Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 28, 2007

The Knight of Texas

Texas Tech's Bobby Knight is known for being a teacher on the basketball court, but he's also known as a disciplinarian and it has shown with his outlandish behavior. Through it all, he became the NCAA Division I men's basketball all-time winningest coach on January 1, 2007, achieving his 880th career win, only trailing Tennessee women's coach Pat Summitt, who holds the record with 939 as of this writing.

On achieving this milestone, Knight was quoted as saying, "all it means is I've coached a long time and had a lot of good players."

But the record didn't come easy for Knight, also known as "The General," who has a paper trail of controversy within the college basketball community. After coaching at Indiana University for 29 seasons, he was asked to resign in September 2001 after a student said, "Hey Knight, what's up?" with Knight grabbing the student by the arm and told him he "deserves respect."

In May of 2000, Brand had adopted a "zero tolerance" policy for Knight. It was enacted after a former player accused Knight of choking him in a 1997 practice. A tape that aired by CNN showed Knight choking former player Neil Reed. After refusing to resign, he was terminated of his duties by Indiana University President Myles Brand. Brand stated that the termination of Knight was over numerous complaints, not just the above mentioned.

After taking the season off, Texas Tech University came knocking on Knight's door looking for a leader of its underrated basketball program, making its last appearance in the 1996 NCAA tournament. After accepting the offer, Knight brought Texas Tech into the media spotlight — for all the good reasons. He turned them into a winner, leading them to three NCAA tournaments, including a Sweet 16 appearance in 2005.

At the press conference announcing his signing, Knight said, "this is the most comfortable red sweater I've had on in six years."

Even though Knight says his influences are John Wooden, Pete Newell, Hank Iba, and Woody Hayes, he brings his own philosophy into the game of basketball. His motion offense emphasizes post players setting up screens and perimeters players passing the ball until a teammate becomes open for a jump shot or lay-up. On defense, his team is required to guard opposing teams man-to-man and help teammates when needed.

"You don't play against opponents," Knight has been quoted as saying. "You play against the game of basketball."

Even after Knight retires, he will be remembered for two things: being a great basketball coach and controversy. Controversy that has overshadowed a great teacher.

Knight's Resume

West Point: 1965-1971
Indiana University: 1972-2000
Texas Tech University: 2001-present

• His teams appeared in 27 NCAA tournaments, five Final Fours, won three national championships (1976, 1981, 1987), one NIT championship (1979) ,and the 1984 U.S. Olympic Gold Medal. He also led Indiana to 11 Big Ten Championships and is a four-time National Coach of the Year (1975, 1976, 1987, 1989).
• 98% of his players graduate and he's never had any NCAA violations.
• He's raised $1 million for the Texas Tech Library.

Knight's Controversies, according to Wikipedia:

• In 1976, he pulled guard Jim Wisman off the court by his jersey.
• In 1979, he was arrested for assaulting a police officer during the Pan American Games in Puerto Rico.
• In 1988, women's groups were outraged over comments he made in an interview with Connie Chung.
• In 1992, Knight feigned whipping a black player named Calbert Cheaney.
• In 1993, Knight kicked his own son Pat Knight during a game.
• In 1998, Knight was shown berating an NCAA volunteer at a news conference.
• In 1999, Indiana University was fined $10,000 for Knight's derogatory remarks about a referee.
• In 1999, an Indiana University secretary accused Knight of throwing a potted plant at her.
• In 1999, Assistant coach Ron Felling claimed Knight threw him off a chair and punched him in the chest.
• In 1999, Knight accidentally shot long-time friend Thomas Mikunda in the back and shoulder with a 20-gauge shotgun while on a hunting trip.
• In 2004, Knight made national headlines for a "verbal dust up" with then Texas Tech University Chancellor David Smith at a Lubbock supermarket.
• In 2006, Knight was restrained by a police officer after a student's heckling at Baylor University.
• In 2006, Knight was shown allegedly hitting player Michael Prince under the chin to make him have eye contact with him.

Posted by Joe Boesch at 9:02 PM | Comments (1)

161? Just a Number For Federer

This week, Roger Federer surpasses Jimmy Connors' record of 160 successive weeks at number one. Federer said that he has been "waiting for this moment with a lot of impatience." He went on to add that "this was one of the most important records" out there, and that especially for him "this was the most significant record" to break. Here is a minor twist: he did not say these quotes this week. He made these comments back in December of 2006, after winning the ATP Masters Cup in Shanghai.

That's right! He has been so dominant that if he did indeed drop his racket, never picked it up again since that day, he would have still broken Connors' record by the time you read this article today. This number of 161, it's just a number. The deeper meaning of his new record does not involve numbers. One hundred and sixty-one weeks at number one was no more than a record that Federer was expected to break.

But the way that he set the new record? Nobody would have guessed it, scripted it, foreseen it. Let's look at some other numbers that provide a better understanding of this phenomenon (and yes, I have no difficulty at all referring to Federer and/or his accomplishment in this manner).

Since 2004, he played 269 matches and only lost 15 of them. For you math-obsessed fans, that equals to 94% of his matches, in this period. Try any other player during a three-year period and see what is the closest that you can come up. No, I have not done it, but I would be curious to know. He has also won 35 tournaments since 2004, almost averaging 12 tournaments a year! In the process, he won nine Slams, for good measure!

Okay, enough with numbers that render the number 161 into "nothing more than a number." Confused? Let's clear it up with a simple statement: Connors' 160 weeks and Federer's new record (stil going, going, going...) are almost like comparing apples and oranges.

Jimmy Connors was number one during 1974-78 time period, a period in which, conveniently, the biggest rivals of his career were not at full speed. John McEnroe was busy playing college tennis, and at the dawn of his career. Ivan Lendl was still playing with white Kneissl rackets and learning how to speak English. Ken Rosewall, at the age of 40, was his first opponent in a Slam final in 1974. John Newcombe's moustache was turning gray. Guillermo Vilas was a one-dimensional clay court specialist who maintained a respectable 4-5 record against Connors.

Okay, there was Bjorn Borg, and Connors deserves credit for beating Borg twice at the U.S. Open during that period, one of them on clay in 1976 (arguably the biggest unsolved mystery of the '70s). Nevertheless, the period of his record consisted of the years during which his competition was at it's weakest. Federer, on the other hand, has faced today's competition at their best while he was marching towards his record. Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, David Nalbandian, Rafael Nadal, Juan Carlos Ferrero, all at one time or another during this stretch, threw their best stuff at Federer. Other than very rare moments, Safin at the Australian Open and Nalbandian at the Masters Cup, both in 2005, Federer took their best stuff, folded it in two, and curve-balled it right back to them.

Jimmy Connors was also hardly dominating the way Federer has been during these last three years. In fact, two of the years that Connors was number one, 1975 and 1977, he did not win a Slam title. Furthermore, he did not even play Roland Garros and Australian Open those years. If Federer had a similar year or two since 2004, he probably would not have remained at number one for this many consecutive weeks. Slams did not count as much back in the '70s ranking system.

Let's change pace and indulge in the "reality" game momentarily.

If you were tennis fan back in 1977, would you consider Connors the best player of the year or Vilas, who won an astonishing 15 tournaments and lost in the finals of another six? If you closely examined the year 1978 in tennis, would you consider Borg, who won Roland Garros and Wimbledon as number one, or Connors, who won the U.S. Open as number one? As a matter of fact, wasn't 1974 the only one of those years where Jimmy Connors was, without a doubt, the best player in the world? The answer is yes. The remaining time of his 160 weeks record his statistical number one was not in doubt, but whether he was the best player or not was very much in question. To say the least, it was good subject for debate around tennis club cafeterias.

To Connors' credit, his run of successive weeks at number one ended in 1978 and immediately restarted one week later, lasting another astonishing two years. So the more impressive part of Connors' accomplishment is actually the fact that he was number one 244 weeks out of 245 between July 1974 and April 1979. But still, the question remains the same as above. In a nutshell, 1974 was his only dominant year.

Are there any question marks about whether Federer deserves the statistical number one, as well as the "best player" accolade during his 161 weeks? I think not! Could he perhaps even reach 245 consecutive weeks without interruption? Barring injuries, it is very possible.

Still want to stick with numbers? Okay, here is one for you: how about Federer winning his last 14 tiebreakers in a row? As one fitness coach that I have known would say, that's "confidence and respect." However, let's not get confidence and arrogance mixed up. Federer is popular, not thanks to his records, not thanks to his win or title records. He is the man, because he is the "softest" dominator tennis has ever known. Normally, people root for the underdog, except in Federer's case. Normally, people don't enjoy watching one-sided matches, except for Federer's matches.

Most importantly, players who are this dominating do not normally behave like Federer. Let's speculate for an instant. Imagine if Lleyton Hewitt was in Federer's place. "Come oooooon!" with a fist pump to your opponent's face would have been a trademark and the cause of tennis-parent fights in junior tournaments. Imagine how magnified his "the world against me" attitude would have become and how many enemies he would have attracted. How about if we put Roddick in Federer's place? Oh my ... can you say not only "arrogant," but "annoying?"

One hundred sixty-one weeks at number one, 14 tiebreakers in a row, 35 titles in three years ... who cares? The beauty is not in the size of the flow of the river, it's how smoothly the river flows.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 8:48 PM | Comments (10)

February 27, 2007

Can the NCAA Control Time?

The NCAA's grand experiment for speeding up the game is over and, on one hand, it was successful, while on the other, it was a failure.

The NCAA recently announced that its rules committee recommended scrapping the practice of starting the clock after the referee's ball-ready signal after a change of possession and going back to the old way of starting the clock on the snap. The whole premise behind the original rule change was to shorten the length of games that were approaching three and a half hours. That's where the rule was successful — the average length of a college football game last season was a brief three hours, seven minutes.

Where the rule was unsuccessful, though, was in winning over the hearts and minds of those who really control the game — the coaches. The majority complained about the rule, saying that it was unfair. They were right. How many games did we see last year that came down to the final seconds and, after a punt or fourth down play, the offense had to sprint onto the field and get into formation before the ref wound the clock? A lot of games came to an unceremonious end with the team not being able to get the snap off before time ran out. Of course, in previous years, the offense would be guaranteed one last play with the clock not starting until the snap.

Another rule put in place last season was starting the clock when the ball was kicked on kickoffs rather than when the receiver caught it. That, too, will apparently be reverted back to the old rule. So, in order to again attempt to speed up the game, the rules committee proposed shortening time outs and using a shorter play clock after timeouts, pushing kickoffs back to the 30-yard line and giving officials a two-minute limit to review replays. Sounds like the NCAA wants to become more like the NFL.

Anyway, while some of these rule changes sound fine and dandy, and will likely have the support of coaches nationwide, if college football fathers really want to speed up the game, there's a better solution than tweaking the rules every year — limit the number and duration of TV timeouts. Of course, this is an entirely irrational suggestion on my part because that means television revenue would probably take a hit, and we all know that's completely out of the question.

Think about it, though. Who of us has been either watching a game on TV or attending one at the stadium and doesn't get fed up with the endless stoppage of play for commercials? Particularly in the first half — it's entirely ridiculous. After every punt, every kickoff, and kickoff return there's a bloody TV time out. If the game is a slug-it-out defensive struggle where neither team can do much more than punt after every three plays, then the first half takes about two hours in itself. If it's a shootout, the same holds true since the media needs a break after every kick off and return.

