start IU's season has imploded. Mike Davis announced he will step down at the end of the season. IU looked like a possible Big 10 title contender early in the conference season, bolting out 4-1. A season-long foot injury to 2005 Big 10 Player of the Year D.J. White limited him to just five games early.

Key players: Marco Killingsworth, Robert Vaden, Marshall Strickland

Player to watch: Roderick Wilmot

Louisville 17-10

RPI: 67; Road Record: 1-7; Last 10: 4-6

Good wins: Cincinnati (26)

Bad losses: Rutgers (86), Providence (81), St. John's (129)

Season summary: Built a gaudy 12-1 record through a largely unchallenging non-conference schedule. Their only impressive win came against Cincinnati in the Big East. Their only tough game during non-conference was a loss to Kentucky. Taquan Dean and David Padgett, expected to be Louisville's best players, have hobbled throughout the season with injuries. Padgett was finally lost for the season with a knee injury this week. Will likely need a extended run through the Big East tournament to have at the least a chance to grab an at-large bid. Was a top-10 team to begin the season.

Key players: Taquan Dean, Brandon Jenkins

Player to watch: Juan Palacios

Maryland 16-10

RPI: 45; Road Record: 1-5; Last 10: 4-6

Good wins: Arkansas (56), Boston College (34), Virginia (71), Minnesota (61)

Bad losses: Miami (FL) (72), Temple (62), Clemson (66)

Season summary: Similar season to Louisville, in that they jumped out to an 11-2 record against a mostly cupcake schedule. They loss of second leading scorer Chris McCray as an academic casualty after 16 games has been crippling to Gary Williams. The tournament committee doesn't look fondly on teams that are without key players entering the NCAA's. This would be the second consecutive year missing the NCAA's after 11 straight trips.

Key players: Nik Caner-Medley, Ikene Ebekwe, D.J. Strawberry

Player to watch: Mike Jones

All of these schools have advanced the Final Four in this decade with the exception of California. Names coaches and schools are what drive the excitement in March. With every passing year, the mid-majors become a bigger part of college basketball. The cut in scholarships and bigger exposure for teams like Gonzaga and the Missouri Valley Conference have created more parity. With the conference tournaments heating up, these will be some of the teams to watch. For bubble teams, their NCAA tournament begins now.

Posted by Alan Rubenstein at 3:59 PM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2006

2006 MLB Preview: American League

Note: don't miss the 2006 National League preview by Isaac Miller!

It was an interesting offseason in the American League. The Blue Jays made some noise by signing pitchers A.J. Burnett and B.J Ryan. The Red Sox added Coco Crisp and Josh Beckett. In the West, the A's acquired Milton Bradley to help the offense and the Rangers signed Kevin Millwood to help their pitching.

Some burning questions still remain. Who will be this year's Chicago White Sox? Will the Yankees regain their position on top of the American League?

To obtain a clear picture of the 2006 landscape, the success of the 2005 White Sox must be looked at. The New York Yankees should be checked out, as well, because they are always the team to beat in the AL. There is talent in every division, but in the end, the strongest team will be out West.

It seems that there is a team every year that overachieves for a while, only to lose to a hotter team in October. In 2005, the White Sox looked like another mediocre AL Central team reminiscent of the 2002-2004 Minnesota Twins. They appeared to have peaked too early, winning 57 games by the All-Star Break. Guys like Scott Podsednik and Jon Garland played outside of their minds in the first half. By the Midsummer Classic, Podsednik had stolen a ridiculous 44 bases and Garland had already won 14 games. Garland did not even start the All-Star Game; his teammate, Mark Buehrle, did.

Chicago slowed down, however, posting a 26-28 record from August 1st-September 27th. All signs pointed to a disappointing October. Chicago turned things around nicely, however, and started rolling. The White Sox went 16-1 after September 27th, including 11-1 in the playoffs. They were the hottest team in October, and maybe they were actually as good as their 99 wins would suggest.

As a Red Sox fan, I recall being thrilled when Boston got matched-up against the White Sox instead of the Angels in the first round of the playoffs. I thought the Red Sox would easily get to the ALCS. A lack of star power and household names made Chicago look beatable. Throw in a mediocre record after the All-Star Break, a terrible division, and 88 years of history and suddenly the team with the best record in the American League is an underdog. The Red Sox took Ozzie Guillen's club for granted and received a three-game wildcard beat-down. The Angels and Astros never stood a chance.

So, looking to the upcoming 2006 season, it seems unlikely that the White Sox will win it all again. The 2005 Sox will be in contention for the AL Central crown, but will likely come up short. Chicago will not be able to duplicate the magic of 2005 without repeat performances from Garland and Podsednik, among others.

So, if not them, who? The favorite to win the 2006 World Series (based on several online sportsbooks) is the New York Yankees. The Bronx Bombers have the best team on paper, but that is nothing new. Joe Torre has no shortage of talent, and the Yanks will be in the middle of it for sure. Nevertheless, the Yankees have not won a title since owner George Steinbrenner went insane and starting stockpiling talent. There's a big difference between the 2005 Chicago White Sox and the 2002-2006 New York Yankees.

In 2000, the Yankees beat the New York Mets in five games to win their 26th world championship and their fourth in five years. Winning titles takes role players, defense, and chemistry. The Yankees had that down to a science from 1996-2000. Since then, the team has been completely rebuilt, replacing the likes of Scott Brosius and Andy Pettitte. Steinbrenner has acquired Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, and Johnny Damon. Some big names have even come and gone like Javier Vazquez and Jose Contreras. Despite those additions, a 27th championship ring eludes Mr. Steinbrenner. Simply hoarding big-name players does not guarantee titles.

So five years without a ring and payroll and expectations are skyrocketing for the guys in pinstripes. That being said, the 2006 squad looks like a legitimate contender. GM Brian Cashman revamped the bullpen by adding Kyle Farnsworth and Octavio Dotel. The Yankees have a monster lineup, a solid bullpen, and, barring injuries, an adequate starting rotation. Johnny Damon, signed via free agency, adds defensive help in centerfield, which was a major problem in 2005. Also, look for Robinson Cano to improve from an impressive rookie campaign in which he had 155 hits in 132 games. Overall, the Yanks look better than they did a year ago.

With all the stars in pinstripes, it's hard to pick against them. The problem is that there is always a hotter team in October. New York was eliminated before getting to play last year's hottest club, the White Sox, but from 2001-2004, the Yanks lost to the eventual champs each year. The Yankees will always be there in October, but it's hard to compete in the postseason with inferior pitching, no matter how good you're hitting is. The Bombers eventually succumb to quality pitching and defense.

For 2006, the starters must be consistent for New York to win it all. That means that Randy Johnson and Mike Mussina need to intimidate and frighten opponents. Neither did that last year. Both were way too vulnerable. If they don't perform, New York will have another painful October.

Ultimately, the Yankees will win the AL East. New York will easily get to 96 or 97 wins with that $200 million roster and with some luck, that number could end up as high as 100 or 101. Boston will be right behind them in the area of 95 wins, depending on the performances of Keith Foulke and Curt Schilling. It will be interesting to see if the Red Sox gel with all the new additions.

The x-factor in the AL East will be the Toronto Blue Jays. The Jays will not make the playoffs, but they will determine the wildcard team. If Toronto wins between 85 and 87 games, the Red Sox win total will go down to around 90. This will open the door for the White Sox, Angels, or Rangers to make the playoffs as the wildcard team. The new additions to the Jays squad, along with regulars like Vernon Wells and Roy Halladay, make them dangerous to the teams in the AL East, which have to play Toronto just under 20 times each.

In the AL Central, look for the Cleveland Indians to pick up where they left off at the end of the 2005 season. Cleveland went 19-8 in September a season ago, 93-69 overall, and should take advantage of a poor division. Cleveland gets 55 games in 2006 against Minnesota, Detroit, and Kansas City. The Indians also have an easy interleague schedule, playing nine games against the Reds, Cubs, and Brewers.

Cleveland will cruise to over 90 wins en route to an AL Central title. Look for the Tribe to finish with around 94 or 95 wins, possibly as many as 97 or 98.

The AL West will be interesting in '06, as well. The Texas Rangers have a monster lineup full of young stars. They should win a lot of games if the pitching can improve even slightly from last year. Texas ranked 26th in team ERA a season ago, prompting them to sign pitcher Kevin Millwood, who led all AL pitchers in ERA last year. The overall pitching staff is still suspect, though, and middle relief will be a major problem in 2006. Look for this club to make a serious wildcard push while winning 85 or 86 games.

Oakland always hangs around with fantastic pitching and timely hitting. Oakland will win this division in 2006 with four nasty starting pitchers. Rich Harden will win 20 games if he's healthy. Dan Haren will improve from a 14 win 2005 season. Barry Zito is a former Cy Young award winner and newcomer Esteban Loaiza is a crafty veteran who will settle into his role nicely in Oakland. There could be 60 wins in these four guys. Reigning AL Rookie of the Year Huston Street anchors the bullpen and could be an all-star this year.

Oakland also added Frank Thomas and Milton Bradley to help Eric Chavez and Bobby Kielty on offense. The A's will be too much for a strong Anaheim club. Oakland wins 94 or 95 games behind the best pitching staff in the American League. Anaheim will win between 86 and 88 games competing heavily for a wildcard berth, and second place in the division, with Texas.

2006 should be an entertaining year in the AL. Texas and Toronto bulked up in an effort to finish better than third in their respective divisions. Both will contribute greatly to the overall playoff picture. When the smoke clears, however, the division champs will be New York, Cleveland, and Oakland. The wildcard representative will be Boston.

New York will beat Cleveland and meet Oakland in the ALCS. It will be the best lineup in baseball against the best pitching in baseball. Oakland wins in seven games with Harden throwing the game of his life in Yankee Stadium to win Game 7. A-Rod will bat .150 in the series.
The fact is that without a salary cap in the majors, New York is allowed to spend over $200 million. This results in regular season wins, maybe over 100 in '06.

There are more than 10 former all-stars on the Yanks and at least four future Hall of Fame inductees. But think of them like the 1980 Russian Olympic Hockey team. The U.S. team was overmatched, but won because they had more motivation and just wanted it more. Chicago wanted it more last year. Look for Oakland to be the team in 2006 that wants it more than the Yankees in the American League.

Posted by Isaac Miller at 11:55 AM | Comments (7)

Larry and Pat: Winning, Losing, Loathing

The time has come to re-examine the professional coaching legacies of both Larry Brown and Pat Riley. Riley hasn't won an NBA title since 1988, when he had two of the five premier players who ever lived, Earvin "Magic" Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Both coaches' recent moves call their supposed sagacity into question.

Riley, heretofore known as a guru of conditioning and defense, brought Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and Gary Payton to Miami. Were those moves supposed to create locker room harmony? How can Walker, Williams, and the fading Payton shore up a defense? When have Walker and Williams been known as team-oriented, defensive-minded players?

The decisions of Knicks GM Isiah Thomas and Brown make even less sense. The combination of Jamal Crawford, Quentin Richardson, Stephon Marbury, Eddy Curry (and now Steve Francis) is not a winning one. No one understands in what direction Brown and Isaiah Thomas are going. The Knicks are the Katrina of the NBA. Riley's smashball philosophies of the 1990s took them down, now look what Brown has done for them. And the picture is even more unclear with the addition of Francis. Francis and Marbury together? What has either won?

It is the imitation of Riley that led to the shot clock-eating, low-scoring NBA only recently revived by the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Gilbert Arenas. His football-esque Knicks, typified by Anthony Mason and Larry Johnson, and the plodding Miami Heat of Alonzo Mourning and P.J. Brown, unexplicably became the model for an NBA franchise. None of those teams won anything, and one cannot cite them as forerunners to the Pistons, who employ swift ball movement to wiry shooters such as Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince.

In Philadelphia, Brown was never able to successfully assemble a supporting cast for Allen Iverson. Those able to score, such as Larry Hughes and Jerry Stackhouse, bolted, uninterested in serving as Iverson's caddies. Keith Van Horn and Toni Kukoc were one-dimensional. Unselfish defenders Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill, Dikembe Mutombo, and Eric Snow hampered the "offense." Then there were all of Brown's spats with A.I. Sure, they made the NBA Finals, as did a few of Riley's 80-point era teams. But no one remebers runners-up.

It is players, not coaches, who win championships. Bill Russell was triumphant with himself, John Havlicek, and Sam Jones, but not so in Seattle. Dick Motta had his up and downs. So did Dr. Jack. Riley has never tasted glory without the Magic touch. These final years in the careers of Brown and Riley, former college guards who learned at the helms of Dean Smith and Adolph Rupp, respectively, put these figures, once regarded as uber-coaches, in danger of being viewed by sports historians as men who benefited solely from star-laden rosters. Their recent personnel moves certainly bear no resemblance to those of say, Red Auerbach.

Phil Jackson, are you listening?

Posted by Bijan C. Bayne at 11:50 AM | Comments (2)

I Hate Mondays: Seven-Five-Six

What does the number 756 mean?

To baseball fans, the number one below it represents one of the sport's most glorious records that was seemingly untouchable for so many years.

It's a magic number, like 2,632, 511, or 73. If you mention it, and the context of the conversation is baseball, it's understood as to who and what you are referring to.

755 was the final tally of homeruns for a certain Hank Aaron, but it is number 715 — the homerun that one-upped Babe Ruth's longstanding record — that is truly the indelible memory for most fans.

Any baseball enthusiast has seen it at one point — either on April 8th, 1974 or at least on a video replay. The fourth-inning Al Downing pitching for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Tom House catching the homerun in the Braves bullpen, two fans joining Hank in his parade around the bases, and Mrs. Aaron rushing into the arms of her son at home plate.

The whole baseball world was pulling for him — well, almost everyone.

And now, 32 years later, the chase is back on. Barry Bonds sits 47 homeruns short of Aaron's 755, and although the craze is in its early stages, it's still ubiquitous.

If Bonds comes up in conversation, it's record talk.

Can he do it? Will his legs hold up long enough? Can he play a full season? Will he retire?

Nobody cares about the prospects of the San Francisco Giants winning the World Series. It's all Bonds and it's all 756.

Although he feigns disdain for the media, or any other sort of spotlight, deep down, I have a feeling he likes the attention. It seems odd for him to talk about quitting at this point and furthermore, it is questionable whether he would even have the chutzpah to do so while short of the record and while being paid roughly $22 million. His godfather, Willie Mays, doesn't believe the retirement talk and neither do I.

He'll get the record, but the more pressing question is what does it mean?

Although statistically speaking, Bonds' number 756 will, quite obviously, be more significant than Aaron's 755, but to me, number 756 will be an empty number.

It feels like Mark McGwire's 62 feels now. It's not irrelevant because a bigger, stronger, better baseball player superseded that number a few years later. It is irrelevant because Mark McGwire did steroids.

And so did Barry Bonds.

Be it tangible testimony for "unknowingly" using steroids such as "the cream" or "the clear," or just the fact that he accumulated so much muscle mass throughout his career and seemingly pumped out more power as he continued to age, the evidence seems pretty clear to me.

And if you don't believe he used steroids, even though his personal trainer (one of the few people he trusts with his workout regimen) was indicted for distributing illegal steroids, then you probably believed Rafael Palmeiro's emphatic denial, as well.

Who knows whether steroids directly improved his ability to connect bat to ball, whether they merely allowed him to recover more quickly from injuries, or kept his body from breaking down to this point?

The facts are that he used them and that they helped him in one way or another.

And while one-time track-and-field stars like Tim Montgomery and Marion Jones have lost their luster — and career accomplishments — because of their use of similar steroids, baseball fans just can't wait to carry Bonds on their shoulders once he hits 756.

The pitcher who gives it up will be the answer to a famous trivia question, there will be a fight for the ball wherever it lands, his teammates will rush to home plate as he circles the bases and the day, time, and ballpark will forever be remembered.

But the fact that Barry Bonds used steroids to achieve this record will somehow end up as an extraneous detail in all of this.

Not in my mind.

Barry Bonds' use of steroids and homerun 756 mix like Mondays and me.

"Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together." — Vincent Van Gogh

Posted by Dave Golokhov at 11:48 AM | Comments (1)

February 25, 2006

For USA Hockey, Miracles Can Wait

The Oscars are nearly here, which means two things:

1. Rob Schneider will, criminally, once again go home empty-handed.
2. Someone is preparing to face the cameras and admit it was "an honor just to be nominated," even though the rest of their night will be spent drowning their sorrows with complimentary cocktails at the Vanity Fair party and complimentary tranquilizers from Dennis Hopper.

I watched the USA men's Olympic hockey team play its games in Torino last week. It won once, lost four times, and tied Latvia, which I'll be man enough to admit I couldn't find on a map if you spotted me the longitude and latitude.

But one look at the U.S. men's team roster, and the only thing I can say is that it was an honor just to make the medal round.

If you thought this team could win gold, it might be time to slowly remove that DVD copy of "Miracle" you've been playing on a continuous loop for the last three months and get some fresh air. If you had visions of silver, I'd look into corrective eye surgery. Even the bronze would have been a stretch, if only because the rest of the teams vying for glory in these Games were just so much better than the Americans, from the crease to the center men.

I'm a realist. Others have killed Team USA for its lackluster effort. ESPN blared the headline "Debacle on Ice" after its loss in the medal round quarterfinals to Finland. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports (more on him later) wrote that, "there was never a sense of urgency here. Never a bit of hunger. Team USA, with 23 roster spots filled with 23 NHL players (a number matched only by Canada) spent too much time pointing fingers, worrying about management slights and playing time, never pressing, barely caring."

Syndicated columnist Bernie Lincicome juxtaposed Sasha Cohen's success with the hockey team's failure: "Little Sasha on her flashing blades would replace the sour apathy of the U.S. hockey lugs who did not want to be here and did not want to make their own plane reservations to be here and played hockey as if they flew tourist with crying babies on each side of them."

(I will now point out, yet again, that Lincicome once suggested that the New York Jets change their name after the 9/11 terror attacks; because I made a personal promise to spotlight one of the single most idiotic notions in the history of sports journalism every time this man's name appears in my column. So there you go.)

In 1998, the U.S. flopped with NHL players in Nagano and trashed a hotel. In 2006, the U.S. again didn't medal and center Mike Modano trashed his coach, the management, and the fact that American players were distracted because they had to book their own flights, hotels and tickets. (I'd say someone who makes what Modano makes should be able to afford an assistant, but with his track record of investments, who knows what his bank account looks like.)

Modano's hissy fit — which his teammates pathetically passed the buck on during the team's final meeting on Thursday — will unfortunately paint this year's Olympic hockey squad with a broad prima donna brush. Instead of being remembered as a hard-working team that just didn't have the weaponry to compete in Torino, these Americans are now just as ugly as Bode Miller and the snowboarder who thought she was competing inside a PlayStation game and cost herself a gold medal.

In reality, American hockey is in a generational flux. General Manager Don Waddell and the USA Hockey brain trust were in a difficult spot. Their best prospects — forward Phil Kessel, center Zach Parise, winger Bobby Ryan, defenseman Paul Martin, and goalie Ryan Miller — were deemed too inexperienced to be effective in the tournament. Their veteran offensive stars — Modano, Doug Weight, Bill Guerin, and Keith Tkachuk - are on the sunset sides of their careers, while the rest of the forwards aren't exactly the kinds of players who strike fear in the hearts of opposing penalty killing units. The defense would have been extremely green had it not been for Chris Chelios, Mathieu Schneider, Derian Hatcher, and Brett Hedican, but only two of the four had impressive overall tournaments.

The team's biggest flaw remained between the pipes. Throughout the tournament, other teams had a stopper in goal that could change a game by standing on his head — hell, even Italy and Latvia had one. Rick DiPietro didn't have a bad tournament (2.28 GAA), but he didn't steal a game. Robert Esche and John Grahame wouldn't have been an improvement, either.

Modano did have one good point: USA Hockey needs new blood. The Americans will get a transfusion heading into the 2010 Games in Vancouver, with players like Modano, Weight, and Tkachuk out of the picture. (We should be thankful Tkuchuk was only a minus-5 on the score sheet and a plus-3 in the waistline after two weeks in Italy.) Perhaps getting some of the team's rising stars a few games in 2006 will make all the difference in 2010.

Coming home without a medal hurts. But any hockey realist knew in his heart that it was a probability, and had 2010 already circled on the calendar.

You want real hurt?

Ask Canada what that's like.

All Wetzel

Kurt Cobain once wrote, "Teenage angst has paid off well; now I'm bored and old."

Allow me to paraphrase: "Sport or not-a-sport debates have paid off well; now I'm just bored with them."

Yes, this is coming from the same sports columnist who once provided all the evidence he could for an award-winning piece called "Golf is Not a Sport" for The Connection Newspapers a few years ago. And yes, I've been known to fire up a NASCAR fan now and again by questioning the athletic achievement of what amounts to a glorified Go-Kart race. I even presented an argument for why playing Pac-Man could be considered a sport in a column last year.

So call me a hypocrite, call me what you will, but these debates have become simply tedious and quite inane. You think race car drivers aren't athletes? Fine, but be consistent about it: if what they do isn't athletic, then neither is what a horse jockey does. It's all about using your strength and stamina to control a beast much stronger than the "athlete" is.

If you want to consider golf a sport, fine — just don't be so quick to dismiss billiards as "a skill" when the only thing that separates the two are a few long walks and 12 holes.

The bottom line for anyone who will dabble in these pathetically pointless debates is to just be consistent. Stick to your guns. Don't back down if the establishment is contrary to what you believe to be true. If you really, truly think a sport is illegitimately labeled, don't be afraid to state your case and make it stick.

Take Dan Wetzel, a columnist for Yahoo! Sports. He's in Torino covering the Winter Games, and he wrote the obligatory "figure skating is not a sport" feature this week. (Obligatory in the sense that Wetzel has a penis, and therefore must fight against his urges to enjoy a sport that produced both the Ice Capades and Brian Boitano.) In it, he wrote:

"But figure skating is a competition, not a sport, and it has nothing to do with how difficult or entertaining it is. It is simply a matter of how the winner is determined. It is the same for gymnastics, diving, beauty pageants, or anything that chooses a champion solely by human judging.

A sport needs to have a quantifiable way to determine a winner and a loser. There can be no debate about the scoring system. A ball must go into a goal or through a hoop; a runner must reach home or finish before the others. The winners run faster, jump higher, score more."

(At this point I might point out that every sport, at its core, is a series of human judgments that determine everything from the validity of a scoring play — ask the Seahawks about that — to the fate of every single player who comes to home plate. But like I said, I'm done with these debates.)

Of course, the premise of Wetzel's argument is completely bogus. Here's what a sport is, from dictionary.com:

Sport: n. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Figure skating fits the bill just as much as the hammer-throw and curling, doesn't it?

Wetzel later lamely defends another famous "judged" sport called "boxing" by claiming that since one fighter can knock out the other, it brings a ruling-less finality and therefore is a sport. "The judges are only used when the fight has gone on so long that it has to be stopped for the safety of the competitors," wrote Wetzel.

Two points:

1. The "safety of the competitors?" Try for "the friendly confines of television," which used safety as a rallying cry to shorten bouts by three rounds back in the late 1980s.

2. Is he claiming the mere possibility of a knockout makes boxing a sport? Do bouts that go to the scoreboards get demoted to competition-status? And what about figure skaters who fall and then can't get back up — are their truncated routines more of a sport than others that the judges decide?

Whatever you think of Wetzel's premise, it's ballsy to take a stand like this when you're a national columnist who actually has to cover an event you just knocked down to exhibition status. I actually anticipated Wetzel's next few pieces on Olympic figure skating — instead, I found this, about Sasha Cohen, two days after his figure skating hit piece:

"She knows it is now or never for Olympic gold. She knows this is her prime. Her sport doesn't take aging well, her right thigh was wrapped with an ice pack immediately after the race..."

Yep. "Her sport." I wonder how the judges would rule on that 180-degree spin?

One More Thing

So Bryant Gumbel doesn't want to watch the Winter Olympics because there aren't enough African-American athletes competing?

Maybe he's a got a point. Perhaps his time would be better spent watching his own station, HBO. There are plenty of blacks on HBO. You've got black actors playing criminals on "OZ," black actors playing criminals on "The Wire," black actors playing criminals on "The Sopranos," black pimps selling black ho's on "America Undercover," and ... well, I lost count.

But obviously those would be better role models than, say, Jarome Iginla.

Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 3:37 PM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2006

Sports Q&A: Wife Betting; Kornheiser

Art from Columbus, Ohio asks, "Will there be repercussions from the Janet Jones Gretzky betting scandal?"

First of all, the public demand for a remake of Two For the Money is at an all-time high. It's tentatively titled, I Have a Gambling Problem, and I'm Stupid Enough to Place a Bet With My Bookie, Who Happens to Be an Assistant Coach For the Team Coached By My Husband, the Greatest Hockey Player of All-Time. The Great One's "bettor" half, an accomplished fitness guru and actress, whose credits include Police Academy V and some other stuff, could play herself.

Ask 99.99% of husbands in the world, and they would be thrilled to death if their wife collected $50,000 or so on a Super Bowl bet. The other .01% would probably be pretty pissed, since they are coaches and don't want to be associated in the slightest way with organized gambling, or Pete Rose. And I'm sure The Great One was pissed. Probably as pissed as he was at the play of the Canadian men's hockey team.

I'm sure Jones Gretzky said to herself before she bet on anything, "I know my husband and I are like royalty in Canada, and anything we do will be scrutinized heavily. But, what are the odds that I'll get caught placing bets on sports?"

That's probably when Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach and Wayne Gretzky's friend Rick Tocchet called with the answer, "Nine to one."

Gretzky Jones no doubt replied, "I'll take that action."

Seriously, though, it is amazing that professional athletes find themselves embroiled in such gambling scandals. In Gretzky's case, though, it's not his fault. Apparently, he didn't know his wife was a big-time gambler and his assistant coach and pal Tocchet was involved in a nationwide gambling ring involving a New Jersey state trooper, with connections to organized crime in Philadelphia and South Jersey. Talk about being out of the loop.

I guess The Great One was too involved in his coaching duties to notice his wife's sudden fanatical interest in the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the Super Bowl by more than four points. And, Gretzky missed another warning sign when Tocchet labeled a scouting report for an upcoming Coyotes' three-game road trip as a "three-team teaser."

Unlike other famous gamblers, like Pete Rose and Michael Jordan, Gretzky seems to be innocent of any wrongdoing. He simply did not know his wife's and Tocchet's involvement. Jones Gretzky and Tocchet let greed and selfishness blind the possibility that they could have seriously stained the legacy of the greatest hockey player of all-time.

Despite his innocence, the stigma of the situation will follow Gretzky forever. The lesson to other professional athletes should be this: if you're gambling on sports, stop. If you're even remotely connected in any way to anyone who is a sports gambler, have that person killed. No, just know who your friends are. Now, especially, the feds are on the prowl. Don't be surprised if more athletes are implicated in gambling operations.

So, Wayne Gretzky, keep a close eye on your wife. If you catch her on a golf course, standing over a putt with a nervous Michael Jordan looking on, then you might have another problem. If you find her filming a workout video with Richard Simmons called "Sweatin' to the Bookies," then she needs help. And the only help you can give her is a account on an offshore gambling website, preferably under an assumed name.

Howard from Winston-Salem, N.C. asks "What do you think of ESPN's Monday Night Football announcing team of Mike Tirico, Joe Theismann, and Tony Kornheiser?"

Me like. Personally, I would prefer Kornheiser and his Pardon the Interruption co-host Michael Wilbon calling the games, and if they work their "Good Cop, Bad Cop" schtick, then that's even better. Throw in one of the clowns from Around the Horn on play-by-play, and you've got yourself an Emmy Award-winning announce team. That is, if Kornheiser was the only Emmy voter. That threesome could only be topped by grouping Kornheiser with Kenny Blankenship and Vic Romano from Spike TV's Most Extreme Elimination Challenge. Indeed, Tony!

Tirico is an extremely competent and knowledgeable play-by-play man, and Theismann gives the team an ex-player with lots of insight and anecdotes. Kornheiser will bring journalistic integrity and a cohesive bond to the booth. Ah, who am I kidding? Kornheiser will just be funny. I can't wait for Tirico and Theismann to playfully chide Kornheiser on his sense of humor during the opening segment of the first Sunday's game. I'm sure Kornheiser will retort gleefully with, "Me so Korny!"

Honestly, do you remember laughing out loud at anything the previous ESPN team (Theismann, Mike Patrick, and Paul McGuire) ever said? If you did, you were probably laughing at them, and not with them. You never quite knew when McGuire was trying to be funny, or whether he was just plain wrong about a call. He always thought he was funny, though. Maybe that's why he doesn't have a job.

A lot of people may think Kornheiser will just be a joker and not offer anything substantial to the broadcast. I think we can expect him to tone his act down for the most part, and, when the time is right, he'll go into PTI mode and bring down the house. Tirico and Theismann will form a perfect balance to Kornheiser's musings, and the result should be pure entertainment. I can hear it now. Kornheiser cracks up Tirico and Theismann with a witty remark, then proclaims himself "too sexy for this announce team." If Kornheiser gets too full of himself, ESPN can bring him back down to earth with corrections from trusty PTI sidekick Stat Boy.

Kornheiser will face comparisons to former Monday Night Football motormouth Dennis Miller, whose brand of humor never sat well with most MNF viewers. Miller never bothered me — if he was talking, that meant Al Michaels and Dan Fouts weren't. Do you believe in miracles? Yesss! Kornheiser's brand of humor will appeal more to the sports fan because he, himself, is primarily a sports fan.

Miller always seemed like a political, historical, and cultural commentator thrust into a role as a sports announcer. Miller's strength is the monologue, not analysis of football. Kornheiser's chemistry with Wilbon is top-notch. I expect Kornheiser's repartee with Tirico and Theismann to be on par with that. And speaking of Wilbon, ESPN's halftime show could be Wilbon and Kornheiser reviewing the afternoon's games in 30-second snippets in PTI fashion.

So, Howard, I think ESPN's team in the booth will be informative and entertaining. "Dandy" Don Meredith would be proud of Kornheiser. And, if the Kornheiser deal doesn't work out, ESPN can always go to the bullpen and insert Jim Rome, Stuart Scott, or the Sklar twins of Cheap Seats fame.

Get Your Questions Answered!

Do you have a question or comment? Are you having unwholesome dreams about Sasha Cohen? Is your dictatorial regime on the verge of collapse? Then send your question/crime against humanity/crime against nature along with your name and hometown to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, March 10th.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 4:53 PM | Comments (0)

Hingis is Back, But is She Really?

Hello, everyone! I'm sorry I haven't been around much lately. Life sometimes overtakes you, and before you know it, you are lost and have a hard time finding your way back. Well, I'm happy to report I'm back.

Last time we spoke, I gave you some perspectives on some of the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour players. I was planning on giving you some more, but time and space just didn't make it. My apologies to Jelena Jankovic and Mashona Washington. I appreciate your kind responses and wish I could have turned them into something wonderful. I will keep an eye on you all season and promise you will make it into this column sometime in 2006.

Speaking of the WTA Tour, my favorite player, and clearly the story of the year so far, is Martina Hingis. Yes, Amelie Mauresmo has been on a tear, just winning everything in site, and she does now have a major win under her belt. But clearly, Martina's quick rise in the rankings and her consistent appearances in quarters, semis, and finals already show that she can play on the tour. I suspect she will win a tournament or two very soon.

Hingis proclaimed in Dubai this week, "it is not a comeback anymore." Martina made this statement following her 6-4, 6-3 beating of Anastasia Myskina in the early rounds of the tournament. Hingis sliced and diced Myskina up, showing that she can handle all the power and that she still has the cunning and skills to beat any of the top players. After all the hype, after all the discussion about how the power now would overwhelm Hingis in her return, Hingis has shown them all wrong.

Yes, there have been moments, like her defeat at the hands of Elena Dementieva a few weeks ago, that seem to support the claim. (I still can't believe that Hingis lost to the only woman on tour in the top 25 who has a weaker serve than herself.) I'm going to chalk that up to nerves and her lack of matches. Dementieva can certainly be devastating when her groundies are humming, and her two major final appearances show that she has enough game to be dangerous. All that said, she still should not have been any match for Martina.

There are no top tour players who are consistent. If you watch the matches, if you break the games down, you will find that most of the losses on tour come when players commit way too many unforced errors. Even Mauresmo, who is more consistent than most, loses more matches by unforced errors than just by getting beaten by someone clearly better on any given day. Which, of course, is why Hingis should be cleaning up even more than she is. With injuries always looming, Hingis' physical and mental consistency should have her just running through these draws to the finals. Mary Pierce basically ruled last year, and Hingis has more game. Lindsay Davenport ruled the past two years, and Hingis has more variety and better skills.

So why then, why isn't she number one already? Simple. She doesn't have the fire in the belly. She no longer has the desire. Her tennis has passion, but isn't passionate. It's clear to see that Martina is back in a serious way. She still gives her best every day. She fights as hard or harder than them all, but it is clear that she has matured. Hingis will take being the semifinalist or finalist now. You will never see outbursts like her fateful French Open loss that time when she sulked and cried after losing. You won't see it, because Martina is willing to accept less than number one.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, or if it really matters. I just know it is the way things are. I hope Martina realizes this soon, as well. Martina, remember, while it is always fun to be the bridesmaid, the one who has the most fun is, of course, the bride.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 3:33 PM | Comments (7)

February 23, 2006

The New Trends of College Basketball

I'm quick to tease my Sports Central colleagues when their picks and predictions fall awry, but it's been awhile since I've stuck my neck out there myself and made mockable, failing predictions. But fair's fair and it's time I took my turn. We will start with some generalities. If you're foolhardy enough to take my advice and put some financial muster to it, please make sure it's in low denominations of the currency of an emaciated, third-world country.

The WAC is the new MVC. "Domination" is the word I'm leaning towards using in describing their play in Bracket-Buster Weekend. As a conference, they went 3-1 in their highlighted games with the only loss coming when Fresno State, sixth in the WAC, lost a squeaker at Creighton, second in the MVC. Louisiana Tech (alma mater of Karl Malone) beat their MVC opponent (Southern Illinois) on the road. Remember that when NCAA and NIT time roll around.

Via Covers.com, I learn that the "over" has prevailed in 10 consecutive Duke games going into yesterday's game against Georgia Tech. Apparently, the linemakers are afraid to set it in the 160-and-above range, because then they could get killed on the under. I leave over/under wagering to the serious bettors, but I still thought this nugget was interesting. In fact, I would stay away from Duke games entirely. I think they are clearly the No. 1 team in the country and capable of dominating anyone, but their lackluster performances-cum-last-second victories come against surprising teams at surprising times (at home against Virginia Tech and Florida State).

Speaking of Virginia Tech, I remember when their transfer to the ACC was announced, I sarcastically suggested I couldn't wait for the big Virginia Tech vs. Duke basketball games. But the Hokies basketball team seems acutely aware of their subordinate status to the football team and brings their best efforts when playing the best opponents. I would keep that in mind for any game in which Virginia Tech is a heavy underdog, especially in the ACC tournament.

If a team (most recently, Iowa) briefly finds themselves alone atop the Big 10 standings, it's a good idea to go start going against them. The teams of the Big 10 seem determined to create a logjam.

In the Big East, bet on Marquette at home and against them on the road, especially if they are traveling to the Eastern seaboard.

In SEC country, I like how LSU, like Virginia Tech, seems to have something to prove at a football-crazy university. They suffered heartbreaking defeats at Connecticut and at Ohio State, won at West Virginia, and are running away with the SEC West. They are underranked at No. 24. I like them in pretty much any circumstance against the spread and I believe they will emerge from the SEC tournament as champions.

In the Pac-10, go with the underdog in rivalry games (see USC's victory over UCLA and Washington State's sweep of Washington) and the favorites in all other games.

The Big 12 is hard to figure. Not even two months ago, it appeared Kansas State has actually wrested the state basketball title from Kansas. Now, Kansas is atop the Big 12 and Kansas State is 5-7 and not even really on the NCAA bubble anymore. Some nights, Texas brings it. Other nights, they don't. Baylor is starting to look nearly competent at times. Texas A&M is on the rise. I guess the only thing I feel good about is not putting any money on Missouri in any circumstances.

My picks tonight:

South Carolina (-1.5) over GEORGIA

Georgia has lost three in a row, the last one being a thumping at home to Vanderbilt. South Carolina has won three out of four, including a huge win at Florida.

Cal (-2) over WASHINGTON STATE

Washington State is 2-0 against Washington and 2-10 against the rest of the Pac-10. Cal is 10-4 in the Pac-10, fighting for NCAA bubble consideration.

Villanova (-4) over CINCINNATI

We all know how dominant Villanova has been this year, and although Cincinnati should be in good shape for the tourney, they are not going to keep this game as close as the spread.

Fresno State (-2.5) over SAN JOSE STATE

Last game out, Fresno State nearly picked off mighty Creighton on the road. San Jose State (2-10 in the WAC) won't be nearly as much of a challenge.

USC (-1.5) over Oregon

Okay, so it was a rivalry game, but last time USC set foot on their home floor, they took down UCLA by three. But they are only favored by 1.5 over Oregon (6-8 in the Pac 10 while USC is 7-7)? This one is my lock.

So there you are ... in a sport where home-court advantage possibly means more than any other sport, I picked four road teams to win by more than Vegas thinks they will, and I picked the favorites in all five games. As I said, it's only fair to my colleagues that I open myself up to terrible picks. Caveat emptor.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 2:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

All Hail King James, Savior of the NBA

With the conclusion of the 2006 All-Star Weekend proceedings, it's time to bring on the second half.

The eye of the storm that is this NBA season has now passed. Granted, it has been a milder one in comparison to last year, which opened with a near-riot in Detroit and had all the makings of a hundred-year tempest. That one event scarred the league through last year's All-Star Game, but a harmonic second half capped by a riveting and hard-fought seven-game NBA Finals restored stability.

Indeed, this season has appeared more a tropical depression in contrast. Allen Iverson opened the festivities, hoping to garner popular support for players' rights to free expression. In the end, what he found from a fan base shelling out in excess of $100 per seat was a preference for player-neighbors that are dressed as well as them. Even self-righteous liberals always quick to draw a race card from up their sleeve could not beat Commissioner David Stern's hand on this matter of courtside attire.

Ex-Knick Antonio Davis played the 2005 version of Ron Artest, but his performance in the stands of Chicago's United Center proved a lethargic encore and actually won the empathy of rational fans everywhere. Ron Artest's own attempts to get Ron Artest back in the limelight got a cool reception, as fans outside of Sacramento and Los Angeles were indifferent at best to the prospect of his coming to their towns.

For front office antics, there remains the ongoing saga of Isiah Thomas's sexual harassment scandal, but that's only of secondary newsworthiness to his player management skills that leave the Knicks battling for the best odds in this year's lottery.

Yes, it was a relatively mild first half, leaving fans wondering what the winds of change will bring in the back half. But as we wonder, let us also take heed of the weatherman's warning lest our guard be lowered. When the eye passes and the winds take up from the opposite direction, windward becomes leeward and earlier fortification now serves to barricade.

So it is for those of us entrenched in allegiances to the great teams of years past, who reveled in the annual battles between the Boston Celtics and Philadelphia 76ers, or the perennial presence of the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals, who admired an emphasis on passing, boxing out, stars who complemented those around them, great role players.

Now, as those winds blow from our aft, we're left with a league filled with poor to mediocre teams. Teams that are in the money one year, the lottery the next. The NBA is now glitter and youth, three-point shootouts and slam-dunk contests, interrupted annually for all-star proceedings where we see more of the same.

During the second half, the Eastern Conference will be on cruise control. The Mavericks and Spurs will make for an interesting race in the West. Both teams will draft each other and may end up passing the Pistons for the best record and potential home-court advantage throughout May and June.

However, that is not where the compelling drama of the second half will occur. The real competition is unfurling on the individual level. Even before the man who some now anoint as king of today's NBA arrives for his coronation, another is usurping him.

Kobe Bryant is nearly as unstoppable today as Michael Jordan was throughout the 1990s. His trophy shelf will surely need rearranging to accommodate a 2006 MVP award. He may yet send numerous pairs of his sneakers to Springfield. But the mirror now tells him there is another, fairer than them all. With each passing day, the image of LeBron James sharpens within its frame.

In only his third year, King James' stats are nearly stride-for-stride with those of Bryant in this, Kobe's career year. At the break, James was third in scoring at 31.2 points per game, trailing only Allen Iverson and Bryant's league-leading 35.0. However, James' contributions are more dimensional. He averages 7.0 rebounds 6.6 assists per game to Bryant's 5.4 and 4.4, respectively. To date, LeBron has had four triple-doubles to none for Bryant. Most importantly, his Cavaliers are currently 32-22 as of this writing after splitting the first two games of the second half.

Here lies the biggest knock on Kobe among his critics. His petulance and lack of maturity during the Shaq administration cost the Lakers the most dominant big man in the game and the principal source for the three championship rings Bryant now wears. Since separation of the two superstars, the Lakers fell from the 56-26 Western Conference champions to 34-48 last year. One game past this year's All-Star Break, they stand at 27-26, clinging to the final playoff spot in the West.

Nonetheless, Bryant, an eight-time all-star, has also appeared in eight postseasons over his nine-year career. He has averaged 22.6 points in 119 playoff games and has won three NBA crowns. On the other hand, the King's Cavaliers have missed the playoffs in both his first two seasons, although they are a solid hold at the fourth spot in the East as the second half opens. Provided James stays healthy, he'll be making his first postseason start this April.

On Sunday, James became the youngest player ever to win an NBA All-Star Game MVP at the age of 21 years and one month. In January, he became the youngest player to eclipse the 5,000-point mark. The previous holder of that distinction was Kobe Bryant, who holds nearly every career mark for scoring production within his grasp and not yet within LeBron's. Kobe was 22 years, three months and playing in his 292nd NBA game when he scored his 5,000th point. James accomplished his first 5,000 in 197 games.

Tuesday opened the second "half" of the season — most teams had only 30 games remaining — and the winds of change are indeed afoot. In a league that is beleaguered with inconsistent play, diluted teams, and an ever-decreasing average roster age, hope for salvation must once again vest with individual superstars. The team concept has gone dormant.

As it was for Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in the 1980s and Michael Jordan in the 1990s, the throne lies vacant for the NBA's next savior. Kobe has been fitted for the crown, but remains a controversial icon amidst questions over his character and appeal. On Tuesday night, LeBron resumed his own challenge, a challenge that will make the most compelling drama for the balance of this season.

In the end, we will see if the King is indeed ready to take up the staff and lead the NBA back to glory.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 1:29 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson won his first Daytona 500 after a tumultuous two weeks in Daytona in which his crew chief, Chad Knaus, was suspended after the No. 48 car failed a post-qualifying inspection. Despite Knaus' absence, Johnson persevered and held off Casey Mears and Ryan Newman for the season-opening win.

"This is a life-long dream come true," says Johnson. "Winning the Daytona 500 is proof that miracles do happen, as is passing the post-race inspection."

Indeed, the Lowe's car probably faced the most complete inspection in NASCAR history. It's not the first time Johnson's car has failed an inspection, and probably won't be the last. Johnson will forever face questions of whether his Daytona win was tainted.

"Look, the car passed inspection and I'm Daytona champion," says Johnson. "It doesn't matter whether I'm a member of the Lying Cheaters' Club or the Cheating Liars' Club. I won this race with a legal car, and I didn't even have to use that special button that drops oil onto the path of my pursuers. Now, I'm going to do something I've been waiting years to do: have my eyebrows plucked."

2. Tony Stewart — Stewart, winner of the Hershey's Kissables 300 Busch Series race on Saturday, was anything but kissable on Sunday. The No. 20 Home Depot was involved in separate incidents with Jeff Gordon, Matt Kenseth, and Kyle Busch. At one point, Stewart blatantly ran Kenseth off the track, and was penalized for aggressive driving. Despite all the incidents, Stewart managed a strong finish of fifth.

"What's the big deal?" asks Stewart. "Didn't I warn everyone about the pitfalls of aggressive driving? Well, I was right. Nobody ever said I wasn't a man of my word."

With Stewart endangering fellow drivers and Britney Spears endangering her very own child, 2006 looks to be a very interesting year. Stewart will be in the middle of all the feuds, badmouthing, and drama, as well as the points race.

3. Casey Mears — Trailing Johnson and Newman on the final lap, Mears chose to follow the No. 48 car when Newman tried to slingshot past Johnson for the lead. Newman had no help to get by, and Mears followed Johnson across the line for second, making it a one-two Californian finish.

"It's not quite a win," says Mears, "but I'll gladly take a second in the biggest race of the year. At least now my uncle, four-time Indianapolis 500 winner Rick Mears, will acknowledge me as worthy of the Mears surname. I felt the key to my race was staying out of trouble, also known as staying away from Tony Stewart."

4. Ryan Newman — Newman rode Jimmie Johnson's bumper for much of the race's latter stages, but was unable to muster the momentum for a last lap pass, instead settling for a third-place finish. After the race, Newman reacted with a true NASCAR emotion: bitterness.

"I hate Rusty Wallace," says Newman. "Oh, sorry. I can't get that out of my blood. What I meant to say is that Jimmie Johnson is a cheater. I was nose-to-tail with the No. 48 car for much of the day, and, using the knowledge obtained in my engineering studies at Purdue University, I was able to pinpoint several violations. For example, using only the naked eye, I could tell that the rear spoiler was 1/32 of an inch too high, and the inspection sticker on his license plate had clearly expired."

Surprisingly, Newman seemed to work well with new teammate Kurt Busch, as the two paired up on a few occasions at the front of the pack. Is this the beginning of a good working relationship?

"You know," adds Newman, "with Rusty, I never felt like I could sit down and have a drink with him. With Kurt, that seems like a definite possibility."

5. Elliott Sadler — Sadler was the first of two Robert Yates Racing cars in the top 10, and one of only three top-10 qualifiers to finish the race in the top 10. Sadler led four early laps, and was in position to challenge for the win near the end.

"I wasn't the least bit worried about what was going on in front of me," explains Sadler. "I was concerned about who was behind me. That would have been Tony Stewart. And, I think I'd rather be quail hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney than racing that close to an obviously ornery Stewart. So, I'll take my fourth, put in a dip, and go on my merry way."

6. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt led the most laps in a typically strong performance by the Dale Earnhardt Incorporated-powered Budweiser Chevy. Junior was a factor all day, but never could maneuver into position to challenge for the win, settling for an eighth-place result.

"Maybe I wasn't in the winner's circle," says Earnhardt, "but I'm sure I led all drivers in commercial air time. I now give autographs with the ® symbol by my name. I'm not just a driver, I'm a name brand. Look for my new line of clothing at your nearest Goody's store."

7. Brian Vickers — Vickers led 21 laps on the road to a seventh-place finish on an eventful day for Hendrick Mototsports drivers. Vickers was passed on lap 187 by teammate and eventual winner Jimmie Johnson, while teammates Jeff Gordon and Kyle Busch traded sheet metal and angry looks with Tony Stewart.

"Two Hendrick cars in the top 10," says Vickers, "and two potential feuds with Stewart. We Hendricks drivers are a loyal bunch. We look out for our own. Gordon and Busch will get their revenge, or my name isn't Vickers with a 'V,' and 'V' is for 'Vendetta,' coming to a theater near you on March 17, from the creators of The Matrix."

8. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer validated his third-place finish in Saturday's Busch Series race with a sixth-place in the main event on Sunday, the highest finish by a rookie.

"Two races, two top-10s," says Bowyer. "Not bad for a rookie. When can I start polishing my Rookie of the Year trophy? If you've looked closely, you'll see that six of the seven Cup rookies finished the race on the lead lap. It's the veterans that drive like lunatics, some with higher levels of lunacy than others. Apparently, the mix of carbon monoxide and road rage is a very volatile combination."

9. Ken Schrader — Schrader survived a close call in an early-race wreck, diving through the infield grass to avoid contact with the locked-up cars of Carl Edwards and Kyle Petty. Driving the No. 21 Wood Brothers car piloted last year by Ricky Rudd, Schrader came home in ninth place.

"If you don't have a car fast enough to challenge for the win," says Schrader, "then you best stay out of trouble and avoid dangerous drivers. We were able to do that. I think most of the other drivers respect me enough to give me room. And, I think they're a little intimidated when they see the most fearsome sponsorship decal in all of racing, Little Debbie snack cakes."

10. Dale Jarrett — Last year's Daytona 500 pole-sitter was again fast, finishing in 10th place, joining teammate and fourth-place finisher Elliott Sadler in the top 10. Jarrett overcame a pit road speeding penalty early in the race, and worked the No. 88 United Parcel Service Ford Fusion into the top 10 in the race's final 20 laps. Jarrett then delivered several mail packages, right on time, to downtown Daytona's business district.

"The truck was a little loose today," explained Jarrett, "and I honestly thought I was going to fall out of the driver's side door a few times taking some sharp turns. But we were able to get the packages out on time. I want to race the truck, but it obviously needs some added safety features, and a better color scheme."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2006

A Bittersweet Super Bowl For Steelers?

If you had told me at the beginning of the NFL season that the Pittsburgh Steelers would win the Super Bowl and I would be anything but ecstatic, I would have told you you were crazy. I have been a Steeler fan my entire life and since I was 9-years-old, I have been hoping for a Super Bowl victory — the proverbial "one for the thumb." But I will admit there were moments in the days after Super Bowl XL where I wondered if it was all I had hoped it would be.

I have discussed this previously, but it is worth mentioning again how many times the Steelers have tried and failed to get to, let alone win, the Super Bowl. Suffice it to say that the Steelers have lost untold playoff games in excruciating fashion and have often done this at home and as the favored team.

Steeler fans are tried and tested — battle-scarred and with intestines of iron. They have suffered through the ugly '80s with QBs like Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, and Bubby Brister.

They have agonized through the winning, yet ultimately disappointing, '90s when QBs like Neil O'Donnell and Kordell Stewart always seemed to flame out at the worst possible moment. Last year's amazing 15-1 regular season and the seemingly inevitable AFC Championship home loss had set the Steelers up as footballs version of Phil Mickelson before he won the Masters. The fans yearned to be Tiger Woods again.

At times this season, the Steelers looked like the dominant team they can be, with a power running game — augmented by the speedster Willie Parker — and tough defense. Ben Roethlisberger was maturing into the athletic quarterback the Steelers needed. He would run the offense and make plays when he needed to keep drives alive, but he wouldn't be called on to win it on his own. But injuries, a lack of consistency, and some boneheaded plays by Tommy Maddox led to three straight losses and a record of 7-5. Suddenly, the Steelers were going to be lucky to make the playoffs at all.

This is where this amazing season turned around. I am sure you're familiar with the story at this point. The Steelers won their last four games in dominating fashion and despite being a sixth-seed, looked dangerous. But the road ahead was anything but easy. As the sixth-seed, the Steelers would have to win three games on the road just to get to Detroit and Super Bowl XL.

Well, as we found out, the Steelers' momentum carried them right through the playoffs. Despite a slow start, and thanks in part to an injury to the Bengals' Carson Palmer, they rattled off impressive wins against the top three seeds in the AFC. Perhaps this home-field advantage wasn't all it was cracked up to be? I could hardly believe that the Steelers had finally managed to make it back to the Super Bowl. To do it in such dominant fashion was even better.

So I know what you are thinking. What part of this story is bittersweet? Steelers make amazing run and win the Super Bowl! What's not to like? Well, if you watched the actual Super Bowl game, you probably know what I am talking about in the title to this piece.

The fact of the matter is the Steelers didn't play their best game on Super Bowl Sunday. I don't know if it was the two weeks off, being designated the home team and favored to win, or all the distractions of just being there that led to their poor play in the first half, but things could have gotten ugly real quick. The offense was out of rhythm and the defense seemed to be giving up an awful lot of dink and dunks. It was only through some fortunate breaks and Seattle's inability to take advantage that gave the Steelers a halftime lead. And it took a huge third down improvisation and a controversial goal line call to get them that! The second half played out much the same. The Steelers made a couple of huge plays, the defense played the classic bend-but-don't-break style, and the Seahawks failed to come up with the plays when they needed to.

During the actual game, I was trying not to have an aneurysm as the game swung back and forth. I was exhilarated by the big plays and crushed by the mistakes that threatened everything. At the end, I was exhausted but giddy just thinking about the offseason basking in the glow of a Super Bowl win.

But in the days following the game, a sour taste began to form in my mouth. The airways and Internet were full of complaints about how bad the game was and how lopsided the officiating was. Seattle coach Mike Holmgren complained about having to "fight the officials, too." ESPN's Colin Cowherd spent two days basically asserting that the Steelers didn't deserve to win and that the game was ruined by the refs.

I must tell you that this let the air our of my sails a bit. I began to wonder if maybe I just didn't see what everybody else saw on that Sunday. I hate to admit it, but I began to doubt whether the Steelers really had won that game fairly. In the end, I came to see that this was ridiculous and let me tell you why.

Here is what I think happened. In a game where neither team seemed able to consistently dominate in all facets of the game and where a few big plays made the difference, it led viewers to over-emphasize a few judgment calls by the officials. Because the game didn't seem to be played at a level we have come to expect from the last few Super Bowls, the judgment calls appeared to play a much bigger role than they did. The Steelers' previous wins, and Seattle's win over Carolina, had led to high expectations that weren't fulfilled

What bothers me the most about much of the hot air that has followed this Super Bowl is the inability of supposedly-knowledgeable people to differentiate between a blown call and a tough call. Far too many people to mention have screamed in print, online, and on the air that the officiating was horrible, atrocious, one-sided, etc. People have insisted that the best games are those where you don't even notice the officials.

Of course, we would all love to have a game like that. But that is a perfect scenario, not your average game. The fact of the matter is that if the Seahawks had made a few more plays or if the Steelers have avoided a few key mistakes, the game likely would have settled down into a clear-cut victory instead of the messy play punctuated by huge changes game it turned out to be.

I don't want to analyze each supposed bad call one by bad call as others have already done that. But I defy anyone to say that they were all clear-cut bad calls by the officials. Yes, you could argue that the push-off that negated a touchdown could have been a no call. But it is worth pointing out that it was technically a penalty and likely was more of an impact on the field that could be seen on replay. TV replay takes away important angles and removes depth perception for the most part. The fact that the ref struggled to get his flag out on time also made it seem like he called it only after the defender complained. All of these factors add to the sense that the call robbed the Seahawks.

But lost in all of this is the fact that the Seahawks still had the ball 1st-and-20 at the 26. The fact that the Seahawks gained minus three yards on the next three plays surely can't be blamed on the refs. In the AFC Championship Game, the Steelers had a touchdown called back on a illegal formation penalty (putting them at 2nd-and-13 at the 17), but they scored a touchdown the very next play. I understand the illegal formation wasn't viewed as a touch call, but they still bounced back and scored anyway. Seattle failed to do this.

The same is true of another of the so-called blown calls. With the Seahawks driving and looking to possibly take the lead, Matt Hasselbeck completed a pass to Jerramy Stevens to the one-yard line only to have it called back because of holding. Again, ABC made it seem like it was a questionable call by not mentioning the flag until after the play was over (when it was called immediately) and by John Madden opining that he didn't see holding on the play. But what even Madden admitted was that the camera angle wasn't particularly good. He said he didn't see holding from the replay.

I won't go into the technicalities of holding, but in the refs mind, the blocker illegally impeded the pass rusher. Was it a close call? Probably. Would everyone agree that it was clearly holding? Probably not. But he ref clearly though it was and didn't hesitate to make the call. It wasn't outrageous or horrific, it was simply a call that came at an incredibly important juncture. If the mistakes that followed, sack and then Hasselbeck interception, hadn't happened, the call wouldn't loom so large. The Seahawks still had the ball on the 29 with over 11 minutes to go trailing by four points. The game was in their hands and they blew it.

Interestingly enough, all of the conspiracy theories count this as seven points "taken" from Seattle and yet refuse to count a Steelers 4th-and-inches as seven points if Roethlisberger's touchdown had been overturned. They complain about Hasselbeck's penalty for a low block and ignore the missed call on a block in the back on Seattle's interception return. They complain about the pass interference call, but ignore what appeared to be a clear Seahawk fumble that was ruled an incomplete pass.

And that is why all of this talk of a ruined game and a undeserved win are silly. There were many, many chances for Seattle to win that game. If they had not dropped so many passes, missed a couple of field goals, managed the clock with even a semblance of skill, been able to place a punt in the field of play just once, made a few key tackles, not bit on a fake — if they had been able to do any number of things, the game would have turned out very differently. But they didn't, and they lost.

Did the Steelers play their best game on that Sunday? Heck no. Would I have preferred Ben Roethlisberger to have played better? Of course (although it is worth remembering that he was the youngest quarterback to win the Super Bowl). Were some of the calls debatable and tough to judge? Yes, but that is true week in week out. The magnitude of the game and the general lack of consistent play raised these few calls into what seemed like game changing decisions. But Willie Parker's touchdown run was still a thing of beauty. The fake Antwan Randel El run and subsequent pass was as well-executed a trick play as you will ever see. The Steelers found a way to win.

The delicious irony is that Steeler fans have long had to wrestle with these demons themselves. They have had a long history of close calls and questionable officiating. This is a team that lost a playoff game, in part, because of the ticky-tackiest running into the kicker penalties in the history of the game. This is a team that had an official screw them on a coin toss! And lest we forget this is a team that almost lost a playoff game this year because a ref overturned a clear interception on one of the worst calls ever made. It is worth pointing out that this call was not just a judgment call, but an outright error that the league even admitted was wrong. The Steelers are no stranger to losing even when they feel in their hearts they are the better team.

At bottom a win is a win. Period. Full stop. As the years go by, I hope this Super Bowl won't remembered by this quasi urban legend of a stolen game, but by the character of the winners. Coach Bill Cowher took over from a Hall of Fame legend and managed to succeed at the ultimate level. Hometown hero Jerome Bettis took a frame made for a blocking fullback and turned it into a Hall of Fame career at running back. He has been a team leader, an ambassador for the game, and a gentleman his whole career. Many pro scouts didn't think Hines Ward would make it in the NFL and yet here he is Super Bowl MVP. Even though he struggled mightily in this game, Ben Roethlisberger showed courage, determination, and made a couple of huge plays when he had to.

This Pittsburgh Steeler team never gave up when everything seemed against them. They engineered one of he most remarkable playoff runs in history and played some great football along the way. I won't hold it against them because the final game wasn't quite what I expected. For you Seahawk fans, you can either use this pain to get better, or you can fade away. Complaining about what might have been won't get you any closer to your goal. If anyone knows the truth of that, it is Pittsburgh Steeler fans. I count myself a proud one.

Posted by Kevin Holtsberry at 11:52 AM | Comments (43)

An Olympic NCAA Basketball Season

NCAA basketball has never been worse! Or at least that's what many of the NBA-loving, seer-sucking weasels would have you believe. Of course, maybe they have a case. After all, there are not one but two white guys heading the race for the player of the year award. NCAA basketball is just starting to heat up which, up here in Canada, always helps.

Speaking of which, the Olympic hockey tournament has taken over every maple-blooded Canadian's life for the last week culminating with the latest biggest game ever. I'm Canadian, and from time to time, that Canadian-ness is going to show a little excessively. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If you can stomach it once in awhile, then jump aboard and lets have some fun with this sports thing.

What does this have to do with NCAA basketball? Well ... nothing. However, with hockey on the brain and a nod to ESPN.com Page 2's Bill Simmons, it's time to hand out some awards at a time when things start to shake out before March Madness.

The Jarome Iginla Award For Excellent But Socially Confused Play

This goes to the pair I previously alluded to: J.J. Redick and Adam Morrison. Why isn't this a bigger story? Has there ever been two guys playing like this before. As a white guy myself, I have to admit I didn't think we had it in us. Sure, we've had a good run lately with the Steve Nash MVP, which was equally impressive as a white guy than a Canadian, but this is unprecedented. The best part is that it's not the usual seven-foot lumbering white guy that you're almost embarrassed about. These guys have a more dangerous shot than Dick Cheney. They hit everything and, like the Cheney hunting incident, if you think we're not in for something shockingly enjoyable come March, you're kidding yourself.

Listen, regardless of race, these guys are lighting it up against top competition. Seemingly every year, the top of the national scoring list sits some guy from that school whom we've never heard of until his team is down by 25 points at halftime to Kansas in the first round of the tourney. This year, as usual, the top 25 is chocked full of these guys.

The only schools represented in the top 25 that you've ever heard of other than the aforementioned are Rutgers, Texas Tech (outside looking in come Selection Sunday), and Nevada (not exactly a national powerhouse). The point here is that normally in top competition there are several guys on a team that lead a team on any given day. I mean, that's the point of recruiting powerhouse teams and gathering McDonald's All-Americans. These guys are putting up incredible numbers every night for deep teams against deep opponents. I figure that warrants first-award status in a crappy gimmick column.

The Switzerland Hockey Award For the Team That We Think Sucks, and Then Think Might Be Pretty Good and Then, Just As We're Convinced, Realize That We Were Right in the First Place

We're handing this one out to Seton Hall University, a perennial contender for this award. They started the season with a horrific, 53-point beatdown at the hand of Duke at Cameron and looked like the usual .500 season was in the works. Then they went on a 12-4 run starting on Dec. 1 until Feb. 10th, which included three close losses and a fourth at Villanova. I'll admit they even had me fooled, but almost like the bookend to the fairy-tale, they were completely dominated in a 42-point game at Connecticut. They managed to bounce back with a win versus ranked West Virginia only to allow 101 points at home to a Notre Dame team that had yet to win a road game in Big East all season. The old Seton Hall is back, predictably unpredictable.

(Honorable mention goes to the bottom half of the ACC and pretty much every team in the Pac-10.)

The Host Team Gets in No Matter How Bad They Are Award For the Team That Inexplicably Summons Enough Pride to Keep Playing Hard Despite Repeatedly Being Kicked While They Are Down

The Italian hockey team managed a tie against Team Switzerland in their final round-robin game, despite taking repeated beatings that not only would have lead most to pack it in for their final game, but also may force a change in Olympic policy that would revoke the host country's right to a spot in the tournament if they aren't competitive.

This award goes to the same Notre Dame team mentioned above who have lost so many close games in so many excruciating endings that the statistics don't do it justice. Remember the year that Bryce Drew hit the shot for Valparaiso to upset Ole Miss and there were great endings to seemingly every game that year and even for the next couple of years? Think about that play and some of the other memorable ones and then imagine being on the wrong end of those, only every week.

Yet somehow, despite entering the second week of February with 1-8 conference record and a 10-10 record overall not only has no one jumped from the top of "Touchdown Jesus," but they have reeled off three straight wins going into Tuesday night's game at UConn. And if they win that one, well, we've got ourselves a team to cheer for down the stretch.

The Team Canada Award For a Team Whose Fan-Base is in Major Panic Mode

This goes to Syracuse, who was coming into the season as a team with all the right tools. On paper, the frontcourt had a lot of talent and some experience and the backcourt was said to be fantastic, lead by the wildly entertaining Gerry McNamara. They reeled off a ton of wins to start the season and were 15-2 going into a big home game versus UConn. I even rode them on the money line for back-to-back road wins against Notre Dame and Cincinnati.

But the impossible Big East schedule would eat them up over the next few weeks, leading to some boos making their way around the Carrier Dome and falling to official "bubble-team" status. They have bounced back recently with two solid wins and with a strong finish, could make things better in Orangetown. Here's hoping the same is true for Team Canada.

The Derian Hatcher Award For the Player Who, Despite Having No Discernable Skill Other Than Size, Manages to Maintain a Key Roll On a Good Team

We're going to Greg Brunner of Iowa with this one mainly because, like Hatcher, you can't believe this guy can compete at this level and yet he somehow gets the job done. Just watch, we'll be looking at our bracket in mid-March and looking for upsets and I guarantee we're penciling in (fill in random mid-major team here) to knock them out and by Monday, they are in the Sweet 16 and I'm shell-shocked. You know who is going to cause that, don't you? Mr. Greg Brunner.

We can get through this together when my NCAA tournament preview comes out and I have Iowa going out in the first round, go against me. Hell, let's do this as a team, e-mail me remind me not to when the bracket comes out. It'll be like an alcoholic-sponsor type relationship.

The Team Finland "Shhhh, Don't Tell" Award For the Team That Despite Being as Impressive as Hell All Tournament/Season, Still Gets No Credit Whatsoever and We're Still Not Sure if This is Reasonable or Not

Team Finland came to the Olympics with some good past results, but because their best two goalies inexplicably made like Russell Crowe at an award show and decided not to show up, they were given no chance to win the gold or even a medal. Well, at the end of the preliminary round, they are 5-0, have a date with an underachieving Team USA, and I am still pretty sure they could lose and I wouldn't be that surprised. Plus, I can't name half the team.

Who does this sound like? If you said Memphis, give yourself a hand. Remember them? They are the team that has lost twice all season to Duke (by three) and Texas. Duke and Texas. Sure, they play in a conference that got the same treatment this offseason as Jennifer Connolly in "Requiem for a Dream," but they have been crushing those teams.

It's like just as people are about to say, "Wow, these guys are really good!" they go and beat one of these crappy Conference USA teams by six in a close one and it takes Seth Davis' foot off the hype pedal. They don't even get a mention in the "who's a number one seed?" conversation, so they will probably get a two. Of course, when they get that two-seed and lose in the second round to a seven-seed (probably to Iowa), would anyone really fall off their couch?

(Honorable mention to George Washington. The school, not the former President.)

The Team Russia Award Going to The Team That is So Stacked it is More Fun to See if They Will Implode Than Actually Appreciate Their Greatness

I know what you're thinking. You think I'm going with Duke with this one, don't you? Well, I'm not. Sure they've won all but one game and perennially involved in the national title mix and 99% of college basketball fans want to see them lose, but this year there is something about them. Admittedly, I like Duke, so I may be way off here, but they seem like they can be beat. Plus, Redick is so ridiculously good that he's like Derek Jeter with the Yankees. It's jaw-dropping some of the shots he makes.

I'm going with UConn. If you disagree with me, then you haven't looked at their roster. They are stacked with experience and quality at every position. Most of their guys have a championship and the likelihood of none of those guys stepping up is not very high. In fact, if this does happen it would be a big story.

Whereas there is a possibility that Redick goes cold at the same time Shelden Williams is in foul trouble, resulting in the rest of the team standing there confused and disoriented, UConn basketball is like Russian hockey, when you watch their games, you see two or three guys dominating, you flick away and come back a half hour later and there are three other guys taking over the game. Guys that you forgot were even on the team. The Russians have a history of disappearing when things get tough. I don't think UConn will. That's where the two differ — I hope.

Posted by Matt Russell at 11:24 AM | Comments (4)

February 21, 2006

Wilt vs. Kobe: Bigger Accomplishment?

Kobe Bryant's recent 81-point outburst against the Toronto Raptors brought up comparisons to Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point milestone against the New York Knicks back in 1962. Bryant's feat at the Staples Center in Los Angeles was the closest that anyone has come to the century mark. But which one was the bigger accomplishment?

Chamberlain scored the previously unthinkable amount against a weak Knicks team in Hershey, Pennsylvania. This was in the pre-"SportsCenter" days. There is no video footage, just a radio broadcast that survives. Everyone knows the famous photograph of Wilt in his Philadelphia Warriors uniform holding up a hand-made sign that simply stated "100."

This was also accomplished in the days before there was a three-point shot. People may argue that Chamberlain would not have had many attempts from that range. But it still was an advantage that Bryant had. He was able to spread the defense because he can score by driving and hitting an outside jump shot. For the most part, Chamberlain was a post-up center. The Knicks knew what was coming and still couldn't stop it.

There is also the difference of 19 points. That is a big amount and the comparisons shouldn't even start until a player ties or eclipses the 100 mark. If it were a single-digit amount, that may be close enough to begin a debate. But not at that number.

There is also something about the old records that have a mystique to them. Using baseball as an example, there is Babe Ruth's home run mark, Hack Wilson's RBI total, and Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak. These are nationally-known records, regardless if they are broken or remain intact. Chamberlain's 100 points is the standard for all NBA records.

Kobe Bryant is a tremendous player and will be a Hall of Famer when he retires. He has the championships as well as the individual accomplishments. He is arguably the best player in the game right now. But Wilt Chamberlain played in a different era and was so dominant for years. In addition to playing with the Warriors, he was a perennial all-star with the Los Angeles Lakers. Following George Mikan, Wilt was the measuring stick for all centers in the sport. That should not be forgotten.

People also chided Kobe Bryant for being a ball hog in scoring that many points. But the truth is that he is by far the Lakers' best option and head coach Phil Jackson calls his number frequently. He has the ability to score at will. Kobe and his team would be doing themselves a disservice by not giving him the ball with the intention of scoring.

Both players had historic games and should be credited with such. If a modern day player has the opportunity to reach 100 points in a game, it very well could be Bryant. But until that happens, Wilt Chamberlain's record is the mark we have to use.

Posted by Joe Pietaro at 3:43 PM | Comments (2)

Behind the Madden World Syndicate

EA Sports' Madden Challenge boasts a field of thousands of competitors, all playing for a chance to win a trip to Hawaii to compete in the finals for a grand prize of $100,000. ESPN created a show called "Madden Nation," which is a reality TV show revolving around regular "Madden NFL" competition from some of the best gamers in the country. While Madden culture is at an all-time high, it wasn't this way in 1992. And it certainly wouldn't be this way today if it weren't for people like Israel Charles.

Israel Charles is the founder of the first Madden league and the commissioner of the Madden World Syndicate, which is an organization that represents the other Madden leagues and organizes tournaments. He is the founder of the original nationwide Madden Tournament, the Madden National Championship. It all started as nothing more than a guy's night out.

"Back when the game was on Sega Genesis, it was hard to find competition," Charles explained. "I dominated everyone I played. Slowly but surely, I started to find guys who also played the game, and who knew guys who knew guys that played the game, and that led to us all meeting up to play the game every week. It was like our poker night."

The five-to-six hour-long marathon sessions evolved into the creation of the PlayStation Football League (or PFL) in 1996 after the game moved to the PlayStation platform. The league consisted of 12 guys, all from the Ft. Lauderdale area, who would meet up every week to play. Shortly after the first season, Charles began to look for other leagues online.

"I always looked for Madden sites online, but there was never very much and there were no console-based leagues, so I decided to start one," said the Ft. Lauderdale resident. Charles took a class on HTML coding, learned how to use web software, and created the Madden World Syndicate (or MWS). The site grew quickly, but the most popular attraction was the message-board.

"It's a community of Madden lovers," said Charles. Of course, the introduction of the message board introduced a flurry of trash talking. "We had guys saying, 'Oh your league is trash, we would own you guys' and, 'our league is easily the toughest one around.' After a year of that, I wanted to put it all down and actually find out who was the best," Charles said.

This led to the first national championship tournament, which was held in Atlanta. Thirty-two "ballers" came from all over the country to compete in the MWS-sponsored tournament. "It was great, having all of these different players, who had never met, coming together to really find out who was the best," Charles said. "The only problem was that different guys played by different rules, which got confusing."

Charles solved that problem by creating an official rule set and posting it on the MWS website. The MWS followed the first national championship tournament by hosting the tournament every year at different cities, helping other people create their own leagues under MWS rules, creating an online PlayStation Football League, and by developing a weekly radio program, hosted by Charles and PFL Online Commissioner "3rd and Long," dedicated to Madden gaming.

The national championship tournament continued to be the centerpiece of the MWS and it has attracted more competitors every year. As the gaming community grew, the world's best gamers started to gravitate towards the MWS. The majority of the winners of EA's Madden Challenge and a handful of contestants on the "Madden Nation" are MWS products and came up through their ranks. "We have only hardcore ballers in our leagues," Charles said. "It's the competitive nature of the players that makes them successful. I don't care if it's a spitting contest, they just want to win."

As the stakes of playing become higher and there were thousands of dollars to be won at tournaments like the MWS National Championship and EA's Madden Challenge, the priorities of gamers started to change. "We have players who practice (for) six hours a day, devoting their whole lives to it," Charles said. "Careers have been lost, families have been broken up, and lives have been messed up because of people who take the game too seriously."

Gamers occasionally look to Charles, or Swammi as he's known in the Madden world, for advice on achieving balance. He's had to post several articles about balance on his site, which include tips such as:

• Instead of Sunday worship at church, you spend Sunday worshiping the lab.
• You would rather work in the lab than enjoy a Friday dinner or movie with that special lady.
• You find yourself at church scripting your first 15 plays on the church bulletin.

Balance isn't a problem for Charles, a 41-year-old high school music teacher, or for the participants of the original PFL, which is preparing for its 10th season. "I have my priorities straight. God, family, and my career come first," he said. "No game is more important than my beautiful wife."

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 3:33 PM | Comments (0)

Let's All Drink to the Depth of a Clown

Warren Spahn, God rest his soul, enunciated best the dilemma that plagues our memory of Casey Stengel even three decades after his death left baseball bereft for its most singular mind and personality. "I played for Casey," the Hall of Fame lefthander thrived upon saying, "before and after he was a genius."

Spahn had been a short-lived Boston Brave rookie, toward the end of Stengel's troubled tenure managing that impeccably mediocre ensemble, and he became in due course a short-lived addition to the 1965 New York Mets, after what wrote his Cooperstown ticket had abandoned his arm. The rookie had had his manager's affection until the day he refused to drill Pee Wee Reese and the old man farmed him out on the grounds of no guts.

Spahn went on to earn a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in World War II service, to say nothing of coming out of the Battle of the Bulge alive and returning home to forge a career that included a mere 42 plunks in 5,245.2 lifetime major league innings pitched. In a La Guardia-esque moment, Stengel owned up to his error. "I said 'no guts' to a kid who wound up being a war hero and one of the best pitchers anybody ever saw," he mused later. "You can't say I don't miss 'em when I miss 'em."

What people forget of Spahn's observation illustrates our dilemma in assessing Stengel objectively, the blank that Steven Goldman, in his imperative new book, Forging Genius: The Making of Casey Stengel (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books; 301 pages, $24.95), fills in, and it only begins with the rest of Spahn's commentary. Spahn "also said that no one knew baseball or cared more passionately about the game than Stengel," Goldman writes. "Perhaps that's why Stengel never pointed out that he was the only manager to work with Warren Spahn before and after he was a great pitcher."

Goldman's volume says it is long past time that we got sick and tired of a particular Stengel stereotype, the class clown who lucked into managing the greatest baseball team of all-time when anyone with a body temperature and a blood count could have done it. By slipping the meat of his baseball mind's development between the wheat bread of his hiring by, and first spring and season managing, the New York Yankees, Goldman serves up a crow sandwich to those who persist in believing, with apologies to Branch Rickey, that design was the residue of Stengelese luck.

"What does it do to a man," Ed Linn wrote in due course, in the Saturday Evening Post, "to know that he can do his job better than anybody else in the world — to know in his heart that he knows how it should be done — and not only be denied the opportunity, but to be looked upon as a garrulous fool?" To Goldman, based upon the evidence as it is, the answer was (is) self-evident.

It hurts badly. Casey Stengel neither gave in to that pain, nor believed his critics. When wounded, he fought off feelings of bitterness by laughing outwardly. He used his time in the wilderness to better his own understanding of his profession and himself, regroup, and attack again.

Goldman's will stand as the definitive analysis of Stengel as a baseball mind and manager, the way Robert W. Creamer's Stengel: His Life and Times has stood as a pure biography. One of the crew at BaseballProspectus.com, the crew which suffers no fools gladly and refuses to let a good story get in the way of the facts, Goldman could hardly resist having a crack at Stengel, especially considering the Smithsonian-size archive of documentary evidence available to re-examine and re-analyse.

But when the facts of the Ol' Perfesser get in the way of the good stories (and you can count on one hand how many bad stories snake up from Stengel's ghost), he looks better and his critics look ridiculous, and they will have Goldman to thank and blame for putting it in one place.

"The only thing we knew about Casey," young third baseman, future cardiologist, and future American League president Bobby Brown said, "was what we'd read in the papers. That he was eccentric, that he was kind of a baseball clown ... no one realized the depth of his baseball knowledge." Even after he finally had the team that could execute the depth of that baseball knowledge, a lot of people barely realize it. In 1949, it was ignorance as smugness, Goldman writes.

That spring, the Yankee players were all about entitlement. They were pros, the children of (Joe) McCarthy, smarter than (general manager George) Weiss, and more dignified than Stengel. Unable to see the forest for the trees, they missed the decline of the team as it fell down around them ... somehow avoiding the unpleasant truths that McCarthy was drinking himself out of a job in Boston, (Lou) Gehrig was dead, (second baseman Joe) Gordon was gone, and the three outfielders (Joe DiMaggio, Tommy Henrich, Charlie Keller) had left their youthful health and vigor in the decade of the 1930s.

In the same decade in which those Yankees' youthful health and vigor was left, Stengel was trying to make a collection of Brooklyn Dodgers, whom their owners had thrown together with little rhyme and less reason, beyond saving dollars at every turn (the Dodgers of that time were bedeviled by the heirs of Charlie Ebbets and Steve McKeever, heirs who couldn't even agree on what they agreed upon), into a baseball team. He went on to try to make a team out of a group of Boston Braves likewise bedeviled by shortsighted (and short-dollared) owners and having something else in common with the prior Dodgers: the very few good players Stengel was allowed were smothered by the very bad players that dominated the team.

The very quality that made Stengel a survivor is the quality that made him so puzzling when he, of all people, was hired to take over the Yankees for 1949. Goldman offers one very intriguing suggestion: Stengel's fearlessness toward finding and provoking laughter even in the middle of the murky months in Brooklyn and Boston provoke people to judge him far worse — and without justification — than they have judged, for example, the records of men who have been called geniuses in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.

God rest their souls, but how on earth did Gene Mauch — a masterful tactician but a shortsighted strategist — become a "genius," he with 19 consecutive less than inspiring finishes between the 1964 Philadelphia Phillies and the 1982 California Angels.

How did Connie Mack, a beloved Philadelphia institution, become that in the first place, despite his idea of a perfect season following the last Athletics championship era, the early 1930s: "(a season) in which the A's got off to a hot start, stimulating attendance, and then dropped off rapidly so players could not demand raises?" Aside from his modest financial resources (Mack, after all, also owned the team), Mack did as Stengel wouldn't do even if he had every gun in the league at his head.

How the hell did Leo Durocher become considered a seminal manager, and a Hall of Famer in the bargain, when a thirtysomething-year resume produces (count it) one World Series championship to show for (count 'em) three pennants, and numerous seasons in which he alienated as often as he assimilated his players and employers, while overplaying his hot hands and underplaying his reserve cards?

Is there something wrong with those pictures but right with Casey Stengel's, after all? Damn right there is, says Goldman's 301-page answer.

Stengel would never have allowed one rookie's unanticipated steal of home plate turn him against one of his best pitchers, the way Mauch did when Chico Ruiz (with Frank Robinson at the plate) stole home against Art Mahaffey to begin the losing streak that sank the Phillies in the end. (Mahaffey only got one or two starts the rest of the way and pitched well enough to win, and it was not, apparently, enough to lift him out of Mauch's doghouse.)

Stengel would have fought with every bullet in his guns to keep an owner — even himself (and he did have partial such interests in several teams he managed pre-Yankee) — from dismantling with impunity a great team such as Mack dismantled. (Goldman frequently cites the Stengel ethic of rebuilding a team concurrent to its success and not after its success, a little-appreciated factor in the Yankee success under his command.)

And Stengel would never have worn down his players only to call them gutless quitters when they were clearly exhausted by the time the stretch drive was on in earnest, nor would he have jockeyed umpires to the extent that they might exact a little revenge on the close calls come crunch time, then blame everyone else for a team's collapse, the way Durocher did. (Two words: 1969 Cubs.)

The Ol' Perfesser had played for several less-than-contending teams himself, and a few less-than-acute managerial minds, before his comparatively brief but edifying late-career turn with John McGraw's New York Giants, in the final period of McGraw's greatness. What he learned from McGraw about baseball is legend enough, but Stengel was never content to be a mere McGraw disciple. He developed, advanced, and refined McGraw's teachings into his own philosophy and style, from strength platooning and percentage play to teaching and pacing his players, from surviving inflated or overbuttressed egos to melding isolated performance measures with particular players' personalities. Stengel in Goldman's hands comes out better in the much-recorded "feud" with mythic but fading Joe DiMaggio than the "legitimate" histories have allowed, while he heeded on-base percentages and situational numbers years before they became linchpins of Moneyball.

The cynics snorted at Stengel's major league managing record when the Yankees hired him, but they ignored at their peril that Stengel won when he had the players who could execute, his favorite single word for playing the game correctly. He had also managed minor league teams in Milwaukee and Oakland in a pair of minor leagues (the old American Association and, even better, the old Pacific Coast League) that were major league in everything except name, and he won with them. (Goldman's is perhaps the single best analytical telling of Stengel's success with the Oakland Oaks.)

Goldman's analysis of just how Stengel bent, shaped, and reshaped the 1949 Yankees is as good as it can ever become for a pocket examination, to say nothing of a preliminary course in just how it was that the Stengelese Yankees became such continuous (if barely stable: Yankee turnover in the pre-free agency era was at least as frequent and, sometimes, arbitrary as it has been in the Steinbrenner era) champions. (Worth a reminder: Ralph Houk in his first term as the Yankees' manager looks better than he really was — his teams, essentially, were the last of the Stengel-refined Yankees.)

But somewhere in there is the exclamation point to the Stengel story, which Goldman acknowledges in the breach. His analysis ends prior, but the idiosyncratic Mickey Mantle (supposedly Stengel's trump card down on the farm, after the stupefying 1949 success) proved mostly unwilling to be taught, and he was almost (underline that) lucky that his outsize talent compensated for it. If there was one side of the Stengel myth that is absolutely true, it was that the old man wanted something in hand with pennants that his old mentor McGraw had (see Mel Ott): one player above all that he could make into a monument to everything he knew and hoped to teach about baseball.