Now, I understand the reason behind piling up all the commercial breaks at the front of the game — it's so if the game comes down to the wire, the networks won't have to stifle any momentum by needing to squeeze in that last 60-second spot and avoid a refund or suit. However, the trade-off isn't much better. What would you rather see: a funny ad, or constant two-second cutaways of the sidelines and fans, endless drivel by the commentators, and constant promos for what's "coming up next on Network XYZ?"

The one rule change recommendation that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially once the TV factor is taken into consideration, is reducing the length of timeouts. Currently, a timeout is 65 seconds long, enough time for the network to drop in a couple of spots and have less commercial inventory near the end of the game. If the NCAA shortens timeouts to 30 seconds, that would be three minutes the networks would have to find during regular game play to complete their traffic logs. That would translate into either more commercial breaks during half-time, or additional breaks during the second half following changes of possession.

Two recommendations that do make sense, though, are pushing kickoffs back five yards and limiting replay timeouts. Obviously, having kickers boot from the 30-yard line will create more action on the field with more returns. And reducing replay reviews to two minutes will also help immensely. However, I'd include one addendum to that idea.

Allowing every play (with some restrictions) to be reviewable is another factor that pushes the length of games near the absurd. One game that I attended last season had three or four reviews in about a six-play span. That's insane. Not only should the rules committee limit the length of official reviews, but also the types of plays that are reviewable. Calling a replay time out to see if the receiver might have stepped out of bounds when he caught the ball five yards from the sideline is overdoing it just a little. Okay, so maybe I just "overdid" it a little right there, but you get my point.

In the end, though, the NCAA will do what it wants to address a perceived problem. In the past, it's cracked down on celebrations (NCAA: No Cheering Aloud Allowed) and implemented no-taunting rules and the like to rid the sport of the scourge of poor sportsmanship. It's latest crusade against something the establishment thinks it can control; but, just like people's emotions, time is something none of us can control.

Posted by Adam Russell at 2:34 PM | Comments (0)

Norv Turner's Last Chance?

San Diego Chargers GM A.J. Smith's personnel decisions have been mainly brilliant. Since his promotion in April 2003, Smith has been responsible for many of the decisions that have helped the team improve from a four-win season in 2003 to 14 wins in 2006.

His ability to identify stars and lock them up in long-term contracts before their value is evident to others has provided the Chargers with a strong core of players who are capable of extending the team's successful run.

His choices have not always been popular with the fans, but he has been decisive and usually right.

However, his part played in the firing of former head coach, Marty Schottenheimer, has some wondering if the magic is over. Smith and Schottenheimer had a dysfunctional relationship that bordered on comical.

While both men were proficient at their jobs, they lacked the ability to set aside their differences and work together. Throughout the tumultuous relationship, team president Dean Spanos attempted unsuccessfully to keep the winning, yet dysfunctional, pair together.

Reminiscent of a Three Stooges plot, the trio stumbled through the weeks following the Chargers' playoff loss to the New England Patriots. As the team and its fans grieved their collective unrealized expectations, the events leading to Schottenheimer's eventual firing began to unfold.

The Chargers front office declined to give Schottenheimer a contract extension, opting instead to leave the former coach hanging in the wind with a one-year contract and lame-duck status.

The mixed messages sent by the front office likely contributed to the exodus of defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, offensive coordinator Cam Cameron, and other assistants.

Given the huge coaching turnover the team would already be required to endure, management made the call to make the turnover complete and fired Schottenheimer.

Meanwhile, as the drama of Larry, Curly, and Moe played out other NFL teams went about their business of head coaching and other staffing changes. By the time the Chargers had reached the seemingly inevitable conclusion of Schottenheimer's firing, precious little experienced head coaching talent was available.

The end result: Schottenheimer's replacement by then-San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator Norv Turner. Could the Chargers have done better by either keeping Schottenheimer and some of his staff intact or by making a quicker decision and having a shot at some of the other coaching talent? Probably.

Was Turner really the Chargers' first choice? They'll never admit it, but probably not.

What of the Chargers assertion that Turner is the stable path? After all, this is the offense that Turner helped put in place as their offensive coordinator in 2001. But that 2001 Chargers team went 5-11 — hardly a ringing endorsement.

Turner assumes head coaching responsibilities for one of the best teams in the league. This will be a much different role for Turner than his previous stints as head coach for the Washington Redskins (1994-2000; 49-59-1 record) and Oakland Raiders (2004-2005; 9-23 record). Both of those teams were in shambles when Turner took over.

However, expectations for this Chargers team are high. The talent is in place. The team has demonstrated the ability to win. If Turner takes this team to the Super Bowl or at least deeper in the playoffs than his predecessor, his previous failures as head coach will likely be forgotten.

Should the Chargers fall short of expectations or have a setback from last year, though, Turner's head coaching days may be done forever. Underachieve with weak teams, okay, but underachieve with this Chargers team and that would probably slam shut the door on most head coaching jobs.

Will Turner spiral yet again due to his level of incompetence or will he prove to be up to the task now that he holds the reins to this high performance Chargers team? Time will tell.

Todd Beckstead is founder of MonsterDraft.com, a value-based draft tool for fantasy football.

Posted by Todd Beckstead at 1:49 PM | Comments (1)

February 26, 2007

NCAA Championship Week Preview

I'm going to put away the analysis for a week, and just do college basketball fans a favor. The one thing I've always wanted going into the conference tournament season is a full conference-by-conference breakdown of dates and formats, with a daily calendar of events and links to each conference tournament bracket.

Ladies and gentlemen, everything you need to know for 13 of the greatest days of the year:

America East (March 2-10): All 9 teams in; 8-9 teams in play-in game; Play-in through semis in Boston; Finals at campus site of highest remaining seed; Vermont #1 seed
Bracket

Atlantic 10 (March 7-10): 12 of 14 teams in; 1-4 seeds get bye into quarters; in Atlantic City; Seeding TBD
Bracket

ACC (March 8-11): All 12 teams in; 1-4 seeds bye into quarters; in Tampa; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Atlantic Sun (March 1-3): 8 of 10 teams in (Kennesaw State and North Florida ineligible to participate until 2009-2010); straight bracket with no byes; At E. Tennessee State; E. Tennessee State #1 seed
Bracket

Big 12 (March 8-11): All 12 teams in; 1-4 seeds get bye into quarters; in Oklahoma City; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Big East (March 7-10): 12 of 16 teams in; 1-4 seeds get bye into quarters; at Madison Square Garden; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Big Sky (March 3-7): 6 of 9 teams in; reseeding after First Round; 1/2 seeds protected to semis; quarters at campus sites of higher seeds; semis and Final at Weber State; Weber State #1 seed
Bracket

Big South (February 27 – March 3): All 8 teams in; straight bracket with no byes; quarters at campus sites of highest seed; semis at Winthrop; Final at campus site of highest seed; Winthrop #1 seed
Bracket

Big Ten (March 8-11): All 11 teams in; 7-10 seeds play in first round; in Chicago; Ohio State #1 seed
Bracket

Big West (March 7-10): All 8 teams in; reseeding after every round; 3/4 seeds get bye to quarters; 1/2 seeds get bye to semis; in Anaheim; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Colonial (March 2-5): All 12 teams in; 1-4 seeds get byes into quarters; at Richmond; VCU #1 seed
Bracket

Conference USA (March 7-10): All 12 teams in; 1-4 seeds get bye into quarters; at Memphis; Memphis #1 seed
Bracket

Horizon (February 27 – March 6): All 9 teams in; 3-seed (Loyola) protected into quarters; 1/2 seeds (Wright State #1, Butler #2) protected into semis; first round at campus sites of highest seeds; quarters and semis at Wright State; Final at highest remaining seed
Bracket

Ivy: No conference tournament; regular season ends March 6

Metro Atlantic (March 2-5): All 10 teams in; 7-10 seeds play in first round; at Bridgeport, CT; Marist #1 seed
Bracket

Mid-Continent (March 3-6): All 8 teams in; straight bracket with no byes; in Tulsa; Oral Roberts #1 seed
Bracket

Mid-American (March 2-5): All 12 teams in; 1-4 seeds get bye into quarters; in Cleveland; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Mid-Eastern (March 6-10): All 11 teams in; 6-11 seeds play in first round; at Raleigh, NC; Delaware State #1 seed
Bracket

Missouri Valley (March 1-4): All 10 teams in; 7-10 seeds play in first round; at St. Louis; Southern Illinois #1 seed
Bracket

Mountain West (March 6-10): All 9 teams in; 8-9 teams in play-in game; at UNLV; #1 seed TBD
Bracket

Northeast (March 1-7): 8 of 11 teams in; no byes; quarters at campus sites of highest seed; teams re-seeded after quarters; semis and Final at campus sites of highest seed; Central Connecticut State #1 seed
Bracket

Ohio Valley (February 37 – March 3): 8 of 11 in; straight bracket with no byes; quarters at sites of higher seeds; semis and Final in Nashville; Austin Peay #1 seed
Bracket

Pac-10 (March 7-10): All 10 teams in; 7-10 seeds play in first round; in Los Angeles; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Patriot (February 28 – March 9): All 8 teams in; straight bracket with no byes; quarters through Finals at campus sites of highest seed; Holy Cross #1 seed based off a higher RPI (Patriot League third tie-breaker)
Bracket

SEC (March 8-11): All 12 teams in; top two seeds from each division have bye to quarters; in Atlanta; Florida #1 seed from East; West #1 seed TBD
Bracket

Southern (February 28 – March 3): All 11 teams in; seeds 6-11 play in first round; at Charleston, SC; Davidson #1 seed
Bracket

Southland (March 8-11): 8 of 12 teams in; straight bracket with no byes; in Houston; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Southwestern (March 7-10): 8 of 10 teams in; straight bracket with no byes; in Birmingham; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Sun Belt (February 28 – March 6): All 13 teams in; seeds 1-3 have byes into quarters; first round at campus sites of highest seed; quarters through Final at Louisiana-Lafayette; South Alabama #1 seed
Bracket

West Coast (March 2-5): All 8 teams in; 3/4 seeds get byes into quarters; 1/2 seeds get byes into semis; at Portland; Seeding TBD
Bracket

Western Athletic (March 6-10): All 9 teams in; 8-9 teams in play-in game; at New Mexico State; Nevada #1 seed
Bracket

THE CALENDAR

Tuesday, February 27
Horizon first round
Ohio Valley quarters
Big South quarters

Wednesday, February 28
Southern first round
Sun Belt first round
Patriot quarters

Thursday, March 1
Missouri Valley first round
Atlantic Sun quarters
Northeast quarters
Southern quarters
Big South semis

Friday, March 2
Yale (currently Ivy #2) at Princeton (currently Ivy #1)
America East Play-In
Metro Atlantic first round
Colonial first round
West Coast first round
Horizon quarters
Missouri Valley quarters
Atlantic Sun semis
Ohio Valley semis
Southern semis

Saturday, March 3
Mid-Continent 1-8 and 2-7 games
Big Sky quarters
America East quarters
Metro Atlantic quarters
Colonial quarters
West Coast quarters
Horizon semis
Missouri Valley semis
Big South Championship, ESPN
Southern Championship, ESPN2
Ohio Valley Championship, ESPN2
Atlantic Sun Championship, ESPN2

Sunday, March 4
Mid-Continent 4-5 and 3-6 games
Sun Belt quarters
America East semis
Northeast semis
Metro Atlantic semis
Patriot semis
Colonial semis
West Coast semis
Missouri Valley Championship, CBS

Monday, March 5
Mid-Continent semis
Sun Belt semis
Metro Atlantic Championship, ESPN2
Colonial Championship, ESPN
West Coast Championship, ESPN

Tuesday, March 6
Western Athletic Play-In
Mountain West Play-In
Mid-Eastern first round
Big Sky semis
Mid-Continent Championship, ESPN
Sun Belt Championship, ESPN2
Horizon Championship, ESPN

Wednesday, March 7
Big West first round
MAC first round
Conference USA first round
Atlantic 10 first round
Pac-10 first round
Big East first round
SWAC quarters (2-7 and 1-8)
Mid-Eastern quarters
Northeast Championship, ESPN2
Big Sky Championship, ESPN2

Thursday, March 8
Big Ten first round
ACC first round
SEC first round
Big XII first round
SWAC quarters (3-6 and 4-5)
Southland quarters
Big West quarters
MAC quarters
Western Athletic quarters
Mountain West quarters
Conference USA quarters
Atlantic 10 quarters
Pac-10 quarters
Big East quarters

Friday, March 9
Big Ten quarters
ACC quarters
SEC quarters
Big XII quarters
SWAC semis
Southland semis
Mid-Eastern semis
Big West semis
MAC semis
Western Athletic semis
Mountain West semis
Conference USA semis
Atlantic 10 semis
Pac-10 semis
Big East semis
Patriot Championship, ESPN2

Saturday, March 10
Big Ten semis
ACC semis
Big X11 semis
SEC semis
SWAC Championship, TV TBD
America East Championship, ESPN2
Mid-Eastern Championship, ESPN Classic
Big West Championship, ESPN2
MAC Championship, ESPN2
Western Athletic Championship, ESPN2
Mountain West Championship, VERSUS
Atlantic 10 Championship, ESPN
Conference USA Championship, CBS
Pac-10 Championship, CBS
Big East Championship, ESPN

Sunday, March 11
Southland Championship, ESPN2
Big Ten Championship, CBS
ACC Championship, ESPN
Big XII Championship, ESPN
SEC Championship, CBS
NCAA Tournament Selection Show, CBS

Seth Doria is a freelance reporter trying to get a press pass from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to cover the Missouri Valley Tournament. If you have any dirty pictures he can use as leverage (or even if you don't), please visit The Left Calf.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 5:55 PM | Comments (0)

2007: The Year of the Blue Jay?

This year may be the Chinese year of the pig, but in the baseball world, don't get confused. 2007 is the year of the Blue Jay.

The Toronto Blue Jays are going into training camp with one goal on their mind and two bulls-eyes firmly planted on their free-spending AL East neighbors to the south.

The glory days of 1992 and 1993 are long gone, but the memories still resonate in the minds of the faithful fans would have been forced to endure 13 years of playoff-less baseball. To those loyal addicts who have traipsed day after day to the Rogers Centre hoping to watch a winner, success is finally on the horizon.

After a moderately successful season last year, one in which they supplanted the perennial second-place finishing Boston Red Sox, Toronto is taking aim at first place. Simply an above .500 record will no longer be viewed as respectable and mediocrity will not be accepted. Toronto has the bow and the necessary arrows. The only questions that remain: will they fire and will they be on target? The true answer to that question is somewhere blowing in Dunedin, FL, but after a good look at the key pieces in the Blue Jays organization, Toronto looks primed to make a serious run at the pennant.

By extending manager John Gibbons' contract through 2008, the Blue Jays have given him a sense of job security. This will give the excitable and always entertaining Gibbons freedom to coach with confidence and push this club much higher than many pundits predict.
Going into spring training, the Blue Jays starting rotation has become a solid aspect of the club. Despite losing contract wars for Ted Lilly and Gil Meche, Toronto has a formidable threesome including Roy Halladay, A.J. Burnett, and Gustavo Chacin.

When Halladay is hurling his best stuff, he is the most lethal pitcher in the majors. For much of last season, this was the case as Halladay posted a 16-5 record with a 3.19 ERA and 132 strikeouts. He is the ace in the Blue Jays pitching staff and will be counted upon to provide consistent quality starts this season.

While Burnett had a less than stellar debut season with Toronto last year, this season he will be relied upon to be much more consistent. In his last 10 games of 2006, he had a 7-3 record with a 3.25 ERA and 60 strikeouts. The right-hander from North Little Rock, AR looked strong as he finished the season, providing reasonable optimism that he can live up to his five-year, $55 million contract he signed prior to last season.

Gustavo Chacin might appear to be a question mark in Toronto's starting rotation, but when his 5'11" frame is healthy, he can be a small dynamo of excitement on the mound. Chacin was on the disabled list for two months because of an elbow injury, but still managed to produce a 9-4 record with 47 strikeouts. Since entering the Blue Jays rotation, he has posted a 22-13 record and barring injury, expect him to give Toronto at least 12 wins this year.

The final two spots on the rotation will be determined by a spring training pitching battle. Tomo Ohka, who Toronto signed as a free agent this winter from the Milwaukee Brewers, is the strongest candidate to lock-up the fourth position. He finished 2006 with a 1-4 record in his final 10 games, but if the Japanese native can return to his early-season form, he will be a valuable fourth pitcher who might push Chacin for the third spot.

The rest of the cast participating in the pitching competition includes John Thomson, a 34-year-old right-hander who played for Atlanta last year, Shaun Marcum, who started 14 games for Toronto last year, and Josh Towers.

After the starting five, Toronto has capable middle-relievers in Jeremy Accardo, Scott Downs, and Brandon League. Between these three and others deeper on the depth chart, Toronto will often be setting up closer B.J. Ryan to complete the victory. Ryan was fifth in the majors with 38 saves in 42 opportunities last year. If he picks up where he left off from last year, the Blue Jays won't be allowing many late-inning rallies.

While depth at pitching is crucial for season-long success, the offense will again be the foundation for this club.

The addition of Frank Thomas and the signing of Vernon Wells prove the Blue Jays are making a determined effort to rock the division.
Last year, Toronto was second in the AL with a .463 slugging percentage, was third with a .284 team batting average, and was fourth in home runs with 199. They didn't lose any big bats in the offseason, other than Bengie Molina's career-high 19 home runs, which can be recovered by committee.

Toronto's offensive onslaught will be enhanced with the addition of DH Frank Thomas. With 39 home runs in 2006, he would have been the Blue Jays leader. Depending on the play of last year's clean-up hitter, Troy Glaus, Thomas' big stick will be penciled in the number four or five whole in the batting order.

Vernon Wells decided to stay in Toronto although he could have left for more money, so Blue Jays fans should be optimistic that he wants to be there and wants to win. This year, he won't be concerned with the trade talks he endured last year and should be much more relaxed and play with confidence. He should surpass last year's 32 home runs and .303 batting average.

Coming off career years, outfielders Alex Rios and Reed Johnson will provide even more pop this year as they continue to develop into high calibre hitters.

Defensively, Toronto did their best to shore up the only question mark in the field with the acquisition of veteran shortstop Royce Clayton. He will split time with John McDonald, who is developing into a reliable defensive asset. Between Clayton, McDonald, and second baseman Aaron Hill, the middle of the infield has been secured.

The rest of the defense only lost Frank Catalanotto and he isn't a big loss. Adam Lind, 23, who played in 18 games last year, will provide comparable depth.

Troy Glaus and Lyle Overbay are excellent corner pieces both defensively and offensively. They had standout seasons last year and will be important elements of Toronto's title hopes.

Other than the loss of Catalanotto, Toronto's outfield hasn't changed and with a healthy Alex Rios all year, the combination of Reed Johnson and Vernon Wells will be a vaunted threat in the field an at the plate.

The only player who left after 2006 who had a major impact defensively is Bengie Molina. Greg Zaun and Molina didn't want to share catching duties and Zaun was cheaper with equal abilities. Zaun's intensity and stability behind the plate will make him a key cog defensively. He is not a liability at the plate, so the Blue Jays came out winners in the catching debacle.

The key for Toronto is hinged on the success and health of their starting rotation. If the bats stay hot and the home runs keep flying out, Toronto will be back in the playoffs for the first time since they won the World Series, and the pig will be playing a backup role to the Blue Jay.

Posted by Mark Janzen at 5:12 PM | Comments (4)

February 24, 2007

You've Got To Be Kidd-ing Me

Oh boy, I love me some NBA All-Star Game ... Vegas, baby ... Wayne Newton, sheesh ... cool uniforms, even cooler warm-ups ... a Washington Wizard is an all-star starter? Honey, go out and buy some extra milk before the apocalypse ... man, the Western Conference is loaded ... it's really funny when these guys pretend to play defense ... Shaq looks like he'd rather be on his 14th buffet of the night ... hey, it's that nice David Aldridge fella, the one with all that insider information ... "It's no secret the New Jersey Nets are trying to move Jason Kidd before the deadline..."

W.

T.

F?

I'll freely admit to having been a casual Nets fan for most of this season — occasionally catching a game or reading a box score as this team sputters about like a '93 Jeep Cherokee after a major fender-bender. At the start of the season, New Jersey had the makings of a potential Eastern Conference champion, not only due to its star power — Kidd, Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson — and improved bench, but because every other team in the conference not named the Heat had the unmistakable tang of the creeping feces.

But as the season progressed, apathy and injury and a complete inability to put two strong defensive efforts together in consecutive quarters doomed the Nets to a sub-.500 record and had them struggling to even make the postseason.

Rumors began to circulate that the Nets might seek to trade Carter before the moody forward was able to opt out of his contract at the end of the season, presumably so he could sign somewhere closer to his home ... or someplace where there will be more people willing to kiss his forehead and tell him he's special.

I never really understood those rumors, because in my ever-optimistic heart I believed this team could still challenge for the big prize if it every got its collective ass in gear. While the season-ending injury to center Nenad "Nads" Krstic was a killer, and may have actually started this team's death spiral, I believed they had enough talent to compete in the East and perhaps — with a John "Hot Plate" Williams-sized amount of good fortune — win a game in the Finals against whoever was going to pummel them from the West.

To hear Jason Kidd was on the block was to hear a franchise preparing to raise the white flag, turn in its playoff aspirations and begin Jay-Z's Clean Sweep 'Till Brooklyn tour. I know Kidd's personal life is a complete mess right now; the guy's been in the tabloids more than Lindsay's lohan and Britney's spears. But the thought of trading what's been the savior of this moribund franchise saddens me. I think about all those nights when my father and I would be among a hearty crowd of 8,000 at the Meadowlands to watch guys Otis Birdsong and Mike Gminski get bullied by the rest of the league, praying that a player like Kidd — a born leader with the talent to match — would turn this team into a consistent winner instead of constant lottery bait.

Maybe after six seasons having been blessed with the opportunity to watch him, I took Kidd's time in the Garden State for granted. I never considered the end and, if I did, it would have featured an arena of fans standing and cheering as Kidd dribbled off into retirement as a Net; with his banner hanging from Ratner's rafters in Brooklyn some years later.

Due to my half-hearted passion this season or my optimistic estimation of his value to the franchise, part of me was still in denial about Kidd being touchable; and, for that matter, that any Nets fans would agree with the label. To me, a Jason Kidd trade was dogs and cats living together, toast buttering people, Twilight Zone kind of stuff.