He did have that player, and from the moment he opened his first Yankee spring. It took Ott himself — managing the Giants, sending the Yankees a message that $50,000 was theirs for the taking if they would agree to sell that player off the Newark farm — to awaken the Yankees to the fact that there just might be more to this kid than his caricaturable looks suggested. The kid's name was Yogi Berra. And what the deposed Bucky Harris began, Casey Stengel took up, advanced, and finished.

Because Yogi has become so beloved a character (if to some extent manufactured — but only some) as time has passed, he is not seen as Stengel's monument on the terms of Stengel's definition. But Stengel saw the rest of what the Yankees almost missed. Seeing and raising Harris a score, he saw a kid whose talent should have been obvious, whose hunger to learn should have been nurtured even further (and was, especially when Stengel and Weiss coaxed Bill Dickey into coaching Berra on the fineries of catching, in the classic case of the student blowing the teacher out of the proverbial water), and whose courage to laugh through the cruel abuse he took over his looks and his awkward speech was almost as poignant as it was telling. More than anyone before him, Stengel made it possible for Yogi Berra to play baseball the way he and Stengel each believed it should be played.

The result is a Hall of Fame catcher against whom everyone to follow him must be measured, no questions asked, of course. Yogi Berra was the greatest catcher in the history of the game; Johnny Bench was an extremely close second. But Stengel's handling of Berra also bequeathed a powerful argument (isolated brilliantly by Allen Barra, in Brushbacks and Knockdowns, punctuated by the World Series rings Berra has: 10) that Berra — whose least appreciated ability was his ability to turn pitchers who never had winning records elsewhere into pitchers who pitched over their own heads as Yankees — may have been the single greatest team player in the history of team sports, the player who meant more to his teams' winnings than any player, in any sport, anywhere, anytime.

In the hands of any other manager, Berra might have become merely useful, maybe a good hit-suspect defence catcher, maybe even a by-the-numbers Hall of Famer based almost entirely on his hitting for his position, but not quite close to what he actually did become. Yogi Berra probably deserves a re-examination more than anyone who has ever played the game (his almost-namesake, Barra, only commenced to it, to use another Stengelese expression), and we have Casey Stengel to thank for that.

Maybe Berra struck Stengel with a kind of shock of recognition. If it took Berra a bushel of guts to laugh his way around the stupidity with which he was handled at first, it must have taken Stengel a ton to laugh his way through being blamed more readily for mediocrity than he was credited for success. It takes superhuman ignorance to frown at Stengel's Yankees and presume it was a freak accident that rudely interrupted the mediocrity to which providence had plighted his true troth.

And it will be difficult to read even Goldman's kind of evidentiary analysis without bursting out laughing — this is Casey Stengel, after all — but it will be impossible to read it and conclude ever again that Stengel was just the luckiest man alive from 1949 through 1960.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 3:15 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2006

I Hate Mondays: All-Star Games

The all-star idea always looks good on paper, but it never performs to its potential.

We see it time and time again in cinema and sports and usually, it disappoints.

Movies laced with all-star casts always have a certain appeal, but they rarely live up to the hype. Some illustrious casts have produced a winner before, but for every "Chicago," there's an "America's Sweethearts," a "Troy," and a "Pearl Harbor."

The same concept translates to the world of sports. Every year, in every sport, there's always hype around the all-star events.

First, it starts with the predictions and the snubs. For fans, it is never too early for a conjecture, but pundits usually wait until a couple of weeks before the events to publish their educated guess.

And then, like clockwork, the second the announcements are made, everyone simultaneously cries about the snubs.

The truth is that there is no such thing as an al-star team without a snub. It's like trying to find a watchable Nick Cannon movie — it just doesn't happen. No matter what, there is always speculation about at least one player on the roster and there is always a rally for someone who was not selected.

The reality is that all-star snubs are as irrelevant as anything that Tim Allen has done in this past year.

Who cares?

Quick, name someone who was cold-shouldered at the 1993 MLB All-Star Game?

Okay, if that's too hard, name anyone, from any sport, who was slighted last year?

If you can't, you're in the majority. That is because the day after these fabulous events are finished, the whole idea of being overlooked is buried like Loverboy.

But it's not only this infatuation with snubs that makes every all-star game a puffed up event like Alexander, it's the fact that the games simply don't live up to the expectations.

The thought of Peyton Manning throwing spirals to Chad Johnson or a finesse line consisting of Peter Forsberg, Ilya Kovalchuk, and Jaromir Jagr lends itself to some sexy daydreaming, but when you realize that Barry Bonds doesn't really care to exert himself, the bubble bursts.

This isn't EA Sports, and when it's actually in the game, most of these players are not giving it their all.

The essence of sports is competition, effort and excellence. There is nothing more that I would love to see than Kevin Garnett working with a supporting cast that includes Tim Duncan and Tracy McGrady, but what we really see at the NBA All-Star Weekend — or Week — is a vanilla sky.

For us to open our eyes to what could truly be, not only would these athletes have to try a little harder, we would have to include coaching and strategy, blitzes and stunts (in the Pro Bowl), checking (in the NHL's All-Star Game), more patience at the plate (MLB), and guarding (NBA).

And since that will never happen, we just have to accept the all-star games for what they are: a tease for hardcore fans and a theatrical production for casual ones.

So just "Be Cool" next time someone gets snubbed and remember to keep your expectations low.

All-star sporting events and all-star movie casts mix like Mondays and me.

"Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." — George Bernard Shaw

Posted by Dave Golokhov at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)

Playing the R-Card

Well, the 2005 NFL season is now complete and boy, you better have respected it.

It seems this season more than any other, teams weren't playing for millions of dollars. They weren't playing for division titles. They weren't even playing for the Super Bowl.

No way. Nowadays in the NFL, you play for respect.

How many times was the tired respect cliché dragged out? If I had a nickel for every time I heard it, I would have trouble fitting under the salary cap.

How difficult can it be to get respect? The NFL consists of say 650 players or so. All these jobs are hotly-contested and thousands of football players in colleges across the United States compete for positions on high-profile college teams with the hopes of being spotted and selected to play for big dollars on the world's biggest sports stage.

Those who make it to the NFL must, by definition, get respect. They are the best of the best.

But you wouldn't think so from listening to the players and teams themselves.

By their reasoning, the only ones who truly can respect them are ... well, it seems no one can truly respect them.

Where did this "us against the world" mantra begin?

Not surprisingly, the New England Patriots appear to be the creators and main proponent of this carefully scripted image.

Listen to Patriot Rodney Harrison back in January 2004.

"I got so tired, every time I turned on (ESPN's) 'SportsCenter' and not getting any credit," said Harrison, who had an interception and a forced fumble in the Patriots' 24-14 victory over the Colts in yesterday's AFC Championship Game. "It fueled the fire. No one gave us any respect. No one gave us a chance."

What channel is ESPN in Harrison's universe? Every time I tune into "SportsCenter," I think I am watching Patriots TV.

When Harrison went into this tired line, the Patriots had already won a Super Bowl and had just beaten the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game.

Ty Law continued the party line.

"I got tired of that stuff," Law said. "We don't get any respect. What about our team?"

What indeed. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I was thinking back then that I wasn't real impressed with Peyton Manning's chances against the Patriots.

While the "Rodney Dangerfield no respect" act seems somehow connected to the Patriots, they don't have exclusive rights. In a Boston Globe article about Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb, there is some idea that Pro Bowl QB McNabb doesn't get his due since:

"To some, McNabb simply hasn't gotten the credit he deserves and as an example, they point out that even in the ad campaign in which he stars, the one for Campbell's Soup, it's his mother who steals his thunder."

Wait a second, I am confused.

So McNabb doesn't get enough respect and that is reflected in the fact that his mom somehow had better lines in a Campbell Soup commercial?

We have all seen commercials that use athletes. It isn't too difficult for them to be upstaged. Wooden acting, predictable dialogue, and "football simulations" that more resemble Atari 600 video games all make it almost impossible for the athlete not to be upstaged.

Although I have to say, Donovan's mom is not Meryl Streep in those commercials, either.

Oh, and the timing of this article, just before the Eagles played in the Super Bowl against the Patriots.

How does the Super Bowl starting QB of the four-time NFC Championship Game participants not get respect? What does this have to do with soup?

How does this message keep getting legs?

Media.

The media have completely bought into this respect as a motivator storyline. Once again, our friends at ESPN continue the Patriots legacy. Kieran Darcy wrote this:

And they are not worried about what the rest of the world thinks. "I think we earned respect last year," said Tom Brady. "And if we didn't, then people are just too ignorant, too stupid to realize."

They might still be underdogs. But the Patriots are playing like champs. That nobody can deny.

This was written two games into the season following the Patriots' Super Bowl season. The Patriots had also just won their first two games by a combined score of 74-21.

Talk about toeing the party line.

It isn't often that you actually hear anyone say they don't respect an opponent. Usually, any interview between teams or coaches sounds more like a love-in with most avoiding providing "bulletin board" material for their opponents.

However, Kansas City Chief RB Priest Holmes did once say:

"I would like to commend Marvin [Lewis] on a well-done job and having his team fired up and being ready to battle," said Holmes. "I still have no respect, really, for the Cincinnati Bengals. The players, I do — Marvin because I actually had a few years that I spent with him in Baltimore, and I still respect him and the players. But the organization, I still care very little about, and I think that if they are prepared to go where we are going, we shall meet again.

"I've never lost to them, so for me to lose now, it definitely tears my heart apart. That's why I can say I do respect the players and the coach. But as far as the organization itself, I don't, because they're not used to winning. So for them to win now, I'm excited for them. But at the same time, we should have definitely took that (game)."

Well, he sort of doesn't respect them.

But how does Bengal coach Marvin Lewis respond when a year later three of his players are selected to the Pro Bowl, the most since 1990?
"We know the league gives us respect, and that's the most important thing."

So, respect is the most important thing. Not winning. Not titles. Respect.

But maybe there is room for respect in the biggest game of the year, also.

If you asked Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger about respect, here is what you heard (from the Palm Beach Post):

"Now you want to talk to us?" yelled Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who had just helped his team clinch a trip to Super Bowl XL. "Where have you been the rest of the season?"

Not five minutes had passed before the Steelers were collectively turning their third postseason victory into a Rodney Dangerfield stand-up routine. No respect, they said. No respect at all.

A few days later, however, Pittsburgh has a new problem on its hands. Turns out they got what they asked for. In next week's Super Bowl in Detroit, the Steelers are favored to defeat the Seattle Seahawks by four points.

"We'll probably still think we're underdogs," Roethlisberger said. "If no one else believes in us, that's fine with us. We know the mentality that we need to take into the game."

Someone forgot to tell Big Ben that his team was almost an instant four-point favorite in the Super Bowl.

And Steeler coach Bill Cowher must have missed the point spread, also. He had his designated home team Steelers wear their white visitor uniforms for the Super Bowl.

But then, how much respect could Cowher have? He is only the longest-tenured NFL head coach at the moment and has taken his team to the Super Bowl twice and the AFC Championship Game five times.

But wait, here is the seal of approval (from the Boston Herald):

"Rodney Harrison is about respect. And if you deserve it, he's going to give it to you — no matter what colors you wear."

You guessed it, Harrison was ready to knight Cowher with respect.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. No wonder Aretha Franklin was invited to sing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl this year.

Anything else would have been ... disrespectful.

Posted by Jeff Moore at 10:50 AM | Comments (2)

February 18, 2006

Who Owns the Olympics?

David Letterman has as much in common with the Fox News Channel as Dick Cheney does with an effective crisis management media strategy. But the two made strange bedfellows this week thanks to NBC Sports.

Both CBS's "The Late Show" and FNC's "Fox and Friends" did what NBC would give up all of its unaired episodes of "Joey" for most of America to do: discuss and promote the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy.

The only things that have surpassed Bode Miller and Jeremy Bloom as the Games' biggest flops have been NBC's ratings for the first five nights of events, which were down 36% from Salt Lake City in 2002 and 42% from Lillehammer in 1994, according to USA Today. It seems American fans would rather watch Simon Cowell rip a chubby 17-year-old girl to shreds than witness Ted Ligety shred powder for a gold medal — especially when both are on tape delay.

You'd think the one thing NBC would want to do in a ratings tailspin would be to attract the viewers that are not currently watching the games. And the easiest way to do that is with the free advertising that comes when other networks show highlights from the Olympics.

Only there's this little thing called "exclusivity." And NBC treats the concept with an intense reverence, even if it subverts its own success.

NBC paid what amounts to the gross national product of several African countries for the rights to the last three Olympics. Part of that deal is exclusive ownership for all things Torino Games, including the availability of highlights from the day's events. So if you're a sportscaster looking to fill your three minutes on a weekday night with some skiing, skating, or curling highlights from earlier that morning, you're out of luck: they're embargoed until NBC's Olympic broadcast day is over.

Which brings us back to Letterman and Fox News Channel. Dave — who, let's remember, isn't exactly on NBC's Christmas card list — ran a bit this week in which he told the studio audience that "The Late Show" wanted to roll some Olympic highlights, but were hamstrung by NBC's exclusivity policy. So, instead, Letterman ran the only footage he could: a completely blurry and unfocused five seconds of Ligety winning gold. The clip featured clear audio, but a picture so murky it made me pray I never have glaucoma. It was typical Letterman snark, and couldn't have been aimed at a better target.

Same thing with "Fox and Friends" the following morning. The crew wanted to show some Olympic hockey highlights, but couldn't break the exclusivity rule. So it did the next best thing: it gave two talking heads hockey sticks and put them in front of a green screen, back-projecting a helmet-less, black-and-white game from the 1960s as they read some scores. It was "Mystery Science Theater 3000"-level tomfoolery.

Is this really what NBC wanted? For the Winter Games, already marginalized by an apathetic public and an ever-inattentive television audience, to become a punch-line in a series of jokes about the network's miserly approach to highlight sharing? Did Dick Ebersol's company pay $613 million to become something akin to "Stupid Network Tricks?"

Obviously, broadcast exclusivity is nothing new. Watch any weekend of ESPNews, and you'll see games that need to "go final" before any highlights can make the broadcast. Most of these games are going to be NFL games, which due to network contract restrictions prohibit highlights to even be shown on a competing network's halftime program on most occasions.

But the NFL can basically do whatever the hell it wants to do (just ask the players' association and The Rolling Stones) because it's the single most successful sports organization in America and perhaps the world. While the Winter Games have had extraordinary success in the past — drawing 184 million Americans for the 2002 Olympics — clearly, this year they've landed with a thud, and NBC's domineering plan to horde every highlight and consume every accomplishment is at the core of its failure.

Try to follow this logic: NBC is serving as a provider of content for ESPN.com for the Olympics. Fans who click certain Olympic links on the ESPN site will be sent to NBC's Winter Games site for exclusive videos and articles. "We want to get in front of that audience and put in front of them our content and promotion we do for the Olympics on television and the Internet," NBC Olympics President Gary Zenkel told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, regarding ESPN.com's readers.

Okay, so the Internet fans will get some unusual synergy between NBC and ESPN. But the much more sizable (and legitimately measured) ESPN television audience? Those folks will still have to wait for embargoed highlights from stingy old NBC television. Does that make any sense?

In Fairfax, Virginia this weekend, the same "exclusivity" nonsense is creating more headaches. The George Mason University Patriot Center was scheduled to host a "Clash of the Champions" bout between boxers Jimmy Lange and Joey Gilbert on Saturday night. You remember them, right? Two guys from a reality boxing TV show that fared so well in the ratings it couldn't find a home on NBC's moribund schedule and is currently in development hell with ESPN?

This is Lange's second fight at the Patriot Center, basically his home turf. The first fight was covered by the local sports television show I work for, and covered in a big way: highlights of the entire card of fights, press conference coverage, and exclusive interviews with the boxers. This time, however, we've been told that we're not allowed to film any of the fights because a new broadcast partner has exclusive rights to eventually televise the card — on a cable TV network based in Florida, no less. Meanwhile, an event whose first edition was heavily covered and whose second edition was heavily hyped will now be off the radar screen for a key local media outlet.

Again, does that make any sense?

What it all comes back to is the fact that this new boxing broadcaster is just like NBC. The Peacock has made an obscene financial commitment to the Games and feels like it needs to control every aspect of information dissemination in order to maximize that investment. Meanwhile, a tactic that should be forcing viewers to find its Olympic coverage each day is instead pushing American athletes into utter obscurity — even their inevitable appearances on the competing network morning shows draw apathetic responses from viewers and hosts.

NBC should be applauded for once again putting on an amazing television spectacle from a technological and depth-of-coverage perspective. But by keeping a death-grip on what should be public-domain content, NBC Sports has placed a shroud of anonymity over Turin.

Or Torino.

Or whatever...

Random Thoughts

Speaking of NBC Sports and its partner in NHL hockey, the Outdoor Life Network, I was waaaaaay too quick to praise their change in direction when it came to television presentation of the league. Suddenly, I'm seeing and hearing the same grating personalities that failed to connect with viewers for the last decade on ESPN's pathetic hockey coverage: hacks like Ray Ferraro and Brian "Swedish Muppet" Engblom, whose tedious delivery and obvious analysis should have been left behind when the NHL changed dance partners.

Meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses — how long before Steve Levy's back screaming "CENTERING FEED!!!" on every shot from the point?

Rumors out of England have the band Coldplay contemplating a break-up, which would deprive music fans of several more albums of songs that sound exactly like "Clocks."

I'm sure lead singer Chris Martin will reconsider when he finds out U2 has never even broken up once...

According to an ESPN poll, there is a 50/50 split of baseball fans when it comes to whether Sammy Sosa belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

I took a quick poll myself of people currently writing this column, and I found out that 100% of respondents think those who wouldn't put Sosa in the Hall are complete hypocritical morons.

Again, nice of the majority of baseball fans to wake up now about the steroid thing. Where were you during those halcyon days in the Summer of 1998? You were jacking off to Mark McGwire highlights, just like Mike Lupica, that's where. You have absolutely no right to show moral indignation now if you didn't at least raise an eyebrow then.

The bottom line is that Sammy's fifth on the all-time home run list, and he has more RBIs than Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Joe DiMaggio, and Mickey Mantle. He has more total bases than Roberto Clemente and Mike Schmidt. He's won an MVP award. If McGwire is in and Barry Bonds is in, then Sosa's in. And if you're going to bring up the cork thing, you better damn well have a good reason for why Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry should be enshrined after doing everything but taking the seems off the ball with a power sander...

Finally, Martin Lawrence is scheduled to team with John Travolta and Tim Allen for a movie called "Wild Hogs," about a group of middle-aged bikers who encounter the real Hells Angels on an open-road adventure.

I'm sorry, but if Travolta's doing a movie with "hogs" in the title and neither Arnold Horshack or Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington are in the cast, count me out...

Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 7:04 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2006

Wizards Trying to Regain Form

As the NBA season reaches the All-Star Break, the Washington Wizards are trying to regain their form from a year ago, when they went 45-37 and won their first round playoff series. This season, with one game left before the All-Star Break, the Wizards are 26-24, which is four games behind the record the team at this point last year (30-20).

Though Washington has won eight out of 11 games, including seven games in a row at home, their season has been marred by inconsistency and a lack of defensive pressure, among other things. Some of these ills can be attributed to the departure of Larry Hughes, via free agency, and the trade that sent Kwame Brown to the Los Angeles Lakers for Caron Butler and others.

When Larry Hughes signed his free agent deal with the Cleveland Cavaliers, the Wizards not only lost one-third of their offense from the 2004-05 season, they also lost their best perimeter defender. This season, the Wizards are forcing fewer turnovers per game when compared to last year’s totals (14.9 this year, 15.1 for last year). Also, the Wizards are allowing opponents to shoot 37% from behind the three-point line. These defensive shortcomings are overshadowing another brilliant season by Gilbert Arenas.

Arenas is continuing to grow as a player and into the go-to player for the Wizards. A year after averaging 25.5 points, 5 assists, 4.7 rebounds, and 1.7 steals per game, Arenas has added to those numbers by averaging 28.6 points, 6.1 assists, 3.8 rebounds, and 1.8 steals this season, allowing him to earn his second straight all-star team selection. His scoring average is fourth in the entire league behind only Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, and LeBron James. He is also attempting to pick up the defensive void with his steals, an average that is good enough for seventh in the NBA.

With Arenas putting the team on his back for much of the first half of the season, it has allowed Caron Butler to begin to settle into his role with the Wizards. After being traded from the Lakers to the Wizards on July 22, 2005, Butler struggled with his role. His minutes often varied as he learned coach Eddie Jordan’s new system. This led to sporadic production during the first month of the season. However, Caron caught on and now he is averaging a career-high 16.5 points, 5.7 rebounds, and 2.5 assists per game this season, including averaging 18.7 points during the current month of February.

With Butler rounding into form, the Wizards are finally starting to resemble the team that advanced to the second round of the playoffs last year. However, they still have a long way to go because there is a logjam at the top of the Eastern Conference with the Detroit Pistons and the Miami Heat the clear favorites. With the second half of the season left, its time to see if the Wizards are regaining their form or just teasing their fans, who expect a season comparable to last season. The Wizards have just over 30 games left to show and prove to not only their fans, but to themselves.

Posted by Alfons Prince at 4:53 PM | Comments (0)

Winter Olympics TV Coverage Far From Golden

It's that time of the year again. The 2005 National Football League season has come to an end with the Pittsburgh Steelers capturing the Super Bowl title, the Major League Baseball spring training season is just readying to begin, the National Basketball Association is in a holding pattern for most fans until its playoffs, NASCAR 2006 is close to starting off with the Daytona 500, and the National Hockey League is on hiatus due to the 2006 Winter Olympics. And with the NCAA's March Madness still weeks away, what is a sports fan to do?

We force ourselves to tune in to the NBC television broadcast network in order to try to catch some of the real competition on tap in the XX Olympic Winter Games. Sports fans are not averse to watching Winter Olympics coverage, but trying to figure out NBC's television schedule has become a sport of Olympic proportions unto itself.

The supposed television Winter Olympics schedule is available in local newspapers, in various sports magazines, and all over the Internet. But the schedule times are useless in pinpointing when any particular sport is broadcasted. And depending on what time zone one lives in, it is virtually impossible not to hear the results on television, radio, or view online prior to seeing the broadcast since NBC has its coverage tape-delayed in five different U.S. time zones.

The excuse to not broadcast real time coverage during these Olympic Games is viable this year in that Italy is six hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Standard Time, although on weekends, it is feasible for live coverage at least on the East Coast. It is worth noting that almost 40 years ago, U.S. television viewers were able to enjoy primarily live coverage of the 1968 Winter Olympics from Grenoble, France and later with the 1972 Olympic Summer Games from Munich, Germany, via television satellite. And what was the excuse in not broadcasting the 1996 Summer Olympics live when they were in Atlanta, GA and then when the 2002 Winter Olympics were in Salt Lake City, UT? Both were instead tape-delayed, again in five different time zones.

The reason for NBC's incoherent TV scheduling is because of its monopolized ability to edit and package the coverage any which way it wishes in order to appease sponsors while placing advertising spots wherever and whenever it chooses. Unfortunately for the viewer, it denies the spontaneity of competition as well as deprives viewers from selectively choosing which sports they wish to watch.

NBC has bragged about providing 416 hours of broadcast coverage on NBC, including three cable television stations, but as of February 16, 2006, five days into competition, viewers have been treated to little more than glorified highlights between 8:00 PM-11:30 PM in whichever time zone one happens to be. During that time period, bits and pieces of coverage from any one of 15 sport disciplines are shown, with scant coverage of any athletes other than American Olympians or only winners of an event should they not be American.

We lose the continuity of viewing any one event such as alpine skiing, speed skating, ski jumping or even bobsledding for that matter, which are essentially races and necessitate competitors being seen in sequence or at least its contenders, rather than a cut-and-paste version of them. And while figure skating viewing requires less of a need for the immediacy of viewing other competitors in the event, one would be hard-pressed as to when to plan on tuning in. Although more time is devoted to the figure skating events than most others, its coverage is peppered with teasers and unexpected commercial breaks in the action, making it sometimes painful to get through even for its avid fans.

Since television coverage of the Olympics is all about ratings, as is all television fare, NBC for years now has shot itself in the proverbial foot when whining that not enough of the American public is tuning in to Olympics coverage, no longer just applicable to the Winter Olympics, either. While the Summer Olympics attracts more viewers, its coverage, too, is close to beyond the pale.

What NBC has tried to do over the years is to please all demographics as well as its sponsors while losing sight of the intrinsic value of the actual event. But as viewership continues to erode for Olympics coverage, the NBC network is largely responsible. In its zeal to compel the American viewer to tune in, it has overproduced its coverage, thus turning off the very audience it is trying to attract and retain.

The Olympics tells its own story and most sports fans do not have the patience to sit through over three hours of teaser-filled coverage. Now we all know that the reason it is done that way is with the hope that viewers will sit through enough of it to be exposed to advertisers and as well as to garner more consistent ratings. But in fact, NBC is accomplishing the opposite result, forcing many to record the coverage and thus eliminate the ads, or tuning out completely.

So what you say? Who cares? Well, chances are if you are reading this, you are a sports fan. Although we all have our favorite sport, we crave watching competition, with few exceptions. For example, the idea of watching curling is comparable to watching paint dry and how it is considered an athletic event is beyond this writer's comprehension.

But for now, we are stuck with what we have. When the numbers are crunched this time around for NBC, perhaps they will get the message as the sports fan drives the numbers and more and more of us are getting fed up. Maybe they need to go back to the drawing board and revisit the Jim McKay book on covering worldwide sporting events. It worked for ABC broadcasting way back when, when the athletes were the story, sadly a crucial element that NBC seems to have forgotten.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 4:42 PM | Comments (12)

February 16, 2006

The Book of Prognostication: Feb. 16

I'm not going to lie. I haven't been watching a lot of the Olympics. I know that hardcore sports enthusiasts are supposed to at least pretend like they care about the Olympics, but really, outside of hockey and a few other select events, I couldn't care less. I'm more disappointed that quality shows like "Scrubs" and "The Office" are on hiatus. Still, it's impossible to get away from the Olympics. The weird thing I keep hearing people say about certain events, however, is "even I could do that." And that is the key to doubling the Olympic ratings.

I don't know why I do it, maybe it's because I feel better about myself for saving jobs and careers, maybe it's just because I'm looking out for the good of the common sports fan, either way — I have fixed the Lingerie Bowl and now I can fix the Olympics. The key to getting people to watch is, well, getting average people to compete.

I'm sick and tired of people thinking they are as capable as Olympic athletes, so the one way to shut these people up is to have average Joes compete in events. Every event should have one average person, someone who isn't competitive in that sport (recreational experience is accepted), try their hand at winning a medal. You'd have people who can't ski falling down hills, figure skaters who are forced to hold onto the boards as they shuffle around the ice, and incompetent ice dancers trying to do the Macarena while skating figure-eights.

This works for a variety of reasons. First, people will tune in to events to see the average Joe humiliate himself in an entertaining fashion. Second, people will watch just in case the average schmuck can actually pull off an upset and defeat a world-class athlete on the biggest stage for sports people don't care about.

Could you imagine what an upset it would be for the average Joe to actually win a medal? That could possibly be the greatest upset in sports history. The A.J. (Average Joe), without any practice or hours of sweat and determination, simply steps onto the course and defeats a pack of world-class athletes at their own game. Could there be a better message than "the average man can accomplish a dream he's had for most of that day with little or no work?"

Realistically, the only event the A.J. would have a shot at winning is the one where they just throw people off a snowy mountain and see who makes the biggest crash (I can't remember what it's called), but people would still watch. NBC, if you are a fan of bags of money (usually ones that have the $ symbol on it), then make this happen.

Of course, if you, as a Sports Gospel reader and are a fan of bags of money, I present the following to you — this week's picks.

As usual, BetOnSports.com is giving readers a 10% signup bonus, in addition to their other signup bonuses, when you register for a new account. To get the bonus, just type "Sports Gospel Promo" into the promo code.

For this week's picks, I'm staying with the hot hand and going back to my man A.J. Braves from SportsRant Radio. He has gone 6-2 in the past few weeks, which is impressive. Even more impressive, however, is that the lines he is picking for these games aren't too far off from the real things, and he sets these long before Vegas does (which is a clear sign he knows what he's doing). Make sure to check out A.J. Braves on "Takin' the Charge" on SportsRant Radio.

Saturday Picks

Bucknell @ Northern Iowa (UNI Dome, Noon EST)

We're looking at an O/U near 135 ... however, I see 136 or above!

ESPN2 has this contest as their headliner for Bracket Buster Saturday ... not a bad choice in my book. Bucknell has cracked the top 25 this week, and with their 12-game winning streak, the Bison want nothing more than to steal the show on a national stage.

UNI can shoot the ball as well as any team in the country on their home floor. The Panthers are losers of two straight, the last coming on a big upset loss to Indiana State. Believe me, the Panthers know how desperate they are for a win like this one.

Both teams haven't been putting up the best numbers recently. Come Saturday, though, the television cameras are going to capture a basketball game that surpasses the 135 total point mark. Take the over.

P.S. I'm calling for a UNI upset win at home!

UConn @ West Virginia (WVU Coliseum, 3:45 PM EST)

If UConn is -6.5 or less, take it!

UConn has the size and the guard play to compete with WVU, and if the Mountaineers try and turn this one into a track meet, Jim Calhoun's Huskies are going to run wild on the road.

Rudy Gay has been nothing less than spectacular. Josh Boone and Hilton Armstrong can out-hustle Kevin Pittsnogle, and while UConn is still the nation's No. 1 team, don't expect them to drop two in a row.

This one's going to be close, but with free throws down the stretch, and the depth/speed combo of the Huskies, UConn escapes with a "W."

Missouri @ Kansas (Allen Fieldhouse, 3:45 PM EST)

Rock Chalk Jayhawk -10.5 or less.

In a huge rivalry matchup in the Big 12, the Quin Snyder-less Missouri Tigers are going to get mauled on the road. Kansas has also jumped back into the top 25, and Bill Self's freshmen are starting to show why they were McDonald's All-Americans.

The combination of Mario Chalmers, Julian Wright, and Brandon Rush will provide plenty of excitement as KU continues to make their claim as a contender come March.

Records don't matter when these two meet, and with the hostile environment in Lawrence, Kansas is going to Rock the opposition, and Chalk up another conference victory. Kansas wins handedly.

Sunday Picks

Indiana @ Illinois (Assembly Hall, 3:30 PM EST)

Illinois -6.5 or less.

The Fighting Illini have plans of providing rhyme and reason for the announcement that Indiana head coach Mike Davis will step down from the helm at this season's end.

Illinois fell to the Hoosiers in January, a 62-60 loss in which Dee Brown only totaled 5 points in 37 minutes of playing time. To make things crystal clear: that will not happen again!

Dee Brown will be all over the court — you'll see the Maywood, IL native dishing out assists, hitting the three-ball, and once again, showing the nation why he is known as the "One-Man Fast Break."

Mike Davis said it himself — the Hoosier nation needs one of their own to rally around. He knows that he's not the one. Get this ... Bruce Weber knows it too!

Illinois splits the season series with Indiana with a win on Sunday over the Hoosiers.

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 5:33 PM | Comments (0)

Major League Baseball 2006 Preview

All of a sudden now that football is officially over, pitchers and catchers report to training camp next week, which means the 2006 Major League Baseball season is just around the corner. The first few months of the season don't really matter with teams warming up and trying to find their chemistry, which works out well considering we've got March Madness and then the playoffs in the NHL and that league where they pretend to play basketball.

Also, with the joke of a tournament called the World Baseball Classic taking place in March, it'll take a little bit of extra time for the players to get into their team chemistry because they'll have to change mindsets quickly from national pride to the reasons they're getting paid seven and eight figures a year.

In the next coming weeks and months, you'll have people on different websites and in magazines and newspapers making their predictions for this season, so let me be the first to tell you what is going to happen this season in the major leagues in a division-by-division breakdown followed by breakdowns of the playoffs all the way up until the World Series.

NL East

1. New York Mets
2. Atlanta Braves
3. Washington Nationals
4. Philadelphia Phillies
5. Florida Marlins

The NL East has moved up significantly in the standings of best division in the league as the Mets will finally be the team that unseats the Braves as division champs. They gained a lot of good players as they unloaded the players that hurt the team and as long as the players mesh, this team could push 95 wins this season.

The Braves didn't pickup enough after losing five good players, with their biggest signing being Edgar Renteria. If he can manage to anchor the infield and be as good as he was two years ago, then they should be good to compete for the wildcard.

The Nationals will be hard up to do anything special with the Mets and Braves in their division. They didn't lose anyone that they couldn't afford to replace and they finally might have some offense, but it'll be hard to make noise this season because of their division.

The Phillies have lost a bit from last season after losing too much and not picking up anyone noteworthy, and they should have a hard time finishing above this spot. The Marlins should be replaced with a triple-A team because that's pretty much all this team is. I'd be surprised if they won 50 games this season.

NL Central

1. St. Louis Cardinals
2. Milwaukee Brewers
3. Houston Astros
4. Chicago Cubs
5. Pittsburgh Pirates
6. Cincinnati Reds

There is no team in this division that really separated themselves in terms of offseason preparation. It will be hard for any of these teams to catch the Cardinals because they've managed to stay at about the same quality compared to last year. They lost some quality players, but managed to replace them with players that are capable of playing to the same ability and it will be hard for any team to match their offensive power this season.

The Brewers are coming off of their best season in a long time and are poised to make a postseason run. They lost one notable player and managed to solidify their pitching to make it better than last season. If the chemistry can stay solid throughout the season, then they should be even better than last season.

The Astros will be here if Roger Clemens retires. He was the anchor of the rotation when Andy Pettitte was struggling in the beginning of the year and neither Pettitte nor Roy Oswalt look to be able to be a good number one in a rotation.

The Cubs did a little bit of positive work this winter, but it was all voided when they stupidly signed Juan Pierre. The reason that they're here is because they can never manage to have their big two pitchers pitching to their potential at the same time when they're both healthy. The Pirates have a good core of young players, but they're not good enough to make any noise in this division. They picked up some good players, but they lost too many good ones to increase their possibilities from last season.

The Reds have underachieved for the past few seasons and this season will be different. The reason that it will be different is because nobody should expect the Reds to do anything special this year and they won't be disappointed.

NL West

1. Los Angeles Dodgers
2. Arizona Diamondbacks
3. San Francisco Giants
4. San Diego Padres
5. Colorado Rockies

Last season, the NL West should have had their automatic playoff berth taken away. Saying that the Padres limped into the playoffs is an understatement, which means that the NL West seems to be up for grabs this season. The Dodgers are the team that will move up and take control of the division. They have the pitching potential and the solid infield play that can seize control of the division early on and just hold on enough that the other teams in the division will fall around them. Good for the Dodgers that that's all that's necessary to win this weakest of the divisions this season.

The Diamondbacks are going to stay in second place this season because of the lack of quality on the other three teams. They lost some core players from last season's second place team, but they also managed to replace the lost players well enough that they can stay close to the Dodgers, but not close enough for a wildcard.

This season will show Barry Bonds' true colors. He's lost a lot of weight supposedly to help his knee, and there's no way that he'll break the career home run record this season. He's not as imposing as he was two years ago and with an above-middle-aged outfield and with only Matt Morris worth talking about in the rotation, they'll struggle and underachieve this year before needing to resign Bonds to a $4 billion contract or something like that.

The Padres are a mess: they have no pitching outside of number one and they lost more than they gained. They luckily limped into the division title last season and they should limp into a 65-win season this year. Pitching and defense win championships and a good ERA in Colorado being around 4.50 doesn't ever bode well for the Rockies.

AL East

1. New York Yankees
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Toronto Blue Jays
4. Baltimore Orioles
5. Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Let the "buying the division" talk start. The Yankees will yet again be the class of the AL East. They have the best lineup in the league and their underachieving rotation from last year should be better this year. As long as Joe Torre can understand that Mike Mussina isn't a number two pitcher anymore and if the young pitchers can stay healthy and solid, the Yankees have the middle relief to complete their pitching staff and rival the White Sox of last year.

A lot of ifs surround Beantown this upcoming season. Those ifs include if the veteran pitching holds up and if the new pitching plays to their potential and if the new players can hit like they have in the past. The truth is, though, they lost too many of their core from their World Series team from two years ago to contend for the division. They should still be good, though, and will be in a close race for the wildcard. Mark my words, though, David Ortiz will never win AL MVP as a DH.

The Blue Jays made some very good yet expensive moves. They improved their pitching marginally, but I'm still not sold on crowning them number two considering their two big moves are a combined 65-69 with 42 career saves. They're going in the right direction, but they don't have the money to keep up with the Red Sox and Yankees. Look for them to make a serious push for the AL wildcard and only lose out on it by one or two games.

The Orioles took a serious step back this season. They started off strong last year and then lost a lot of steam at the end of the season. They haven't done anything in the offseason to make anyone in the country think that they will finish within five games of last season.

You have to feel bad for the Devil Rays for being in this division. They have no hope in competing in this division for the next 10 years at least. There's nothing really more you can say about them.

AL Central

1. Chicago White Sox
2. Cleveland Indians
3. Minnesota Twins
4. Kansas City Royals
5. Detroit Tigers

This division is hard to judge in terms of the second-place team. Neither team did too much to shore up a serious advantage and all the defending World Series champions had to do to stay in control was lose some excess weight and fill in a couple of gaps. The White Sox will not repeat this season, they're not that good. They'll win the division because it's the second-weakest one besides the NL West, but after that, you can't expect the pitchers to be the same as they were last year. They'll make some noise and make some teams sweat, but they won't put together another great year.

The same sort of thing can be said for the Indians. They went 46-28 after the All-Star Break while winning 17 of 19 at one point and I guarantee you that won't happen again. The reason for that is that they lost their two top starters from last year's team that helped them win all those games. What did the Twins do this past winter? Absolutely nothing. They shored up a little bit of offensive help, but they sacrificed a solid, young pitcher to do that. The offense will still be pretty anemic and now they won't be able to hold a lead, so this is going to be another season of ho-hum baseball in the Twin Cities.

The Royals did a phenomenal job in bringing in new talent to Kansas City, but don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying they'll contend. Last season, they lost 106 games and have lost 100 or more in three of the past four seasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a seven in the tens column of the wins at the end of the year for this team, though, as they should be a scrappy bunch.

The pitching for the Tigers got marginally better over the winter and you can expect Pudge Rodriguez to have just as bad of a season as he did last year (well, maybe not that bad) because he's done in the league. I give him two more years, tops.

AL West

1. Oakland A's
2. Los Angeles Angels
3. Texas Rangers
4. Seattle Mariners

This could be the best division in baseball this year. The A's are looking for their new big three pitchers to lead them to a great year this season with Barry Zito, Rich Harden, and Dan Haren. They need solid relief pitching again this season from their rookie of the year closer, and they have to have chemistry in the clubhouse for this young but very good team to stay in the hunt, which might be hard with Milton Bradley in the clubhouse this year. They'll be good, though, so watch out.

The Angels are again a very good team that will be in the playoff hunt all season long. Don't expect Bartolo Colon to retain his form of last year's Cy Young campaign, but even with the pitchers they've lost they'll have a great rotation and will be in desperate need for offense as the trade deadline approaches.

The Rangers finally have some pitching, even though they had to give up some of that good offense to get it. They'll have a very solid infield and good hitting yet again this year, but this time, they'll have the pitching to lead them to a lot of victories. They'll be looking for some relief pitching at the trade deadline and that's what will keep them out of the playoffs.

The Mariners have some bad fortune this year again. Their pitching is either too young or too old and we can see now that they grossly overpaid one of their big free agent signings from a year ago. They need an overhaul of the bullpen in order to mold their star 19-year-old into the league's next great pitcher, and they'll sacrifice this season to do it.

Playoffs

NLDS — Cardinals over Braves and Mets over Dodgers
ALDS — Yankees over Angels and A's over White Sox

NLCS — Cardinals over Mets
ALCS — Yankees over A's

World Series — Yankees over Cardinals, 4-2

Notes

* Another fearless prediction — UConn will not win the national championship this season.

* The new SI swimsuit issue is out. Go buy it.

Posted by Jeff Pohlmeyer at 5:08 PM | Comments (8)

February 15, 2006

The Olympics Are No Longer Olympian

When I was a boy around 12, I dreamed of being a competitor in the Olympic Games. I wasn't even sure what sport, but that didn't matter. I just wanted to stand on the medal podium with gold draped around my neck, while the national anthem resonated throughout the arena. My heart would swell with pride and tears would stream down my cheeks, as I gazed at Old Glory, knowing that I had honored America — a hero in the eyes of so many desperately in need of more heroes.

The Olympics of my childhood affected me greatly, because a couple of decades ago, the games meant something. They stood for brief unity between often-contentious nations; they stood for allegiance, homage, and pride. The Olympics were for amateur competitors, working vigorously with no pay and little glamour, for nothing more than the honor of representing their countries. The professionals stayed home where they belonged, spending their millions and giving the spotlight to the real athletes, if only for a fortnight. This had meaning to me.

I watched in awe as Team USA, a collection of kids from various states, all chasing the same impossible dream, skated to the most unseemly victory in sports history, defeating a Russian hockey team that the best pros could not humble. I wasn't even a hockey fan, but the accomplishment and the honor that accompanied it inspired me.

In another remarkable Olympiad, a young boxer named Ray Leonard was in a close fight with a fine young Cuban, Adres Aldama, before a relentless Leonard came charging out in round three and pummeled his opponent with a flurry of punches rarely seen in Olympic history. As Aldama stumbled backward, I knew another gold medal would soon hang gracefully against the chest of one of my countrymen. It was like I was there, and I longed to be.

That same year, 14-year-old Romanian gymnast Nadia Comaneci stole the show with seven perfect 10s and three gold medals. She wasn't American, but she captured my attention, nonetheless, because like Leonard and Team USA, she was truly Olympian in her effort and in her heart.

These examples underscore the majesty, honor and pride that once exemplified the Olympics. These people didn't fight wars or put out fires or cure diseases, but they represented their countries in a different kind of battle — one that brought joy and fancy to viewers' hearts and, perhaps for just a whisper, eased some tension between quarreling nations. This had meaning to me and made me yearn to be an Olympian.

Today's Olympic Games are, in fact, not Olympian, in the definitive sense of the word. There may be hockey in the 2006 games, but there's no Jim Craig, no Mike Eruzione, and no Herb Brooks. In fact, the biggest hockey story this year surrounds Wayne Gretzky and alleged illegal gambling.

Figure skating is still a popular event, but writers covering it prefer to focus on the exit of injured Michelle Kwan, because there is no beauty and elegance of a Dorothy Hamill or a Peggy Fleming.

Is there anyone left to represent us, to fight for gold, to honor America by giving us a new athletic hero?

Is it Bode Miller, the eccentric skier, with the talent of an Olympian, but the attitude of an insolent child? His pre-Olympic comments questioning the value of gold medals were so inflammatory that I found myself wanting to resort to the type of barbarism that I am so ardently against. I wonder if anyone's heart swelled with pride, when Mr. Go Fast, Live Hard, Have Fun finished fifth in the downhill last week. Yet it is he who dons the colors of America at the games, rather than me.

Thirty years have passed since Leonard and Comaneci ignited a desire within me to represent my country at the Olympics. Alas, my dream was never realized – I was a jack of all sports and master of none. Now, as I tune into the games, when basketball and Lost break for commercials, I search in vain for the true Olympians — the competitors who bring majesty and homage, along with strikingly unique talent to the event. The athletes that I would happily call awe-inspiring, even heroic.

Sadly, I don't see them in today's Olympics. I see only overpaid professional athletes, looking for more television face time. I see a reckless, careless disappointment like Bode Miller. I see commercialism and more network money. I see two weeks of ESPN filler.

So, I suppose, yesteryear's Olympians will have to go on living in the heart of a young boy, who once saw true heroes bring hope and joy to him and his countrymen as only real Olympians can.

Mark Barnes is a novelist, regular contributor to fantasy football site 4for4.com, and NFL football radio analyst. He appears weekly on ESPN radio in High Point, NC and on WBAL in Baltimore, MD, where he discusses pro football and fantasy sports. Mark's novel, "The League," is the first-ever published work of fiction with a plot based on the dangers of a multi-million-dollar fantasy football league. Learn more about "The League" and Mark's work at NFLStory.com.

http://sportsnovels.com

Posted by Mark Barnes at 7:35 PM | Comments (0)

A Closer Look: NBA Style

— Many in the Toronto sports media are already pushing for the "interim" to be removed from General Manager Wayne Embry's job title. In his first few weeks on the job, Embry has managed to move Aaron Williams to New Orleans/Oklahoma City for some change. He followed up this move by trading a first-round draft pick and Jalen Rose to the Knicks for Antonio Davis and his expiring contract.

Undoubtedly, these moves should help free up cap space for the Raptors to pursue some free agents, but this year's impending free agent class is pretty weak and historically, NBA free agents have shied away from coming to Toronto.

Although I think Embry should get consideration for the job, I don't see what the hurry is. Remember, former GM Rob Babcock, who was fired mostly because of moves he made in his first year on the job, was already steering the team in this direction, had shrewdly acquired point guard Mike James for malcontent Rafer Alston and was the person most responsible for Toronto's strong draft this year. All Embry's done, so far is trade away a first-rounder and clear some cap space in hopes of overpaying for a semi-impact player down the road. Let's wait a little bit and see what else he can do.

— The Suns' success this year without Amare Stoudemire has everyone thinking the same thing: Steve Nash really must be the league MVP. It's hard to argue with that notion, but it begs a couple of questions. First, is Phoenix coach Mike D'Antoni being overlooked when it comes to this team's success? Sure, Nash is the perfect guard for his offensive system, but it is D'Antoni's offensive system and he keeps bringing in players who fit the type of game he wants to play — players like Nash. D'Antoni is one of the innovative offensive minds and premier basketball coaches today and it is time he is recognized as such.

Second, exactly how good is Amare Stoudemire? It seems the team hasn't missed a beat without him and a closer look reveals that Stoudemire benefits much more from the offensive system and the presence of Nash than vice versa. In the two years prior to Nash's arrival, Stoudemire's shooting percentages were a pretty consistent .472, and .475, respectively. Last season, in Nash's first with the team, Stoudemire shot .559 from the field. With Nash always moving and continuously penetrating the lane, opposing bigs would collapse on him, knowing that he would be able to score if they didn't. At that point, Stoudemire was able to fill the unoccupied lanes and get uncontested baskets.

Let's be honest: this is the most reasonable explanation for the spike in the big guy's field goal percentage. Stoudemire's offensive numbers, as well as the offensive numbers of the rest of the Suns, have also greatly benefited from playing in D'Antoni's system. The up-and-down style allows for more possessions and therefore better statistical performances. I'm not saying that Amare Stoudemire is a bad player, no. What I'm saying is that he still has a long way to go to reach the levels of the [Kevin] Garnetts and [Tim] Duncans.

— Lamar Odom is just being wasted in Los Angeles, which is unfortunate considering he could be the perfect complement to a scorer such as Kobe Bryant. Odom plays his best and helps his team most when he has the ball in his hands and is able to get other players involved. Bryant also prefers to have the ball in his hands, but only so he can continuously jack up shots. It's as if he thinks that he'll never see the ball again if he lets another teammate touch it, so he just keeps the ball for himself.

If the Lakers are dead-set on building around "81," they should trade Odom for a guy who is adept at rebounding the ball on the offensive end — revisiting the Carlos Boozer trade talks of last year could be the way to go. That way, when Kobe dribbles the ball up the floor and chucks up a shot from wherever Kobe feels like shooting and Kobe misses said shot, there will be someone there to retrieve the ball and return it to Kobe to "re-set the offense."

— Don't look now, but the Sacramento Kings are starting to look like they have the makings of a formidable team. The Ron Artest/Peja Stojakovic trade is a steal for the Kings, provided Artest remains as un-crazy as he's been in Sacramento. Earlier in the season, the Kings looked like they were headed straight to the lottery due to the fact that they didn't play defense and were losing players on a nightly basis to injury. In the meantime, the team acquired Artest, who is a much better player than the one-dimensional Stojakovic.

On top of that, he brings with him the swagger and defensive attitude that this team has sorely lacked in the past. Bench players such as Kevin Martin, Kenny Thomas, and Francisco Garcia were also force-fed time to replace the injured starters and have blossomed in the starters' absences. If Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Bonzi Wells return at full-strength, the Kings could be this year's version of last season's Denver Nuggets: the team nobody wants to see in the playoffs.

— If reports out of Northern California are true, Warriors coach Mike Montgomery, has a real problem on his hands. The Warriors find themselves on the outside of the playoff picture looking in, which is nothing new. But the team's quick start out of the gate raised expectations and now come reports that the team's best player, Baron Davis, is rubbing some players on his team the wrong way with his sometimes selfish and often careless play. Furthermore, he has started to ignore the plays being called by Montgomery, and to make matters worse, Montgomery is reportedly not standing up to him.

So here's my advice to Montgomery: if Baron Davis isn't listening to you, bench him. Yes, he's the team's best player, but you are the coach. Derek Fisher is a very capable backup and with Troy Murphy, Jason Richardson, and company, there is enough scoring to go around. In addition, by giving in to Davis, you risk losing the respect of Richardson and Murphy, two very good players in their own right, who must have also figured out that certain players are above team rules.

Once you lose the respect of your players, you've lost, period. I know that by disciplining Davis, you run the risk of losing your job, considering this is a player's league. The reality, however, is that your job is hanging by a thread, anyway. This may be your best shot at keeping it.

— Just a few days back, I outlined what a great team I thought the Detroit Pistons were. A few days later, the Pistons had four of their starting five selected to be all-star reserves. As much as I admire what the Pistons are doing, this is absurd. The All-Star Game is the one event in team sports that gives acclaim to individual players. I understand why Chauncey Billups is in the game. He's having an all-star season, but let's stop the talk about MVPs and the like. The Pistons are a team in the truest sense of the word. If Billups were to get hurt, the team would be in trouble, but the same goes for the two Wallaces, Tayshaun Prince, and Richard Hamilton. Why? Because their respective backups are not nearly as good.

Also, how was it decided as to which of the Pistons got in and why Tayshaun Prince was left out? Tayshaun Prince is one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA and has a better-than-average offensive game. Ben Wallace has no offensive game whatsoever and he's in. Richard Hamilton is very adept at scoring, but doesn't really excel in anything else and he's in. So, why not Tayshaun?

This is another flaw in selecting individual players due to a team's success. The team would not be as successful without Tayshaun Prince, so it stands to reason that most of the other four Pistons wouldn't be all-stars without Prince, either. Let's leave the All-Star Game as a showcase of the individual players. The good teams usually play in their own showcase later on in the year. It's called the NBA finals.

— If the Philadelphia 76ers can get a good deal for Allen Iverson, they should take it. Iverson is one of the game's most celebrated superstars due to his speed, stature, and scrappiness. As much as coaches look for those attributes in players, Iverson possesses attributes that coaches shy away from, as well. Iverson has, at times, put himself above the team by refusing to adhere to the same set of rules that other players are expected to. Iverson is also aging and misses a significant number of games almost every year due to injury.

Most importantly, Iverson has never displayed the ability to make his teammates better. Because he dominates the ball, teammates are often left standing around watching him play. When they finally do get the ball, they are often put in tough positions due to the shot clock or left in the unfamiliar position of actually having the ball. This is why attempts to put another scorer around Iverson have failed over the years.

Yes, I'm aware that the Iverson-led Sixers did make it all the way to the NBA finals once, but that was in the watered-down Eastern Conference that no longer exists. Does anyone really think that the Sixers have a good shot at making it back with teams like the Pistons and Heat in their way? Me neither. That's why it's time for Iverson and the Sixers to part ways. It could end up being the best scenario for both parties.

— Finally, there is a team that nobody is really talking about that has a great opportunity to make some noise this year — the Seattle SuperSonics. The Sonics are loaded with role players who don't fit into the team's long-term goals — players that many contending teams are clamoring to get. There are many teams who want to take a flier on Vladimir Radmanovic, a small forward playing the four in Seattle due to the presence of Rashard Lewis. What possible playoff team couldn't use the rebounding of Reggie Evans? Almost anyone could use the infusion of instant offense that Ronald "Flip" Murray brings to the table. The Sonics can't use these guys because the Sonics are a bad team. The only use for role players on a bad team is as trade bait.

That being said, if the Sonics really want to improve, they need to take a step back. The team has a ton of money tied up in two all-stars, Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis. With the team playing as it is now, it looks as if it's headed straight to the NBA draft lottery. In many years, getting one good young player can help catapult a team to success.

The only problem is that this might be the wrong year. Even if the Sonics get the top pick in the draft to add to their stars, it may not have the desired effect. This year's draft class is said to be very deep, but not necessarily very good at the top. It also wouldn't help the team to target the following season as the breakout season, either, because by that time, Ray Allen should be about 32 years-old and Rashard Lewis most likely will have exercised the opt-out clause contained within his contract.

So, what should they do? They should trade their all-stars. Ray Allen is a star player in this league, but by no means is he a superstar. He has a silky-smooth shot, but doesn't shoot it at a good clip. He just signed a monster deal last offseason and is on the downside of thirty. This is generally the time that shooting guards start to see their respective games begin to decline. If you don't believe me, ask Latrell Sprewell, Eddie Jones, Jalen Rose, and Allan Houston. With every year that Seattle lets pass by, Ray Allen's value decreases. In a few years, it might be hard to trade a better-than-average 34-year-old shooting guard making over $10 million per year.

Right now, Ray Allen is the perfect complementary star and he's masquerading as a superstar. This "superstar" label not only increases the desires of other teams to add him, it maximizes his trade value. He doesn't do much for a team as it's very best player unless that team has a lot of talent to put around him, which the Sonics don't. As the second-best player on a team, however, Ray Allen can elevate that team to a contender. That's why the Sonics are in a great position. They can trade away Allen at a premium price for a combination of young guys, draft picks, and expiring deals. There are teams out there that should be itching to get him that could meet this price. Think Minnesota and Memphis.

As for Rashard Lewis, he is a very good player and has been an all-star. Lewis, however, is not the type of player who's a perennial all-star, and I think the Sonics recognize this. He is also very highly-paid, but unlike Allen, he is still pretty young and has an opt-out clause in his contract at the end of next year. Here's the Sonics' dilemma: they already pay Lewis handsomely and he is playing under a contract that was signed before he was an all-star. It stands to reason that he is going to want a pay hike if he re-signs.

The problem is that Lewis already may be overpaid and he, like Ray Allen, is better as a complementary guy. As a matter of fact, he is currently a complementary guy to a complementary guy. It doesn't make much sense to tie down the salary cap for the foreseeable future with Rashard Lewis being the team's best player, which he might be in two years.

Rashard Lewis is very good when he's on, but he can also be taken out of games. When the second-best player on the team is inconsistent, it hurts, but it is downright devastating to a team built primarily around two players. If the Sonics can't contend with two all-star-caliber players (and they obviously can't), then they need to figure out a way in which they can contend. In my opinion, the most effective avenue in which to do this is to trade away their biggest assets and stockpile cap space, draft picks, and good young players. This way, Allen and Lewis don't have to sit through the rebuilding period and the Sonics can build the team that they want with the players they want to build around.

And with that, I'm outta here.

Posted by Kiarash Banisadre at 7:17 PM | Comments (1)

February 14, 2006

Pro Football Hall of Fame 2006 Thoughts

Five Quick Hits

* The Winter Olympics simply are not as interesting as the Summer Olympics.

* Mike Martz was Detroit's new offensive coordinator, then he wasn't, and now he really is. Can the man do anything without drama?

* It's way too early for serious predictions, but right now no team looks better for Super Bowl XLI than New England.

* I haven't seen enough of Reggie Bush to know if he's really the second coming of Gale Sayers, but if he's not, Houston should try to trade the first pick in April's draft.

* Does ESPN want people to watch "MNF" with the sound off? Who picked that announcing crew?

***

Longtime readers know that there are few things I pay more attention to than the Pro Football Hall of Fame. A new class was elected to the Hall last week, and in the wake of Pittsburgh's Super Bowl win, there's a great deal of speculation about the future of the black and gold in Canton. Actually, it's mostly been statement, not speculation, but we'll get to that.

The Class of 2006

The same question we ask every year: were all the inductees deserving?

Yes, mostly. I don't feel that Troy Aikman has any place in the Hall, but I've discussed that before, and everyone knew going into this process that Aikman was a lock to make it. The other five members of the class — Harry Carson, John Madden, Warren Moon, Reggie White, and Rayfield Wright — are all very deserving.

White was a lock in every way. Moon made nine Pro Bowls and put together some of the most impressive career passing totals in NFL history. He was probably the league's best QB for a couple of years in the early 1990s. Carson, a leader on New York's defense during its Super Bowl years, was also chosen for nine Pro Bowls, and he would have gotten in years ago if he hadn't been overshadowed by Lawrence Taylor.

Madden and Wright were the Seniors Candidates. Madden has the highest career winning percentage of any coach with more than 100 wins. The Hall's standards for coaches have lowered recently, with the inductions of Marv Levy, George Allen, and Hank Stram, and Madden probably was about that level as a coach. I'd have voted for him.

Wright becomes the first Cowboy offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame. Tom Landry put together some exceptional offenses, and Wright was the best offensive lineman on most of them. He deserves a place in Canton.

Who Got Snubbed?

Usually, I lead this segment with Art Monk and the last-round finalists who didn't make it, but the most deserving player turned away this year was Thurman Thomas. Overshadowed by Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith, Thomas was a no-brainer, first-ballot talent. He had eight consecutive 1,000-yard seasons, led the NFL in yards from scrimmage four years in a row, and was NFL MVP in 1991. But Thomas will get in next year. Monk won't.

I've written extensively about Monk's case, and I only have one thing to add. Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated's otherwise fantastic Dr. Z, recently argued against Monk's candidacy, writing that, "when you played the Redskins, you didn't say, 'How can I stop Art Monk?'" I'd like to suggest that perhaps that's why Washington went 150-87 and won three Super Bowls with Monk in burgundy and gold. If you're not concerned about stopping a guy who breaks league records for receptions in a season and a career, you're going to lose a lot of games. Monk was the team's receiving leader during its 1982 and 1991 Super Bowl seasons, during which the team went a combined 29-3 (.906).

Other guys who probably deserve to be enshrined were turned away, as well, but the only other controversy this year involved Michael Irvin. The Hall's by-laws are very clear that only on-field activity should be considered, but many fans believe that Irvin's drug-related arrests have hindered his candidacy. If I had to guess, I think it's probably true that one or two voters penalized Irvin for his off-field transgressions. On the other hand, Taylor was a first-ballot selection, and he had multiple cocaine arrests and a drug-related suspension from the league.

The real reason Irvin didn't make it this year is that the competition was too tough. I mean, Thurman Thomas couldn't get in. Next year's class will be competitive, too, but Irvin will have a shot. Aikman's induction will help him, because teammates often split votes. One problem Monk is having is that he's splitting his Washington votes with Russ Grimm, and the wide receiver votes with Irvin. It's not a coincidence that John Stallworth got in one year after Lynn Swann was finally off the ballot.

Next Year's Class

Skill Positions

Thomas is almost certain to make it, and for the first time in four years, there won't be any quarterbacks. Terrell Davis and Ricky Watters will be eligible for the first time, although I don't expect either to be elected on the first ballot. Davis might make it eventually, but Watters will never be a finalist. Herschel Walker and Watters deserve more serious consideration than they'll get.

The receiver position will be the most crowded. Monk and Irvin should be the leading candidates, but Andre Reed and Henry Ellard are also on the ballot. None of the eligible tight ends has gotten much support, and from the so-called "skill positions," the likely finalists will be Thomas, Irvin, Monk, and (probably) Davis. Only Thomas, though, is a good bet to make the final cut. I guess Irvin would probably be next.

Offensive Line

The offensive line has gotten backed up recently, with no modern candidates inducted since the Class of 2003, and no first-ballot enshrinees since Jackie Slater in 2001. That will change next year, when Bruce Matthews becomes eligible. Chosen to more Pro Bowls than any other player in NFL history, Matthews is the closest thing to a lock in 2007.

Other than Matthews, the potential finalists are Dermontti Dawson, Grimm, Joe Jacoby, Bob Kuechenberg, Randall McDaniel, and Gary Zimmerman. Kuechenberg will have his last good shot. A lot of the people who liked Carson also liked Kooch, and sentiment's been building around the guy. I'd bet against him, but he has a better chance than the others listed above.

Defensive Line

The problem these guys are having is that the selectors don't agree who the best ones were, so no one (except Reggie White) is getting in. Richard Dent, L.C. Greenwood, and Claude Humphrey have all been finalists since the last time a defensive end was elected. Fred Dean has been a semifinalist each of the last two seasons. I'll never support Dean, Dent, or Greenwood, and I lean toward no on Humphrey, but he seems to be winning more and more people over, and might have a chance in 2007. The lack of support for Chris Doleman puzzles me.

Only one defensive tackle, Dan Hampton, has been enshrined in the last decade. Cortez Kennedy became eligible last year and didn't get past the first round. Neither did Curley Culp, but Culp is the kind of player around whom opinion could quickly coalesce, the way it did for Elvin Bethea and Joe DeLamielleure in 2003. Culp was pro football's first dominant nose tackle, and he had one of his finest games in Super Bowl IV. Next season will be his last on the regular ballot.

If you're looking for predictions, Greenwood and Humphrey will be finalists, and neither will be elected.

Linebacker

No position is more underrepresented in the Hall of Fame than outside linebacker. There are only five: Bobby Bell, Jack Ham, Ted Hendricks, Taylor, and Dave Wilcox. And teams use two outside LBs. Most teams have only one inside backer, but there are 10 of them in Canton. In theory, those numbers should be reversed. In practice, middle linebackers have historically been the most dominant defensive players on the field, but there's a serious shortage of OLBs in the Hall, which inclines me to support Kevin Greene and Derrick Thomas. Greene has gotten nowhere in two years of eligibility, but Thomas is close.

Unsurprisingly, though, it's a middle linebacker, Randy Gradishar, who has the best chance of being enshrined in 2007. Gradishar was a key member of Denver's Orange Crush defense in the late 1970s, and he was a very good player, but I see him as a borderline player. In my mind Gradishar is comparable to Nick Buoniconti, who's in, but not to any of the other linebackers in the Hall. He and Thomas will be finalists, and for now I expect Gradishar to get in.

Defensive Back

Competition in the secondary is going way up with the eligibility of LeRoy Butler and Carnell Lake. They'll be going up against former finalists Lester Hayes and Roger Wehrli, both of whom I support. Butler was the premier strong safety of the 1990s, and that's another underrepresented position. I'd vote for Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater, too, but Butler has a better chance. It's hard to say exactly how the selectors will react to Butler and Lake, but I'd expect both to make the semifinals. Wehrli will be a finalist, and he could get in if no other DBs get past the semis.

Special Teams

The only guys worth discussing are Steve Tasker and Ray Guy. I thought Tasker would have a chance, but he's been on the ballot four times now and he never goes anywhere. Tasker will never make it. Guy is widely regarded as the best punter in history, but his subpar statistics work against him, and it's tough to argue a player who's good for nothing but field position. He'll be a finalist again at some point (not next year), but he's never getting a bust.

Coach

The same guys get nominated every year, and none of them ever makes it past the first round of voting. I don't know why Don Coryell doesn't get more support, though. He revolutionized the NFL passing game and his Chargers led the league in offense four times in a row, an accomplishment never equaled in the modern era. The new entry next season is Dick Vermeil, but he has no shot. Vermeil is one of the most beloved coaches in history, but his 120-109 career record, plus 6-5 in the playoffs, won't cut it.

Contributors

Always the hardest group to peg. Art Modell, Ralph Wilson, and George Young have been getting the most support. Modell belongs in Canton the way Sean Taylor deserves the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award. Young, an accomplished personnel man with the Giants, deserves consideration. Wilson is somewhere in between. I'd like to see Paul Tagliabue, who has presided of the NFL's rise to the pinnacle of North American sports, get in some day. Ed and Steve Sabol, the men behind NFL Films, have done some really good work, and I'm not ready to say yes to either right now, but I'd certainly consider them in the future. Young is the only one likely to be a finalist in 2007, and I think his star has sort of fallen.

Seniors Candidates

I'm not going to try to predict this. Coaches (Allen, Stram, Madden) have been popular recently, so Clark Shaughnessy or Buddy Parker could get a look, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'd like to see Gene Hickerson, who blocked for Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly, get the nod some day. Cliff Harris, the old Cowboys safety, was a finalist a few years ago, and he might get a shot.

15 Finalists

This automatically includes the two Seniors Candidates. My 13 to join them would be: Terrell Davis, Thurman Thomas, Art Monk, Dermontti Dawson, Russ Grimm, Bruce Matthews, Claude Humphrey, Randy Gradishar, Kevin Greene, LeRoy Butler, Kenny Easley, Roger Wehrli, Don Coryell.

Predicted 13: Terrell Davis, Thurman Thomas, Michael Irvin, Art Monk, Russ Grimm, Bob Kuechenberg, Bruce Matthews, Gary Zimmerman, L.C. Greenwood, Claude Humphrey, Randy Gradishar, Derrick Thomas, Roger Wehrli.

Prospects

Since the Steelers won Super Bowl XL, there's been a lot of talk about Jerome Bettis and Bill Cowher going to Canton. I really like both men, but I'm here to tell you that neither one is a lock.

Cowher is 141-82-1 (.632) in the regular season and 12-9 (.571) in the postseason. Every one of his Steeler teams has finished in the top half of the league in total defense and points allowed. Cowher's greatest strength may be his ability to find talented assistants. His current staff includes Grimm, Dick LeBeau, and Ken Whisenhunt, all of whom are head coaching prospects.

That's a very impressive résumé, and Cowher — now 14th in career coaching victories — might get my vote if he retired today. I'd like to see him add a few more successful seasons, though, before the question marks disappear.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned the Super Bowl on Cowher's résumé. That's intentional. Is he a better coach today than he was two weeks ago? I thought before the big game that Cowher was a better coach than Mike Holmgren, and I still do.

The Bus is a trickier subject. Actually, there's nothing tricky, it's just that I don't want to be mean. Bettis does not deserve to make the Hall. In 13 seasons, Bettis never led the league in rushing yards, average, or touchdowns, and he was never regarded as the best running back in the game. To me, that seems like an obvious HOF criterion. If he was never — even at his best — considered the top player at his position, he was merely very good.

Despite consistent performance, Bettis only had three really good seasons. He was a top-10 rusher five times, but in two of those seasons — 1994 and 2000 — he clearly was not one of the top-10 RBs in the league. In '94, he averaged 3.2 yards per carry and rushed for only three touchdowns. In '00, he averaged 3.8 and had under 100 receiving yards. And in both seasons, he barely cracked the top 10 to begin with.

If Bettis is inducted, he will be only the second running back with a career average worse than four yards per carry. The first, John Riggins, retired as the third-leading rusher of all-time, was the second player ever to rush for 100 touchdowns, held the NFL's single-season TD record, and was arguably the greatest postseason rusher of all-time. Riggins once had six straight 100-yard games in the postseason, including his 166-yard MVP performance in Super Bowl XVII. Bettis had only three 100-yard games in the postseason during his career, with a high of 105.

If Bettis is inducted, he will have the fewest rushing TDs of any RB who played during or after 1980, and the lowest rushing TDs per game of any HOF running back who played after the AFL merger. He will have the second-fewest receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs of any RB who played 16-game seasons for his whole career, ahead of only Earl Campbell, who retired after eight seasons.

Bettis is the Rafael Palmeiro of running backs, except that he's probably not a steroid user. The big career numbers are from being good and playing a lot, not from being great. He had a mediocre rushing average, he wasn't a great short-yardage back until past his prime, he couldn't catch, and he was never a big-game player.

The Bus will probably get in — it doesn't hurt that he's so well-liked — but he shouldn't and he isn't a lock.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:52 PM | Comments (8)

NBA All-Star Weekend (P)review

Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Yao, K.G., Steve Nash, and A.I. are getting together this weekend.

No, it's not for a chance to talk about advertising contracts, although with names like the Sprite Slam Dunk Competition, the RadioShack Shooting Stars Competition, and the PlayStation Skills Competition, the 2006 NBA All-Star Game (presented by Toyota) might as well be.

This year, it is not enough to read the morning newspaper, check out ESPN every night, and listen to every sports commentator chat on about who got snubbed and why.

No, this year I went straight to the source, NBA.com, to check out the coverage of the upcoming NBA All-Star Weekend.

What I found entertained me for hours on end (or, a couple minutes).

There were surprises from both past and present, and many reasons (if repetition is allowed) to look forward to NBA All-Star Weekend (presented by Toyota.)

I'm not going to harp on the event because it usually is entertaining in the way that the And 1 Mix Tape Tour should be — however, I will take you through my favorite parts of nba.com/allstar2006 (in no particular order):

1. The NASA-Inspired All-Star Mission Jacket

Just because the game is in Houston does not give the NBA the right to use and abuse space and NASA imagery at every turn at the complete expense (not dollars, although I'll get to that in a second) of creativity. From the boring commercial for the game (Houston, we have an All-Star Game) to the NASA-Inspired ($250) Jacket, the NBA is lacking a certain amount imagination when it comes to advertising. But that, sadly, is the least of their problems.

For one, this special ($250) jacket is only going to be available in Houston, at the NBA Store in New York, online at the NBA Store, and in any city sending an all-star to the game.

Secondly, the jacket is outrageously ugly. (Which should make those geographically or technologically unable to get one feel a lot better.)

Included in the multitude of information on the jacket is: patches from every All-Star Game the player was selected to, the players' name, the players' team, the teams' conference, the NBA logo, and the Reebok logo.

All that's missing is a section for the number of tattoos and horoscope sign.

2. The Continually-Uninspired Choices of Entertainment

Before this year started, I told myself I was going to count my blessings as long as the Earth, Wind, and Fire tour of American sporting events stopped.

That sentiment, unfortunately, was a little premature after checking out the entertainment lineup for the All-Star Weekend.

Picking the entertainment for one of these events is an intensive process. If, by chance, I were given the keys to the magical Entertainment Picking and Choosing Committee, it would be easy for me to sit there and pick Lou Reed, Stellastar, Neko Case, and the Pixies to sing at halftime.

But that's just me.

While understanding the incredible amount of stress that goes into planning these things, I was a little concerned with some of the final choices.

(Ticket availability for Bow Wow's appearance on Thursday was not one them, although if you are wondering about tickets, check out nba.com/allstar2006 to grab your VIP passes.)

No, I was more concerned that Destiny's Child might become the official performing artist for the NBA All-Star Game.

I know, you'd say ... "It's their final performance, and they're singing the National Anthem, it's not even like they're singing one of their own songs."

Yes, but the Rolling Stones were the halftime entertainment for the Super Bowl this year. Bands don't quit. It's the Rolling Stones theorem, backed by the KISS corollary, certified by the Eagles addendum.

I know, you'd say ... "Yes, but Destiny's Child isn't a real band."

And you would have a point there.

You'd continue ... "Plus, it's not like acts use an event like this to constantly bolster their career long after they should hang it up."

And I would retort ... Alec Baldwin, John Goodman, SNL.

You'd argue ... "But they can still be successful at it."

And I would think for a moment, then remembering something from a couple of weeks ago, say ... Steve Martin.

And I would win.

The argument would have to be over by that time anyway ... VIP Passes for Bow Wow are going fast.

3. "Celebrity Watch" Photos From 2005

Other than the Oscars, Grammys, the Super Bowl, March Madness, National Signing Day, Mike Tirico's Birthday, the World Series, the ESPY's, and the Stanley Cup, the NBA All-Star game is one of the biggest sporting events of the year.

It's events like these that turn into spectacles, driven by the media, players, owners, and fans.

You should have seen Tirico's 33rd ... wow.

For ratings, for money, and for fun, it's better if these events turn into gigantic spectacles, and nothing says spectacle like celebrities.

Lineup Sharon Stone, Jack Nicholson, Sarah Jessica Parker, a former governor, Bill Gates, Bono, Samuel L. Jackson, 50 Cent, Madonna, and Tom Brady (supposedly he's doing the tip-off, next month is the first pitch for MLB) and you have a spectacle that people are going to want to watch.

The NBA, being the smart, experienced people they are, created a section on their website called "Celebrity Watch" so that people can go online and see all of the cool famous people that attended the game.

On page one of the 2005 Section of "People Watch," you will find a picture of Mark McGrath (Sugar Ray) and Roger Lodge (Blind Date). In a rare moment of brilliance that catches something completely unique and magical, we have the photographic equivalent to a Googlewhack.

Looking at the photo, one has to wonder who's more embarrassed to be taking the picture.

One also has to wonder if McGrath is just counting the seconds until he can ask Lodge for the numbers of some of the girls off his show.

This photo made me sit back and think. First, what the heck is the NBA thinking and who exactly considers these people celebrities? And second, that there should be a caption contest involving photos such as this one.

Send out someone during the NBA Weekend, to all the clubs, bars, restaurants, and to the game to capture the bizarre combinations of people that hang out.

Rachael Ray with "Macho Man" Randy Savage ... perfect.

John Baestow and Chuck Norris ... nice.

Tony Parker and Eva Longoria ... weird.

That guy from "The Soup" with the woman from "Survivor" ... deliciously ironic.

Then simply put the pictures up on the website and let fans write in with captions.

The winner gets to go to the next All-Star Game.

4. The 2005 All-Star Blog by Rob Peterson

I'll admit it in advance. It's not a fair comparison, but it has to be made.

Writing a minute-by-minute diary of the All-Star Game for the NBA to be posted on NBA.com has to kind of put a damper on any creative license a writer may have.

Peterson's blog was ... truthful, accurate, honest, and as far as I can tell (although I haven't checked this at all), delivered on time.

What the NBA, and its blog, needed was a little Paul Shirley, Sports Guy-esque humor.

While I am not saying that the Sports Guy is the end all or be all of sports columnists, but he has remained consistent, reliably funny, insightful, and original. It's hard to read a faux minute-by-minute diary of a game and not think of the writer that basically perfected the craft.

There's also a reason that I had not visited the NBA's website before today, yet visited ESPN.com everyday for the last 6 years.

Maybe that will all change now that I can order my NASA-Inspired NBA All-Star Mission Jacket online.

Posted by Vince Grzegorek at 4:17 PM | Comments (2)

Kobe Saves Valentines Day

It takes little imagination to guess what Kobe Bryant will be doing with his Valentine this week. It will probably start with him watching some films to get in the mood and learn a few new tricks. He will get down to business after some quick stretching and some quick work on his stroking technique. Surely, there will be a healthy dose of ball handling before Kobe takes it aggressively to the rack. He will then move to working on some back door cuts before getting to the finale — lots and lots of penetration.

Of course, keep in mind one thing — Kobe's Valentine isn't a woman, or even a person. Kobe's true love is the game of basketball.

It may seem shocking to some people that Kobe reserves his greatest love for a game, but who are we to get in the way of true love? After all, Kobe had some strong words for the love of his life in the February issue of Dime:

"I played because I loved it. I played because it meant more to me than even I knew. When I needed someone to lean on, a place to vent, a place to celebrate or a place to cry, the game became all of these things for me. And because the game has given me so much I know that I must give it the respect it deserves. I must work hard to master it, to show it my appreciation for all it has done for me as a person, as a man. That's the reason I'm able to play under severe pressure or stress. The game has actually helped me cope with it. It has helped me win. Not in terms of the points scored, but in terms of the struggles that I have overcome. More and more, I feel like this is the reason I train so hard, why I push myself past every limit. The more obstacles that are placed between me and my goals, the hungrier I become."

— Kobe Bryant, on the game of basketball

In fact, if you take out references to the game and a few other specifics, it makes a fairly decent ad-libs Valentine's Day card. The level of love that exists between Kobe and basketball is a love most people don't get to experience in life, so who are we to judge something so pure? More importantly, why wouldn't basketball be the love of his life?

Basketball has, according to him, given Kobe so much in life. Basketball has helped him through his greatest struggles. For instance, look at the biggest controversy Kobe has faced in his life — the sexual assault allegations he faced awhile back. Who was there for him? Certainly not his wife, she was mainly crying, yelling, and being generally upset. Basketball, however, helped him through his rough time.

Now, just because Kobe's first love is basketball doesn't mean he doesn't love his wife. When detectives first confronted Kobe after the rape allegations were made, he was only concerned with one thing — his wife.

Kobe: Is there any way for me to settle this, whatever it is, I mean?
Detective: Well, what do you mean by settle?
Kobe: If my wife, if my wife found out that anybody made any type of allegations against me, she'd be infuriated.
Detective: Kobe...
Kobe: That's all I care about.
— Police report

See? He isn't concerned about himself. All he cares about is his wife. At a time when things were about to go very wrong for him, he was more worried about those closest to him and how to protect them. Still, basketball is his first love and rightfully so. After all, did he have to buy basketball a million-dollar ring after he cheated on it by playing soccer when he was younger? Of course not.

I know most people might be taken aback by Kobe's level of love for basketball, but this is a good thing. If you think about it, Kobe Bryant has forever saved Valentines Day. It is no longer a day to celebrate love between people, but a day to celebrate love, whether it is for a person, an inanimate object, an ideal, or even a game.

For instance, the dorky guy in his 20s who has never had a Valentines Day date will not spend this Feb. 14th alone, as he can spend it with his true love (Final Fantasy XVXIXV). Fat girls finally aren't forced to be on the outside looking in when it comes to love, as they can now spend St. V's day with a heaping bowl full of jelly. Sure, this is leading down a path where we will ultimately have kids taking their Xboxes to prom, but we will end up with a more loving world. And that's what Kobe wanted all along.

Well, that, and to get in one last jump shot before bed.

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 3:50 PM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2006

NFL Draft: Year of the Tackle

Now that the Pittsburgh has won the Super Bowl and Hines Ward has announced his plans to visit Disney World, fans of the National Football League can begin discussing and analyzing the next big date on the NFL calendar. For the next two months, football fans everywhere will channel their inner-Mel Kiper, study combine data, and read and re-read every mock draft on the Internet in preparation for the real deal on April 29th, the 2006 NFL draft.

It is hard to remember a draft in recent memory that has as much star power as this one. Heisman winners Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush (along with Trojan teammate LenDale White) had some of the most high-profile careers in recent college football memory. Texas QB Vince Young is coming off the greatest big-game performance in college football history. Even the defensive players in this draft have a high "Q" rating, as Ohio State LB A.J. Hawk might be the most popular college football linebacker since "The Boz" terrorized Oklahoma's opponents in the mid-'80s.

There is definitely no lack of marquee talent in this year's draft. But, as is often the case, it is the players who are not household names that will make the difference in winning and losing. For this year, there are three offensive tackles that all have the potential to be cornerstones of NFL franchises. The teams that are able to acquire Virginia's D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Miami's Eric Winston, and USC's Winston Justice will be the teams that are the big winners of this year's NFL draft.

Virginia OL Ferguson is the no-brainer of the three. He is tall, long, strong, and blessed with immaculate footwork and technique. Ferguson is the closest thing to a finished product as a potential franchise lineman since the Jacksonville Jaguars made Tony Boselli the second overall pick of the 1995 draft. He is capable of coming into the league today and being every bit the pass blocker that an Orlando Pace or a Tarik Glenn is, and his run-blocking ability top three passes on one of the big stars of this year's draft (Bush, Leinart, and Young) to tab him to anchor their line. Furthermore, if he is still available at the number four pick, I expect the Jets' phone will be ringing off the hook with offers, and rightfully so.

While not the finished product Ferguson is, Miami OL Eric Winston is yet another player that appears capable of anchoring an NFL line for the better part of a decade. After arriving in Coral Gables as a tight end, the 6'7" Winston was moved to tackle, where he bulked up to 310 pounds and his used his exceptional foot speed and agility to negate some of the best pass-rushers in the country. While a history of injuries and his limited time at the tackle position might turn some teams off, his potential is unlimited. With a frame built to add (at least) 30 more pounds and the speed and agility needed to deal with the new breed of speed pass-rusher in the NFL, Winston's talent far exceeds the questions surrounding him.

The x-factor in the 2006 offensive line class is USC OT Winston Justice. On pure physical talent, he might be the most dominant offensive lineman in this draft, better even than Ferguson and Winston. But, off the field issues, coupled with questions about his practice habits and training regimen, have dogged Justice since he arrived at USC amongst fanfare touting him as the greatest linemen in the country.

If he can consistently play up to his physical abilities, he has a chance to not only be the best linemen in this draft, but the best player in this draft period. As it currently stands, he is simply too physically gifted to be any worse that a top-15 pick. But, if he uses his pre-draft workouts and team meetings to show scouts and personnel men that he taking a more mature approach to the way he prepares himself to play football, he should rocket up draft boards as draft day approaches.

As offensive linemen, these three guys (along with Auburn OT Marcus McNeill, another potential first-round pick) are used to being overshadowed by the guys who they block for and allow to achieve the success that they do. But, as any astute football observer will tell you, NFL games are won and lost in the trenches. The same maxim applies to this year's NFL Draft. The teams that select these three tackles will have a chance to fortify their offensive lines for the next 10 years, and will be the biggest winners of the 2006 NFL draft.

Posted by Michael Beshara at 11:30 AM | Comments (1)

Olympic Preview: Tournament in Turin

The Olympics are here and perhaps the only story bigger than the actual games is the fact that many star players are out due to injury. Scott Niedermayer, Ed Jovanovski, and Markus Naslund are but a few of the goalies unavailable to play in Italy. Does this shift the balance of power for international hockey? Here are my predictions for the "big name" teams participating in the 2006 Olympic hockey tournament.

Canada

Undeniably the favorite in the games even after the rash of injuries on defense, the depth of Canada is remarkable. The fact that Paul Kariya, Dan Boyle, Patrick Marleau, Alex Tanguay, and many others didn't make the first cut is a testament to the amazing pool of talent that Canada gets to draw from. On the attack, there is nearly a limitless amount of combinations to use, though you can bet that Joe Thornton and Simon Gagne will be paired up, as will Joe Sakic and Jarome Iginla. Some may argue the choice of players such as Shane Doan, but it's hard to argue with what Canada has.