So I turned to the brilliant Nets blog run by super fan Mike Kozlowski, JoeNetsFan.com. And, it turns out, he's raising the white flag, too:

"As a firm believer in consistency, Joe thinks it's time to blow up the Nets. Move Carter, move Kidd, move Kidd and Carter, move anyone else if you can get a good deal. No doomsdayer, I say get back young players, draft picks and even an expiring contract or two, but also make sure you keep a nucleus (Jefferson, Krstic, Marcus Williams) you can build upon. Or, do a sign-and-trade in the offseason. I would not have said that two weeks ago, by the way, but clearly, it's time ... or even past time."

I scanned the wires until 3 PM on Thursday expecting the inevitable ... but no deal, Howie Mandel. Kidd is still a Net. Carter is still a Net. (And Orlando GM Otis Smith, whom many believed would pursue Carter if he opted out of his Jersey deal this summer, called the star's game "fool's gold" in an interview. Ouch!)

Perhaps D-Wade's injury gave the Eastern Conference's dogs new life. Perhaps Rod Thorn is so allergic to rebuilding that he refuses to address the obvious cracks in this team's foundation. Or, as Joe Nets Fan hinted, perhaps the Nets will still go ahead with a sign-and-trade in the offseason after it didn't get the value it sought for its stars at the deadline.

Whatever the case, as a fan I feel like Thelma and Louise (spoiler warning) have gone over the cliff. The idea that his team will listen to offers for Kidd is something I can't shake. I believe it could have one more run this postseason, but then it's likely time to blow the thing up in a big way this offseason.

Which means it won't again make noise in the standings until the name Brooklyn appears in them...

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 is "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History." His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 10:41 PM | Comments (0)

Number One vs. Number Two

Remember that last weekend of the college football season when we saw No. 1 play No. 2 in Columbus to decide who would be the number one team in the country?

Well, we're now nearing the end of the college basketball season and it's deja vu all over again as Wisconsin (No. 1 AP, No.2 Coaches Poll) visits Columbus to take on Ohio State (No. 2 AP, No. 1 Coaches Poll).

While Wisconsin lost at Michigan State earlier this week, the winner of this game could still get the NCAA's number one overall seed for next month's tournament. How the team's fare in the Big Ten tournament will be another huge factor in determining who gets the number one seed.

The winner of Sunday's game, which will be on CBS at 3 PM Eastern, will undoubtedly receive a number one seed in the NCAA tourney, while the loser could still get a number one seed if they were to win the Big Ten tournament.

Both teams have strong resumes. Ohio State, with the Big Ten Freshman of the Year front-runner and possible number one overall pick in June's NBA draft, Greg Oden, has three losses — all on the road and all to teams currently ranked in the top five in Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina.

Wisconsin has National Player of the Year candidate Alando Tucker and a veteran group of juniors and seniors, and also just three losses. Wisconsin lost early in the season to Missouri State before running off 17 wins in a row, a streak that came to an end at then 25th-ranked Indiana. All three of the teams to beat the Badgers are expected to make the field of 65, with Michigan State cementing its tournament resume with Tuesday's win over Wisconsin.

Wisconsin (26-3) and Ohio State (25-3) face off Sunday in a game that will decide the Big Ten title and, just as important, who will earn that number one seed in the Midwest bracket of March's NCAA tournament.

Tucker leads the Badgers and is second in the Big Ten in scoring at 20.2 points per game. The Badgers are a deep team, with five players averaging at least 20 minutes per game and seven players that have played in every game. Wisconsin should have an advantage in the backcourt with its guards, Kammron Taylor and Michael Flowers. Taylor is the only other Badger averaging in double digits, with nearly 13 points per game.

The game will be won in the paint. Ohio State's strength is clearly with it's seven-foot frosh, Oden. After a wrist injury and subsequent slow start, Oden has rebounded, in more ways than one, and now leads the team in scoring and on the glass. He averages a near double-double, with 15.5 points per game and 9.7 rebounds. The Buckeyes are another deep team that has six players logging 20 minutes or more and four players averaging double-digit scoring. Daequan Cook (11.9 ppg), Ron Lewis (11.4), and Mike Conley (10) are the other three.

It will be up to Tucker, 6-foot-11 red-shirt junior Brian Butch, and Jason Chapell to slow down the Buckeye front court led by Oden.

The top two teams in the Big Ten and number one versus number two in the nation squaring off in Columbus on the final weekend of the regular season. That sounds familiar. While it is perceived that the Big Ten has had a down year in depth, Wisconsin and Ohio State are carrying the banner for the conference, and Sunday's game promises to be an instant classic. Let the madness begin.

Posted by Ronald Clements at 10:27 PM | Comments (0)

February 23, 2007

A Second Chance For the NHL?

One of the artifacts from hockey's last golden age hangs on a wall at the Joseph A. Tomon Jr. Funeral Home in Ellport, PA.

Tomon, one of the biggest dealers of game-worn NHL jerseys in North America, has Mario Lemieux's rookie contract framed and mounted on a wall in his living quarters, almost directly above the casket showroom.

On a shelf nearby, Tomon has one of Jaromir Jagr's paychecks — it's about $57,000 and change, net, for two weeks.

But I digress.

For the first time in about a quarter century, the NHL appears to be on the verge of another golden era. In an out-of-the-ordinary occurrence, professional hockey in North America sees the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not an oncoming train.

That light is partly the glow of a bright future.

Next season, players will be outfitted in new uniforms that are more aerodynamic and less absorbent, and therefore less heavy late in games, than their current apparel.

Hockey aficionados are still excited about the prospect of high-definition televisions, which will enable more households to actually see the puck on the small screen for the first time ever.

And even the present isn't so bad.

Officials are betraying their own instincts and actually calling interference and hooking. They're even calling penalties — gasp! — in overtime. The size of goalie padding is down and scoring is up, particularly in the Eastern Conference.

For the traditional fans who like defense hitting and the occasional fight, there's the Western Conference.

Most importantly, the league has a telegenic star in Sidney Crosby — who, in an sport increasingly dominated by Eastern Europeans and historically dominated by French-Canadians — speaks English as a first language.

Crosby is the real deal, the kind of guy who can break up the constant stream of NBA and college basketball highlights during the "Top 10 Plays" segment on "SportsCenter." He's Wayne Gretzky with size, Alexei Kovalev with vision, Lemieux with speed.

Just in the past couple of weeks, Crosby has slotted goals while being tripped forward onto his face and knocked down onto his back.

And his contributions don't stop with scoring highlight-reel goals. Against Toronto last week, he carried into the offensive end, where he was jumped by three Maple Leafs. Crosby off-loaded the puck to Mark Recchi, who was wide open for a near-uncontested goal.

Crosby, the league's top scorer, is averaging 1.67 points a game. And he's only 19.

It's just too bad no one is around to see it.

Except for the one or two weekend games on NBC, the only way most of America gets to see the NHL is on their local FOX Sports cable affiliate. That isn't too bad for those of us in the Pittsburgh area — we get to see Crosby on a regular basis.

But aside from the Versus channel, which isn't available on most U.S. cable systems, there is no five-night-a-week outlet for out-of-town NHL games.

It's time for hockey's overlords to approach ESPN and FOX, hat in hand, and ask what the NHL needs to do to break up the steady diet of treys and dunks with skates, sticks, and pucks two or three nights a week.

Most likely, that's going to involve the league paying rights fees to the networks in return for a percentage of ad revenues because its contract with NBC calls only for a percentage of sponsorship money.

But that's the price hockey has to pay for wasting its first golden age without allowing the sport to gain a foothold in the United States.

The NHL's assets are a more exciting style of play and the league's best player since Gretzky and Lemieux were in their primes.

Its liability is a lack of visibility, which creates a vacuum filled by nuggets like stats that indicate bowling is a bigger TV draw than hockey or a report in the Feb. 12 issue of Sports Illustrated (the one with Peyton Manning on the cover) that 736 households were tuned to a New Jersey game against the Stanley Cup champion Carolina Panthers.

That has to change. Hockey might be more compelling than any other sport when viewed in person, but television is what really counts.

And most of the country's cable systems have 100 channels and nothing on ice.

Posted by Eric Poole at 5:40 PM | Comments (0)

Emerging From the Closet

That sound you heard was Tim Hardaway blowing out his transmission by throwing himself into reverse from fifth-gear homophobia. Yeah, that explains the smoke, too. Here we are, just over a week after the release of John Amaechi's book. Apparently, this issue still has some incendiary qualities.

Those recent explosions are evidence that we have reached a plateau in gay acceptance in sports. Although many athletes don't care about the extracurriculars of teammate, most assume that a player cannot come out on a professional sports team. And it will continue to be assumed until someone does it, whether in a few months or a few decades.

This is not an open issue like race. This one is, well, in the closet. Which makes the existence of current gay players irrelevant — no one knows who they are. There has never been the Jackie Robinson to take the initial onslaught of ignorance on the field and in the locker room. He proved through exemplary character and a Hall of Fame career that black people deserved a place in professional sports, paving the road and allowing others to follow a smoother path than he did, even if he didn't erase the prejudice entirely.

It will take a certain kind of player to come out. Honestly, John Amaechi couldn't have effectively been the guy; the team could have cast the journeyman aside for "other" reasons. It will have to be a good player, someone a team couldn't quietly jettison.

He also has to have off-field respect from teammates. A loner or social pariah will not have the support network to deal with the fallout.

He will have to have thick skin, and maybe a flak jacket, to take the inevitable bigoted shrapnel.

But despite that, it will not be as hard as most think. Hardaway proved animosity exists. But most players' reactions seem to stem from discomfort and ignorance, not hate. Even Hardaway sounded more childishly stupid than angry.

And even if I underestimate the negative sentiment within sports, look the backlash faced by Hardaway. Sportswriters, fans, and various other groups routinely blast ignorant, prejudiced statements (see: Paul Houring, Garrison Hearst, John Rocker, Rush Limbaugh, etc). Image is everything (read: dollars), and athletes know this. And if they don't, team and league public relations departments do. Hardaway was banished by the league from NBA-sanctioned appearances in Las Vegas for the All-Star Game and lost endorsements for essentially one poorly-phrased sentence. It would be tough, but a gay athlete would not face half the hardship and strife of previous pioneers. Their persecutors, however, will find their image leveled and wallets lightened.

Of course, public tolerance and actual acceptance are two different things. But after the initial shock, most teammates of that first player will realize how little effect his orientation will have on the team. It will also hit them that they have showered with the guy and, lo and behold, he never jumped anyone, or even looked at teammates that way.

In American History X, it wasn't until Derek Vinyard interacted with the black inmate that saved his life while in prison did he begin to reject the white-supremacy doctrines he had been force-fed from youth.

Obviously, this is less extreme prejudice but the principle remains. People fear things that are different and that they don't understand, and you can't dismantle a stereotype in segregation. I never have had a problem with gay people, but not until I had one as a teammate and friend was I really that comfortable and able to wrap my mind around it.

The pop image of the Queer Eye guys is the only thing athletes know about gay people. Many athletes have stated erroneously that they have never met one. Only exposure to other gay people can shake that notion that an effeminate disposition and attraction towards guys are the defining characteristics of gay people. No person is that one dimensional; people need to learn to look deeper.

Even within the gay community, there are divergences. Homosexuality doesn't require an Andy Dick accent or a sorority-worthy infatuation with fashion and celebrity gossip (my friend/teammate has neither). The stereotype frankly annoys me (as it does my friend), so I generally avoid spending free time around those who tailor themselves after it.

That doesn't mean I disapprove of such people's existence; they can do what they like, and if I interact with them, I do so respectfully. It also doesn't make me homophobic; the reasons they annoy me have nothing to do with the gender of their significant others. Besides, lots of people annoy me. Being a minority shouldn't shield someone from criticism any more than it should incite hatred.