Defensively, the loss of Niedermayer and Jovanovski will hurt, but not that much. The combination of Bryan McCabe, Robyn Reghyr, Chris Pronger, and Wade Redden give the Canadians a solid mix of toughness, size, and skill. In goal, Martin Brodeur has rounded into top-form, while Roberto Luongo has shaken off his the poor play of the early season and is back to top-tier status. Canada's true question is whether the Rick Tocchet scandal — and Wayne Gretzky's potential involvement with it — will act as a distraction.

Prediction: Gold Medal

Czech Republic

Can you get a puck past the Czech goalies? Reborn-in-Ottawa Dominik Hasek and lightning-quick Tomas Vokoun are both good enough to be the team's number one goalie. Up front, Jaromir Jagr, Robert Lang, Milan Hejduk, and Patrik Elias lead the attack. The Czech defense may not be filled with household names (Stanley Cup champion Pavel Kubina and Toronto's Tomas Kaberle are the most recognizable names), but the group is solid, speedy, and filled with puck movers.

Essentially, the Czech team — always a tight group on and off the ice — is very solid and second only to the Canadians in terms of talent level. The x-factor may be in goal, where Dominik Hasek still haunts every hockey-loving Canadian's nightmare. Expect a hard-fought battle between the Czechs and the Canadians for the gold, with injuries, bounces, and luck determining the winner.

Prediction: Silver Medal

Sweden

Don't worry, Sweden, Tommy Salo is a long ways away, so you can wipe away any memories of Belarus slapshots. In the meantime, New York Ranger sensation Henrik Lundqvist has stepped into the fold. Can he handle the international spotlight? He's passed the first test by staying calm and collected under the glare of New York City's bright lights. The Swedes have an abundance of talent, both on the blue line (Mattias Norstrom, Mattias Ohlund, Nicklas Lidstrom) and up front (Daniel Alfredsson, Mats Sundin, Henrik Zetterberg).

However, the biggest story for Team Sweden is who won't be showing up: Markus Naslund is already out, Peter Forsberg (as of this writing) is almost definitely going to sit out. That's not just two of Team Sweden's top players, that's two of the top players in the entire world missing from the lineup. While Sweden has a history of choking, this team should be more steady thanks to Lundqvist. The absence of Forsberg and Naslund probably eliminates Sweden from winning gold, but don't be surprised if they still contest for a medal.

Prediction: Bronze medal

United States

Don Waddell and company want the public to believe that this is not a transition year. While the U.S. team has enough talent to challenge for a medal (though a long shot for the gold), it's clear that the group is caught between two eras. The older generation of Chris Chelios, Doug Weight, and Keith Tkachuk is representing the team that won the 1996 World Cup and the 2002 silver medal (and the 1998 chair throwing contest), while the younger generation of Erik Cole, Rick Dipietro, and John-Michael Liles will be part of a core that will be representing the U.S. for the next three Olympics.

Team USA is still waiting for Ryan Suter, Jack Johnson, Phil Kessell, and a whole slew of great young talent to enter into the NHL and mature. In the meantime, coach Peter Laviolette is hoping that his squad brings the best of both worlds — youthful exuberance and veteran savvy. The presence of Laviolette — and his experience with a similar style group in Carolina — will be an advantage, and the U.S. has the good fortune of John Grahame getting hot over the past six weeks. There's no chance for a gold medal, but because of the major injuries to other teams, the U.S. could sneak in under the radar and do better than expected.

Prediction: Fourth place

Russia

Team Russia is always a crapshoot, since the Russian Ice Hockey Federation is about as loopy as an episode of "The Sopranos." It's hard to deny the overall talent that GM Pavel Bure has assembled. Any forward group that has Alex Ovechkin, Ilya Kovalchuk, Pavel Datsyuk, and Alexei Kovalev is nothing to sneeze at. Similarly, the Russians should be fine in goal even without Nikolai Khabibulin, as Evgeni Nabokov and Ilya "I'm Playing Jean-Sebastien Giguere Out of a Job" Bryzgalov will share the crease.

The defense is a mix of middle to upper-tier NHL defensemen with both the rugged (Vitali Vishneviski, Danny Markov) and skilled (Sergei Gonchar, Andrei Markov) represented. The big question out of Russia, as always, is whether or not they will be able to gel as a team. There's enough finger pointing and discontent within the national team that veteran Sergei Fedorov opted out of playing. GM Pavel Bure may be coordinating the team, but if scholarly Igor Larionov was in control, chances are the team would do better.

Prediction: Fifth place

Slovakia

The Slovakian team is an all-or-nothing group. They either have it all (great forwards) or nothing (Peter Budaj is their starting goalie). On defense, you've got Zdeno Chara and Lubomir Visnovsky, two outstanding players ... and not a whole lot more — and yes, that's counting Radoslav Suchy. Goaltending steals one-game tournaments, and it's hard to imagine that the combination of Peter Budaj and two non-NHLers will be able to do that. To make matters worse, the Slovakian team is without the recently- retired Ziggy Palffy, a sniper who could make good use of the Olympic ice, and crafty Ladislav Nagy. Don't expect too much out of the Slovaks except for a few nice rushes from Marian Hossa and perhaps a big hit or two by Chara.

Prediction: Sixth place

Finland

When Miikka Kipprusoff and Kari Lehtonen took themselves out of Olympic competition, it was a serious blow to the Finn's chances of medaling. The Finnish roster is very thin up front, with Teemu Selanne, Olli Jokinen, and Saku Koivu providing the only real punch. There's a mix of role players and up and comers, but the Finnish forwards don't compare to any other top countries — including the rebuilding United States. The defense is in worse shape, with Kimmo Timonen being the only real star player in his prime on the blue line.

However, the Finns seemed to follow the playing style of the Calgary Flames — hit, hit, hit, and play defense. That style got them to the championship game (in a very ugly fashion) of the World Cup. However, on the large Olympic ice, it will be more difficult to do. More notably, without any real goaltending presence, it will be difficult for the Finns to withstand the onslaught of forward skill from the other teams.

Prediction: Seventh place

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:11 AM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2006

Hockey's Higher Calling

My favorite Rick Tocchet story isn't a story that Rick Tocchet should know, or really want to know.

It was back in the late 1980s, at a New Jersey Devils preseason game at the Meadowlands. I was in my early teens, and my father — true to form — had us in the cheap seats, even for an exhibition game. Tocchet was perhaps the most hated player on the extremely hated Philadelphia Flyers — a forward whose physical play and determination could only be matched by his propensity for cheap shots and antagonism.

As Tocchet skated a shift during the first period, a portly gentleman in the row behind us, wearing a green-and-red Devils home jersey that barely covered his considerable midriff, shot up out of his seat, took a deep breath, and bellowed:

"HEY, TOCCHET! YOU SUCK, AND YOUR MOTHER NEVER LOVED YOU!"

Wow. Just, wow. I had heard catcalling from the upper deck before (always an exercise in egomania, since there was zippy chance anyone on the ice was going to hear you). But that was just so ... appalling. Dreadful. The kind of words that, if uttered in a bar, might guarantee a bottle of Budweiser splitting open the speaker's head by the end of the evening.

Of course, our partisan section roared with approval, clapping and laughing as the Devils fan sat back down. It was at that moment I realized the potential for comedy in the nosebleeds — an act I would perfect for the next 18 years.

His mother aside, there aren't many people giving Tocchet much love these days after he was charged by New Jersey State Police with financing a multimillion dollar gambling ring. It's a scandal that has quickly been linked to the mafia, several yet-unnamed NHL players, and Wayne Gretzky's wife, Janet Jones, whom I hope is recovering nicely after her husband threw her under the bus in a post-game press conference.

There's going to be a lot said about Jones in the next few weeks — like if she wasn't betting for others, she might have been betting for herself. I don't have a clinical background in diagnosing an addiction to gambling, but I believe that with any addiction, there are telltale signs — such as when Jones allegedly put down a few grand on the coin-toss for Super Bowl XL. Seriously, that's the sports gambling equivalent of "I'll bet you a dollar that dog over there sniffs his own ass within the next 30 seconds," isn't it?

The NHL's problem in this scandal is two-fold. First is the question of whether there was any wagering on league games by league players. Police have denied that's the case, but if it's proven otherwise, the NHL has itself Black Sox 2.0. The league's integrity would be down the drain — well, a littler further down the drain that it already is for a league that has pissed away its goodwill, ignored its heritage, reconfigured its rulebook to juice scoring, and ends overtime with an all-star game skills competition.

The other less serious issue for the NHL is the "black-eye" it will suffer if several high-profile players are named as having been involved in the gambling ring, but did not bet on hockey. I find it interesting that many pundits are calling TocchetGate a "black-eye for hockey," which was actually the headline for Scott Burnside's column on the matter for ESPN.com. It's a natural reaction: Pete Rose and steroids were "a black-eye for baseball," after all.

The difference is that Major League Baseball is baseball, just like the National Basketball Association is basketball, and the National Football League is football. All three of those organizations encompass the entirety of the history, prestige, and legends of their respective sports. Sure, they may call them the "Baseball Hall of Fame" and the "Pro Football Hall of Fame." But you tell me how many players, coaches, and executives you see enshrined that didn't make their mark in MLB or the NFL?

The NHL is different. It's the North American arm of an international sport. Look at the Hockey Hall of Fame, and witness the reach of the game beyond Canadian and American borders.

The NHL only thinks it's the end all and be all of hockey, which is ironic when you consider the way Gary Bettman, marketing genius, has run away from tradition like Willie Parker running away from Seattle's defense. (Of course, if you ask a Seahawks fan, it's because the nefarious cabal of evil referees ignored 15 holding penalties on the play, as well as the secret rocket boosters in Parker's shoes.)

(I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but this notion that the Seahawks should have beaten the Steelers because they were the first losing team to lead in yards, time of possession, and takeaways is just idiotic. It never happened before, so therefore it can never happen at all? With that logic, should the Seahawks have even been in the Super Bowl? Seriously, if you're one of these people who think Seattle was robbed by the officials in the Super Bowl, you may want to make other plans next winter — there's a minimum level of emotional maturity necessary to invest time in professional football, and you obviously don't reach that threshold.)

What the hell were we talking about? Ah, right, hockey. Not the NHL, but hockey. There's a difference. Hockey is a sport, while the NHL is the pathetic bumbling bureaucracy that's managed to keep it a secret from the majority of Americans for roughly a century.

But two news items this week served as a reminder that if the NHL should ever go down, it's not taking hockey with it.

First are the Winter Olympics, opening this weekend in Torino or Turin or Turban or whatever it is. (I prefer Turin, because as my colleague, B.J. Koubaroulis, pointed out when he covered up the first letter, it can become "Urin," which made me giggle.) The Winter Games feature what is basically hockey's version of the soccer World Cup: the best of the best battling for their countries on an international stage every four years.

Hockey is bigger than the NHL because the league actually shuts down so players can play in the Olympics. The league will claim this is so its best players can be showcased in a high-profile sport during the Winter Games. I'm pretty sure it's because every single one of the league's international stars could care less about representing the Anaheim Ducks in a meaningless regular season contest when they could represent their homelands with a gold medal on the line.

Those international players are a sticking point when it comes to my plan, which is the NHL forbidding players from playing in the Olympics. The league shuts down for nearly a month — but for what? There's never been an appreciable boost from the Olympics in terms of attendance or ratings in the NHL. The only star the Olympics ever made was Peter Forsberg, and that was before the NHL players were allowed to compete.

It would better serve the league to have young prospects competing on the world's stage — players whose profiles could be raised considerably before they join the NHL. Or perhaps the answer is an age cap that would allow young stars in the league (Bobby Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin) to compete for their nations once or twice before becoming league veterans. Hell, it wouldn't be the first cap the NHL instituted that would piss off the players.

The bottom line, however, is that the league's international players would never go for it, because representing their countries in their chosen sport means too much.

They don't play NHL hockey — they play hockey in the NHL.

There was a second reminder this week of the NHL's place in the hockey world. It came not from the Olympic rink, but perhaps its mirror image: a Toronto beer league.

Gard Shelley and David Burt are pickup hockey players. During the NHL lockout, they were also cheesed-off fans who couldn't believe the Stanley Cup was going into mothballs for a year. In fact, they felt the notion that the NHL controlled the Cup wasn't in keeping with the original wishes of Lord Stanley when he gave the chalice to the league in 1892.

With a little research, the boys discovered a legal opinion from years back that stated the NHL didn't have control over the cup. Shelley and Burt, lawyers themselves according to the Toronto Star, decided to take the NHL and the cup's two trustees to court, arguing that another non-NHL team should be awarded the cup should the NHL not hold a championship tournament for the trophy.

This week, the league relented, and an out-of-court settlement had the NHL agreeing that the cup's trustees can award it to a non-league team if another season is cancelled.

The chances of the trustees — both former NHL executives — awarding the cup to a non-league team are slim, even if there's a lockout. But for one moment, we're reminded of the Stanley Cup's roots as an award given to amateur teams up until 1926, and the fact that legally it could happen again.

The key provision argued by the beer leaguers was from a 1947 agreement between the NHL and the cup's trustees at that time. According to the Toronto Sun, the agreement includes a clause which states that in the event of the "dissolution or other termination of the (NHL), the Stanley Cup shall revert to the custody of the trustees."

In other words, through labor disputes, gambling scandals, and other humiliations, hockey will live on long after the NHL has gone the way of the Whalers.

One Thought on Tony Kornheiser

I'll reserve judgment on the new "Monday Night Football" booth until I actually hear them work together. I do think Mike Tirico is an improvement over the egotistical bombast of Al Michaels. Joe Theismann, on the other hand, should have fans yearning for those halcyon days of Dan Fouts gasping for air like a trout on a lake shoreline after Dennis Miller's 20th obscure pop culture reference of the quarter.

Then there's Tony Kornheiser. Interesting choice. Keep in mind that as familiar as he is to Washingtonians, fans of his radio show and "PTI"-philes, there's still millions of people tuning in to "MNF" that really have no clue who he is. That's his challenge: convert the unconverted. And he's going to have to do it without the following:

* Breaking into the broadcast to talk about how much he likes the first five tracks on the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds."
* Saying a NFL owner's wife is wearing "a dopey hat" when she's sitting next to Paul Tagliabue in the box.
* Referencing anything written by anyone in that day's Washington Post sports section.
* Announcing in the third quarter, "Okay, I'm tired of talking about football. Did anyone else see Jerry Lewis on Larry King last night?"

Like I said, it's a challenge. In fact, I'm curious why ESPN didn't go with another choice for the booth: Michael Wilbon.

I've heard him on color commentary during Redskins preseason games, and he's quite good. There's no questioning his knowledge base for football. He'll also take the contrarian point of view just to take it, much like Kornheiser will. And while we should all try to approach these things colorblind, there's no getting around the fact that after years of lilywhite broadcast teams on "MNF," hiring an African-American for the booth would have been the ultimate "this ain't your father's MNF" move.

Not that it matters. "Monday Night Football" will never again be "Monday Night Football" because it's now a cable television show. And if you don't think that matters, riddle me this, caped crusader:

Who won the Miss America pageant this year?

Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 11:57 PM | Comments (1)

Ohio Bobcats Might Be Back Again

It's been 11 months since Leon Williams tipped in a ball as time expired in double overtime to give Ohio University the MAC championship with an 80-79 win. It's been 11 months since the win gave the Bobcats its first spot in the NCAA tournament since 1994. And it's been 11 months since OU came back from a 20-point deficit to Florida in the first round of the tournament, but finally lost to the Florida Gators, 65-60.

Things couldn't have been better for coach Tim O'Shea, now in his fourth year as Bobcats coach. He had four of five starters returning. He had a good mix of players last year — juniors Jeff Halbert and Mychal Green and senior Terren Harbut to lead the pack, and fabulous freshmen Jeremy Fears and Leon Williams. They also had help from sophomores Sonny Troutman and Whitney Davis to round out the very deep team. The outlook was bright after almost upsetting Florida and proving their ability to compete with big-time schools, a task that many mid-major teams often fail to complete.

So what happened to this team after Williams earned himself the nickname of "Shaq of the MAC" and was the conference's Freshman of the Year? No one really knows. Perhaps it was their confidence in scheduling a tough non-conference schedule early on. Ohio lost to both Cincinnati and Kentucky in December, and things never really looked up from there.

The Bobcats have not been able to beat the MAC's tougher teams and lost three straight against Buffalo, Miami, and Kent State. Granted, the MAC East Division has been the more dominating section, Ohio still has not been able to make the shots at crucial times. For a team that relied so much on the three-pointer in the past, to get cold from anywhere will never get the job done. The likely method of counteracting that problem would be to get the ball inside, but in the loss at Buffalo in January, Williams had no points. In fact, he shot the ball zero times. Did the Bobcats forget how to play? Did O'Shea forget how to coach?

And did the team forget how to make foul shots? Though the team combined had about a 68% free throw percentage going into Thursday's game against Northern Illinois, clutch foul shots during certain stretches in OU's losses could have made their games a lot more interesting. Finally, against the Huskies, the Bobcats converted 18-of-19 free throw attempts and Williams got 20 points in OU's win over the MAC West's leader.

One other bright spot has been the emergence of Davis off the bench. The sixth man for sure has come a long way to become the leading scorer in conference play (11.7 ppg). Davis also set a career-high with 18 points against Toledo this year.

Though it was thought at the beginning of the season that the MAC could possibly get two teams in the tournament, it doesn't appear to be so anymore. Ohio doesn't even have a great resume, either, stuck in fourth place in the East with a 8-4 conference record (14-6 overall). But wait until the MAC tournament, where the Bobcats proved they could win the close games last year. All it takes is Ohio to start shooting the ball well again. They certainly have the shooters to do so. Yet if worse still comes to worst, maybe another Williams tip-in is all they really need.

Posted by Sara Normand at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2006

Sports Q&A: NFL Officiating; Tiger

Mike from San Francisco writes, "The NFL office defended the officiating in the Super Bowl, claiming that "no mistakes" were made during the game. Did they keep a straight face while announcing this?"

Sure, the officials made no mistakes at all during the Super Bowl. And the war in Iraq is going just as planned. And Marilyn Manson is an average American. And Tom Cruise is totally sane. And signing Terrell Owens is not a risky acquisition. And Drano makes great mouthwash. And Kobe Bryant is totally committed to the assist. And Paris Hilton is virginal.

The NFL is right. The officials made no mistakes — on extra point conversions. The rest of the game was another story. The NFL must be so busy defending its officials that they are overlooking the fact that the officiating in the playoffs was the worst ever. In three of those playoff games (New England at Denver, Pittsburgh at Indianapolis, and the Super Bowl itself), the officiating could have possibly changed the outcome of the games. Did it change the outcomes? We'll never know. But, the fact that most of the disputed calls came at crucial points in the games is the most disturbing issue.

If the same flags would have been thrown at less important times of the games, we wouldn't be talking about them. Officials need to understand: if you want to make a call that may impact the outcome of a game, you better be darn sure about it before you toss that yellow hanky from your pocket. If you want to make a questionable pass interference call, make it in the first quarter, not the second half. Not sure if that was a fumble or an incomplete pass? Swallow your whistle and let the replay booth sort it out. Was that a hold? Maybe in the first quarter, but not in the fourth.

In any case, officials need to be held more accountable for their mistakes. Sure, the league will admit when a mistake is made, but do the officials really suffer as much as the victim of the bad call? No, but that has to change. The heck with fining the officials — what they need is punishment that truly resonates. Punishment that will make them think twice the next time they reach for a flag. Like locking an offending official in a four-by-four cell with Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter and a megaphone.

Or, enrolling an official in an etiquette class with Randy Moss. Or, forcing an official to face Bill Cowher while Cowher recites the tongue twister "She sells seashells by the seashore" over and over. Or, being in Michael Irvin's car during a traffic stop with Irvin and several of his closest friends, fresh out of the rehab clinic. Frankly, with those in mind, I'd be afraid to call any infractions. Maybe that's how it should be. Let 'em play. And you guys in charge of officials — wipe that grin off your face and train your officials not to ruin the game.

Rodney from Long Island, New York asks, "After two straight wins to start the season, is Tiger Woods poised to win the Grand Slam in 2006?"

Tiger is certainly off to a great start this year, but let's not let that overshadow the accomplishments of one John Holmes, last weekend's winner of the PGA Tour's FBR Open. Allegedly, Holmes won the tournament with the use of only one club, albeit a very long one. Holmes won by seven shots over a field that included such notables as Phil Mickelson, Justin Leonard, Vijay Singh, and Harry Reems. Holmes is reportedly the only golfer on tour who, when he hits an errant shot, yells "Fore-teen!" instead of "Fore!"

Anyway, back to Woods. Is he "poised" to win the Grand Slam? Of course he is. Then again, so is every other golfer entered in all four Grand Slam tournaments. I was "poised" to win the lottery last week after buying 12 tickets, but I didn't. But, if any one golfer is capable of winning the Grand Slam, it would be Woods. Ask a panel of golf experts to choose one golfer capable of winning the Slam, and most, if not all, would take Woods.

The key word here is "capable" — Woods is the only golfer with the range of skills necessary to handle the different types of courses that host the four legs of the Slam. He is physically the most gifted golfer on the tour. Heck, he could win two majors with his teeth alone. And his mental preparedness is always sharp. Take Woods out of the majors equation, and most of those same experts would defer on choosing a golfer capable of winning the Grand Slam. It's either Woods or no one.

Will Woods win the Grand Slam? No. Three majors? Probably not. Two? More than likely. Woods may list his goal for the 2006 season as winning all four majors, but realistically, his goal is matching and passing Jack Nicklaus' total of 18 career majors. Nicklaus never swept the majors in a single year, and won his last at the age of 46.

Woods has won 10 majors, and is only 30. Time is on his side, and he may still be improving. Woods' game will almost always put him in position to win the majors, but to pull out four this year would be nearly superhuman. I wouldn't be stunned if he did it, but I would be surprised.

So, Rodney, if anyone were to win the Grand Slam, it would be Woods, and only Woods. He's got game, and he's got the most intimidating caddy of all time, Steve Williams, who never met a camera he didn't rip from a fan's grasp and toss into a pond. I say Woods wins the Masters and the British Open.

Joe from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania writes, "Joe Montana reportedly asked for $100,000 to appear in the Super bowl XL pre-game festivities with other Super Bowl MVPs. Is he crazy?"

If Montana did, in fact, demand a $100,000 appearance fee, then I can't fault him for following the laws of supply and demand. If the NFL paid Super Bowl XXX MVP Larry Brown $1,000, then, economically, shouldn't Montana be able to ask for a hundred grand and not be criticized?

Let me explain. Brown is a Super Bowl MVP thanks to Pittsburgh's Neil O'Donnell, who all but handed Brown two interceptions in the 1996 finale. Montana is a three-time Super Bowl MVP and earned every one of them. Isn't he at least one hundred times better than Brown? You'd pay $500 for a signed photo of Montana, right? But would you pay $5 for one of Brown's? Not that Larry Brown, but maybe for Larry Brown, coach of the Knicks, you would.

Montana claims he couldn't attend the Super Bowl because he wanted to watch his son's basketball game. That's what I call admirable fatherly devotion. That's a legitimate reason for not attending the greatest spectacle in sports, and get paid. Montana's played in four Super Bowls and attended countless others. Maybe he's just sick of it. Now, it would take more than my son's basketball game to keep me from the Super Bowl. Maybe is he were graduating college, and getting married, and having a child on Super Bowl Sunday, I might skip the game. Probably not, though.

Anyway, Montana's not crazy. Maybe he's just a little selfish, but mostly for all the right reasons. The NFL helped cultivate Montana's fame, so the least he could have done was shown up, waved to the crowd, plugged FedEx and the RZ Trainer Football, collected a check, and left. His son will have other basketball games. Most of the other MVPs in attendance looked thrilled to be there, especially Joe Namath. I guess $1,000 was enough for Joe Willie. I think he spent some of that having the Jets' logo printed inside his jacket. In fact, the NFL could have saved $1,000 and told Namath that Suzy Kolber would be on the sidelines.

Get Your Questions Answered!

Do you have a question or comment? Did "Dear Abby" not answer your question? Have you committed a heinous crime, and need cheap representation? Need cash, but have no more organs to sell? Then send your question/dilemma/desperate circumstance along with your name and hometown to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, February 24th.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 8:22 PM | Comments (0)

The Secret to Success, NFL-Style

The iconic Vince Lombardi once said, "It is essential to understand that battles are primarily won in the hearts of men." The revered Bear Bryant used to say, "Show class, have pride and display character. If you do, winning takes care of itself." The legendary Paul Brown told us, "The key to winning is poise under stress."

These three men have done more for football in America than the net contributions of all the innovators, imaginers, and think-tanks that came before them or have come since. Based on that type of résumé, you would think this holy trinity of football would have it all figured out ... perhaps the secret to winning or losing is buried in the hearts, minds, and personalities of those who compete.

I'm not buying it.

Though I'm no NFL forefather, and am certainly not to be considered one of the greatest football minds of all-time, I am adequately in tune with recent history to opine my own iconoclastic theories relative to the particular successes of NFL franchises. There is one overpoweringly effective commodity that every last season-ending champion of America's greatest professional sports league has had in common ... one ingredient that, year after year, sets apart the has been and wanna-be franchises from those who hoist the statue named after Green Bay's legendary leader.

Before I get into the guts of this story (how's that for a tease?), I do want to set the table with one ground rule for my spiel. Anything beyond the past 10 seasons and you're in dynasty territory. Free agency was in its infancy and the league's "haves" were made up of an overwhelmingly short list of franchises. For this reason, I discount any discussion about my theory beyond the back end of the Dallas Cowboy dynasty. Obscene collections of talent on rosters tend to trump any nickel-and-dime theory for success.

Now, to the point ... what is this magic ingredient, you ask? Linebackers. In the last 10 years, which I affectionately have nicknamed the "parody years," the proof to my theory is in the proverbial pudding.

Now before you angrily surf over to Peter King's latest missive on how great a coach Denver's Mike Shanahan is, consider the facts:

Historically, teams that are consistently successful have one of two things going for them. The obvious thing is consistently strong offenses (1980s and '90s Miami Dolphins, 1999-2002 St. Louis Rams, Brett Favre-era Green Bay Packers, etc.).

The less obvious quality of those teams that continue to excel but have less-than-stellar offensive attacks is, in fact, good linebackers. Look at teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, and even the Seattle Seahawks. While their offenses change each year, their fortunes from year to year are defined by the play of their linebackers. Track their down seasons and I will guarantee you that in each and every case the bad years included at least one significant injury to a key linebacker or, if nothing else, a substandard output from the healthy 'backers relative to those same players' career numbers.

Take a look at the teams that make startling recovery from atrocious seasons. The 2006 Chicago Bears are the latest example of this — it was stellar linebacker play from Lance Briggs and Brian Urlacher that led the Bears to the division title after finishing '05 with only five wins. The 2004 Atlanta Falcons had career years from Chris Draft, Jamie Duncan, and Keith Brooking, so turning around the 5-11 season from 2003 was not too large of a surprise.

This year's Steeler team was no better than middle-of-the-pack after a Week 13 loss to the Bengals. Beginning in Week 14 and reviewing the last eight games the Steelers played (playoff games included), their linebacking corps notched an astounding 17 sacks, four forced fumbles, and two interceptions! No reasonable argument can be made that the linebackers weren't chiefly responsible for Pittsburgh's run to glory as they held four of the league's top six offenses in check.

Before the 2006 Steeler victory, the last two teams to win the Super Bowl that aren't named the Patriots (the Baltimore Ravens in 2000 and Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2002) enjoyed two of the greatest seasons ever put together by a group of linebackers. The Patriots themselves would not have won their three Lombardi Trophies if it hadn't had been for incredible play from the likes of Willie McGinest (yes, I know he's a DE, too, but his biggest impact plays came as an outside 'backer), Tedy Bruschi, Ted Johnson, and Mike Vrabel. In fact, taking that argument even further, review of the two years in the last five that didn't end in championship glory for the Pats will show that their linbacking units were equally decimated by injury in those two seasons.

While those six most recent seasons are clear examples of my theory, that certainly doesn't make it anything more than an interesting trend. For my bold and startling realization to really carry any water, we must examine further back into the annals of the league.

Start with the St. Louis Rams. This is a team that marched out the same breathtaking offense for three seasons in a row. Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce — the "Greatest Show on Turf" was as consistently dominating an offense as you'll find over any multi-year period in the sport's rich history. But that offense was good for only one Super Bowl victory, which came after the 1999 season.

Many of you out there will swear that it was this dynamic Ram offense that won them that trophy, but I submit to you that the 2000 St. Louis Rams had a better offense than the '99 version (6,639 yards of total offense with 55 offensive TDs vs. 7,335 yards and 63 TDs). It was the play of linebackers that pushed them over the top, particularly in the biggest game. We all remember the game-saving goal line tackle Mike Jones had against Titan receiver Kevin Dyson. Review the season stats, and you'll see clearly that it was the linebacker play-making ability that proved to be the Rams' "x-factor" in 1999.

Dig deeper. Denver's back-to-back championships were anchored by linebackers Bill Romanowski and John Mobley. Over their two-year championship run, those two 'backers totaled 14.5 sacks, five interceptions, five forced fumbles, and 33 passes defensed in regular season play. Additionally, each had a sack in the Broncos' win over the Falcons. Versus the Packers, Mobley recorded a team-leading six solo tackles and made the game-saving play by knocking away a Favre-to-[Mark] Chmura pass attempt on fourth down with the Pack driving for the would-be tying touchdown.

In Super Bowl XXXI — which Sports Central editor and founder Marc James will be happy to tell you was won by his beloved Green Bay Packers — linebacker Brian Williams may have intercepted the pass late in the fourth quarter that sealed the deal, but I will admit that this is the one rather dubious entry in my analysis — alas, no theory is absolutely bullet-proof and you must concede that a game where a special-teamer is named as the MVP certainly is an exception rather than a rule.

By my count, that is nine consecutive titles decided one way or another by the linebacking corps. The 10th (the aforementioned Green Bay game) is an anomaly when looking at recent events, but also marks the point where several NFL dynasties began to "die off." I mention this because these dynasties tend to break down any realistic theories. A dynastic team is that way for a reason, and that reason usually involves resources, which San Francisco and Dallas consistently demonstrated an unfair plurality of. But I will note this paralleling factor — the Buffalo Bills had a very weak set of linebackers relative to the other league powerhouses and, like today's Indianapolis Colts teams, they consistently fell short of title glory as a result.

If reasonable thought and research is put forth, you will see that my theory does indeed hold water after all. At least half of the league's 32 teams have a superior quarterback each season. Still more feature at least one stud running back — an even higher percentage than that sport game-breaking type of receivers. Just about every team has a designated sack artist on defense and a potentially game-changing shutdown cornerback. Game-changing linebackers, though, are the keys to success.

While it is clear that there are some very real factors to any team's success outside of the play of that team's linebackers, one thing is abundantly clear — no position makes as defined a difference when it comes to winning and losing. When a quarterback throws four picks in a game but his team still wins, you can bet that his linebackers put up some very nice performances. When a team has a running back bust out for 200 yards and three scores, yet they inexplicably lose that game, it is a certainty that the linebackers for that team were M.I.A. As simple and rudimentary as it may seem, all you have to do each fall is keep an eye on the league's linebacker units to separate the true contenders from the pretenders. You can take that fact to the bank.

Now if only I could come up for a solution to world hunger!

Posted by Matt Thomas at 7:10 PM | Comments (0)

February 9, 2006

Slant Pattern Blackjack: Fourth Edition

1. The officiating at the Super Bowl was disappointing, but I've seen worse. I'm not gonna write my Congressman. The pass interference call against Darrell Jackson was the right call. It stopped the defender from being able to lurch forward and make a play for the ball.

2. Speaking of officiating, what a stance the ACC is taking! Suspending officials for bad calls? I like it. Particularly, I like the way they used it — not for a bad judgment call, but for a fundamental error. If you missed it, Florida State's Alexander Johnson fouled Duke's Shelden Williams very hard. Shelden sprung up and took a swing at Johnson, who did not retaliate, and they were quickly separated. Officials gave Williams a technical foul (okay), and whistled Johnson for an intentional foul (okay) and a separate technical foul. Huh? He didn't do anything beyond the hard takedown of Williams and apparently the officials couldn't adequately explain themselves to the ACC.

3. What is it with grievous, non-judgment-call errors coming from refs working college basketball these days? In January, Houston coach Tom Penders suffered a bad dizzy spell and collapsed on the sidelines. Officials thought he was histrionically reacting to a call that went against his team and assessed a technical. After Penders was taken off the court on a stretcher (he was fine and returned in the second half), play resumed and officials DID NOT RESCIND THE TECHNICAL FOUL! So beware college coaches ... collapsing on the sidelines might cost your team possession and give the other team free throws. Conference USA later "criticized" the officials, but did not suspend them. If there's one crew in America who deserves suspension more than the Florida State/Duke crew, it's this one.

4. I've never quite been comfortable with the code of silence around high-level officials. We can't question them. We can't interview them. They can't explain themselves. If we can pillory any coach or player during press conferences, then officials should be fair game, as well. I think a lift of the gag order for officials of major sports would lead to a new respect for the refs, actually. A lot of calls that appear to be bad on the surface probably just reflect a poor understanding of the intricacies of the rules by your average fan and media member. In short, I think officials could shut up a lot of their detractors if they were allowed to talk.

5. Whenever you hear of an athlete making an "obscene gesture" with his hands, we always assume it's the middle finger. Apparently, however, there's another non-animated, obscene gesture you can make with your hands, and J.J. Redick apparently has done so. I had to read the whole article, including the links and comments, to understand it. Part of me is grossed out and part of me is wondering how any obscene gesture has eluded me all these years.

6. Last year, I wrote that there were no young American golfers who looked poised for any kind of greatness at all. Now I think there are two: Sean O'Hair and J.B Holmes.

7. Fantasy golf is the only fantasy sport I play. You may think that's geeky. I submit that I'm a specialist and cooler than you.

8. So first Isiah Thomas threatens ESPN writer Bill Simmons. Now Doc Rivers, while not threatening him, angrily responded to Simmons' article calling for his dismissal. Given how delighted Simmons seems to be whenever he makes the news rather than writes about it, expect the baiting tone of his articles and the viciousness of his attacks to reach a new high in the coming months.

9. If a university would start a class on poker psychology, I would signup for it. I'm amazed at how acutely obvious it seems that I get sucked out on way, way more often than the odds say I should. I also know that every poker player feels this way, and it has to do with the fact that the bad beats are more memorable. So why does knowing that not help in either dealing with it or feeling it less?

10. Another thing I notice is that if I am playing for micro stakes or play money, that's when I hit my draws, take down monster pots, bust people out, and the suck-outs don't happen. Is this another illusion that everyone else feels, as well?

11. I'm excited that Bracket Buster Weekend is just a week and a half away, and the mid-majors get 15 minutes in the college basketball spotlight. My favorite mid-major, the Mid-American Conference, really got jobbed. No games on ESPN, ESPN2, two games on ESPNU, and two games (the only two games) on ESPN360 (streaming web), which is not widely available and is not television. Old Dominion vs. Marist, however, made it to ESPN2. Explain that to me. The MAC is a conference that has sent nine teams to the second round of the NCAA tournament or further since 1990. I don't think the Colonial Athletic Conference or the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference can make that claim. (Checking their Conference RPI, both the MAAC and the CAA have the MAC beat. I'll shut up now.)

12. Any regular reader knows how I pray to the altar of college football. Yet no matter how hard I try, I cannot get very interested in recruiting. I just hope my teams land some good ones. I don't study it. I don't get excited about it.

13. If I printed up personalized t-shirts that read, "Standing up to the media's and the official's orchestrated attempts to undermine (INSERT YOUR TEAM HERE)," do you think I'd make a lot of money? Because it seems like everyone feels that way.

14. I'm getting tired of everyone bashing ESPN. I can live with the fact that they are a hype machine. Their analysts are entitled to their opinions, and they are not looking to keep (INSERT YOUR TEAM HERE) down. Thanks to their ever-burgeoning network, we get to see a bazillion college football and basketball games that we otherwise wouldn't, and that's the bottom line. Turn the sound down if you don't like what they have to say.

15. Last year at this time, I wrote a piece extolling the virtues of a wonderful golf tournament, the Johnny Walker Classic. This year, they haven't been able to draw as many big names as in the past, and it'll be shown tape-delayed on the Golf Channel in the standard three-hour package, rather than the 4-5-hour live package they've done the last couple years. That makes me sad.

16. As I write this, the Johnnie Walker Classic is actually underway, and Kevin Stadler (USA) is the clubhouse leader halfway through round one. Who says I never break any news?

17. The info from item No. 16 is courtesy of EuropeanTour.com. I managed at first to accidentally type "EuopeanTour.com" and "eurpoeantour.com" .... and both of those domain names are taken! Naturally, they are marketing websites hawking golf equipment, European vacations, stuff like that. I believe there's a special place in hell for those who maintain websites designed to take advantage of typos.

18. Don't look now, but the team ranked third nationally by the RPI formula for college basketball is ... Tennessee. That's the men, not the women.

19. The worst RPI for a school belonging to a major conference (which I define as the BCS conferences)? South Florida (222nd).

20. My early final four picks: Duke, Villanova, West Virginia, and Tennessee.

21. Fire Matt Millen.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Best Rivalry in Sports?

I am often critical of Dick Vitale, but the passion he brings to the Duke/UNC rivalry truly is unprecedented. He's getting old and could spin off the Earth at any moment. Thus, I am going to do a running commentary, ala Bill Simmons, on Tuesday's Duke vs. UNC game in Chapel Hill so that I have documentation of him calling such a game. I'm not really a huge fan of these two teams or this rivalry in general, so I apologize in advance for my cynicism.

7:58 PM EST — I decide running commentaries are more fun if gambling is involved. I settle on Duke/UNC under 155 for one unit.

8:03 — As expected, Vitale is calling the game. Brad Nessler is the play-by-play guy. I search my sportsbook for some sort of prop bet on how many times Dickie V. will say, "Can you believe it, Mr. Nessler?!" Sadly, no such prop exists. I set my own over/under for this at three.

8:08 — Vitale calls Rayshaun Terry the most improved player in America next to Aaron Gray.

8:09 — Six of the 10 starters for this game are white. This has to be some sort of modern day ACC record. It also bodes well for the under.

8:11 — J.J. Redick flops ridiculously after knocking down a mid range jumper. He is already on my nerves and the game isn't four minutes old.

8:13 — J.J. has to have studied film of Reggie Miller at some point. His ability to get guys in the air with the pump fake in order to draw the foul is vintage Miller. I am now convinced he will be hated in the NBA, as well.

8:18 — 13-5 Duke, North Carolina looks awful thus far. There is no way they are the 24th best team in the country. If you put the same players in Clemson uniforms, they wouldn't even show up under "others receiving votes."

8:22 — The officials actually seem to be pro-North Carolina tonight. They must be under strict orders from ESPN and the ACC to keep this one respectable.

8:23 — Vitale throws in a shameless Notre Dame football plug. He never ceases to amaze me.

8:25 — This pride of the program shtick ESPN is running has gotten old. Seriously, what's the point in showing retro Nebraska highlights during an ACC contest?

8:26 — Raymond Felton and Sean May both in the house. If this one is to stay interesting, Carolina better go grab them a pair of jerseys.

8:29 — Ten minutes in the score is 21-13. 34 x 4 = 136. Sorry, back to the game.

8:32 — I'm not sure what to make of this Tyler Hansbrough kid. He's ultra productive for a freshman, but I can't help but think he is on the fast train to Mark Madsenville.

8:36 — The clip of the Jeff Caple 40-foot bomb never gets old. I still remember staying up late to watch that. Great moment.

8:38 — Vitale with absolutely the best line he has ever dropped, "If I got suspended every time I made a mistake, I'd never get to work." He's such an all-time classic. Maybe this running log was a good idea after all.

8:40 — Josh McRoberts gets McBlocked, one of the Carolina white boys knocks down an open look for three to cut it to one. Vitale goes nuts, but fortunately for everyone, he is drowned out by the crowd noise. Five years ago, his voice would have over powered the entire Dean Dome, but the years and hundreds of Duke games are finally taking their toll.

8:44 — Baylor is beating Missouri by 29 points. This means nothing unless you placed a bet on Baylor an hour before tip. Being a degenerate is fun.

8:52 — Vitale pathetically tries to convince the audience that the free throw disparity in Duke games is a product of Duke's style of play and not biased officiating. Nice try, Dickie, but nobody's buying what you are selling.

8:55 — Duke 40, UNC 35, 75 total points, looks like I'll be sweating the under the entire second half. Maybe gambling and running logs don't go so well together after all.

9:02 — Halftime highlights reveal that not much else is going on around the country. However, it's never too early to look ahead. Villanova looks like they really might be a Final Four team. In fact if they end up a No. 2 seed opposite Duke in the East, 'Nova would likely be the team to go through on my bracket. Also, Tennessee got a big win over Kentucky tonight. Is it just me, or do they not have three-seed loses to 14-seed written all over them? I'm not impressed with Bruce Pearl or his orange blazer. We'll see.