I'm a pragmatist before an idealist; not all players will have an enlightened attitude on the topic. Many people will simply not be comfortable around an openly gay person. I just think given the chance, they can learn to deal with it the way they deal with any other personal differences between teammates, shelving it along with the rest of society's little squabbles, rather than as the volatile issue it is today. But they won't do that until forced to deal with it.

Even friends have enough differences that they can argue until furniture is thrown; the chasm can resemble the Grand Canyon between people who don't choose to interact regularly.

But once people, through exposure, realize no group is homogeneous, we can continue to progress towards a point where people in general evaluate others by individual merit rather than generalizations, and limit condemnation to those with a demonstrably adverse effect on others.

Discard the rest onto the "I don't like it/agree with it, but who really cares" pile. There's no reason to fight things you can't change.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 5:29 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2007

Mid-Majors Vie to Bust Brackets

Had it not been for last year's BracketBuster festivities, George Mason's historic run to the 2006 Final Four almost certainly would not have been possible. The Patriots went 15-3 in the Colonial Athletic Association, but a disappointing loss to Hofstra in the conference tournament would have otherwise sealed their fate. But because of one crucial signature win, however, the selection committee felt Mason's resumé was strong enough to overcome two late-season setbacks to Hofstra.

That win came on BracketBuster weekend. Coach Jim Larranaga and company went into the hostile environment of Wichita, Kansas and stole a 70-67 victory from the Wichita State Shockers. The Patriots had that win — and pretty much that win only — to thank for hearing their name called on Selection Sunday. The rest, of course, is history.

Perhaps we don't have another George Mason on our hands this time around (those stories only come around once in a lifetime if we're lucky), but several teams at least used their BracketBuster games to put themselves in position to be the next Cinderella. Several other teams, meanwhile, arguably played their way out of a chance for mid-major glory.

So who helped themselves most in the latest edition of bracket-busting madness? At the same time, whose season was potentially derailed by a poor showing in the glare of the national spotlight? Let's sort out the chaos that was the 2007 BracketBuster weekend.

BIGGEST WINNERS

1. Bradley — The Braves, who pulled of two NCAA tournament stunners en route to last year's Sweet 16, positioned themselves to do the same this season with a huge road victory at Virginia Commonwealth. Bradley has not been able to find much consistency in 2006-2007, but the team has now won three straight and with two winnable games at home to close out the regular season, should be riding a five-game winning streak heading into the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament.

Prior to BracketBuster weekend, it looked like the MVC tournament would be a must-win situation for Bradley's at-large hopes. The Braves had two quality home wins over Wichita State and Southern Illinois, but they had been mediocre at best on the road, only beating far inferior teams and losing to everyone else. So they were certainly underdogs on the road against the VCU Rams, who boasted a 22-5 overall record and still lead the Colonial Athletic Association with a 14-2 conference mark. Coach Jim Les could not have asked for a better BracketBuster matchup, as a visit to Virginia Commonwealth gave his team a chance to secure that missing signature road win.

The Braves did just that. After coming out slow and finding themselves down by as many as 11 points early in the first half, the Braves composed themselves and trailed by just one at the half. Bradley then used a 24-10 surge over 12 minutes of the second half to take a commanding 60-48 lead with less than seven minutes left in the game. It proved to be a deficit from which the Rams could not recover, and Bradley escaped Richmond with a crucial 73-64 victory.

Bradley's RPI has since surged to 30th in the nation (five games ago it was in the 50s) and the Braves have firmly established themselves as a bubble team.

2. Drexel — At 11-5 in the CAA, good for just fourth place, the Dragons are not doing enough damage in conference play to draw the attention of the NCAA selection committee. Coach Bruiser Flint needed a big performance in a BracketBuster matchup to do that. You can't ask for much tougher matchup than being sent to Omaha to face the Creighton Bluejays, but the Dragons had to be thankful for such an opportunity. While they had a nice early-season win at Villanova, another resumé-boosting victory was needed.

It looked like Creighton would put the game out of reach early, as Drexel played most of the first half without star big man Frank Elegar, who picked up two quick fouls. But the tables turned in the second half. Bluejays' center Anthony Tolliver got into serious foul trouble of his own, allowing Elegar to dominate the game on both ends of the floor. A 20-3 run midway through the second 20 minutes of play proved to be more than enough for the Dragons, who cruised through the final minutes to a 64-58 victory.

By no means does this give Drexel any room to breathe in terms of their NCAA tournament hopes, but it does put coach Flint and his boys on the bubble. Their RPI is holding steady in the mid-50s, and if the Dragons pick up a few late-season wins to stay in at-large contention, this win over a top-30 RPI team will be looked upon favorably by the committee. If the Dragons had lost, their only chance at Dancing would have been to win the CAA tournament.

3. Appalachian State — The Southern Conference is still in all likelihood a one-bid league, but if any team has a chance to sneak into the NCAA tournament as an at-large, it's the Mountaineers. Davidson, the defending SoCon Champion, is leading the conference with a 14-1 record and has one of nation's best freshmen in Stephen Curry, who is seizing national attention for both himself and the team. But the Wildcats did not pick up any impressive non-conference victories to accentuate their stellar conference showing. Appalachian, meanwhile, has two extremely impressive out-of-conference road wins over UVA and Vanderbilt that will surely curry favor with the tournament committee.

A home loss to Elon and a recent loss at Furman put a serious dent in App. State's at-large hopes, so the Mountaineers absolutely had to have a BracketBuster win over Wichita State just to put themselves anywhere close to the bubble. Thanks to an off-balanced floater by D.J. Thompson with five seconds left in the game, Appalachian prevailed 60-58 over the Shockers.

Their 55 RPI ranking keeps the Mountaineers in the NCAA hunt. If they win out and lose to Davidson (losing to any other team would seal an NIT fate) in the Southern Conference Championship Game, this win at Wichita will at least make the NCAA Selection Show worth watching.

BIGGEST LOSERS

1. Missouri State — The Bears missed a big-time opportunity to make an impression on the selection committee over the weekend. Not only did they get to play in the friendly confines of their own gym, but they also drew Winthrop, a perfect opponent because the Eagles are a team that is not unbeatable, but at the same time would look outstanding on Missouri State's list of victims.

Winthrop had none of that, however, as Gregg Marshall's squad went into Springfield and played almost flawless basketball on their way to an emphatic 77-66 victory.

The Bears must be disheartened by this one. Having already been swept by Missouri Valley foes Creighton and Southern Illinois, they had to feel blessed for getting yet another opportunity to post a victory over an elite mid-major team. With their travails this weekend, however, the Bears will either have to rely on a run through the MVC tournament or on their huge early-season triumph over Wisconsin being enough for an at-large bid.

That victory over the Badgers, which looked great at the time, looks absolutely outstanding right now. Still, a win over Winthrop would have all but ensured an NCAA tournament for Missouri State, so it's got to hurt that they didn't get the job done.

2. Virginia Commonwealth — With a 14-2 conference record and the lead in the formidable Colonial Athletic Association, the Rams looked to bolster an already-impressive resumé over the weekend. VCU received a solid matchup, too, in a home date with the Bradley Braves. As a Missouri Valley contender, the Braves had a nice RPI rating heading into the BracketBuster game, but at 9-7 in conference, had not exactly been on a recent tear. This was a great opportunity for VCU to hold serve at home against a strong opponent.

Commonwealth came out firing, but Bradley blew them Rams off their own court in the second half. The end result: a 74-63 loss that will do nothing for VCU's tournament hopes. Now the Rams will have to win the CAA tournament if they don't want their postseason fate to rest in the hands of Princeton AD Gary Walters and the rest of the NCAA tournament committee.

3. Old Dominion — ODU lost when the BracketBuster schedule was released. Sure the Monarchs took care of business in their game (barely), but they would have loved to play one of the top mid-major teams in order to boost their chances for an at-large bid. Instead, Old Dominion drew the Toledo Rockets, who currently stand at 101 in the RPI and are in line for nothing more than a 15-seed if they get the automatic bid out of the MAC. In fairness to the Rockets, they are an impressive 10-2 in the MAC and are running away with the West Division of the conference. Still, it would have behooved Old Dominion to be matched up with either an at-large contender such as Winthrop, or if the Monarchs really wanted to get ambitious, with an at-large shoe-in such as Butler or Southern Illinois.

The Colonial Athletic Association is enjoying a high conference ranking this year (currently No. 13 in the RPI) and has a pretty good chance of sending two teams to the Dance. Had ODU played and a defeated one of the elite mid-major ballclubs, the Monarchs would have taken a big step in staking a claim to the conference's potential at-large birth. A narrow 73-70 victory of Toledo is just not going to do much for the selection committee.

There were other winners and losers in 2007 BracketBuster-mania for sure, but the potential NCAA tournament lives of these six teams really hung in the balance over the weekend.

For example, Holy Cross and Oral Roberts probably dropped an NCAA seed (if they go on to win their respective conference tournaments) with losses, but they would not have been close to the bubble even with BracketBuster wins.

Southern Illinois, on the other hand, posted one of the proceedings' most impressive wins, defeating Butler (also an NCAA lock) 68-64 in a clash of mid-major titans. In the Salukis, however, we're dealing with a whole different beast. SIU had secured their presence in the field of 65 long before this showdown with the Bulldogs. All the win will do is potentially notch the Salukis a No. 3 seed in the NCAA tournament rather than a No. 4. Now that's no small difference, but it's not like SIU's season was on the line against Butler.

If the Salukis race all the way to the 2007 Final Four, it will be no kind of George Mason déjà vu. But if one of the three "biggest winners" mentioned above pulls of the feat, then lightning will officially have struck twice.

Posted by Ricky Dimon at 9:22 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick edged 48-year-old Mark Martin at the line by .020 seconds in a controversial finish as chaos reigned behind them. As Kyle Busch triggered a crash, Harvick passed Martin for the win, with NASCAR explaining that the caution wasn't flown until after Harvick's pass.

"Isn't it ironic," says Harvick, "that after two weeks of penalizing others for not following the rules, NASCAR can't even follow one of it's own? I'd like to thank my car owner, Richard Childress. He's not a deadbeat owner and he's not under suspension, so that pretty much leaves him as the only car owner out there. And I'd like to congratulate Mark Martin on another second-place finish, something I'm sure he's sick of hearing."

2. Mark Martin — Martin was denied his first win in the Daytona 500 after losing the lead to Kevin Harvick on the final lap while a multi-car pile-up unfolded behind them. Had NASCAR frozen the field as soon as the wreck began, Martin would have been the winner, as he was leading Harvick at the time. Typically, Martin accepted the outcome with grace and sportsmanship.

"Yeah, thanks, NASCAR," says Martin, "for a job well done. To express my gratitude, I'll be making a 14-hour road trip to NASCAR headquarters, accompanied by a steel mallet, a 4-inch knife, a BB gun, large trash bags, rubber tubing, mace, and an extremely absorbent adult diaper."

3. Jeff Burton — Burton squeezed through the ensuing wreckage of the last lap wreckage to take third in the 500, behind teammate Harvick in first, and former teammate Martin in second.

"I'm caught somewhere between enthusiasm for my teammate and disappointment for Mark," says Burton, driver of the Cingular Wireless car, also known as Nextel's worst nightmare should he win the Cup. "Honestly, I think Mark should file an official protest; not about the outcome, but to have the pre-race broadcast shortened by about three hours. Seriously though, NASCAR should seriously consider writing the rules in pen and not pencil."