9:06 — I'm snapped out of a trance by the sound of Steven A Smith yelling. I check to make sure I'm not sitting on the volume button of my remote, but it's right next to me. In fact, the volume on my TV has not been adjusted at all. Weird...

9:09 — I snap out of another trance only to realize that it is 9:10 and I forgot to TiVo "The Shield."

9:10 — TiVo is in fact recording "The Shield," my Dad must've hit up the season pass feature. Great call, Dad. Truly excellent work.

9:12 — Talk about a suspect stat line, UNC shooting 33%, turnovers are even, and Duke is only leading by five.

9:13 — Airball by J.J., I've never seen him shoot so poorly from three. This is awesome.

9:15 — Doris Burke is not even a 50th as good looking as Erin Andrews is. Seriously, when is ESPN going to learn that all its target audience of males 18-40 wants in a sideline reporter is smoking hot good looks.

9:19 — Duke by 17, 55-38, I wonder what Vic Mackey is up to right now.

9:25 — I don't know how Bill Simmons does this with such ease. The game is not out of reach, yet I'm totally distracted. Right now, I'm at AskJeeves.com typing in, "Is J.J. Redick gay?"

9:27 — Jeeves delivers with a hilarious picture of a Maryland fan holding up an anti Redick picture.

9:30 — Carolina within nine, 54-45, plenty of time left. I'm back in it.

9:32 — J.J. misses again from three, how come no stats are popping up with his three-point numbers? They would be shown after every shot if he was 5-of-8. Shouldn't Vitale and Nessler at least mention it? At least Doris Burke had the stones to talk about how Redick doesn't shoot well in this building.

9:33 — By the way, for those scoring at home, he's 1-of-7 thus far from three. Thank you, ESPN.com.

9:35 — Interesting ad for the "Open the Eyes to My Heart" Christian rock album. Never seen anything quite like this on ESPN before, at least not before midnight. If this doesn't say it all about UNC and Duke fans, then I don't really know what else could.

9:40 — Redick with a three, then a steal that turns into an uncontested lay up. Time for Dick and Brad to recommence the greatest player in the history of the world discussion.

9:41 — Carolina showing tons of heart right now. This is terrible news for my under.

9:42 — Vitale with his second cheap shot of the night in regards to Sam Cassell's past comments on Chapel Hill followed quickly by the fifth "Coach Nessler" reference of the broadcast. He's warming up, baby.

9:46 — Not sure what bothers me more, a coach's timeout followed 10 seconds later by a television timeout in college basketball or the cutting to commercials following kickoffs that goes on in the NFL. To close to call.

9:49 — Watching Duke lose is fun, but it'd be a lot more fun if I had Carolina and the points.

9:53 — Carolina 71, Duke 66, 4:30 left, please slow the game down.

9:54 — God damnit, J.J.

9:58 — ESPN has given Doris Burke about 1/10 the camera time that they normally give Erin Andrews. Somebody alert Martha Burk.

10:02 — Thanks, J.J., Duke 79, UNC 75, 154 total points and still two minutes left, Goodbye Mr. Under. Being a degenerate sucks.

10:06 — I'm sick of all these commentators talking about how UConn has more talent, but Duke has the better team and thus would win if the two played right now. I'm praying these two meet on a neutral court in March. UConn would only be a small favorite and they'd make for a great play. Unfortunately Duke, will likely lose in the Sweet 16, so this matchup will not happen.

10:08 — Awesome garbage time three pointer by J.J. Apparently common sense game management skills like running clock don't apply to him. Might be time to start calling him Peyton Redick. He's the king of meaningless points.

10:12 — Nothing like the last-minute free throw fests that seem to accompany the end of every Duke game. Can't this end already?

10:13 — Oh man, Carolina has a shot, turnover followed by Vitale's third Sam Cassell wine and cheese reference of the night. It's Duke and Carolina, college basketball, baby.

10:15 — The point spread on this game was Duke -5. This is going to end very painfully for one of the sides. I'm kind of glad I went with the small play on the under. Even though the bet is dead at least I'm not spending the last minutes of this one in agony.

10:17 — This ending is getting bizarre. I'd love nothing more than for it somehow to come down to Lee Melchionni. Now that'd make for some great television.

10:18 — Sheldon Williams to the line. He is going to make 1-of-2 and this game is going to land on four. Tough luck for those who took Duke giving the points.

10:19 — Duke 87, North Carolina 83. The game was actually a better contest than I expected. In fact, I actually enjoyed writing this running log. Looks like I'll have to do it again for the March 4 rematch.

Ryan Hojnacki also writes for his own publication, OperationVegas.com.

Posted by Ryan Hojnacki at 6:34 PM | Comments (1)

A Bitter Pill For Hornets' Fans

It's no question that the Hornets have been a big surprise this NBA season. Chris Paul is continuing to lap the field as frontrunner for the Rookie of the Year. The Jason Kidd-like abilities (16.3 ppg, 7.8 apg, 5.7 rpg) of the point guard have coach Byron Scott reliving some of the better times in New Jersey.

However, this news of success has a bittersweet taste written all over it. While the stingers have seemingly returned to the franchise for the first time since moving to the Western Conference, the nest isn't in its usual location. Mother Nature played the exterminator when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans last September, sending its pro sports teams into upheaval.

Oklahoma City opened up its doors to the idea of hosting an NBA organization. Even with a quick notice, the Ford Center has averaged well over 18,000 fans for each Hornets game. That's a 34% (or 4,700 person) increase from the first 21 home contests in '04-'05.

Sure, a lot of it has to do with the novelty factors for this certain situation (i.e. no history of pro sports, a more competitive team, a larger capacity arena, etc.). However, this season, seats are being filled at about a 95% rate, compared to around 84% in the team's first season in the Big Easy three years ago.

This all may be good news to Hornets officials, but that air can't be shared right now by some people who really need it — the residents of New Orleans. The justice scales aren't tipping in their direction. For example, let's take a look back earlier in the year. The squad had planned to play six games in Baton Rouge this season, but things went (even further) south fairly quickly.

After shabby attendance during their December 16th loss to Phoenix, Scott talked to the uppers about shifting more of the scheduled Louisiana games back to Oklahoma. Then, he had the nerve to say to the press that there would be understanding because he didn't "think the fan base is there right now for (the) basketball team."

Listen, I know that you are trying to conduct business as normal and keep your squad in the playoff hunt. However, you also have to know the situation, coach. The people of New Orleans needed to have something to look forward to sports-wise. There were no football games to speak of. The Saints were a whirling dervish, Tulane played every contest on the road, the Sugar Bowl ended up in Atlanta, and no bands from Grambling or Southern got to play in the Bayou.

The Green Wave and other city college basketball teams are showing the way as they have taken back their home courts, and, hopefully, the Hornets can now keep their promise to play at New Orleans Arena for three scheduled dates in March. What about the next 12-15 months, though?

The Saints are looking to get back home for the upcoming NFL season, but there's still no word on whether the Superdome will be ready in time. And the Hornets have already agreed to play most of the '06-'07 season in Oklahoma City, with only six contests scheduled for the Big Easy.

It's been a rough few months for a city that's provided a lot of us with a good time. Maybe they can take some solace in knowing one of their symbols is hanging in. And possibly the Hornets could give to those devoted fans by taking a sooner rather than later approach to playing amongst the partygoers.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 6:05 PM | Comments (0)

February 8, 2006

Hands Down: The Best Team in Detroit

The eyes of the sports world have been focused on Detroit over the last few weeks, but for the wrong reasons. Sure, the Super Bowl, itself, is the major sporting event in our country, yet the coverage and hype leading up to the game rival the coverage and hype that the game, itself, should receive.

Although the war of words between Jerramy Stevens and Joey Porter is amusing, it shouldn't have been mistaken for or covered as if it were an actual sporting event. And while I do believe that a van carrying a number of Seattle's offensive players colliding (barely) with an entry gate is newsworthy, I don't think that it should be the news of the day.

Look, I understand that the reason the sports media had descended upon Detroit was because of the Super Bowl, but I didn't need to know every little thing that took place in the lives of the Steelers or Seahawks for a period of two weeks. While the sports journalists in Detroit were busy reporting about the halftime entertainment or asking the players the inane questions which illicit mindless responses, there was another amazing sports-related story taking place in Detroit right under their noses.

Yes, I'm speaking of the dominance of the Detroit Pistons.

It's not often in the sports world when a regular-season loss can conjure up feelings of shock and disbelief. Yet, I was more shocked by the end of the Pistons recent 11-game winning streak at the hands of the New Jersey Nets than I was when the NFL's last unbeaten team, the Indianapolis Colts, went down. How can I be so surprised considering Detroit already had experienced five losses and is in the middle of an 82-game season? If you watch the Pistons in action, you'll know why.

It's not because of the number of games they've won. It's the manner in which they've accomplished many of these victories. The most glaring examples are the two victories that constitute the season-sweep of the defending champion and overwhelming pre-season title favorite, San Antonio Spurs. Not only were these games not close, they were both played in front of a national television audience. These two games arguably represent the primary reason the Pistons have overtaken the Spurs as clear-cut championship favorites.

It's odd to have an overwhelming pre-season favorite to win a championship in any sport. It's exceptionally odd to see said team lose its status as title favorite before the midway point of the season — while actually living up to the high expectations placed upon it at the season's beginning. San Antonio isn't underachieving. This has nothing to do with the Spurs and everything to do with the Pistons.

What's remarkable about Detroit is that it's exceeded the expectations placed upon San Antonio this year. Everyone thought Detroit was good, but why is that nobody thought Detroit was capable of being this good? I think much of the reason that Detroit was overlooked is that analysts and prognosticators spent too much time dissecting the talents of individual players while failing to sufficiently acknowledge what it actually takes to comprise a good team.

To comprise a good team, one must build with "team concept" in mind. By this I mean, the architect of the team must take into account the egos and attitudes of the respective players on the team. These players also must understand and accept their respective roles. Most importantly, these players must be able to play together or as it's more commonly known, have chemistry. Of course, talent and skill is a requirement, but all of the talent and skill in the world means nothing if it doesn't mesh on the court. Finally, it's almost a given that the teams that will win championships in the four major American team sports are above-average defensive teams, at the very least.

The architect of the Pistons, Joe Dumars, understands all of this. He's put together a group of very talented team-oriented players and paired them with some very talented coaches who share Dumars' philosophy of "team ball." Joe Dumars has succeeded where many other general managers have failed. Let's examine why.

Let's be honest. The NBA is a star's league. When we look back at the champions of the last 20-30 years, we focus almost exclusively on the stars. Names like Duncan, Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Shaquille, Kobe, Olajuwon, Bird, McHale, and Isiah Thomas (yes, even Isiah Thomas) are synonymous with winning. Many NBA general managers are no different from the rest of us in that regard. The trend as of late has been to either attempt to acquire superstar players or to continuously build around superstars with a variety of players in hopes of winning championships. Now, I'm not going to argue with the notion that having a superstar on one's team is a good thing. I recommend it. What I do disagree with, however, is the notion that it is necessary to have a superstar on one's team in order to win a championship.

The fact is that the key to winning titles rests within the concept of team. Superstars, though helpful, are far from necessary. Look at the names above. These names represent the NBA champions going all the way back to 1984 — with one exception, the Detroit Pistons of two seasons ago. The Pistons were able to win a title without any superstars. In all actuality, the common denominator in all of the NBA champions since 1984 has not necessarily been the presence of a superstar, but the presence of an array of players who were adept at filling their respective roles and served as great complementary pieces to the best players of their respective teams.

Because the aforementioned Lakers' formula for winning (two dominant superstars supplemented by average role players) was a recent phenomenon, some teams have attempted to follow that mode. The reason that the Lakers were the exception and not the rule, however, was because the superstars on that team were dominant.

This is precisely why attempting to build in this manner in places such as Houston has not had the desired effect. Houston only has one dominant superstar, Tracy McGrady. Although Yao Ming is a very good NBA player, he is neither dominant nor a superstar. What's even more significant, however, is that unlike the supporting cast of the Lakers, the players around Yao and T-Mac are either not very good or just aren't good fits with the Rockets.

The other manner in which NBA GMs have been trying to win titles is by building around superstars in a constant and often careless fashion. Again, this is a flawed manner of thinking. For instance, the Miami Heat were just one game away from defeating the Pistons last year in the Eastern Conference Finals. They lost the series-deciding game without one of their best players and one of the league's brightest young stars, Dwayne Wade. So, what did they do? They turned over half of their roster and acquired more "name" players.

It's curious as to why Miami decided not to upgrade its roster with a few minor tweaks. It's a very risky endeavor to overhaul one of the league's most successful teams, especially when said team displayed a great deal of cohesion. But this is exactly what Pat Riley did. It's true that on paper, Miami looked as if they could be the class of the Eastern Conference this year. But, as we all know, games are played on the court, not on paper. Well, some games are played on paper, but not basketball games, but I digress. On the court this year, Miami has looked like a good team, but it has yet to resemble the great team that took the floor a year ago.

Another example is the Minnesota Timberwolves. Just two seasons ago, they were two games from reaching the NBA Finals and their second-best player Sam Cassell, was out for the latter part of the Western Conference Finals due to injury. They went into last season as one of the favorites to win the Western Conference, yet missed the postseason entirely. Many blamed the down year on the reigning league MVP, Kevin Garnett. Garnett, however, wasn't the problem-actually, far from it.

The real culprit, as funny as it sounds, was the full-time return of two players who played bit parts the previous year, Wally Szczerbiak and Troy Hudson. Minnesota suffered from having "too many cooks in the kitchen," if you will. Ironically, the return of these two guys was part of the reason many thought Minnesota was a preseason favorite in the first place. But the previous year's lineup had developed very good chemistry together and the addition of two more players who demanded time on the court really changed things for the worse.

This is why Joe Dumars is the best in the business. He understands the most foolproof way to win. First and foremost, he's identified that although the NBA is marketed as a star's league, the reality is that the teams that play like "teams" are the teams that win titles. Dumars has found a group of guys who check their egos at the door. Look at the starting lineup. Tell me which player is the best of the five. It's impossible.

It's true that some of them are more talented than others, but it's up for debate as to which ones. Everyone's got a different opinion. It just depends on your perspective. There isn't a bigger compliment that one could give to a team. The starters are all equally talented and their respective talent levels all measure out at "very good." The starting five also understand and accept their respective roles on the team.

Ben Wallace is primarily on the floor for rebounding and defense, especially help defense. The Pistons have shrewdly recognized that many teams do not have one good post player, let alone two. Therefore, Ben Wallace is able to leave his man to either help with other people's responsibilities or hit the boards. Does he love this role? No, he would rather be involved more on the offensive end, but he understands and accepts what is asked of him.

Rasheed Wallace is the individual defender and scorer of the two big men. For as much abuse as Rasheed's taken in his career, nobody has ever claimed that he was a bad teammate on or off the floor. He's the rare type of player that can go anywhere and instantly help team chemistry on the floor rather than hurt it because he is such an unselfish player with a high basketball IQ. More significantly, he doesn't need the ball to be effective.

Tayshaun Prince is asked to defend the best swingman and score when needed. He's so tall and long that he poses problems for most of the guys he's guarding. Even the shots he doesn't get a piece of are many times altered due to his presence. He's also capable of scoring inside and out, yet never forces the issue.

Richard Hamilton's job is to run around like a madman while the others set screens for him. Once he's open, it's up to the others to get him the ball and they almost always do. He's one of, if not, the best player in the league at moving without the ball. He's also a tremendous mid-range jump-shooter and an adequate to better-than-average defender. This makes him the primary scoring option, but not in a "Kobe Bryant taking 50 shots" way.

Chauncey Billups is the playmaker and the guy the team looks to in crunchtime situations. "Mr. Big Shot" has ice in his veins from almost anywhere on the court when the game is on the line, yet never forces anything throughout the rest of the game. He makes the right decisions on who should get the ball and where and is a very good defender at the point guard position.

Dumars has also assembled a bench that many consider to be average, at best, but is sufficient considering the amount of time the starters see. The Pistons have also astutely balanced the bench with a mixture of energy guys, guys that can score down low, rebounders, and playmakers. The only thing really missing is a nasty outside shooter.

The Pistons have also done a very good job at perfecting team chemistry and again, Joe Dumars should be acknowledged as the one person most responsible for this. The last time Joe Dumars made a major move was two seasons ago when he acquired Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline. The unselfish Wallace was a perfect fit for this team due to his "team play" and defensive presence. Dumars was able to acquire Wallace without giving up any guys who played significant roles on the team. By keeping his core together, Dumars made sure that the growing pains of his new starting lineup would be minimal and short-lived.

Since then, Dumars has only made minor tweaks to solidify the Detroit bench. The strength of Joe Dumars is that he does not make personnel moves solely for the purpose of making moves. He understands that his team is already a championship-caliber team. Because he exercises such great patience, he only pulls the trigger on deals that make sense for his team in respect to both the players he sends away and the players he brings in. The continuity has only served to better his championship team of a few years ago. Dumars' genius is exemplified by all of this.

The Detroit starting five has been together now for two years and counting. All five players are very good players in their own right. They all play within the team concept and have had the time and a patient enough front office to allow them to both develop chemistry and understand their respective roles. It's much easier to play the game when everyone from the owner to the ballboy is on the same page.

The emphasis in Detroit, as always, has been on defense, and new coach Flip Saunders has really opened up the offense. Right now, this team is dominant because it can conceivably take down anyone on both sides of the floor. It's unfortunate they've received so little attention recently while playing in a city that has been the focus of the sports world the last few weeks.

While the mainstream sports media was spending gobs of time trying to drain the most trivial pieces of information out of the backup long-snappers of the Seahawks and Steelers, the Detroit Pistons continued on their way to what will perhaps be the story of the year in 2006.

In a few months time, the Detroit Pistons could be wrapping up a second title in three years while making their case as the best team in NBA history. It's ironic that many of the aforementioned media might be returning to Detroit to ask the questions that they wished they would have and should have asked while they were in Detroit the first time around.

Posted by Kiarash Banisadre at 11:12 AM | Comments (2)

Sports Gospel Mailbag

Just for the record, before I delve into the mail, I want everyone to realize that I went 5-5 in my picks column last week. But, thanks to a New Jersey state trooper, I can't do anything about it, so the only thing I have is the satisfaction that Ric Tocchet owes me a lot of money...

I guess the real sad part about this is that Wayne Gretzky's wife can't be in the Hall of Fame now, er, or something like that. On a more serious note, I've been meaning to do a mailbag for a few weeks as there has been an abundance of great e-mail lately, but I couldn't let certain ESPN.com writers get away with bashing sports fans everywhere. Like always, I respond to each e-mail I get individually, but only the best make the mailbags. Without further ado, these are all actual reader responses.

Re: How to Fix the Lingerie Bowl

I love this forward thinking, another thing they should do is take it off Pay-Per-View and put it on ESPN, you have Chris Berman and Tony Kornheiser call the game, and you have the hot chick from Sunday Night Baseball in just her lingerie, then you are golden. - Kevin

I agree with taking it off of pay-per-view, but Berman and Kornheiser cannot call this game. I think it's only fitting that a guy like Al Michaels gets to call this, although I would love it if somehow Joe Buck could be tricked into doing the game without knowing what it actually was. What would he do? Would he live up to expectations and get incredibly incensed and then explode? Would he start acting completely out of character and go along with it and actually get behind the whole idea? Him exploding or giving ridiculous color analysis for the lingerie bowl are two scenarios I could definitely get behind.

Re: "Does God Hate the Colts?"

Mark, Shame on you for attempting to mock Jesus Christ. This can't be good for your career. - Tim

Tim, I'm not so sure, I pretty much solely rely on that deal I made with the devil as far as career advancement goes these days. Also, I never said Mike Vanderjagt's Lord was Jesus, it could be alcohol (if you ask Peyton Manning) or even Tom Arnold, and is anyone going to have a problem with me mocking Tom Arnold? Or maybe I was trying to mock Vanderjagt and his bringing God into it at all. This is the Sports Gospel, so you can interpret it any way you want (just know that your current way is wrong).

Re: "Irish on Road Back to Glory"

Mark,

I just read your story about Notre Dame and Ohio State. I am a huge ND fan. I just wanted to say thanks for knocking Musburger. He was pathetic. He also mentioned that Notre Dame is selling out seats at Notre Dame Stadium now. Its been years that a game has not been sold out. The Zbikowski boxing tangent got a little old too. He was very biased and it was very difficult to listen. ABC should be ashamed. Anyways, thanks for writing the article and GO IRISH!

Judd

Okay, this is here for one key reason — the whole Notre Dame is selling out seats now thing. That, frankly, is just blatantly incorrect. Judd is right, Notre Dame Stadium has been selling out for ages and it's nearly impossible to get a ticket without going through a scalper or another ticket broker. Way to do your homework, ABC. Still, it's okay if some facts are lost in the shuffle, after all, they needed to cover that Laura Quinn angle hardcore.

I just read it. I, too, am a die-hard Notre Dame fan (my basset hounds names are Brady and Quinn) and I want to tell you that you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT-ON! From beating the Laura dates AJ drum to Brent Nosebugger being so ungodly biased against Notre Dame. You're also right about how it'll go down next year when we win the national championship.......the only thing they'll be able to come are the same "cat licker" jokes we've heard since First Communion. Me? I believe in the Father, the Son and Charlie Weis, Amen.

Lynn

It's nice to be at the front of the Notre Dame homer bandwagon, hopefully our recruitment numbers will be up next year. I'm sincerely hoping that the haters will come with something stronger than "cat licker" jokes, but I'm not holding out too much hope. Interesting thought on Charlie Weis being added to the Holy Trinity. That may pose a problem for some traditionalists, but if the Holy Spirit can do a better job on the field, I want to see it (it's fitting here to take a pre-emptive strike against more Tim-esque emails, I'm being sarcastic and I am not really calling out the Holy Spirit to join the college football coaching ranks).

Here we go...

Re- Anna Benson v PETA

I do not know you, but I am not quite sure why you, as a sports journalist, would defend Anna Benson's rant against PETA? Regardless of my personal opinion of Anna or PETA, I find her to be inarticulate and comical. Why take her seriously enough to write an entire column dedicated to one of her childish rants?

The woman is obviously stupid, why dedicate a column to her? There are so many beautiful wives in professional sports, why do you have to pick the trailer park trash to write about? You are adding fuel to her fire, and goodness, the world does not need to hear anymore of her opinions regardless of what they are.

You just lost a reader.
allyson

And what a great loss it is. Clearly, you are a longtime reader, which is why you waited a good month after that column was written to respond. Allyson, how is it that you, regardless of your personal opinion, can find Anna to be inarticulate and comical? Isn't that 100% your personal opinion?

And while you are leaving your opinion out of things, I love how you can claim that she is "obviously" stupid. I agree that there are many beautiful wives in pro sports, but Anna is one of them. Just look at all the great charity work she does (or just look at her FHM layout). The great line is when you drop the "why do you a have to pick the trailer park trash to write about?" When exactly did she live in a trailer park? Since when does being a stripper mean you are trailer park trash? Frankly, I'd add more fuel to her fire if I could, because she is flat-out entertaining to read and, believe it or not, makes pretty good sense most of the time.

"The world does not need to hear anymore of her opinions regardless of what they are." I'm sure you would feel the exact same way if she came out with some pro-PETA opinions. More importantly, I'm just glad the world finally has a spokesman.

As to why I would defend her rant against PETA, it's pretty simple (see Anna's letter or the last e-mail in this column). Of course, at the end of the day, it hurts to lose a reader, even if it is a PETA intern. That means I'm down to three.

I wanted to congratulate you on a great article concerning Anna Benson and PETA.

I am by no means a PETA supporter. I truly wish you had made light of the fact that PETA kills more animals than they put out for adoption. I read an article stating this a few months ago.

PETA is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. I'd write to tell them so, but then I'd have to put down my bucket of KFC.

Thanks for the laugh!
JD

It's a shame that PETA kills more animals than they save, but remember, according to Anna, they are also killing themselves. Like she said, PETA is on crack and crack kills, so it's only a matter of time before they become a victim of their own killing-spree.

If anyone, Anna included, truly loved animals, they wouldn't wear them and/or let them suffer in factory farms for meat consumption...and hating PETA is no reason to go ahead and do the above and say you love animals...it just doesn't make sense....loving people doesn't mean we eat them or wear their skin for a coat.... - Red

Red, you have a very narrow definition of love. I suppose it doesn't make sense to you when I say I love the Internet, but I don't end up eating the Internet or wearing its skin for a coat (although I hope somewhere the wheels are in motion for this to happen). Sure, it's sad that animals suffer, but they are still animals. There is a reason a hamster doesn't drive me to the airport. You know whay? Because it's a hamster! I will start caring after all people are taken care of.

I have seen an increase in PETA bashing all over the net lately, and all I can say is.....it's about damn time! I really like your comments on PETA and I really love your revised acronym for what PETA should stand for. Before reading this, my favorite was People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. I am an active animal lover and rescuer myself on many levels and I too loathe the many injustices animals throughout the world face. But I still eat meat, use leather products, appreciate purebreds & go fishing. Peta truly is one of our nations greatest threats, right up there with the ELF and ALF, which they openly support. Anna, you need to start an anti-Peta organization and I will be happy to serve on your board of directors! - Dan

I just wanted to show that some people had the ability to respond in a rational manner.

The next e-mail needs some context. The following is an exchange I had with a reader on one of the comment features of the column.

The poor dear is not only cruel, but dumb as a door nail. Poor nasty little fur whore. - "Greg"

Dear "Greg,"

Thanks for your insightful comments. Best of luck in your new position with PETA.

Regards,
Mark

Which of course led to the following e-mail:

Re: Anna "The Animal Murderer" Benson in a TKO against PETA?

If TKO stands for "Trapping, Killing Ogre." Well, at least an ogre only eats other humans. I'd pay good money to see an ogre eat Benson from furry head to toe. And I'll save Mark Chalifoux the inane post comment by saying, "Yes, I will enjoy my new position at PETA." I'll enjoy it as much as your new position in HELL.
-Tim

Tim, what happened to "Greg"? More importantly, what the hell are you talking about? Ogres only eat other humans? I can say I only know of one ogre (Shrek) and I don't remember him ever eating a human. Also, wouldn't it be better for someone to kill animals rather than humans? Let me illustrate.

Humans > Animals.

As far as you wanting to pay good money to see an ogre eat Benson from head to toe, well, I'm not here to judge you, but I'll do it anyway — you are a typical PETA supporter. Still, my favorite quote from this e-mail has to be the close:

"Yes, I will enjoy my new position at PETA. I'll enjoy it as much as your new position in HELL." Well played.

Finally, an e-mail from Brian to close the book on this topic.

Cows are skinned alive in slaughterhouses??? Probably only if PETA paid someone to do tranq one then skin it alive, so they can film it for their AR propaganda flicks.

Does anyone really realize how hard it would be to skin a cow that is alive? I dare anyone to go grab a hold of a cow and hang on to it for a minute. Most likely you would be in a coma after being stomped into a mud hole, just for holding onto it, rather than trying to skin it alive.

It wasn't really a surprise to those of us who monitor animal-rights extremist groups to see more and more Neo-Nazi type propaganda merging with PETA's hate campaigns, comparing cows, and chickens, to blacks and Jews. It has been known for quite a while that Neo-Nazi groups (The Green Wing of the Neo-Nazi's AKA followers of Hitler's Agricultural Minister, Walther Darr's "Blood and Soil Doctrine.") in Europe are openly recruiting animal-rights hate mongers into their lifestyle at animal-rights demonstrations. Below is a news article from the year 2000, noting that Neo-Nazi groups in England are recruiting at animal-rights extremist hate rallies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/09/03/neo03.xml

Undoubtedly that type of recruitment has now extended itself into U.S., and is starting to become more prevalent and open, with extremist animal-rights hate groups like PETA becoming more open with their hate campaigns comparing Jews and blacks to animals.

Maybe it isn't just a coincidence, that PETA campaigner Dawn Carr, who was in charge of the hate campaign comparing blacks to animals, moved to England for a few years, to promote hate and intolerance of others in that country, not long after her misdemeanor battery conviction against then Miss Rodeo America 2000, Brandy DeJongh.

One openly ponders if that PETA campaigner, brought back more than just a few postcards of Big Ben, some veggie-style "Biff Wellington" or has Swastika tats on her veggie frame these days.

But, hey, they'll dress one of their hate mongers in a chicken suit, or they'll get some celebrity simpleton to front for them, and the media will suck it up and try to make PETA out as just a bunch of "cutsie activists," instead of the virulent hate mongers they are.

If you want to help animals, contact your local humane society, volunteer, or join a reputable animal welfare organization. If you involve yourself with PETA's hate group, then don't expect any credibility when talking about animal welfare.

"If these animals do have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course, we're going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows... For the record I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, and considering the level of the atrocity, and the level of the suffering, I think it would be a great thing if you know, all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow, and I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and you know, everything else along the line... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." - Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, "Animal Rights 2001" conference

If you say so.

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 10:47 AM | Comments (2)

February 7, 2006

Super Bowl XL Rundown

Five Quick Hits

* Great Hall of Fame class this year. But how did Thurman Thomas get left out?

* This Martina Hingis comeback is for real. Quarters at the Australian Open and finals in Tokyo? She's quickly becoming someone nobody wants to play.

* If you didn't like the Rolling Stones at halftime, you don't like rock and roll. That was worlds better than ridiculous boy bands or pompous U2.

* Has there ever been a less appetizing slogan than "brown and bubbly?"

* If there's any antidote for a lackluster Super Bowl, it's rings for Dan Rooney, Bill Cowher, and Jerome Bettis.

***

On the heels of several Super Bowls that were questionably hailed as the best ever (XXXIV and XXXVIII, I'm looking in your direction here), Sunday's game is being panned as perhaps the worst ever. What are your criteria? Competition, for one. The game was close, and the outcome was in question until the final minutes. Greatness of the teams? This Super Bowl was definitely lacking in star power. Quality of play? Neither team had a particularly good game, and let's lump the poor officiating into this category, too.

Personally, I believe Super Bowl XXXV was the worst. It featured one of the weakest Super Bowl winners in history (the Baltimore Ravens) and one of the worst Super Bowl losers in history (the New York Giants), the most exciting plays came on back-to-back kickoff returns that lasted a combined 15 seconds, and the game wasn't even close. But that's neither here nor there, so let's focus on Super Bowl XL.

The pre-game was far less torturous than in recent years, and someone — although I'm not sure who — deserves credit for that. However, I heard rumors about a drinking game involving the phrases "Super Bowl Extra Large" and "one for the thumb," and if you played, you aren't reading this now, because you are dead from alcohol poisoning.

What Went Wrong?

Why is this game being panned from almost every corner? For starters, look at the teams involved. Pittsburgh is an amazing football town, but it's a relatively small market. Seattle, as has been pointed out innumerable times in the last few weeks, is sequestered in the Pacific Northwest. Neither energized the country the way a team from Boston or New York does, and most of the fans watching just wanted to see a good game. I've never heard so many people say they don't care who wins.

From that background, the officiating played a major role. Nearly everyone who watched the game thought it was called unfairly, and with most people not having a rooting interest, that was a very big deal. When fans aren't invested in the outcome, they mostly want to be sure it was the right outcome.

The most memorable plays from this game were — almost universally — penalties and turnovers. And not great-defensive-play turnovers. Bad-decision, poor-throw turnovers. The trick play was beautiful, and Willie Parker's long touchdown run was okay, but those were overshadowed by bad plays and controversial calls.

First Quarter

The Seahawks started with a true Bill Walsh-West Coast Offense, throwing two short passes to Darrell Jackson to open the game. Following a handoff to regular season MVP Shaun Alexander, they went back to Jackson. Clearly, Mike Holmgren was trying to call on some of the old 49er magic that helped him earn two Super Bowl rings as an assistant.

Pittsburgh managed two false starts on its way to a quick three-and-out, despite that the crowd was composed almost entirely of Steeler fans. The teams traded punts until Seattle, with all the momentum, finally found the end zone with a 16-yard pass to Jackson. Then, in a trend-setting move that, in retrospect, can be seen as the beginning of the end for Seattle, an official nullified the touchdown by calling offensive pass interference on Jackson.

It was a ticky-tack call, unquestionably, but it was not precisely a bad call. Jackson clearly stuck his arm out, and if it was more of a stiff-arm than a push-off, you're still not supposed to do it. It's rare, though, for such an understated foul to be called, and especially in a game of this magnitude. The Seahawks settled for a field goal.

The Steelers followed with a third straight three-and-out, and Seattle's Tom Rouen managed his third straight punt into the end zone. Little things like that can be the difference between an average game and an ugly one. The first quarter ended with Seattle dominating, but only up three points. Pittsburgh didn't have a first down yet.

The second quarter was young when the officials made their second really questionable call. It's in the books as the first of 1,001 drops by Jerramy Stevens, but he caught the ball and took two full steps before the ball came loose. I thought it was a fumble. The refs did make a good no-call just before the end of the first quarter, on an incomplete pass to Hines Ward.

Second Quarter

Evidently tired of losing the ball with punts, Pittsburgh opted to get intercepted instead, and Seattle countered with Rouen's first punt in the field of play. The Steelers finally put together a drive, highlighted by one of Ben Roethlisberger's few really good plays, a heads-up pass on which he stopped just before crossing the line of scrimmage, eventually hitting Ward at the three-yard line. That set up the most controversial play of the game, Roethlisberger's scramble for the end zone.

Initially, the side judge ran in as if to spot the ball. At the last moment, though, he raised his arms to signal a touchdown. It was a close call, and replay reviews were inconclusive. Michael Wilbon wrote that the play "was clearly and conclusively not a touchdown." Well, Wilbon clearly and conclusively watched a different replay than the one I saw half a dozen times. It looked like the nose of the ball broke the plane of the end zone while Roethlisberger was in the air, but only for a split second. It's one of those cases where the referee can't reverse the call on the field, no matter which way it originally went. Like the penalty on Jackson, it wasn't a bad ruling, but the first two big calls both went against the Seahawks, potentially resulting in a seven-point swing.

Seattle responded with a drive to put themselves in field goal position at the end of the first half. With 48 seconds on the clock and a timeout remaining, the 'Hawks had 2nd-and-10 at Pittsburgh's 40. Alexander gained four yards on a handoff, and the clock ran down to 13 before the Steelers called timeout.

I thought it had to be intentional. The Seahawks were going to run one more play, call their timeout, and try a long field goal. I even got mad at my television because Al Michaels and John Madden were criticizing Seattle for poor clock management, when it was all part of their plan! I was wrong. The 'Hawks just blew it. How jayvee. Josh Brown eventually missed a 54-yard kick.

What the First Half Meant

From my notes: SEA:PIT ~ PHI:NE

In Super Bowl XXXIX, the Eagles dominated the first half, but couldn't build a lead. Going into halftime, you knew they had squandered their opportunity, and the Patriots were going to win. In Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks dominated the first half, but couldn't build a lead. Going into halftime, you knew they had squandered an opportunity, and the Steelers were probably going to win.

From my notes: too many flags

It's an old maxim that you shouldn't notice the officials. There had been seven penalties called, including one that was declined. Normally, that's not a ton, but you just felt like the officials were having a big impact on the game.

From my notes: SEA three-man rush on all third-and-long

Pittsburgh had no rhythm on offense. Parker was getting nowhere, and Roethlisberger looked like Tony Eason (if you don't know who Eason is, don't worry — that's pretty much the point anyway). With the Steelers doing nothing on first and second down, they were getting in a lot of long-distance, obvious passing situations, exactly what Pittsburgh's coaching staff has always tried to avoid for Roethlisberger. The Seahawks responded with a three-man rush, dropping eight defenders into coverage and daring Big Ben to try to find an opening.

From my notes: where are PIT's stars?

Offensively, Seattle was going with Holmgren's short-passing offense. He called 25 passes and only 11 runs, one of which went to Mack Strong instead of Alexander. The league's MVP wasn't even a decoy — he was simply forgotten. The Seahawks weren't putting points on the board, but they weren't beating themselves, either. Troy Polamalu and Joey Porter were invisible, and Matt Hasselbeck was keeping the ball safe. Seattle dominated the half, but trailed 7-3 at the beginning of the third quarter.

Third Quarter

Pittsburgh's offense opened the second half with Ward's second drop of the game. I noticed towards the end of the season that he seems to have developed a problem in this area. That didn't stop me from naming him to my all-pro team, but it's something he needs to work on shoring up. Ward's drop was quickly forgotten, though, because on the next play, Parker broke a Super Bowl-record 75-yard touchdown run.

The Seahawks' answering drive ended in a missed field goal, and the Steelers drove to inside Seattle's 10 before Kelly Herndon's record-setting 75-yard interception return set up a touchdown pass to Stevens. Seattle's defense was starting to have serious injury problems at this point, though. Rocky Bernard, Andre Dyson, and Marquand Manuel were all out of the games with various ailments.

This quarter was just the opposite of the first half: Pittsburgh dominated, but both teams scored a touchdown, and the fourth quarter began with the same point margin as the third.

Fourth Quarter

It didn't take long for things to totally fall apart. The quarter began with Seattle in the middle of a drive, and it crossed midfield on the first play. After a completion to Bobby Engram and two runs by Alexander — the third and final time that he got consecutive carries — Hasselbeck hit Stevens at the one-yard-line. The play was called back, though, when Sean Locklear was cited for holding. There was one problem: replays failed to show Locklear holding anybody.

It's an old adage in the NFL that holding could be called on every play. So you would think when it does get called, it would have really happened. Instead of 1st-and-goal at the one, Seattle had 1st-and-20 at the 29. Casey Hampton sacked Hasselbeck, then Alexander ran for a seven-yard gain before Porter brought him down to behind. It looked to me, and a lot of other people, like a horse-collar tackle. That would have meant half the distance to the goal and an automatic first down. No call.

On the next play, Hasselbeck threw a "please intercept me" pass and was picked off by Ike Taylor, who returned the ball to the 29 before being tackled by the quarterback. Insult to injury, Hasselbeck was called for a low block, which he never made. That was the single most inaccurate call in the game, although the phantom holding penalty that set it up was more damaging.

In the course of four plays, three bad calls went against Seattle: the phantom holding against Locklear, the uncalled personal foul against Porter, and the non-existent low block (a 15-yard penalty) against Hasselbeck. Every big call in the game was going against the Seahawks. I didn't have a big problem with either of the controversial calls in the first half — neither one is even in my notes — but they started to look really bad around this time in the game. Normally, those things even out. In this game, they piled up.

What followed was the best playcalling of the game. Parker took a carry for one yard, then Antwaan Randle El gained seven on a screen to the left. On third down, Roethlisberger lined up in a shotgun formation and ran a draw for the first down. That was a great call, but it was nothing compared to what came next. Randle El had just done some damage on the screen, and the Steelers went right back to him. Parker took a pitch left and handed off to Randle El, the former Indiana quarterback, coming right on a reverse. Everyone bit. On the run, Randle El tossed a near-perfect pass to Ward, who jogged into the end zone. 21-10, nail in the coffin.

Now in serious trouble, Hasselbeck started to press and completed barely a third of his passes from that point on. Alexander got only two carries in the final half of the quarter. There was no more noteworthy drama in the game, as Seattle's offense sputtered and Pittsburgh ran the clock down. The only question was who to pick as MVP.

MVP

There was no obvious choice in this game. In most Super Bowls, it's a question of narrowing down a list of candidates. Last year, you could've made a good case for Deion Branch, Tom Brady, Rodney Harrison, or Corey Dillon. This year, no one seemed particularly worthy.

Nobody had a better first half than Seattle LB Leroy Hill, but he (and his team) disappeared after halftime. I eventually narrowed it down to Randle El or Hampton, finally deciding on Randle El. Ward won, however, and I don't think it was a bad choice. From a statistical standpoint, certainly, he had the best game. He also had two key drops, though, and I felt like Randle El was more dynamic.

He was the first Steeler to make a first down, averaged 16 yards on punt returns, got a crucial first down when Pittsburgh was milking the clock, made the touchdown-saving tackle on Herndon's return, and threw the best pass of the game to seal the deal. I won't argue with Ward, though.

Biggest Coaching Mistake

Paul Brown, the father of modern football, said of Jim Brown, "When you've got the biggest cannon, you shoot it." Seattle's biggest cannon was Alexander, who during the regular season rushed for 1,880 yards, averaged 5.1 yards per carry, and scored an NFL-record 28 touchdowns. On Sunday, he had only 20 carries, despite averaging almost five yards per attempt. Hasselbeck had 49 pass attempts. Some of those were late in the game, when the Seahawks needed to score quickly, but all day, Alexander was the forgotten man in Seattle's offensive attack.

Aftermath

Did you ever think you would see Bill Cowher cry? I expect my cows back before the Pro Bowl. And there hasn't been a nicer Super Bowl moment in years than Jerome Bettis announcing his retirement from the victory podium. It's a perfect way for him to leave the game after a great career, as a Super Bowl champion in his hometown. Speeches don't get much more gracious than that, either.

Cowher and Bettis have been the topic of a lot of Hall of Fame discussion recently, and my column next week will focus on the Hall, but I've got to ask: is there anyone the guys at ESPN don't think is a Hall of Famer?