4. Elliott Sadler — Sadler's debut at Daytona for Evernham Motorsports resulted in a surprising sixth-place finish, despite a start from the 30th position, as well as the loss of team director Josh Browne. Browne was fined $25,000 and suspended two races as the result of rules violations prior to qualifying.

"Take that, NASCAR!" says Sadler. "You think this team needs Josh Browne to be successful? We need Josh Browne like Britney Spears needs hair. But seriously, I would much rather have heard a Britney pre-race mini-concert than one by Kelly Clarkson. Nothing against Clarkson, but I think a bald, tattooed artist appeals more to the average NASCAR fan than a former American Idol. Especially if Britney would have sang her classic 'Oops! I Shaved it Again.'"

5. Kasey Kahne — Kahne was the second-highest finisher, after teammate Eliott Sadler, of the many drivers who were penalized for infractions at Daytona. Kahne was docked 50 points, and crew chief Kenny Francis was fined $50,000 and suspended four weeks, but Kahne still managed a seventh-place finish.

"$50,000 is nothing to laugh at," says Kahne, "but I'm going to do it anyway. Ha! I make $50 grand on autographs alone, and that's when I have my personal assistant forge my signature. Seriously, though, I'm happy we passed inspection, and I apologize for our rules infractions. In our defense, though, at least we didn't try to run jet fuel in our car, a la Michael Waltrip, although it was a brilliant idea. And I hear Michael would have gotten away with it were it not for the flight attendant found in the back seat."

6. David Gilliland — Gilliland started on the pole alongside teammate Ricky Rudd and battled to an eighth-place finish, despite falling a lap down at one point.

"I don't know how Elliott Sadler ever gave up his ride in the M&M's car," explains Gilliland, who's pit crew includes a skipper, a millionaire, said millionaire's wife, a movie star, a professor, and some farmer girl named Mary Anne. "I love driving the M&M's car, especially when my teammate is sponsored by Snickers. Please, by all means, call us 'The Candy Boys.'"

7. Jeff Gordon — The No. 24 wasn't in its usual Daytona form, challenging for the win, but Gordon still pulled out a 10th, despite wiping out in the final lap crash and sliding across the finish line. Gordon won the second of Thursday's Gatorade 125 qualifiers, but a post-race inspection failure relegated him to a start of 42nd on the grid.

"As you know, I'm a father-to-be," says a proud Gordon. "This kid's going to be a racer, so it would be fitting if he/she were born in a car, especially since that's where he/she was conceived."

8. Tony Stewart — After tangling with Kyle Busch on his way to victory in Bud Shootout, Stewart was taken out by Kyle's brother Kurt as Kurt went underneath Stewart on lap 153. The No. 20 car slammed into the wall, and Stewart finished last in the 43-car field. Busch accepted blame, while the normally hot-headed Stewart was diplomatic on the situation.

"Hey, I've got no problem with the Busch brothers," says Stewart. "And if you believe that, I've got some pond-front property in the Daytona infield I'd like to sell you, as well as some barbecue sauce with my picture on it. Wait, that's real. Don't let my new-found calm demeanor fool you; I'm as volatile as enriched uranium in a burning North Korean fireworks factory, or jet fuel in Michael Waltrip's intake manifold."

9. Mike Wallace — Wallace, brother of more famous sibling Rusty, and also a Ryan Newman hater, finished a surprising fourth at Daytona to put Phoenix Racing on the map, as well as primary sponsor, Miccosukee Resort and Gaming.

"It's a great finish for me, the team, and Miccosukee," says Wallace. "I've got to hand it to Miccosukee, Florida's chief destination to blow a paycheck. They really took a gamble sponsoring our car. I know they had reservations about it, unsure if we'd even make the race. But we did, and now, with over $600,000 in winnings, we've got the money to run, and cheat, with the big dogs."

10. Kurt Busch — Busch tangled with Tony Stewart on lap 153 after the two had engaged for three-quarters of the race in various battles for position. Busch tried to pass underneath Stewart, but tapped the left rear of the No. 20, sending Stewart out of the race and severely damaging the No. 2 Penske Dodge.

"I accepted full responsibility for that mishap," explains Busch. "Or did I? If you'll recall, in the Bud Shootout, Stewart bumped my brother Kyle out of the lead with about eight laps to go. Accident? I don't think so. Vengeance was due to Stewart. We Busch's have a saying: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a surgically-altered ear for a surgically-altered ear."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 8:37 PM | Comments (1)

February 21, 2007

Golf's Identity Crisis

Many middle-aged men go through something called a midlife crisis. I'm still in my 20s, so I am a number of years away from it happening to me. From what I hear, though, a number of men become disillusioned with the path their lives have taken and the opportunities that they left behind in the fray of getting their life to what it is. Some just make small changes to cope with the problem — change jobs, do some traveling, or take up a new hobby. Others make absurd changes like divorcing their wives, ditching that practical sedan for a convertible, or getting hair plugs. Regardless of the response, it seems like the midlife crisis is a man's response to not really knowing where he has been or where he wants to go.

Golf does not have a pre-determined life span and, even if it did, it would probably be considered to be well past its midlife point. Despite that, though, the game is exhibiting signs that it is clearly struggling with the same problems of someone in a midlife crisis. On lots of fronts, golf is not really sure where it is heading or what it should do. Lots of voices of influence cannot seem to come together to decide where the next evolution of the game is or if it even needs evolving. Running down the list, though, it becomes apparent that the game may be in trouble if it does not find some direction and clarity soon.

Amateur Woes

The number of Americans actively participating in the game is lower than its peak at the turn of the century. According to the National Golf Federation, the number of Core Golfers (those which play more than seven rounds per year) peaked in 2000 with 14.1 million golfers in that category. As of 2005, that number was 12.5 million. Economic differences during these two years are fairly minimal, so it is a valid claim that there are fewer diehard golfers out there by about 10% in the past five years.

Interestingly enough, though, there has been a modest increase in the number of casual golfers (1-7 rounds per year) and total golfers over that time period. This means that while there are fewer people playing the game with a high frequency, there are more people at least trying the game and playing every once in a while.

This impact can be seen in the decline in the total number of round played. From 2001 to 2005, there was a decrease of nearly 20 million in the number of total rounds played — nearly a 5% decrease. The recent small surge in the number of casual golfers, though, has driven a slight increase year over year in the total number of rounds played in the United States. The NGF recently reported a 0.8% increase in total rounds play from 2005 to 2006. While that is good news, total rounds played is not necessarily a solid indicator of the health of participation.

More importantly, the increase in the number of casual golfers speaks to two negative potential trends concerning participation. One, the numbers seem to indicate that golf is currently relying on curiosity about the sport to generate rounds played, but is not managing to maintain the interest of those players. They either leave the game or remain as casual golfers. Two, the reduction in the number of core golfers means that the players of the game are probably skewing older and are having to reduce the frequency with which they play. This can be further demonstrated in that the number of minority, junior, and female golfers have largely remained static in all categories in the past five years. Thus, the traditional white male golfers that play frequently are engaging the game less.

Recognizing the trend, the golf industry has tried to respond for several years. In 2000, various elements of the golf industry came together to form Golf 20/20. According to its website, the mission of the collaborative is "to align the golf industry behind a plan that addresses the future of golf in a strategic manner, with an emphasis on accelerating growth and participation, and creating new avenues of access into the game." Golf 20/20 was born out of the industry's recognition that its future success relies on the interest of the amateur golfer.

As part of the Golf 20/20 program, the PGA of America created the Play Golf America initiative to encourage curious potential golfers to learn about the game. The initiative features celebrity endorsements, free lessons, and other teaching programs designed to grow awareness of and interest in playing the game.

In its 2006 report at the annual Golf 20/20 Conference, PGA of America President Roger Warren showed that the Play Golf America program may be achieving its goals. Website hits were way up, the number of participating facilities increased, and there was a 21% in the number of people utilizing free lessons during PGA Free Lesson Month. The American Express Women's Golf Week saw a 159% increase in the number of female players participating. Among those participants in those events, 23% and 52% of each described themselves as new golfers. Among all participants for both programs, 41% and 22% respectively then went on to signup for a tee time at a golf facility afterward. Play Golf America also claims a 79% one-year retention rate for its new golfer participants. In all, this is very striking data in the face of NGF data that may indicate a contrarian trend before (and maybe during) Play Golf America.

The First Tee is a program that is dedicated to growing the game among youth, especially in urban environments where participation is very low. The First Tee has opened 274 facilities in its history and has definitely expanded its ability to reach young golfers through affordable access to the game and promoting golf's virtuous qualities and their relevance to life.

Through 2005, over 675,000 juniors had participated in First Tee programs. This was nearly one-third higher than the initial cumulative goal of 500,000 since the inception of First Tee in 1997. The ethnic breakdown of the First Tee participants is also encouraging. 26% of participants in the First Tee were African-American and 10% were Hispanic-American. As compared to NGF ethnic data, only 6% of all golfers are African-American and 5% are Hispanic-American. In the next five years, First Tee hopes to expand the number of facilities and affiliates it has while reaching a total of 3.5 million kids.

Technology, the Golf Economy, and Golfers

While it appears that golf participation trends are in a slightly downward cycle, there has never been greater spending in terms of golf equipment. According to Golf DataTech, the golf industry has seen 10% and 6% year over year growth in the past two years and an upward trend in the past five years. Golf equipment sales now total in the area of $3 billion annually.

The most important part of that increase has been the sale of metalwoods. From available data between 2005 and 2006, the sale of woods increased by 13%. (Interestingly enough, there was no change in the sales of golf balls.) The evolution of hybrid technology has skyrocketed sales of these specialty clubs. In 2004, hybrid sales were in the area of $50 million. By 2006, that number was estimated to be approximately $200 million. In other words, players want to hit the ball longer and straighter and are willing to spend a significant amount of money in new technology that may deliver that ability.

Industry datapoints, though, say that sales of other equipment items like balls and gloves are largely dependent upon the total number of rounds played. While sales have increased in both areas in real money terms, when controlled for inflation, the growth must be limited because of the decrease in the total number of rounds played annually over the past five years.

Most important to this discussion is that the growth of the industry, according to Golf DataTech, is largely reliant upon the development of new golf technology that will appeal to the golf consumer. From all appearances, casual and diehard golfers alike will flock to new technology and give it a try if they perceive that it could make them play better.

The economic data seem to suggest that the golf industry is developing technology that appeals to the golfer's pride and desire to shave strokes off of their handicaps. The actual scoring data seems to suggest that the industry is not delivering on the hopes created by new technologies, though. Golf scores, on the average, have remained stagnant for years.

In fact, some measures seem to indicate that golfers as a whole are getting worse. This could be happening for a host of reasons. The reasons may include that: people have less and less leisure time as they work more hours; households in the middle-class are more pinched for expendable income for golf (especially during the recent real estate boom); and that people may simply be less interested in developing their games than they used to be.

Whatever the reason is, the bottom line is that technology is not helping to get more people interested in playing the game at all or more often, or improve scores. Despite that reality, the golf economy has probably never been healthier in dollar terms. It is a dichotomy that haunts the game — fewer people are playing less often in the past five years, but sales of technology have seen a significant increase.

Meanwhile, the professional game is causing a grassroots backlash against technology because it has dramatically changed the professional game. The evolution of increasingly spectacular golf technology in recent years has allowed a number of professional golfers to forge a tremendous gap in the game that amateurs play and the game those same amateurs see on television.