This column is almost ready to go into hibernation for the offseason, but I'll check in next Tuesday with extensive coverage of all things Canton, and maybe the Pro Bowl if I watch it.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 3:17 PM | Comments (5)

Gonzaga's Secret Formula For Success

While the eyes of Pacific Northwest sports fans have been fixated on the Seattle Seahawks and the Super Bowl as of late, it won't take long for those fans to start turning their attention to college basketball. Not that they've completely ignored what's been happening around here the past couple months on the collegiate hardwood, but it's sometimes hard to throw all your energy behind more than one team, especially when another had a season like the Seahawks had.

Which is why some fans might be shocked to find out that there are actually two really good college basketball teams in the northwest this season, and one of them could contend for a national title. Okay, maybe it's stretching just a bit to think that Gonzaga could end up in the Final Four and maybe the championship game, but that's what Seahawk fans have been thinking for 30 years — the Seahawks? In the Super Bowl? Yeah, and gas is going to be a nickel per gallon, right?

Even the Zags' own coach doesn't believe the high ranking they've received. Mark Few told reporters last week, "...the reason we win games is not typical of a top-five team. We're winning on execution and heart and guts and playing smart.” Translation: we don't have a lot of talent and we're not able to physically matchup against other highly-ranked teams and we're not particularly deep and if we don't play at 100% of our ability every night, we're not going to win.

Right. Tell that to the rest of the West Coast Conference. The Bulldogs have won all eight of their league games so far by an average of nearly 14 points and only San Diego has come close to winning, dropping a one-point affair at home last month. Otherwise, Gonzaga clearly stands head and shoulders above the rest. In fact, a lot of folks around here believe the 'Zags could compete in a bigger conference like, for instance, the Pac-10. So far this year, they're 1-1 against those schools with another one coming up this week when Stanford comes to visit.

There are others outside the WCC who might think Few's comments are a little off-kilter. Some of the Bulldogs' victims this season include Maryland, Michigan State, Virginia, Oklahoma State, and St. Joseph's. Granted, they've not all been blowouts, but they've all been solid wins.

On the flip side, though, there are a handful of teams — three, to be exact — who might agree with Few's assessment of his team. Connecticut, Memphis, and Washington all are teams that have beaten Gonzaga this year, but not by much. UConn squeaked by with a two-point victory in the title game of the Maui Classic, a night after the 'Zags and Michigan State went to three overtimes. (Quick digression: if Gonzaga had pulled that one out, would the Huskies still be No. 1 right now?)

The other Huskies escaped with a three-point win at home. Memphis was the only team to really "dominate” the Bulldogs, winning by 11 at home. While Connecticut and Memphis continue to win and try to land a No. 1 seed in the NCAA regionals next month, Washington is headed in the opposite direction having lost their last three games. I bet the 'Zags are wishing they hadn't let that one in Seattle get away.

As far as having to win games on execution, heart and playing smart, I'd much rather see that than a team that can win by 30 every night with a squad of All-Americans. In this day and age of what I call "isolation” basketball, meaning 10 guys on the floor playing one-on-one instead of five-on-five, it's refreshing to see a team that actually plays "team” basketball. And while it may seem like it's the Adam Morrison Show most nights (29 points per game), Gonzaga still has two other guys averaging double-figures in scoring (J.P. Batista at 19.2 ppg and Derek Raivio at 12.3 ppg). Comparatively, Duke (because a lot of people are comparing Morrison and J.J. Redick) has only one other player besides Redick (27.8 ppg) in double figures (Shelden Williams at 18 ppg).

Personally, I think Few has the secret equation to successful basketball regardless of the team's talent level: smart + heart = execution, and execution equals victories. With one final major test coming this Saturday when Stanford comes to town, the 'Zags have a great shot at finishing out the season without a loss. Add to that the possibility of running the table at the WCC tournament, Gonzaga might have precedence on their side when it comes to possibly landing a No. 1 seed in the NCAA regionals. Since the selection committee so graciously gave Washington a top spot last year, Gonzaga would have a legitimate gripe if they finish the season with 28 or 29 wins (counting the conference tournament), a 19- or 20-game winning streak and a top-five ranking and not be awarded a No. 1 seed.

In the end, though, no matter what March Madness holds for them, the 'Zags just need to keep doing what they're doing to be successful: execute, play with heart and guts, and play smart. If they can continue with that formula, then the team's true talent will sneak up on other teams, simply because they're that good.

Posted by Adam Russell at 2:33 PM | Comments (4)

February 6, 2006

The Play That Changed Super Bowl XL

Even in a Super Bowl that turned out to be a subpar day for both starting quarterbacks, it seemed inevitable that one of these efficient, gutsy warriors would make a play to establish himself as a winner and a champion. Such a moment is merely standard operating procedure for a game of this magnitude. This play would and did occur, not dramatically or climactically in the fourth quarter like so many great Super Bowl games had previously unfolded, but in the second.

The first half was a battle for field position as both offenses struggled. The Steelers, however, struggled mightily, and were unable to manage a simple feat such as a first down until nearly 20 game minutes had expired. To top it off, the play after that breakthrough was a Seattle interception. While the Seahawks led 3-0 going into the latter stages of the first half, many viewers entertained the thought that perhaps Pittsburgh may not score any points in this Super Bowl until it was too late and Seattle had already gotten their share. Perhaps the black and gold may not even score at all (which would be a Super Bowl first).

When the Steelers finally did manage a drive into Seahawk territory and field goal range, the offense took a turn for the worse yet again. Go-to receiver Hines Ward dropped what, for him, would be a routine 22-yard touchdown pass in the corner of the end zone. Hardly the play of a Super Bowl MVP. A curious 10-yard offensive pass interference call and a Grant Wistrom sack later, the Steelers were facing an endless 3rd-and-28 from the Seahawk 40. Yet another promising drive stalled short of points, or so it seemed.

The most realistic goal of this 3rd-and-28 play was to perhaps gain 10 yards and a decent shot at a Jeff Reed field goal to tie the game at three. Yet on a night where the glitches had been exposed in Big Ben's Steel Machine, even that seemed unlikely.

Roethlisberger faded back and instantly found Wistrom ready to pounce on him once again. No. 7 calmly felt the pressure, stepped up in front of the pocket and juked around to the left, narrowly evading the defensive end as he lunged futilely to the turf. While the young quarterback saw that there wasn't a defender in front of him for easily 10 yards, he danced sideways rather than running downfield, as he treated the 40-yard line of scrimmage as if it was the edge of a cliff.

It was decision time for our hero, but unlike the defense, he had never given up on the pass all along. The play took on a surreal quality as Big Ben stopped completely, planted himself inches behind the 40, and took a moment to look back at the shattered defense behind him, as if to say, "can I really do this?"

Patiently, he straddled the line of scrimmage for another precious second or two before finally letting loose a laser-guided missile with coordinates pre-set for Hines Ward. The star receiver had come open near the goal line for just an instant, and Roethlisberger had found him. Had this pass sailed so much as nine inches to the left, it may have easily become the second interception for Seattle safety Michael Boulware.

Who may have guessed that at that moment as the ball sailed towards the two combatants, the game's outcome and the Super Bowl MVP honors may have been up for grabs (a number of defensive players have won the MVP with two interceptions, assuming no offensive player particularly shines and his team wins)? Ward was looking to redeem and erase the memory of the dropped TD pass that started this series. He came down with it cleanly thanks to his quarterback's sniper-like accuracy, presence of mind, and poise under pressure that equalled a truly special play. Pittsburgh was now set up 1st-and-goal at the Seahawk 3, ready to finally break their offensive drought.

Three plays later, Roethlisberger kept the ball for a barely-legal score diving over the goal line. This gave the Steelers a 7-3 lead and the confidence to believe they could, in fact, win the big one, even on a bad day.

Many will point to Willie Parker's longest-TD-rush-in-Superbowl-history play that opened up an 11-point Steeler lead or the brilliantly designed "gadget" play that got Antwaan Randle El a clean shot at a 43-yard TD pass to Ward off a reverse, thus nearly sealing the MVP award for Hines, as the Super Bowl's most significant or most memorable moment.

Yet this was what ultimately seized the momentum from the Seahawks wave of metallic blue. It was a broken play, one in which Roethlisberger again exceeded the challenge with every physical and mental tool at his disposal. He out-ran, out-smarted, and out-threw the opposition all in a single play. Once again, as he had done throughout this NFL postseason, the QB with the funny last name on his back had revealed his inner champion.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 10:32 AM | Comments (14)

The Crystal Ball's 2006 Tennis Predictions

All right, I will put myself on the spot. Yes, as the year progresses, I will become a target to everyone who disagrees with these predictions. Take your best shot if you can! Keep in mind that at least I dared. If you want to do the same, visit the Sports Central Message Boards and do the same. What better source of fun than to remind each other how wise our crystal balls are, or perhaps, the failure of mine aptly named "Crystal."

I took Crystal out of its box earlier today. I rolled my hands around her, focused, observed the different rays coming out of her, and listened to her fantastic tales. Here is what she told me:

1) An Argentinean or a Spaniard Male Will Not Win Roland Garros

Yes, the French Open has often produced unheard champions in the past. But seriously, come on, Crystal! I had a real problem with her on this one. Guillermo Coria, David Nalbandian, Rafael Nadal, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Carlos Moya, and Gaston Gaudio would be some of the players ready to chuck my crystal ball in the garbage. She must put a lot of faith in Roger Federer and the French players.

2) Serena Will Win Either Wimbledon or U.S. Open

Crystal's reasoning was simple: she is due for one. I am assuming Crystal takes the "injury" and "shape" factors into consideration. Hmmm...

2) Ivan Ljubicic Will Reach the Finals of at Least One Slam

Crystal could turn out correct on this one. This guy was the most significant climber in the second half of last year's rankings. Let's not forget that he was close to doing it already in the Australian Open. Confidence he has, game he got, mental toughness he possesses — definitely plenty. I know Crystal was not influenced by neither his looks nor his hair.

3) Agassi Will Rock at Wimbledon

Andre Agassi does have the best return in the game. Grass surface will be easy on his old body. He has historically done well at Wimbledon in various times. He will have the British crowd on his side until the very last point that he plays. Yes, Crystal, I believe I am with you on this one!

4) Roddick Will Not Win the Queen's and Federer Will Not Win Hamburg Masters

If you are saying "why?" you must not have watched these tournaments. Andy Roddick has lost only five sets on his way to winning the last three years' Queens Club tournaments, and Roger Federer has lost a total of two sets in the last two years on his way to both of his Hamburg titles. I hate it when Crystal knows the history of anything in the tennis world better than me.

5) Hewitt Will Fail to Reach the Finals of Any Slam Tournament

Fret not, Lleyton Hewitt fans, for Crystal told me this trend would quickly be reversed in 2007.

6) Gaudio Will Not Finish the Year in the Top 25

Crystal talks about the future, I will talk about the past: Gaston Gaudio's Roland Garros title was the closest thing to a fluke in recent years, as far as Slam tournaments are concerned. He is a solid player on clay, has a beautiful backhand, but he still slips mentally and his serve is a liability. With his confidence eroding throughout 2005, this will be a freefall year for Gaston.

7) Jelena Dokic Will Make Less Headlines With Her Tennis Than Her Father Will With His Antics

I think Crystal cheated on this one by looking at January headlines and predicting the same for the rest of the year. Damir Dokic threatened to kill an Australian earlier this year, because Australian tennis powers have "conspired" to get Jelena Dokic back to Australia. I wonder if Crystal can predict this guy's future, but who cares?

8) One of the Top Ladies Will Retire During the Year

Crystal, the wise one, I will get you to tell me the identity of this player. Is it Lindsay Davenport? How about Kim Clijsters? Mary Pierce, following another severe injury? Or is it Martina Hingis who will bolt once again after realizing she is still unlikely to win another Slam? Then again, maybe I am thinking too much. After all, does Crystal even consider Hingis a "top player?"

9) Watch Out For Hingis at the French

What's the deal? Is Crystal contradicting herself? Or does this mean Hingis is out all together from the previous prediction? Perhaps Crystal is displaying typical female behavior — confused and confusing!

10) Baghdatis Will Not Make the Year-Ending Masters Tournament

I give Crystal a 50-50 chance on this one. The key to making the year ending Masters Cup is to overachieve in the Slam tournaments. Marcos Baghdatis did just that in Melbourne. The fact remains that he has to prove that he is not a one tournament wonder and can establish himself as a threat against top competition on a consistent basis.

11) There Will Be at Least Four French Female and Male Players Ending the Year in the Top 10

I am impressed with Crystal's boldness on this one. After all, Amelie Mauresmo is a lock and Sebastien Grosjean is very likely to finish in top 10. The rest of the french crew remains a mystery. Richard Gasquet is a possibility, Florent Serna could be the surprise player of the year. Oh, but I forgot for a moment that Mary pierce was French!

12) Brad Gilbert Will Coach Again

If Crystal is right on this one, I pity the player who will employ this self-absorbed character named Gilbert. However, if he can repeat what he pulled off with Roddick in 2003, my pity will turn to envy in a hurry. But honestly, I doubt it.

13) Slovakia Will Not Make the Finals of Davis Cup

Wow, Crystal. You really dug deep on that one. At least, I can always say, "Hey don't blame me, Crystal said it!"

Take care, everyone.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 10:22 AM | Comments (3)

I Hate Mondays: Execution and Talent

As Al Pacino once told us from a 1999 hit movie, "On any given Sunday, you're gonna win or you're gonna lose."

That football related quote seems very John Madden-esque and assuming we're temporarily forgetting about ties, it simply states the obvious.

The real question is what separates the winners from the losers, and furthermore, what separates the champions from the runners-up?

The greatest misconception in the NFL seems to be that the key ingredient is talent. Assemble the fastest, smartest, and most athletic players and you're bound to be a favorite.

While watching the big game with a group of colleagues, the general consensus was that the Super Bowl XL champion Pittsburgh Steelers are not the most talented team and are therefore not an impressive titleholder.

Somebody declared that the Indianapolis Colts were a better unit this year and were better suited to win it all.

If you compare the two teams player by player, the Colts are superior on an individual basis at most positions.

If you were an expansion franchise, would you rather start with Ben Roethlisberger or Peyton Manning at quarterback? How about Edgerrin James or Willie Parker as your go-to running back?

But this perception that the more talented team should win is not new and it is not accurate.

But it does sound familiar.

It's commonly used when fans or even pundits observe the New England Patriots. Remember when they won Super Bowl XXXVI, their first of three in four years?

The St. Louis Rams were the Greatest Show on Turf with Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, and Isaac Bruce, while the Patriots were, well ... less talented. Tom Brady, Antowain Smith, David Patten, and Troy Brown just didn't appear as sexy, but they still triumphed.

The Steelers, in a way, are similar. They are not pound-for-pound the most talented team in the NFL. Hines Ward may never lead the league in receiving yards and Willie Parker may never transcend the standards of a running back.

But lucky for the Steelers, that is not what wins football games.

Sure, you need players who can play, but you don't necessarily need Michael Vick or LaDainian Tomlinson.

Don't get me wrong, the Steelers of 2005-06 are by no means a nameless squad. They have several elite players, but the real difference that, in the end, separated them from the other 31 teams was execution. In the Super Bowl, that fact was magnified.

The Seattle Seahawks dominated the first half in every statistical category except for the one that mattered. Even after the Steelers took an 11-point lead, the Seahawks quickly battled back and looked to ready to regain control as they were driving in for a score down by just four points.

There is no question that they had their share of opportunities, but they did not take advantage of their openings.

They missed two field goals, they committed more penalties (particularly at inopportune times), and they only converted 29% of their third-downs.

Meanwhile, the Steelers were able to force the Seahawks' offense off the field as the game progressed, they kept their penalties to a minimum, and they were able to convert third-downs (53%), especially in the latter stages.

And that was the difference.

On the football field and in life — if you allow me to be metaphoric for a minute — sheer talent can only take you so far. As a matter of fact, talent is quite often wasted and talented people are outperformed by motivated people. But the ability to combine perseverance, execution, and talent, that is what separates the champions from the runners-up.

Execution and talent mix like Mondays and me.

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work." — Stephen King

Posted by Dave Golokhov at 10:02 AM | Comments (3)

February 5, 2006

M-V-P: The Chant of Losers

Super Sunday came two weeks early at the Staples Center.

A congregation of 18,997 delirious fans had just witnessed the beloved Kobe Bryant put up the second-highest single game point total in NBA history. Now, they emerged from their temple of worship and carried their gospel across metropolitan Los Angeles and beyond: Kobe for MVP.

Sure, it was nice that the Los Angeles Lakers ended a two-game losing streak and avoided falling to a mere one game over .500. Yes, overcoming an 18-point deficit at home against a 14-27 team was a nice sidebar. But the important thing was that Kobe Bryant had just scored 81 points and that's what the price of admission was all about.

Basketball is fun again in Los Angeles.

And why not? The man whose boyish petulance reduced the 2004 Western Conference champions to a lottery team in the course of one season is now the odds-on favorite to win his first MVP award and Los Angeles Lakers fans couldn't be happier.

In the process, their team might even escape the lottery ranks this spring.

We are in the age of individual achievement. The team superstar has become the reason we watch sports, much as the caramelized popcorn is the reason we buy a box of Cracker Jacks. Championships are reduced to the shrink-wrapped consolation prize stuffed inside.

And the greater our appetite for heroes, the more those coated kernels cost. What I paid 50 cents for as a child now sets my son back $2.99 in the movie theatre. Where I would dump out the contents in search of the secret decoder ring that was the real goal of all my purchases, my son cannot afford to. Even if he could, his last prize was nothing more than a miniature three-sheaf comic book. The prize has lost its significance.

Last year, the prize lost its significance in Boston and New York, as well.

Living in this Mecca of baseball that is New England, I recall the thrill of the late season race as it wove through the final weeks of 2005. Game after game found us on the edge of our seats as Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz pounded out homer after homer and took curtain calls to the resonant chants of "M-V-P" in Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park, respectively. At stake were both the home run derby and AL MVP.

Despite their best efforts, A-Rod and Big Papi got only cameo roles in October, and each watched the ALDS at home. In the end, A-Rod did prevail during November's awards week and Yankees fans found their redemption, albeit retroactively. They held it over Boston yet again. It was another successful season in The Bronx after all.

There is no rule that specifies Most Valuable Player and World Champion must be mutually exclusive. It just seems to work out that way the preponderance of times.

Martin St. Louis of the NHL's Tampa Bay Lightning was the most recent to attain the dual accomplishment, grabbing the Hart Memorial Trophy and Stanley Cup in 2004. Before St. Louis, the feat had only been accomplished twice in the preceding 16 NHL seasons. Mark Messier did it in 1990 and Joe Sakic in 2001.

Football is a little murkier. Until 2002, NFL awards were like boxing champions — autonomous fiefdoms each coronated their own victors. Of the 22 seasons prior to the Associated Press's totalitarian regime, three separate MVPs were selected on five occasions. However, Kurt Warner was a unanimous choice in 1999, the same year his St. Louis Rams won Super Bowl XXXIV. Today, fans the world over will find out whether Shaun Alexander can displace Warner as this sport's most recent dual winner.

Since Major League Baseball continues to partition two distinct leagues — and, by extension, award distinct honors — there should be twice the opportunity to find MVPs residing on World Series rosters. Nonetheless, you'd have to go back to 1988 to find an MVP that won a World Series ring. That, of course, was the Los Angeles Dodgers' Curt Gibson. That same year, Jose Canseco, whose Oakland A's lost to the Dodgers in the World Series, garnered the AL's MVP award. Since 1988, only five MVPs have made it to the Fall Classic.

Basketball has remained the exception. In the 25 years since Larry Bird and Magic Johnson redefined the modern NBA, 12 MVPs won NBA titles and another six got as far as conference champions. Tim Duncan is the most recent case, winning both in 2003. Michael Jordan is the most prodigious, accomplishing it in 1991, 1992, 1996, and 1998.

Why basketball should be an anomaly is not surprising. The composition of a basketball team lends itself to dominance by one player who can more effectively dictate a game's outcome with a supporting cast of four than his counterparts can with five or eight or ten teammates.

Virtually every offensive set is designed to provide touches for the NBA superstar. Only the NFL quarterback is guaranteed a similar benefit. However, NBA Superstar does not have to give the ball up to make something happen. He needs neither a running back nor the reliable hands of an open receiver for success.

Even more, he does not have to beat both a primary defender in the form of defenseman or pitcher or pass rusher, then a secondary line of goalie, shortstop, or safety. He can shoot wide-open jumpers all night or drive against 20-year-old opponents in a league where defense has gone the way of the dinosaur.

But if he is so inclined, the NBA superstar can make himself a constant presence on both sides of the ball. Certainly, players of the ilk of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajawon, and Tim Duncan have made this a part of their legacy. They do not have the same dependency on others for victory as do hitter and pitcher, right wing and defenseman, quarterback and cornerback.

So today, as the Seattle Seahawks look for their first ever world championship, Shaun Alexander will attempt to put his own name in the history book. To succeed, he will have to find the end zone, perhaps more than once. He will have to beat Joey Porter and Pittsburgh's 3-4 defense that thrives on the cut-back style of running for which Alexander is renowned. He'll also have to be aware of the omniscient Troy Polamalu and his supporting secondary.

Even if he does all these things, Shaun Alexander will have to stand on the sidelines for half a game with fingers crossed. He'll have to watch his defense contain Ben Roethlisberger, corral Jerome Bettis, cover Antwaan Randal El.

Only when all these things are accomplished may he utter the obligatory "I'm going to Disney" line and partake of the champagne bath that will be the Seahawks' locker room.

On this night, Shaun Alexander will experience the raison d'etre of a professional athlete, the euphoria of reaching a summit that could only be attained as a team. On this night, his MVP trophy will maintain its lonely vigil on the mantel back home, a shrink-wrapped prize inside this 2005 season.

On this night and for all the many to follow, the Lombardi Trophy will become for the fans in Seattle the caramelized popcorn in their box of Cracker Jacks.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 1:31 PM | Comments (0)

The NFL's Greatest Losers

As we celebrate Super Bowl Sunday, consider one team that's not in Detroit this weekend: the Indianapolis Colts, whose 13-0 start matched the second-best in NFL history. Just a month ago, people were talking about the Colts being the best team in league history, or at least one of the best. A quick exit from the playoffs squashed that line of discussion, but it doesn't mean we can't evaluate the team's place in history, as the O-Files sets out to examine the greatest non-championship teams of the Super Bowl era.

Starting from a group of 20 candidates, I got as high as 54 before narrowing the list to the 10 greatest teams not to win a Super Bowl. There was no formula, but my primary criteria were regular-season record, margin of victory, quality of postseason loss, and personnel. Using statistics for this sort of project can be dangerous, though, if you start focusing on the numbers at the expense of a team's aura of invincibility — that feel that they're in a different league than their opponents. Every one of my 10 had that aura — until it got beaten.

Narrowing the list, once I got below 20 or so, was one of the most difficult things I've ever done as a sports analyst. The final four to bow out were the 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers, 1980 Philadelphia Eagles, 1984 Miami Dolphins, and 1992 San Francisco 49ers. Many other great teams were excluded, as well, but it's tough to argue against any of the top 10.

10. 1969 Minnesota Vikings (12-2, lost Super Bowl IV)

They were two-touchdown favorites in Super Bowl IV, not just because of bias against the AFL, but because this was a dominant team. During the regular season, the Vikings allowed fewer than 10 points per game and outscored their opponents by an average of 17.6, one of the highest marks in history. The offense was good, and Minnesota led the pros in scoring, but the heart of the team was its defense, which featured Hall of Famers Alan Page, Paul Krause, and Carl Eller. The defense was the NFL's best by nearly 1,000 yards.

In the playoffs, the Vikings defeated the 11-3 Rams 23-20, then breezed by Cleveland in the NFL Championship Game, going up 27-0 before the Browns scored a late touchdown to spoil the shutout. On Super Bowl Sunday, however, turnovers and a physical Chiefs team ended Minnesota's season in disappointment. The defense held up its end of the bargain, forcing Kansas City to settle for field goals and not allowing a touchdown drive until late in the third quarter. But the offense, which thrived on an excellent offensive line and a strong ground game, was beaten at its strength, getting overpowered on the line and netting just 239 yards. The Vikings went on to become a losing dynasty, with four Super Bowl defeats in less than a decade.

9. 2001 St. Louis Rams (14-2, lost Super Bowl XXXVI)

Blasted through the regular season with the league's best offense and a solid defense coordinated by Lovie Smith. A potent offense, led by all-pros Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk, finished first in total offense and became the eighth team in history to score more than 500 points in a season. The only problem was Warner's tendency to throw interceptions, but he made up for it with the second-most passing yards in league history.

The playoffs opened with a 45-17 romp over 12-4 Green Bay, in which the Rams intercepted Brett Favre six times. After a 29-24 win against the Eagles in the NFC Championship Game, St. Louis entered the Super Bowl as prohibitive favorites, but ran into the NFL's hottest team, the New England Patriots. Warner threw for 365 yards, but had two costly interceptions, and the defense couldn't stop New England's game-winning drive with a minute and a half remaining in the fourth quarter.

It was a turning point for both teams. The Patriots' 20-17 victory was the first step in establishing them as the best team of the new millennium, while the Rams' defeat ended their brief run as football royalty and marked Warner's last full season in St. Louis.

8. 1978 Dallas Cowboys (12-4, lost Super Bowl XIII)

Almost 30 years later, Super Bowl XIII is still widely regarded as the best ever. It featured two legendary dynasties, the Steel Curtain and the "America's Team"-era Cowboys, who had nine Pro Bowlers in 1978. Captain Comeback, Roger Staubach, staged a late comeback that made the Super Bowl final 35-31.

During the regular season, Dallas led the NFL in scoring and total offense, ranking second in total defense and third in points allowed. After a first-round bye in the playoffs, the Cowboys beat Atlanta despite a late hit that knocked Staubach out of the game. The next week, with Staubach back in the lineup, the defending champs served notice with a 28-0 rout against the Rams. Ultimately clashing with one of the best teams in football history, Dallas established itself as one of the greatest contenders not to win it all.

7. 1998 Minnesota Vikings (15-1, lost NFC Championship)

The team that loses the Super Bowl isn't necessarily the second-best team, and the '98 Vikings are a great example of that. Relying on a seemingly unstoppable passing attack, Minnesota set an NFL scoring record that still stands (556), outscoring its opponents by an average of 16.3 points, the second-best mark since the AFL merger in 1970 (Washington, 1991).

The Vikings had no trouble against Arizona in the divisional playoffs, opening an early 17-0 lead and winning 41-21. Next week's championship game against Atlanta, however, deprived football fans of the matchup they really wanted to see: the 14-2 Broncos against the 15-1 Vikings. The Falcons were 14-2, but lacked Minnesota's star power and were perceived as a fluke team rather than true champion material. On January 17, though, they stayed with Minnesota long enough to force overtime.

I have strong memories about this game, even though I've never seen the whole thing. The day of the game was also the day of my cousin's wedding, and the times overlapped almost entirely. My cousin's husband is from Minnesota, and before the wedding, a number of the guests gathered around a hand-held television in the parking lot. His family was rooting for Minnesota because they were Viking fans, and I was rooting for Minnesota because I wanted a great Super Bowl matchup. When the service was over, we got the score from the limo driver before the bride and groom were even in the car.

After falling behind 20-7, the Falcons cut the deficit to a touchdown early in the fourth quarter. Just before the two-minute warning, Gary Anderson, who had made all 35 of his field goal attempts during the regular season, trotted onto the field for a 38-yarder to seal the game, and pushed it wide left. Atlanta evened the score with 49 seconds left, and Dennis Green opted to kneel on the ball, playing for overtime rather than giving his powerful offense a chance to score. A little more than three minutes into overtime, Atlanta scored a game-winning field goal, and the Vikings became the first 15-1 team not to reach the Super Bowl.

6. 1967 Oakland Raiders (13-1, lost Super Bowl II)

Few teams have dominated a professional sports league the way the 1967 Raiders did. They won their first game 51-0 and went on to score more than twice as many points as their opponents (468-233), sweeping the defending champion Chiefs and losing only to Joe Namath's Jets, who they beat later in the season. The Raiders were led by the downfield passing of AFL MVP Daryle Lamonica.

In the league championship game, Oakland annihilated the Houston Oilers, 40-7, to advance to Super Bowl II. Unfortunately, that game matched them up against Vince Lombardi's Packers, and the Raiders weren't up to the task. Green Bay scored on its first three possessions and went into halftime leading 16-7. The Packers put the game away in the second half and won by a convincing margin of 33-14.

5. 1990 Buffalo Bills (13-3, lost Super Bowl XXV)

No team has come so tantalizingly close to winning the Super Bowl, only to fall short, as the 1990 Buffalo Bills. The team was a balanced mix of running (Thurman Thomas), passing (Jim Kelly to Andre Reed), defense (Bruce Smith, Cornelius Bennett), and special teams (Steve Tasker, Scott Norwood), putting a remarkable 10 players in the Pro Bowl.

In the postseason, Buffalo held off the 12-4 Dolphins with a 10-point victory, then won the AFC Championship Game, 51-3, and entered Super Bowl XXV as favorites to give the AFC its first title in almost a decade. But the Giants contained Buffalo's no-huddle offense with a gameplan that emphasized ball control. The Giants held the ball for more than 40 minutes, and led by one when Buffalo took over on its own 10-yard-line late in the fourth quarter. Kelly brought the team close enough for Norwood to attempt a long field goal with four seconds left, but it sailed slightly wide right, and New York held on for a 20-19 victory.

4. 2005 Indianapolis Colts (14-2, lost divisional playoff)

The hardest team to rank. I thought they might be as high as third, and at one point, I planned to leave them out of the top 10 entirely. It's hard to put the recent past into perspective — Seattle might have a place somewhere on this list if it loses Super Bowl XL today — and it's hard to know what to do with a team that opened 13-0, clinching the AFC's top playoff seed, and then fell apart.

Obviously, I've decided to judge this year's Colts by what they showed in the first 13 games. At the beginning of this column, I mentioned a team's "aura of invincibility," and the Colts had that to a degree you rarely see. Indianapolis beat great teams, winning at New England, Cincinnati, and Jacksonville, and at home against Pittsburgh and Jacksonville. When they played lesser teams, the Colts ran away with things. The team outscored its opponents by an average of 12 points this season, and through Week 14 — when the games still mattered — that number was 16.3.

After a dispiriting loss to the Chargers, the team was stricken by the untimely death of James Dungy, the head coach's eldest son. No one will ever be able to say with certainty what role, if any, that played in the team's playoff loss, but an assumption that it had some effect is part of the reason the 2005 Colts are in the top half of this list. This remains the most questionable pick of the 10, and I won't argue with people who'd leave them off entirely.

3. 1997 Green Bay Packers (13-3, lost Super Bowl XXXII)

There is no reason the Packers shouldn't have won their second straight Super Bowl on January 25, 1998. Green Bay had been the NFL's best team, guided by Brett Favre on offense and Reggie White on defense. The Broncos were a good team, but they hadn't won their own division, and the AFC had lost 14 Super Bowls in a row. Green Bay was favored by two touchdowns.

The Packers were fairly well-rested after coasting through the NFC playoffs with a 21-7 win against Tampa Bay and a 23-10 defeat of San Francisco in the NFC title game. The Broncos had to make a wildcard appearance, then went on the road against Kansas City and Pittsburgh, winning by a combined seven points. During the Super Bowl, their best player, Terrell Davis, suffered from a blinding migraine and had to miss the second quarter.

Like everyone else outside of Wisconsin (and maybe Baltimore), I was pulling for Denver, but I kept expecting Green Bay to put the game away. Somehow, it never happened, and instead of getting Super Bowl rings, the Packers get the third-place spot on my list of the best teams not to win a Super Bowl.

2. 1983 Washington Redskins (14-2, lost Super Bowl XVIII)

To this day, players and coaches from Washington's 1980s dynasty insist that their best team was the one that lost Super Bowl XVIII to the Raiders. The defending champs went 14-2, both of their losses coming by a single point. Washington became the first team ever to top 500 points in a season, and still has the second-highest total in history. Joe Theismann was named NFL MVP, and John Riggins set an NFL record for touchdowns in a season. The defense led the league in rushing defense and interceptions.

In the playoffs, Washington embarrassed the Rams with a 51-7 victory, holding Eric Dickerson to 16 yards on 10 carries. To advance to the Super Bowl, Joe Gibbs' group went toe-to-toe with the decade's other dynasty, the Bill Walsh-Joe Montana 49ers, and won a 24-21 thriller. Washington had beaten the Raiders earlier in the season, but the Super Bowl was never close, with Los Angeles taking a 21-3 halftime lead and winning 38-9.

Sometimes great teams approach the Super Bowl with overconfidence, or simply have a bad game at the wrong time. Even the best teams lose games — no one has ever gone 16-0 in the regular season — and occasionally, they choose the worst possible time to lay an egg. Whether that applies to teams like Washington, Green Bay, and Indianapolis is open to debate, but there's very little question that it's relevant to the top team on this list.

1. 1968 Baltimore Colts (13-1, lost Super Bowl III)

If the Colts had won Super Bowl III, they would probably be considered one of the two or three best teams in the history of professional football. Instead, they're at the top of this list. Baltimore outscored its opponents 402-144, giving it an average margin of victory (18.4) that is the best of any team in the Super Bowl era, including those who did win a championship. The Colts scored at least 20 points in every game but one, recorded three shutouts, and didn't have a game decided by less than a touchdown until the regular season finale.

After a 24-14 win against Minnesota in the first round of the playoffs, the Colts dismantled Cleveland — the one team that had beaten them — with a 34-0 rout that suggested the final step before its coronation in Super Bowl III. Baltimore entered that game as 20-point favorites.

When the game actually got underway, though, something went wrong. The Jets put up a fight, holding the Colts scoreless in the first quarter and controlling momentum. Baltimore QB Earl Morrall, the NFL's MVP, had perhaps the worst game of his career, tossing three interceptions (including an infamous flea-flicker on which Jimmy Orr was open for a touchdown), and he was pulled late in the third quarter. In came Johnny Unitas, a legend in his own time, who had missed most of the season with an injury. Unitas came in cold, though, and he obviously wasn't 100%. The Jets won 16-7, and the game probably wasn't that close.

The Colts had their best game of the season one week before the Super Bowl, and their worst game the day they met the Jets in the Orange Bowl. When you talk about what might have been, you begin here.

Happy Super Bowl Sunday.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:18 PM | Comments (1)

February 4, 2006

Timber Tina, a True Survivor

One of the most frequent and fervent debates among sportswriters is what can be, or can not be, considered a "sport." I engaged in one such dispute with a colleague named B.J. recently over one of America's newest athletic obsessions: FOX's "Skating With Celebrities."

My contention is that the actual competition on "Skating With Celebrities" is no different, other than some time considerations, than the kind of pairs skating exhibitions you'd watch on a random weekend afternoon on a network too cheap to pay for the NFL. There's skating, there's lifting, there's jumping. I don't care if it's Brian Boitano and Michelle Kwan or Dave Coulier and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie one, not the good one), figure skating is figure skating. And if your issue is that figure skating isn't a sport, I defer to the ages-old Olympic Litmus Test, by which a sport is indeed a sport because it is featured during the Summer or Winter Games. (Notice the absence of both golf and NASCAR in either.)

B.J.'s response was just as in-depth and cogent: "There are some days when I don't know why I bother talking to you."

To dismiss athletic achievement because it happens to take place on a reality television show is ludicrous. Those guys on "The Contender?" Real boxers, and they're boxing. Those pseudo-celebrities and aspiring models on the "Real World/Road Rules Extreme Gauntlet Challenge?" Really competing hard in physically arduous events, when they aren't having unprotected sex off-camera.

My favorite destination for reality show athleticism is CBS's ever-popular "Survivor." I think the challenges are inventive. And really, anytime you ask a 45-year-old woman who's been living off rice and boiled water for the last 14 days to swim half a mile, run half a mile, and then win a tug-of-war against a group of personal trainers and ex-soldiers, it's golden.

"Survivor" began yet another season this week and, as is tradition for me, I half-watched the first episode: viewing long enough to get the setup and the twists without having to waste any time getting attached to players who won't be around by St. Patrick's Day. My girlfriend, however, watched the first episode a tad more intently. About midway through the show, she called to me from the bedroom:

"Hey ... isn't that Timber Tina?"

The name didn't register, so I walked over for some face recognition. Then I saw a woman, in her 40s, walking with her chosen "tribe."

And then it occurred to me that the last time I saw this woman, she was wielding a chainsaw while two men raced each other up a tree.

It was in Maine, during summer vacation. Once you've lounged for a while and become reacquainted with nature, your options for fun are sort of limited in the Great State of Maine. You can only eat so much lobster and so much blueberry pie. Antiquing is great until the hundredth time you're told that those rusty '67 Chevy hubcaps you've been eyeing would not make good serving platters for parties. There was a zoo near where we stayed, which proudly boasted a sign out front that read "Yes, We Have a Moose."

No, we didn't pay to find out.

But there is one out-of-the-ordinary attraction in Maine that is perfect when the entertainment options seem slim: the Great Maine Lumberjack Show, hosting by "Timber" Tina Scheer.

She's quick to point that, in fact, she's a "lumberjill." And the show isn't entertainment, she'll tell you; it's "edu-tainment," an event that'll learn ya good while you have a good time.

(And what an education it was before the show that summer! A woman decided to breastfeed her child in the front row of the amphitheater. Which was fine until she began walking back and forth in front of the bleachers, sending my girlfriend's hand over my eyes and the summer camp boys next to me into giggly hysterics.)

I found the lumberjack show to be a bit like "Medieval Times" for the flannel and Caterpillar set. Four competitors split up into a red and blue team, while Timber Tina calls the action and informs the audience about "timber sports." We're talking cutting, rolling, climbing and, of course, axe throwing, which is the coolest thing in the history of things. I also enjoyed the log rolling, which featured two women doing everything they could to get the other wet. All I needed was Howard Stern to describe it and about 10 minutes to myself...

Tina has been competing in these sorts of events since she was 8-years-old, and is considered a pioneer in competitive "lumberjilling." But her talents cross over into what's been traditionally a man's sport: there have been international competitions where Scheer was the lone female on the team, and she thrived. She's also been featured on ESPN, during one of those addictive "great outdoors" strongman competitions.

She's also a hell of a showwoman, acting out hokey pre-scripted bits with the competitors, interacting with kids, and leading the crowd with chants of "YO-HO," which evidently was a lumberjack call-sign before it was co-opted by the hip-hop community as a pickup line. I can't remember which team won — but I do remember her hilarious double-take when a young boy, on stage for a sawing exhibition, told her his name and quickly followed with "and I have to go to the bathroom now!"

So it was with great interest that I found out Timber Tina would be on "Survivor" this season. Surely, she would be a threat to win, what with her deep woods experience and amazing handiwork with sharp objects.

And then she was voted out.

On the first episode.

She called out her own team for not working hard. She went off on her own a bit. And clearly a "lumberjill" was going to be a major player in the game, so they canned her in the first vote. What a pisser.

And what a tragedy, in fact. On her first and only show, she drew a name in the sand on the beach: "Charlie." It was for her son, who died last year as a result of a car accident. He was 16-years-old.

According to the Portland Press Herald, Tina was actually selected to compete on an earlier edition of the reality program in Guatemala, but opted out after her son was killed. CBS allowed her to postpone appearing on the show until this new edition began in Panama, to give her proper time to mourn. Her private memorial to him on the first episode, which may have cost her a shot at $1 million in hindsight, was painfully touching.

How fitting that Tina Scheer made her reality television debut on a show called "Survivor." Whether it's thriving as a woman in a man's sport, or grieving as a mother without her son, she's proven to be one.

And if you disagree, remember that she has a chainsaw...

Super Bowl Selection

I really wanted to find a way to pick the Seahawks in this game, but having broken down all the different facets of these teams only one thing is clear: it's going to take an epic choke job by Pittsburgh for Seattle to win.

Not that it's impossible. This team has imploded before, and this quarterback looked like he didn't belong in the NFL, let alone the playoffs, last season.

But the Steelers' defense is playing on a different level right now, and Shaun Alexander gained a whole lot of yards this season against teams without a whole lot of defense. Pittsburgh is going to squash him, and Hasselbeck will be left trying to find an open man in what will look like a swarm of yellow jackets.

Steelers 27, Seattle 10. And $20 on Keith Richards showing his nipple during halftime.

Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 7:41 PM | Comments (0)

The Final Bus Stop: Detroit

Well, if you have been following my journey, you already know that I have traveled to every Steelers playoff game with my college buddy (a jets fan), Mike Worsyz. Everyone thought we were crazy, including myself at times. Funny thing is, the Steelers kept winning ... so we couldn't stop. The saga continues on to the grandest of all stages.

This trip has been amazing. Somehow, we haven't fallen into the trap of getting deathly ill, fired, or arrested to end such a crazy and memorable journey. That's the only thing that would have stopped us. Well, that, and my consistently draining bank account.

Has it been worth it? Probably not, in your opinion. To me, it is more than just football. I have had the opportunity to explore three cities I have never even visited before. I have had the opportunity to share this wild adventure with all of you, as well as my family and friends.