Professionals on the PGA Tour have seen a near 25-yard increase in average drives over a decade. Driver and ball technology have combined to make this possible. Powerful golfers are now able to hit driver and a wedge to many average golf holes that an amateur might find very challenging. Light rough is hardly the penalty it used to be due to groove technology, the new physics of energy transfer from club to ball, and the ability of new golf balls to minimize the impact of off-center and less-than-optimal contact. Wedge technology has made bunker shots routine and almost preferable to chipping around the greens for many professionals. In short, technology has allowed the strongest of golfers to be able to make mockeries of once-venerable golf courses.

In response, tournament organizers and sponsors have often conspired to doctor up (and potentially ruin) many courses in an attempt to maintain some level of difficulty in the professional game. Major championships have become boring, painful marches all in the name of trying to keep par in check.

Manufacturers have responded in many ways to deflect blame for this problem being focused on them. They have claimed that it is better golf course agronomy, including seeding and grass choices, that has contributed most to the dramatic alteration in the way the professional game is played. Many golf manufacturers would even go so far to tell you that what is happening with golf technology and its impact on many golf courses is just a part of the natural evolution of the game.

There is a counterattack to that perspective, though, and it seems to be growing in strength. Passionate conventionalists are lobbying in the media and in private for increased regulation of the same golf technology that equipment manufacturers tells golfers will improve their games. Rolling back the potential of technology, they argue, would bridge the gap between professional and amateur golf, align golf strategy to its more classical roots, and increase general interest in the sport by golfers and casual fans. That debate is still being waged and there appears to be no resolution in sight. Any answer, though, will have to address the burning desire of golfers to improve and their perception that technology will help, the problems facing courses and players at the professional level, and the bottom lines of industry players.

Creating a Global Professional Game?

While the professional tours and golf's governing bodies cannot seem to answer how it will respond to technology yet, the PGA Tour has been attending to other business. The PGA Tour is slowly closing the door on the global experiment that was supposed to be the World Golf Championships — even in the face of data that suggests the game is dramatically growing in China and India. Initially, the WGC was billed as golf's only global series of tournaments. Even if that tag line was a cover-up for the tournaments being guaranteed paydays for the best on Tour, at least the WGC held several of its events overseas. As recently as last season, the WGC American Express Championship was held just outside of London, England at an up-and-coming venue called the Grove.

Then the PGA Tour — supposedly with the support of the International Federation of PGA Tours — decided to restructure the series. American Express ended its sponsorship of the lone medal play event held out of the United States with any kind of regularity. To take its place, the PGA Tour selected Doral as the host site for the next WGC event, called the CA Championship, and ended the Ford Championship at Doral in order to do it. Then, by abolishing the World Cup from the series in January, it became official that all of the WGC events will be held in the United States. Throw in that golf's largest payday is now tied to the PGA Tour and year-long participation in the FedEx Cup and it has become apparent that the PGA Tour is making a power play when it comes to sustaining its position as the number one tour in the world. That is certainly the antithesis of global.

At the same time, the European Tour arguably has never been stronger and is demonstrating real signs of a global tour. There has been a surge in the number of well-known American players that are leaving the ranks of the PGA Tour to participate in a host of events on the European Tour.

Certainly, economics has something to do with it. After all, European Tour events are likely to pay huge appearance fees to American players that they cannot receive from PGA Tour events and their sponsors. This probably inspired Tiger Woods to agree to appear at the Dubai Desert Classic for the next five years. (His design venture in Dubai with a high price tag probably also worked to secure that deal.) But even other Americans are basking in the glow of the European Tour. Tom Lehman has agreed to play in the Italian Open, just one week prior to the PLAYERS Championship. Apparently, there is at least some genuine interest in escaping the high purses available on the PGA Tour in order to experience some more exotic venues.

Also, the Europeans themselves are renewing their commitment to the European Tour after straying to the PGA Tour in recent years. Last year's Euro Tour Order of Merit champion Padraig Harrington has publicly made a commitment to defend his title in earnest this season in Europe. After playing so well in the United States for the past few seasons, Harrington has made a vow to not abandon the defense of a career highlight in the face of millions more available in the United States.

Taking a look at some PGA Tour mainstays, their schedules seem to indicate that there may be growing backlash against Americanizing the professional game. Ernie Els and Retief Goosen have increased the delays in their PGA Tour season debuts over the past few years. Traditionally, Ernie had participated in at least half of the Hawaii swing to open the season. Without the benefit of a win last season to get into the Mercedes Championships, Els decided to skip the Sony Open in Hawaii and participate on the European Tour instead (in support of his home country, South Africa). In 2004, Retief Goosen began his non-Hawaii PGA Tour schedule with the Hope. In each of the seasons that have followed, the Goose has started at the Accenture Match Play — one month later. Neither has a PGA Tour start in 2007 and, as a result, any FedEx Cup points either.

Changing of the Professional Guard

For their part, the LPGA Tour has experienced a surge in top players that hail from foreign countries. Their best players, Annika Sorenstam and Lorena Ochoa, are not Americans. American legends Juli Inkster, Beth Daniel, and others are entering the twilight of their professional careers. Young Americans like Paula Creamer and Natalie Gulbis are improving, but are still not quite at the top of the sport. The next generation of young American female pros is competing with an influx of golfers from Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

In response, the LPGA has made a commitment to hold official money events outside of the United States. Events in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea highlight an Asian swing of the Tour that was not even conceived, much less plausible, even a decade ago. Lorena Ochoa's home nation of Mexico hosts two LPGA stops now. It is because of the dwindling dominance of American female golfers that the LPGA Tour has made this response. While it has largely been successful for the Tour and its business model, the move is an indication of the current lack of dominance by the American female golfer. Only three Americans are in the top 10 of the Rolex Women's World Rankings and only six yanks are in the top 20.

This is not a phenomenon limited to women's golf, though. The Official World Golf Ranking has never had more international players in its top ranks than it does at present. Though the world's top two golfers are Americans (Woods and Furyk), there are only three Americans in the top 10 of that ranking — Phil Mickelson being the other. Like the women, six American men are ranked in the top 20 in the world. One in five golfers in the top 50 are American. Golf is not dominated by Americans like it used to be. Whether that speaks to growth and development of the game worldwide or stagnation of the American game remains to be seen.

Fewer U.S. Professional Fans

Fewer people are watching PGA Tour golf on television — even if Tiger Woods is in the field. It is extremely difficult to pinpoint a reason for the problem. It could be any of the issues facing the game that have already been discussed. It may be something else entirely contributing to the downward spiral. Or, most likely, it is some combination of reasons known and unknown.

Tigermania is alive, but certainly not at its peak. Conventional wisdom says that when Tiger Woods is in contention, or even entered in a field, that the ratings for the event will go up significantly. While that still holds true, Tiger does not even appear to be enough anymore to attract viewers. In 2006, Woods' victory at Torrey Pines attracted an 81% over the prior year's rating for that tournament on Sunday. His victory at Doral, though, produced a 16% dip in ratings from the year prior's telecast. In 2004, the L.A. Times reported that ratings declined year over year for 17 of Woods' 30 televised rounds. Granted, that statistic covers his winless streak of 10 majors, but the appeal of Woods has noticeably faded.

As a result of ratings declines during the 2003 to 2006 television contract, the PGA Tour had to engage in a drastic overhaul of the season and its television partners in an attempt to reposition the game for the future. ABC, ESPN, and USA Network removed themselves as PGA Tour broadcasters. The Tour engaged the Golf Channel in an unprecedented 15-year contract to broadcast 72 (or 90) holes of some events at the beginning and end of the year, as well as Thursday-Friday rounds for every event. The spin on this move was that despite the Golf Channel's limited reach compared to ESPN and USA, there would no longer be confusion about where PGA Tour golf would be on Thursday and Friday.

While that may have been true, ratings for the Mercedes-Benz Championship were down 44% as compared to ESPN's 72-hole broadcast in 2006. Ratings continued to lag behind last year for the Sony Open in Hawaii and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic (which was broadcast on network TV last year). Casual channel-changers that tuned into the networks and ESPN and stuck with golf probably just did not do so with broadcasts on TGC. All told, the PGA Tour's influence in the American sportscape in economic terms and in numbers of committed fans is declining.

Add in the recent well-publicized sponsor turmoil facing PGA and LPGA Tour stops, and it becomes apparent that the popularity of American professional golf among corporations and fans is stagnating. Perhaps, it is even returning to just a tick above its pre-1998 levels.

What to Do About It

The most frustrating thing about this identity crisis is that there appears to be few answers in sight. There is a litany of reasons why people have stopped playing the game. Some of them are economic, others center on time constraints, and a number of them are caused by the game and its culture. There is some data to suggest that the industry may be beginning to effectively address the problem, but it will be a few years before those efforts can be evaluated against other determinants that the industry could never control.

New and better facilities are available and those that remain core golfers are spending more than ever in the golf economy. Despite innovation and development, the game is becoming more difficult and divisions between pros and amateurs have become greater. The governing bodies of golf must find regulatory solutions that do not cause irreparable harm to the industry and address technology concerns that impact whether or not purists watch golf in person and on television. That solution is likely to take years and probably will still not stop the trend in golf course tightening at the professional level.

Even if people do not have time to play golf and are not impacted by regulation, they still are not spending their time watching as much golf. According to the Pew Institute, only 2% of respondents in a social survey said that golf was their favorite sport to watch. That means that people are finding entertainment elsewhere when it comes to outdoor and indoor activities. How the golf industry can find a way to attract attention in a crowded world of leisure is yet to be seen.

With so few answers, maybe there really is little to be done about the game's health and identity. Perhaps the game is actually very healthy in its niche status and true golf fans must resign themselves to that fact. What Tigermania's development may have done to raise expectations about the potential popularity of the game, its resurgence (or lack thereof) may have brought those expectations back in line with reality. Regardless of what golf is to society or where it is in its evolution, it is still a game to love and enjoy. To end on a positive note, if there are fewer people involved in the sport, that just means there is more room out there for you and I — and that's something I can certainly appreciate.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 10:48 PM | Comments (1)

The Solution is Spelled H-O-R-S-E

How much hype did we have to endure leading up to the NBA All-Star Game? There were the weeks of talking about Vegas as the ultimate party destination, and the various ways that the NBA players and countless celebrities would take advantage of larger-than-life aura of the city with blow-out bashes.

Then there was David Stern touting the game as an exceptional opportunity to watch the greatest athletes in the world compete against each other on the largest stage. No matter that late nights, too much alcohol, dozens of parties, and enough gambling to keep even Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan happy would displace the game as the biggest news stories of the weekend.

What could go wrong? Well, arrests and fights, but thankfully that didn't happen. What did happen was a lackluster All-Star Game that provided a chance to watch the "greatest athletes in the world" sprint through stationery defenses on their way to the basket for dunk after easy dunk.

For one, I think that the All-Star Game suffers from a lack of competitiveness. It's not that the East is that much worse than the West, in fact, we don't know that at all, because no one really tried. We never got a true chance to see if the East squad playing at full strength and ability could match up against the West squad playing at full strength and ability.

And there are a couple of culprits for this lackluster effort. Sure, everyone wants to avoid injury in a game that doesn't mean anything (which I'm sure is why LeBron was very careful when trying to throw himself an alley-oop off the backboard) and everyone wants to make sure they are healthy for the second half of the regular season (which I'm sure is why Agent Zero was extremely careful when doing a circus dunk off a trampoline during a television timeout).