Although we were able to obtain some deals here and there, the money has added up. As we were leaving Denver, we knew it was going to take nothing short of a miracle to get us inside Ford Field in Detroit. I am a pretty determined person when I put my mind towards a goal, but there are only 65,000 people that get the privilege and honor to watch this Super Bowl in person. The other 800 million viewers from over 240 countries have to watch this through the power of television.

Now don't get me wrong, watching the Super Bowl on TV is not a punishment! The commercials alone make it worth it. Television just has never been the way I chose to see things important to me.

I compare it to watching the Discovery Channel on the Great Barrier Reef. Although the camera angles and commentary provided are awesome, it doesn't beat diving into the water myself, seeing the images with my own two eyes, forming my own opinions and thoughts along the way.

That's why I have to be there. I would do just about anything to see the Super Bowl live.

This is something I have thought about my entire life. I even promised my childhood best friend after a Super Bowl XXX loss to the Dallas Cowboys that we would be there to see it live the next time around. Us actually being there would make all the difference.

We've grown up ... money is a factor, work commitments cause problems, and somehow all of that "talk" becomes just "talk." Yep, my childhood best friend, Jeff Weismann, the guy who took me to every Steelers game as a child with his father, doesn't appear to be going. (Don't worry, I am praying and holding out that something changes.)

I mean, I can remember watching my last game as a fan in Pittsburgh with him. It was the final game in old Three Rivers Stadium, and we had a great time. We ended up ripping off the plastic cup holders just to say we had a piece to keep with us forever.

It is a shame that such a devoted fan (minus the Patriots game this year where he decided to go to an amusement park instead of watching the game) doesn't have the opportunity to see this like we both dreamt of doing.

I placed a million calls, preached to everyone I could that I need to be there. Nothing.

I searched eBay, StubHub, and every Internet broker I could find. Too expensive.

I even tried to win a contest on ABC's "Good Morning America," for the "world's greatest football fan." The contest required you to make a two-minute video and submit a VHS tape explaining why you were that person.

With the help of another good friend, Amanda Reuss, we created an award-winning video. We stayed up until 3 AM making this video. I was in a suit, dress, Troy Polamalu wig, and my usher uniform begging to be selected.

I even offered to wear a dress on the show if they picked me, wipe every seat in my section, and donate eight hours of community service to the charity of their choice for each point the Steelers would score.

Funny thing, I gladly would've done it all had I won.

At 3 AM, all I had to do was convert the small DV tape I had to a VHS tape. I have one VCR and it jammed! I finally gave up at 5:30 AM.

I awoke at 6:15 AM and realized we had another VCR I could try. This one wouldn't record anything. I was so frustrated I punched the original VCR.

Presto! Like magic, the VCR began to work. I converted the tape, and went to work on 45 minutes of sleep. I thought it was a sign ... I guess "Good Morning America" didn't.

I waited patiently, watching the show daily. Nothing.

I eventually lost in dramatic fashion to a 77-year-old nun, who is a Colts fan. Now many think I would be bitter about an old lady (who isn't even a fan of the teams playing) winning, but they are wrong. If she was willing to make a video at that age, she deserves it. I really hope I see her acting a fool at one of the VIP parties she now has access to.

Congratulations, sister, party like its 1969.

I was contemplating giving up, even though I knew I couldn't.

Not after the letter I received from my brother and sister. They knew how much it meant for me to be there. I opened a letter that included a check for $700. That wasn't even close to what the letter was worth to me. It read:

"Happy Birthday! Merry Christmas!...It's not Super bowl tickets, but Connie and I have combined monies to help you out. There is nothing we would like to do more [than] to make one of your dreams come true! Money is tight for the both of us...every bit counts...hopefully this will get you one step closer to see the "Bus" go out in style and win one for the thumb! Super bowl XL baby, the big 40! It just would not sit right with the both of us if your playoff road trip to SB XL was cut short because of the expense. I use that excuse a lot, and, well...*#@* it! Money isn't everything...life experiences are...you've shown that to the both of us. This is without question a time in your life you'll always remember and tell stories about. So, make some crazy signs, paint your face, and just wave that terrible towel like crazy! Double Yoi! We'll look for you on TV! The road is our HOME....Go Steelers! 40 Here we go Steelers, Here we go!

Love,

Aaron and Connie

Now I usually don't cry, but this had me shaking and in tears. I had to go now.

As we speak, I am writing this in a rented car on my way to Detroit. I did end up getting a ticket — actually, two of them. They are from Tom Foley, a guy that has sat in my section at Heinz Field for five years. He knew I had traveled to every game this playoff season, and just like me, he commutes from the D.C./Virginia area to every Steelers home game.

He understood. He lined me up with seats that are way out of my league. They are 15 rows behind the Seahawks' bench on the 45-yard line. Section 128, row 15, seats 6 and 7.

With the help of my brother and sister, I could go! Mike and I had to complete the mission.

Win or lose, the game has to be played. It's a gamble to go, but I'd like to say I swung for the fence. The tickets were a phenomenal deal, but still more than Jeff wanted to spend. Hopefully, he makes it.

The experience this entire weekend will provide something way more valuable than money. Something no one can ever take away from me. The memories I create this weekend will be with me forever, it feels like a dream each and every second I think about it.

And dreams do come true.

Posted by Kevin Ferra at 7:14 PM | Comments (2)

Top 10 MLB Players Under the '06 Radar

With the Super Bowl signifying the end of the pro football season this Sunday, it's time for attention to switch to the upcoming baseball season, which some of us are already guilty of.

I'm in the wife's doghouse at present — again. Not content with spending the winter fine-tuning my fantasy draft cheat sheets, on a walk with my 6-year-old daughter last week, I let my baseball obsession get the better of me. She innocently enquired when winter would end and what season came next.

Without thinking of the repercussions, I replied, "Winter ends when pitchers and catchers report, and then it's spring." Later, this was relayed to her mother, who corrected my error by mentioning something about wearing white again and sandals. At present, more children is listed as questionable.

The point I'm making is that it's never too early to get yourself in the right frame of mind for draft day. A winter trade can change the fantasy value of more than the players involved, so don't get caught playing catch-up the day before the draft. It's not easy ploughing through rosters in the early hours of the morning in the hope of spotting a potential bargain.

The early rounds are fairly easy to predict, but your team can be upgraded from the middle rounds onwards if you fine-tune your thinking. You can avoid having to spend hours scouring the waiver wire by taking the latter rounds just as seriously as the first four or five. Despite some spotty results in recent years in my own leagues (I blame injuries, of course), I still believe the latter rounds will make or break a draft.

So, onto my own predictions for a breakout season.

1. Chris Young (R), SP, San Diego Padres

At first, I couldn't believe the Rangers waved goodbye to the 6'8" righty in the trade that got Adam Eaton. Then I thought about it and it makes sense. Young is a fly ball biased pitcher and those can get seriously punished in Arlington. The Ranger brass thought Young got a bit lucky during his hot spell in '05 and noted after the break his ERA ballooned to 4.26. The spacious outfield in Petco will be more to his liking and he notched up a respectable 137 Ks in 164.2 innings. The Padres don't score like the Rangers, but they'll win enough games to keep his owners happy.

2. Chris Ray (R), RP, Baltimore Orioles

The perfect example of how a trade can suddenly elevate a player's value who wasn't involved in the actual trade. Ray had next to no fantasy value last year, but with B.J. Ryan taking the free agent dollars from Toronto, Ray is suddenly a relatively hot commodity. He's only had 41 appearances in the majors, but acquitted himself with great credit, striking out 43 batters in less than 41 innings and posting a respectable 2.66 ERA. The front office was so sure he's the man for the ninth that they made no attempt to bring in a vet after Ryan walked. The only worries are that he blew four save attempts last year and he walks too many. These problems can be corrected with experience.

3. Matt Cain (R), SP, San Francisco Giants

Felix Hernandez will be snagged in the early rounds by those dazzled by his September audition, but don't despair. Fellow '05 rookie Matt Cain will hang around long enough to represent the value that Hernandez doesn't. Cain came up in late August and posted a less-than earth shattering 2-1 record. Look below the surface and Cain actually had a better ERA than Hernandez (2.33 to 2.67) and a better WHIP (0.93 to 1.00). Admittedly, Felix threw nearly twice as many innings as Cain, but nevertheless, Cain showed enough to be a nice pickup. His nine-inning gem against the Cubs in a 2-1 win was the highlight of his seven starts. The Giants took Cain in the first round in 2002 and it looks a shrewd selection.

4. Brandon Webb (R), SP, Arizona Diamondbacks

Webb was once firmly on everybody's radar screen after a fine 2003 when he came within a whisker of taking the NL Rookie of the Year title. A 2.84 ERA with opponents hitting a measly .212 against him put him firmly on everybody's wanted list. Since then, things have slipped. In '04, he only won seven games and had a .248 BAA. Last year, he won more games (14), but the K rate dropped again and the BAA went up to .265. But there are reasons for optimism. Arizona play in a weak division, so wins won't be a problem and the infield defense looks a lot stronger with Orlando Hudson at second, a big plus for a pitcher who gets a fair number of groundball outs. If Webb hits his '03 form again, he'll be a bargain pickup.

5. Chris Capuano (L), SP, Milwaukee Brewers

Capuano has had three seasons in the majors on two not very good teams — Arizona and Milwaukee — but still has a winning record (26-24). He's poised, on a better Milwaukee team, to make the big break out this year. The stuff is there, including a heater that touches almost 100 mph on the gun, and he's now well-versed on NL hitters. He strikes out over seven batters per nine innings. The only worries are the walks (91 last year) and the fact that he threw 219 innings in '05, a hefty rise in workload. Despite this, I want him on my roster if he's there in the middle rounds.

6. Khalil Greene, SS, San Diego Padres

Greene has had two full seasons in the majors and he's not fulfilled his potential at the plate as yet, although he has a nice glove. For a first round pick (13th overall) in 2002, he has a lot left to prove. If anything, the numbers took a slight decline last year. Both seasons have seen spells on the DL and that's a worry for a young player with few miles on the clock. But, given an injury-free year on a decent hitting team, Greene could hit .280 plus with 85 RBIs and 75 runs. Not a bad return if you grab him in the latter rounds. He's no Miguel Tejada, but he's no Adam Everett, either.

7. Matt Holliday, LF, Colorado Rockies

As usual with Colorado hitters, he's awesome at home. He hits .348 in Coors and a hundred points less on the road in his short career. His home OPS is 1.005. Those 75 games or so in Coors will seriously help your batting average if you can afford to bench him on the road. With only two full seasons in the majors, he could learn to hit away from the rarefied air of Denver. Don't go too soon on him, but if he's there late and you need a fourth outfielder, he's worth a punt.

8. Grady Sizemore, CF, Cleveland Indians

Sizemore wasn't on anybody's radar screen last year, but it will be a different scenario in '06. You won't see Sizemore still available after the third or fourth rounds in any draft, but he'll be worth a high pick. He's 23, has speed, decent power, and plays on a hot young ball club. Last year's numbers really catch the eye for a second-year player. Expect a 30-30 season with a batting average around .300 and 90 plus RBIs if he stays healthy. The base running could improve (10 CS in 32 attempts last year), but that's a minor quibble.

9. Chad Tracy, 3B, Arizona Diamondbacks

On a mediocre ball club in '05, Tracy really stepped it up in his second season in the majors. This year could be even better with more men on base for him. A robust .308 average with 27 homers and 72 RBIs was a quantum leap for Tracy from his 143 games in his rookie year. With even minimal improvement, he'll crack 30 home runs and get close to 100 RBIs. The one reservation is that he's slated to be the every day third baseman, a position new to him. If it doesn't distract him at the plate, he'll be a monster and make everybody in Phoenix forget the Troy Glaus experiment. Don't leave it too late to snag him.

10. Mike Jacobs, 1B, Florida Marlins

This is a real flyer as the Marlins figure to be poor in '06. The roster has been gutted (again) by owner Jeff Loria, who wants either a new stadium, funded by the hard-pressed taxpayer unsurprisingly, or a new city to play ball in. With one or two exceptions, the Marlins will put out a AAA team, so don't figure to win much except when Dontrelle Willis is on the mound. Nevertheless, they will score runs and play hard, so don't necessarily avoid Marlin players at all costs. Jacobs looked awesome in the few games we saw him in '05 (30) with the Mets. Traded in the Carlos Delgado deal, Jacobs will be the everyday 1B in Florida and he could make a serious impact. In those 30 games, he slugged 11 homers at .310. He won't keep that pace up in the cavernous spaces of Dolphins Stadium, but he could represent a nice second option at 1B.

Posted by Mike Round at 1:07 AM | Comments (2)

February 3, 2006

Flightless Birds Head South (and West)

The kid was an exchange student from French Canada, so he had no idea that he was committing a major social faux pas.

All he wanted to do during the 1995-96 season was take the jersey number of his favorite player while playing for the Plum (PA) High School hockey team, and nobody else had taken the digits when it was his turn to pick. His name wasn't important, but the jersey number — No. 66 — was.

For high school hockey players in the Pittsburgh area, the attitude toward wearing Mario Lemieux's uniform number could be best summed up by fictional hockey fan Wayne Campbell: "We're not worthy!"

Last month, Lemieux, who has been battling a heart ailment since Thanksgiving, retired as a player for the third, and probably last, time. Sometime in the next year and a half, when the team is sold, he will be out as the Penguins' principal owner.

At one time, around 15 years ago, Lemieux was known as the man who saved hockey in Pittsburgh. About five years ago, he became the man who saved hockey in Pittsburgh twice.

Now, though, it looks as if Lemieux merely temporarily prevented the inevitable. Twice.

The next sale will probably send the team out of town, with Kansas City and Las Vegas being the two leading candidates to pirate the Penguins (geddit?).

The Penguins' troubles stem from the fact that, even with a new collective bargaining agreement that slashes player costs, they aren't financially viable while playing in Mellon Arena, the oldest facility in the NHL.

Lemieux announced last month that the team would probably be sold to an ownership group that would move after next season, when the Mellon Arena lease expires. The bulk of that money has to come from government.

With western Pennsylvania still reeling from the collapse of big steel more than a quarter century ago, I can probably think of about 300 million better ways to spend $300 million on than a corporate welfare scheme to benefit the Penguins.

And so, apparently, can the local and state governments, which is why the Penguins might not remain in Pittsburgh beyond the 2006-07 season.

The only hope of securing financing hinges on the Isle of Capri receiving a slot machine casino license that will be awarded in Pittsburgh under a 2004 state law legalizing slot machine gambling. The developer has pledged arena financing if it gets the license.

With time running out, this saga would appear to affect only Pittsburgh and its fans. The players would still have contracts and the league would still have the same number of teams. Some of the names would merely change.

But the Penguins' probable move should be a concern to the NHL, just like it should have been a concern when the Quebec Nordiques packed up and moved to Colorado, or when the Winnipeg Jets hot-footed it to Phoenix, or when Minnesota dropped the "North" from its name and took the Stars to Dallas.

In each of those instances, teams moved from cities where hockey was part of the heritage and set up shop in towns where most residents aren't sure whether pucks are made of plastic or leather. Yeah, Minneapolis got the Wild through expansion, but that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have lost its team in the first place.

Pittsburgh, which has supported its team as well as any American city this side of Detroit, would be the latest town on that list.

And, just maybe, that's why the NHL is losing its grip on "major sport" status.

The league has only one network deal — with NBC, which is showing one or two games a week for the same rights fee, $0, that it has with the Arena Football League.

ESPN, which offers 24-hour-a-day sports programming, declined to even discuss a renewal of its contract.

Basically, what ESPN and ESPN2 were saying was, "Yeah, we know we've got 336 hours of programming to fill each week. But we think we can do better with 14 extra episodes of 'SportsCenter' and five 'Pardon the Interruptions' than we can with five hockey games."

Maybe they know something the NHL doesn't — that taking teams away from cities where people actually care about the sport and putting them in cities where they don't is not conducive to having a marketable product.

And it also indicates that merely returning isn't cause for much of a celebration in the NHL offices. The league is not only not out of the woods yet, but the underbrush is thick, the light is fading, and the noise coming from the shadows is ominous.

Posted by Eric Poole at 7:36 PM | Comments (1)

February 2, 2006

NFL Weekly Predictions: Super Bowl XL

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

Pittsburgh vs. Seattle

Jerome Bettis likes his Super Bowl just as he does his value meals.

"Biggie-sized!" says Bettis.

And thus begins the saga of Super Bowl XL, a homecoming of sorts for Bettis, a Detroit native. After 16 years in the NFL, Bettis has finally made it to the big game, and, although the Steelers are favored by four points, Pittsburgh and Seattle are quite evenly matched.

"Oh yeah," says Bettis. "It's a coin toss. And speaking of coin toss, the last time I was in Detroit for a game, I correctly called 'tails' in the overtime coin flip. But Referee Phil Luckett said I called 'heads,' and we lost. So this time, if I'm calling the toss, I will call 'tails,' but instead of saying 'tails,' I will show the referee my ample behind. There's no way he'll forget that I called 'tails,' and the image of my rear will haunt him for life. Once we win the toss, I'll set foot onto Ford Field and unleash 260 pounds of Motown manhood, something that normally, in Detroit, would require two Lions' quarterbacks, minus the manhood, of course."

Pittsburgh and Seattle advanced to the Super Bowl with convincing wins in their respective conference championships. Pittsburgh whipped Denver, 34-17, while the Seahawks blew out the Panthers, 34-14. It was not a good day to be a quarterback named Jake — Denver's Jake Plummer turned the ball over four times, while Carolina's Jake Delhomme threw three interceptions.

"I've just got one bit of advice for those guys," says Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger. "Don't get discouraged. Last year, in the AFC championship game, I played like garbage, just like the two Jake's did this year. And look where I ended up the following year — in the Super Bowl. I'm not saying those guys will make it to the Super Bowl next year. They probably won't. But, they have to move on. Plummer can get back to whatever he does best, whether that be singing lead for the Black Crows or befriending grizzly bears in the Alaskan wilderness. And Delhomme can spend his offseason deciding on a new hairstyle. The bowl cut's got to go. He looks like a young Paul McCartney. Very goofy."

"This is how it's been all year," complains Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. "All this Super Bowl talk, and barely a mention of the Seahawks. A lot of whiners have been moaning throughout the playoffs about lack of respect. Well, if any team has the sole right to that claim, it's the Seahawks. We're the NFC's number one seed; Pittsburgh is number six in the AFC. How did we become four-point underdogs? Don't we have the better record? Don't we have the league's MVP? Aren't we coached by Mike Holmgren, who's already won a Super Bowl? Aren't the Steelers coached by Bill Cowher? Didn't he lose in his only trip to the Super Bowl to Barry Switzer, of all people? The bookies are overanalyzing. All they have to do is look at the quarterbacks' hair. In the conference championships, the QB with the least amount of hair won both games. By that logic, I shouldn't lose to anyone."

You're right, Kojak. You are a baldheaded geek, but you do have a point. The Seahawks are not getting their due respect. But that's more a function of lack of respect for the entire NFC than simply lack of respect for the Seahawks. Just imagine how big of an underdog you would be had the Colts made the Super Bowl. You'd be looking at a touchdown, at least. You know, Matt, if you don't like being the underdog, there are two things you can do about it: nothing and like it. Wait, here's a third. You could win. Better yet, you could guarantee a Seahawks victory.

"Knock yourself out, kid," says the original win guarantor, Joe Willie Namath. "Guarantee the win. Come through and you'll be a hero, and you will have earned the right to wear pantyhose and retain your masculinity. Plus, once you retire, you'll be able to roam the Seattle sidelines and accost sexy Monday Night Football reporters and demand that they kiss you. I like the way you wear your eye black, kid. Go get 'em, tiger!"

"Uh, thanks Mr. Namath," replies Hasselbeck. "But the last time I guaranteed something, it was right after we won an overtime coin toss in Green Bay two years ago in a playoff game. I said, 'We'll take the ball and we're going to win.' Well, moments later, I threw an interception to Packers cornerback Al Harris, who returned it for the game-winning touchdown. So, maybe I'll hold off on the guarantee. Does this mean I can't wear pantyhose?"

So, an interception to an incredibly long-haired defensive back is probably your worst NFL memory? Well, guess what? Pittsburgh safety Troy Polamalu has even more hair than Harris, and he'll be looking to intercept your passes when he's not flying towards you on a blitz.

"Choo hoo!" shouts Seattle linebacker Lofa Tatupu. "Troy's not the only USC grad of Samoan descent who will impact the Super Bowl. I'm Samoan, I went to USC, and while I may not have as much hair as Troy, my skills are not limited to twirling flaming batons. I'm one heck of a linebacker, and the 2005 NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year runner-up. I've got credentials, and my father, Mosi Tatupu, was an NFL player, as well. And my great-great grandfather, Mofo Tatupu, was one bad mofo, as his name would suggest."

Pittsburgh's playoff run has been propelled mostly by their passing game. In their wins over Indianapolis and Denver, the Steelers came out passing and built leads, which opened up their running game later. With a lead, the Pittsburgh defense was free to blitz liberally, and the Colts and Broncos, especially, were not able to handle it.

The Steelers' blitz packages have taken loads of pressure off of cornerbacks Ike Taylor and Deshea Townsend. No team, as of yet, has been able to exploit their coverage skills. The Bengals did on their first pass in the wildcard game, and Carson Palmer connected with Chris Henry for a 66-yard gain. Of course, Palmer was knocked out of the game on that play and the Bengals were unable to attack in that fashion again. The point is this: the Seahawks may take a cue from the Steelers and come out throwing. They have Hasselbeck, the NFC Pro Bowl starter, and three solid and healthy receivers in Darrell Jackson, Joe Jurevicius, and Bobby Engram, plus a big red zone target in tight end Jerramy Stevens.

"I may be giving away our strategy," says Seattle coach Holmgren. "But we plan on forcing the Steelers into more man-to-man coverage than one is likely to see in the movie Brokeback Mountain. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Our objective is to neutralize the Pittsburgh blitz. To do that, we must pass successfully. That, in turn, will force Polamalu to back away from the line of scrimmage, opening up running room for Alexander. Of course, if all that doesn't work, we'll go to our backup plan, which, inexplicably, was absent from the Colts' and Broncos' game plans in their losses to Pittsburgh."

Both teams come out passing, and Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck each throw a touchdown pass. After one quarter, the score is tied 7-7. As the second quarter comes to a close, the Seahawks are driving, and Polamalu bites on a Hasselbeck play-action fake. Realizing he's been had, Polamalu turns and high tails it in the other direction. Hasselbeck sees Jurevicius open, but the balding Seattle signal caller is momentarily mesmerized by Polamalu's flowing mane sprinting back into position. Hasselbeck short-arms the throw to Jurevicius, and the ball lands in the hair of the Pittsburgh all-pro safety.

"It's a pick!" yells ABC play-by-play man Al Michaels.

"It certainly is," replies Polamalu, who removes an afro pick from his hair and picks out the ball, while adding some much needed body to his locks.

Polamalu returns the interception into Seattle territory, where Jeff Reed later kicks a 40-yard field goal to give the Steelers a 16-13 halftime lead.

During a spirited halftime show, Rolling Stones' guitarist Keith Richards, despite no sign of a heartbeat, manages to play two Stones' tunes along with his other three bandmates/corpses. Then, lead singer Mick Jagger rips off his top, exposing several ribs. While FCC administrators struggle to censor the hideous sight, members of the Detroit branch of the Hells' Angels, serving as Stones' security, beat back frenzied fans with pool cues.

"Wow!" exclaims Cowher. "That was the best Super Bowl halftime show that didn't involve Janet Jackson's breast, ever! It's time to get pumped up!"

Cowher grabs a Terrible Towel and waves it madly in the air, and the hordes of Pittsburgh fans in attendance respond. The Seattle supporters try to keep up, and do a fair job of it, despite being outnumbered by about 40,000. That is, until Texas A&M officials serve the Seattle faithful with an injunction, ordering them to cease calling themselves "The 12th Man," as well as stop cheering altogether.

"Finally, I can hear the snap count," says Seattle's all-pro tackle Walter Jones.

After a back-and-forth second half, the Seahawks find themselves down 23-20 late in the fourth quarter. Hasselbeck drives the Seahawks to the winning touchdown, with help from the officials, who overturn a Polamalu interception, call a phantom pass interference penalty on Townsend, and flag Joey Porter 15 yards for calling the officials "cheaters."

Seahawks win, 27-23.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 8:08 PM | Comments (9)

The Book of Prognostication: Feb. 2

If you are a gamer and an avid reader of the Sports Gospel and Book of Prognostication, then you probably took my advice and wagered on Minnesota to upset Indiana in college basketball last week.

Now, I know it was a gutsy call and I know that only the experts can spot things like this, so I am gladly accepting all praise and acknowledgements of greatness for my superior intellect on that game. I have to get out of it all that I can — after all, it's the only game I've picked right in the three weeks I've done this column.

Yep, in three weeks, I've picked one game right. One game and two prop bets. I indeed have a lot to account for, including: my promised dark horse pick for the NCAA championship, why I didn't go through with my voodoo against Pittsburgh a few weeks back, how one girl is responsible for Pittsburgh's trip to the Super Bowl, why that girl is a bitch, and why Ron Artest's porn star name would be "Thomas Lay."

All in due time. I need to ride this for all it's worth, so this week, you need to know only two things. I'm 3-15 in the picks column so far, and, I'm picking Pittsburgh -4 to win the Super Bowl.

Now, in a desperate attempt to have some level of success associated with this column, I'm going to present you with some picks by someone who is not horrifically cursed. A.J. Braves is the host of "Takin' the Charge," which debuts next week on SportsRant Radio.

TTC is a fresh look at college basketball — a show that's not afraid to criticize, but will be the first to give credit where credit is due ... especially for the hustle plays. Braves knows his stuff, and soon you will, too. (Shameless plug: I'm going to be co-hosting with him for the first few months and the show is shaping up to be very strong, so make sure to check out the debut on Wednesday at SportsRant.com.)

As always, BetOnSports.com is giving an additional 10% signup bonus to all Sports Gospel readers, so make sure to type in "Sports Gospel Promo" to get your bonus.

Without further ado, here are some picks from someone with a far better track record than mine.

Saturday Picks

Arizona @ UCLA, (Pauley Pavilion, 4 PM EST)

If the line's less than UCLA -9, take the Bruins — don't trust the O/U.

Arizona is one of the most inconsistent teams in all of college basketball. They can beat (at the time) a Washington squad with the nation's longest winning streak, but then get blown-out on the road to an unranked UNC team. Arizona still lacks a go-to scorer/on the court leader, and they're frontcourt is practically non-existent (just ask Tyler Hansbrough). UCLA took care of the 'Cats at McKale earlier in the year, and contests at Pauley Pavilion has never been "fun," for Olsen's boys. Jordan Farmar is too smart and too strong with the ball for the Arizona defense, and the Bruins have more depth down the stretch.

Though Arizona has speed, UCLA can match them step-for-step for lose balls and the Bruins out-rebounded Arizona the first time out — and they'll do it once again on Saturday. One team will be lucky to eclipse 80 points, but in the end, the UCLA depth and skilled backcourt will hand the 'Cats another conference loss.

UConn @ Indiana (Assembly Hall, 1 PM EST)

Three words: take the over.

UConn is the nation's top team, coming into a hostile environment to take on another member of the top 25 ... the ball will find its way to the rim. Indiana has been streaky of late, but it's not tough to see that the Hoosiers play to the level of their opponent (i.e. up for Duke, down for Minnesota). This will be the second time Indiana gets a shot to knock off the nation's No. 1 team this season, and after ending their two-game skid at home vs. Northwestern, Mike Davis' squad has plenty of time to prepare for the all-around talented Huskies team. On the other side of the ball, UConn has weapons everywhere, and each player on that starting five has the ability to drop 20+ a game.

This will be a high-scoring affair, and could even be a lot closer than people think. That's why I'm not evening thinking about the line, and keeping my sights set on all of the balls I'll see falling through the hoop.

Florida State @ Duke (Cameron Indoor Stadium, 12 PM EST)

Duke -14 or less, take the Devils.

Last time the Blue Devils played an unranked conference opponent at home, J.J. Redick went for 40 on 11-of-13 shooting and Duke won by 19. Despite Virginia never being in the game, Duke didn't run up the score, and judging by how it looked (trust me, I was there), the score could have been a whole lot worse. But all of that aside, we're still talking about Duke at home here. FSU will stay around for the most part, but they don't have the manpower or talent to turn this into a high scoring or close affair.

I wouldn't look at the O/U — Duke takes this contest by a respectable margin, but they don't blow it wide open.

Sunday Games

Pittsburgh @ Georgetown (MCI Center, 12 PM EST)

The O/U could be tricky — if Pitt is -5 or less, jump on it.

Pitt's on the road once again, and last time out, they played UConn to a four-point defeat. They had a chance for the W, too, but watched it slip away. Winning for the Hoyas, however, has been a strong suit as of late. G-Town brings a five-game winning streak to the MCI Center, but that's where it ends. Pitt will not only have the best player on the floor (Carl Krauser), but they also have the frontcourt size and shooting ability to keep G-Town an arm's length away.

Expect this one to be close — vs. top 25 teams this season, Pitt hasn't had a contest reach more than a 10-point differential. I still see the Panthers taking care of business, but on the road vs. the red-hot Hoyas, it won't be easy.

The Sports Gospel According to Mark is sponsored by BetOnSports.com. BetOnSports.com gives you the greatest sports action to bet on. Wager on football, cricket, boxing, rugby, horse racing, and more. Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 7:26 PM | Comments (0)

Glitz or Glory: Why Watch Super Bowl?

When you think of Super Bowls, what visions run through your mind? Is it Marcus Allen gliding 74 yards to pay dirt, en route to a 191-yard day, leading the Raiders to a thorough thrashing of Washington in XVIII? Or is it the bulbous surprise that Janet Jackson gave us two years ago, during a revealing half-time show, in which one of her breasts was uncovered (inadvertently, according to her)?

Do you see John Elway spinning in the air as he caroms off Green Bay defenders, while gaining a key first down that led to the winning score in Super Bowl XXXII? Or do you remember the curvaceous beauty in the Tabasco bikini, whose sun burn was actually beneath the red-hot bathing suit, in last year's sexiest commercial? Or, is it something else completely?

Super Bowl XL will be the most-watched television event this year. Seattle and Pittsburgh households will likely compose the biggest TV ratings, because of their obvious interest in the game's combatants. The average person in the Motor City will tune in, because Detroit is the game's host, and residents will want to see how this gala event affects their hometown.

Why, I wonder, will Alaskans break from their ice fishing to watch? What about XL will interest Australians enough to huddle around the tube with friends and share their beloved shrimp on the barbie and their Fosters beer? Finally, if you are not from Seattle, Pittsburgh, or Detroit, and you are not simply a professional football nut, why will you watch this year's edition of the Super Bowl?

What attracts people to this particular game? Is it the glitz, the glory, or something else?

Do you want to see the commercials? Personally, I'd tune in just to see the two office guys dancing to Ooh Baby Baby (I double over laughing every time this one comes on). Or, are you hoping to see that Tabasco bikini again? I'm beginning to perspire, just thinking about her. Perhaps you can't wait to see the new amphibian that Budweiser is going to march out to tout its next great beer — the one with no calories, no carbonation, and no intoxicating effects — I think their calling it Budweiser Reject.

Maybe millions of Rolling Stones fans will run to their TVs (are there any Stones fans who can still run?) because they want to see one more brilliant performance, before Mick Jagger and his pals trade in their guitars for AARP subscriptions.

Apart from these odd attractions, is there anything to thrill people about this game, if you're not from Pennsylvania, Washington, or Michigan? There's no Tom Brady, no Bill Belichick, no unbeaten team, no huge underdog, and no dramatic predictions. The game is fairly starless. Sure, there's Sean Alexander, the NFL MVP, but how many people outside of Seattle will honestly say they turn on a game just to watch Alexander? Don't get me wrong — I love the guy. I had him on my fantasy football team, and I believe he's one of the best running backs in history. He's just not flashy enough to have legitimate star power.

Other than true NFL fans, if you polled people who say they intend to watch the big game, how many do you think could name both team's quarterbacks? How many could identify even one? I'd guess about half, maybe less. How many could name Pittsburgh's starting running back? Two or three?

The Steelers' "stars" are Jerome Bettis, Willie Parker, Ben Roethlisberger, Hines Ward, and Troy Polamalu. These are very good players, but they're certainly not household names. Short of Polamalu, perhaps, which one of these guys would you run to a TV to watch? Again, I love them all, but I'm old school, and I simply don't think the average sports fan cares about them or their competitors.

Over 60 percent of the TVs in America will likely be tuned to Super Bowl XL. Some people will watch commercials; some will focus on the half-time show, while others will concentrate on the game itself, rooting for their favorite team and gasping at every pass and run. And some, like my parents, who have as little interest in football as anyone I know, will watch, too.

They don't care about the game's outcome. I doubt they even know who the Rolling Stones are, and they aren't fans of commercials. Yet they'll watch. Why, I don't know — maybe, like millions of other viewers, just to say they did.

Mark Barnes is a novelist, regular contributor to fantasy football site 4for4.com, and NFL football radio analyst. He appears weekly on ESPN radio in High Point, NC and on WBAL in Baltimore, MD, where he discusses pro football and fantasy sports. Mark's novel, "The League," is the first-ever published work of fiction with a plot based on the dangers of a multi-million-dollar fantasy football league. Learn more about "The League" and Mark's work at NFLStory.com.

Posted by Mark Barnes at 6:58 PM | Comments (1)

February 1, 2006

No Respect, Seattle? No Problem

If I hear one more coffee-swilling Seattlite whine about Sunday's betting line, I'm going to rewire my radio and start listening to police dispatches instead. Lack of respect? You're playing a team that went on the road to win three straight playoff games and beat arguably the NFL's two best teams.

Did you think football fans were suddenly going to flock to the power of Seahawk Green?

Their quarterback is Grizzly Adams, and your guy is next in line for a Propecia endorsement — not exactly the chic pick.
Fortunately, they're playing the game at Ford Field in Detroit, not the Sports Book at Caesar's Palace. Rejoice, Seahawks Fan, there are at least four reasons your city is going to be throwing a victory parade next week.

1) Logos on both sides of your helmets — Think of the Steelers' one-sided headgear as a symbol of the organization's postseason woes. They just can seem to finish anything — even decals. Sure, Bill Cowher has taken his boys to six AFC championship games in the past 12 seasons, but I think we all know how well that's worked out. Heck, if the Steelers hadn't run into the only team in the league with more of a flair for gagging away the big one (the fighting Peyton Mannings), you might be complaining about being 10-point underdogs against the Colts.

Never fear, Seattle fans. If one team has defined playoff disappointment over the past decade, it would be your Super Bowl opponent. After basking in the underdog shadow for three games, the Steelers will now play the role of favorite. When has that ever been a good thing for Pittsburgh fans?

2) Underrated run defense — Troy Polamalu will get plenty of ink this week, and why not? It takes commitment to stay in the shower long enough to put conditioner on that much hair. Then again, Seahawks Fan, you have your very own standout USC alum in Lofa Tatupu, and that Seahawk front seven isn't half bad. In fact, the Steelers' unit has been only marginally better against the run this season, and they'll be facing Shaun Alexander on Sunday. You? A dinged-up Willie Parker.

Nothing against Fast Willie, but only one of these guys has an MVP award on his mantle.

3) You've been there before — Well, actually, the Seahawks haven't been there before. And, Seahawks Fan, you definitely haven't been there before. But some of the guys on your team have played on the sport's biggest stage, and it worked out pretty well for them. Five Seahawks have stood in the Super Bowl limelight and three (Joe Jurevicius, Grant Wistrom, and Tom Rouen) have oversized jewelry to show for their efforts.

And let's not forget about the captain of this ship. Mike Holmgren has already been to the mountaintop and hey, have we mentioned yet that Bill Cowher has never won a Super Bowl?

For their part, the Steelers do have Willie Williams, a defensive back who played sparingly in the Steelers' last ill-fated trip to the big dance against the Cowboys. The only problem for Willie is that his playing time hasn't increased much in the last 10 years, and a nickel cornerback who's had a cup of coffee in the Super Bowl is about as useful as a water boy who once worked the New York City Marathon.

4) Hasselbeck's crazy — Any doubters need only to refer to the recent interview in which he raves about the size of the bathroom on the Seahawks' charter flight. Shouldn't this guy be holding a cardboard sign somewhere and mumbling about the "damn lying squirrels?"

There's no doubt Matt's a smart guy, but he may be a little too goofy to get nervous. It's just a theory.

Of course, if the Steelers come out and lay the wood to the ugliest shade of green (or is it blue?) ever created, it's not my fault, Seahawk Fan, and I reserve the right to deny any and all claims listed above.

Except one: stop whining!

Posted by Zach Jones at 2:18 PM | Comments (1)

Stop the Insanity!

The nature of the game of golf is changing. In the time that I have been writing and covering golf, the technology controversy has become a full-blown epidemic. Golf club and ball technology, infused with a larger focus on player fitness, have transformed the professional game.

Golfers today, especially those of my generation, have foregone the style of game from the late 20th century of working the ball and mastery of long irons. Instead, young golfers (even those in their 40s, too) believe in pounding the ball off the tee as far as imaginable and then trying to reach the green for a birdie with as short of an iron as possible, regardless of lie. It's a style of play I like to call "whack and chip" — and it's ruining golf.

How? Quite simple, really. It all starts with the major championships because, really, that's all most golf fans care to watch. As a result of new technology allowing even Jay Haas to hit 280-yard drives, those who setup major championship layouts decided that the only way to counter technology was with distance and rough and lots of both.

Augusta National has expanded a little more than 500 yards in the past eight years following Tiger's 1998 obliteration of the legendary course. U.S. Open courses, which were already long and dry, got even longer, and even drier. Now to hold a green in regulation on Sunday is as difficult as it is for Lindsay Lohan to use a knife. The majors have devolved into punishing experiences that innately favor longer hitters.

Over time, it has become a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle. The technology came along that forced added distance and rough to majors. In response, the technology continued to improve. The majors fought back with more gimmicks and tempting the notion of the 7,700-yard course, and so on. Technology continues to improve, not only in response to this new design mantra, but also in an effort to drive up consumer sales for equipment in a game that has seen total rounds played decrease from 2001 highs and level.

In the meantime, regular Tour events have suffered as a result of this ongoing battle between the majors and equipment manufacturers. These week-to-week courses did not get much longer, grow their rough deep and in, or choose to dry out their layouts. The only real defenses have been to hide pin placements in nearly impossible positions in an effort to keep players honest in relation to par. No matter what the course superintendents did, the scores continued to get lower.

That was, it seemed, until this week at Torrey Pines — the site of the 2008 U.S. Open. Torrey Pines has been dramatically lengthened and USGA'd in anticipation of hosting the championship. In the meantime, Torrey Pines remains the host for the Buick Invitational. In essence, the field this week got a slightly dulled-down preview of just what they can expect in two years. And it was ugly.

Holes were playing much too long, including a 231-yard par three! Come on! Pins were in such perilous positions that a 30-footer for birdie was a good shot. Basically, the course played so difficult on the whole that for about an hour stretch on Sunday, not one of the three players in the top 10 among the contenders hit a good shot on the course. Not one.

Okay, we get it — the courses could be made so difficult that it is nearly impossible to make birdies. That's why I watch the U.S. Open, though, as it is the only tournament that really tries to value par. During the rest of the year, I could not care less about how difficult the setup is. But it has been this back and forth war between course designers, players, technology, and the USGA that has driven the professional game into peril. And, quite frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

Something has to give. On the path we are on, courses will eventually be 8,000 yards from the tips. Eventually, the average driver on Tour will hit somewhere near 350 yards. Golf will be reduced from a complete examination of mind and body control to a strongman competition with nicer clothes. Fans will not care for this and flock away from the game to God knows what. This can only mean better ratings for NASCAR, and I refuse to support the Left Turn League.

What can be done? After all, the club companies are after your dollar because you are convinced that if Tiger or Bubba Watson can hit that Nike drive nine million yards, then you might believe you can, too. Technology has improved from club companies so that you, the golfer, will continue to buy new stuff every year in the naïve belief that you will improve on buying equipment alone. As it turns out, though, the average score for a golfer has not improved significantly over the last 25 years.

This means that the USGA has to step in and further regulate technology. The current technology limitations are laughable and have done nothing to slow the current trend. The USGA must go further and set strict guidelines on ball spin rate, launch angle, and a host of key factors in determining just how far the ball can fly. If we can limit distance to a maximum of 320 yards (or thereabouts), then the game will stop suffering. Players will again have to recognize the value of shotmaking and we will see a normalization of the game.

It is only then that this insanity can stop. Par can still mean something without having to play 500-yard par fours, wedging pins only three paces from hazards, and alienating traditional golf fans. The mystique of golf has always been that amateurs have every opportunity to play essentially the same game that the professionals do. Somewhere along the way, that was long, and so have a plethora of amateur golfers along with it. In order to restore the game, that aura must return and technology must be halted.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 2:09 PM | Comments (1)