What is really to blame is the fact that the NBA has set up this game as a chance for the players to show off for the fans. The NBA isn't promising a competitive game showcasing the best skills of the players, it is promising an exciting game showcasing the athletic skills of the players. There is a big difference. The all-stars are just executing what is expected of them. Show off. Dunk. Laugh. Don't play defense. Who cares who wins?

The atmosphere created for the game has taken away what I imagine is a natural inclination to be competitive in the players. They want to win. They don't want to be embarrassed. But when the culture says that there is no risk of them being embarrassed and no one cares who wins, then everything devolves into playground fun time.

The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is at least a little competitive because at the very core of the game rests the singular competition between the pitcher and the batter. A one-on-one contest in which neither player wants to back down or lose. Pitchers don't toss 70 mph cake pitches down the middle of the plate for guys to whack into the bleachers as souvenirs.

Somehow, the time when Magic Johnson backed down Scottie Pippen all the way down the floor while Pippen played great defense has given way to a time when guys stand around, and if you didn't know better, you would think that the ref's whistle had blown stopping play while somebody dunked for the fun of it, when in fact, play is still live, but no one is moving besides the guy with the ball.

Now, I don't know that the All-Star Game itself can ever be fixed. I'm not sure that we'll ever get away from the A-list version of And 1 that we see during the game itself. However, I think there are some ways that the NBA can change some of the events during the weekend to capitalize on the players' natural drive to compete. Some of these ideas you may have heard before, some you may have not, but I'm convinced any and all of these would make the all-star events more worth watching than they were this year (which wouldn't be hard to do).

Red, White, and Blue

Why is it that we have to endure the NBA trying to incorporate the WNBA into All-Star Weekend? Why not use one of the best basketball treasures we have in this country and invite the Harlem Globetrotters? They have a long tradition of playing some of the best teams in the world, be it NCAA champions, NCAA all-stars, and dozens of national teams? Why not invite them to play a team composed of both the Rookies and the Sophs? Who wouldn't want to watch that game? Hell, have them play a squad composed of the all-stars? This would at least make the NBA players give a little bit of effort, don't you think?

H-O-R-S-E

Why not? If the NBA is going to tout the preternatural athletic ability of its players, why not let them shine in one of the most recognizable and enjoyable games on earth? Every kid has played it, standing behind the backboard in their front yard and heaving a ball over the hoop, standing behind a bush and tossing the ball backward over their head. If anybody has seen Kyle Korver's shot off the wall, you can only imagine the kind of shots we would see in a H-O-R-S-E competition during All-Star Weekend.

One-on-One

Isn't this what the All-Star Game devolves into anyway? LeBron going against Kobe, Kobe going against LeBron, for example. Get rid of the extraneous eight other players on the floor and let two guys go at it. This would at least solve the problem of trying to get the guys motivated to defend their honor, and to defend at all. They wouldn't want to be embarrassed when it's just them out on the court and the mirage of no-culpability is gone. Set it up with three brackets: 1) point guards, 2) guards/small forwards, 3) power forwards/centers, and let them play it out for everyone to see. Watch Tracy McGrady go one-on-one against Wade, watch Yao go against Shaq. Then when all is said and done, let Shaq battle Steve Nash just for fun.

12-Foot Hoop

It was ludicrous that the NBA didn't allow Dwight Howard to dunk on a 12-foot hoop. The dunk contest has gotten more stale by the year because of a lack of innovations. There's only so many things you can jump over and so many historic dunks you can adapt (read: Dee Brown). So, why not have a taller hoop? In fact, why not have a whole separate competition dedicated to raising the hoop. Start it at 10 feet and go up 1/4 or 1/2 a foot each round and eliminate contestants like the Olympic high-jump. I don't know about you, but I'd love to see who could dunk on the highest hoop.

Trampolines

Make the celebrities play a version of trampoline basketball. That might be the only way to make that event watchable. Just a thought.

Posted by Vince Grzegorek at 5:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2007

The NFL Free Agent Class of 2007

Free agency. It's two words that have been the Achilles heel of some NFL franchises (see: Washington Redskins) and the guiding light of others (see: New England Patriots). Where some organizations fail year after year to sign a competent free agent, others use it to keep their salary caps healthy and their rosters deep.

This year's free agent crop is deep enough to offer many teams relief in many areas. But who are the can't-miss prospects and who are the prospects you just can't count on?

Quarterback

Sure Thing — Matt Schuab (UFA, Atlanta Falcons) — Schuab won't spend another year behind franchise-quarterback Michael Vick and since many teams are in need of a field general with a great arm and even greater command of the field, this quarterback will be posting 3,000+ yards and 20+ touchdowns in a new jersey come this fall. Chicago is a strong possibility for Schuab to end up with as Jacksonville looms in the background with their quarterback trio of Byron Leftwich, David Garrard, and Quinn Gray.

Sure Miss — Tim Rattay (UFA, Tampa Bay Buccaneers) — Rattay was traded out of San Francisco (which should tell you something) and played second-string to Chris Simms in Tampa (which should also tell you something). Sadly though, the quarterback crop is so light this year that someone will end up signing him to more years and dollars than he's worth.

Running Back

Sure Thing — Michael Turner (RFA, San Diego Chargers) — My hope for the football population in San Diego is that the Chargers make up for their mistake of firing Marty Schottenheimer and keep the 1-2 punch they have in LaDainian Tomlinson and Turner. If they don't, look for Turner to be playing (and racking up the yards and touchdowns) for another team. All but a handful of the teams in the league could use a back such as Turner.

Sure Miss — Ahman Green (UFA, Green Bay Packers) — It was just three years ago that Green was the talk of the NFL as he ran for nearly 2,000 yards and made the NFL Pro Bowl team easily, but injuries and limited playing time (not to mention constant fumbling issues) have limited what was at one time one of the greater potentials in the league. Sadly, Green will be serving as a backup in Green Bay as the Packers look to build their roster up for one more year before Brett Favre says goodbye to the game.

Wide Receiver

Sure Thing — Donte Stallworth (UFA, Philadelphia Eagles) — I'm 99 percent certain the Eagles will keep this speedy, reliable wide receiver. He missed four games last year because of injury, but in the 12 he played, he showed he had what it took to be a number-one talent in Philadelphia. If the Eagles make the mistake of not signing him, look for him to be one of the first free agents picked up this year.

Sure Miss — Patrick Crayton (RFA, Dallas Cowboys) — Crayton benefits from the talent that is around him. He has neither the physical build nor the speed to be a starter in the league and will continue to serve as a third-string slot-receiver unless a team is reckless enough to overlook all that and pay him like a starter (see: Washington Redskins).

Offensive Line

Sure Thing — Leonard Davis (UFA, Arizona Cardinals) — He isn't just a part of the Cardinals' offensive line, he is the Cardinals' offensive line. He is the reason Arizona's line isn't one of the worst in the league, but sadly, Arizona will probably not be able to keep him as they will probably have to look for a younger, less-expensive (and less-talented) replacement. This will be a huge step in the wrong direction for the Cardinals, but their woes are too many to have the luxury of a franchise-tackle such as Davis.

Sure Miss — Derrick Dockery (UFA, Washington Redskins) — This four-year veteran at guard is nothing special as he, along with the rest of the Redskins line, never gave Mark Brunell, Jason Campbell, or Clinton Portis time enough to make completions or run for long gains. Dockery will re-sign with the Redskins with little (if any) interest from other teams.

Defensive Line

Sure Thing — Dwight Freeney (UFA, Indianapolis Colts) — With the way the Colts' cap is (and the fact that they just won a Super Bowl), there's no way they're going to be able to keep this highly-touted, highly-talented pass rusher without franchising him. If he's not franchised, he'll most likely be the first high-priced defensive end to sign with another team.

Sure Miss — Cory Redding (UFA, Detroit Lions) — The Lions played with a lot of effort this year, but still lacked execution on both sides of the ball as they took a step backwards into their 3-13 season last year. Redding will definitely re-sign with the Lions as they look to upgrade the more premium positions (quarterback, offensive line, running back) and keep the rest of their roster as low-priced as possible.

Linebacker

Sure Thing — Adalius Thomas (UFA, Baltimore Ravens) — Thomas stepped up in a big way as he emerged as one of the better linebackers in the league after fellow teammate Ray Lewis was limited because of nagging injuries and old age. Look for the Ravens to franchise Thomas and keep him no matter the cost. Their defense is their staple and anything that keeps that defense in check will be a high priority for the Ravens organization.

Sure Miss — Na'il Diggs (UFA, Carolina Panthers) — Diggs was given a chance to step up into the linebacker spot after Dan Morgan was injured, but registered just 60 tackles with no interceptions or sacks. He's going to be let go by the Panthers and end up making less for a team in 2007 than he has in a while.

Defensive Back

Sure Thing — Nate Clements (UFA, Buffalo Bills) — With two Pro Bowl selections under his belt and a reputation as one of the better cornerbacks in the league, look for Clements to test the market and find a new home in 2007 as Buffalo will not tender the franchise tag on him for another year.

Sure Miss — Ken Hamlin (UFA, Seattle Seahawks) — He's just not as reliable as you'd like in a safety. He puts up good numbers (96 tackles, 3 interceptions, and 2 sacks), but he's just not durable enough to play a major part in anyone's defensive game plan. If he can stay on the field for 16 games, he's a solid contributor. My only reservation is in the belief that he can't.

Posted by Ryan Day at 9:17 PM | Comments (9)

NCAA BracketBusters Breakdown

When last we spoke, we were heading into a massive weekend of college basketball. Outside of the conference action (huge wins for Vanderbilt, Alabama, Louisville, Stanford and Maryland, terrible losses for Oklahoma State, Tennessee, Oregon, Clemson, and USC), the BracketBusters series will prove to be a pivotal moment of the season for several teams.

The story of the BracketBusters weekend figured to be the performance of the Missouri Valley and Colonial. Of the participating conferences, they have made the most noise on the national scene, and they were generally matched up in the best games of the series.

Results were decidedly mixed. Southern Illinois showed they are one of the top teams in the nation, regardless of conference, winning at Butler 68-64. Bradley, Drexel, and Old Dominion helped themselves. Missouri State, Wichita State, and VCU stubbed their toes severely. Creighton lost, but should still be okay. Hofstra won, but is still probably screwed.

One thing that jumped out was the performance by the Western Athletic Conference. Though they didn't get a shot at the best teams from the Colonial and Missouri Valley, they took care of the business at hand, going 7-2 with the only teams losing being 4-22 San Jose State and 3-23 Idaho. Nevada predictably handled Northern Iowa with ease, but don't overlook Utah State winning at Oral Roberts or Hawaii putting up a 54-point second half to win at Long Beach State. This was a good weekend for the WAC.

As for the state of Bubble Nation as a result of the 2007 BracketBusters series, here are some of the at-large considerations heading into the final days of the regular season.

Bradley 73, Virginia Commonwealth 64

With a huge road win over the Colonial's top team, the Braves might have helped themselves more than any other BB participant (followed closely by Appalachian State). The win leaves them with an 18-10 record (9-7 in conference), an RPI of 29, and a leg up over VCU if the two should be up against each other for one of the final at-large spots. With only two home games remaining before the MVC tournament (Northern Iowa on Tuesday, Indiana State on Saturday), the Braves could hold their fate in their own hands. For a team that started off 1-3 in conference, that's impressive (and another indication of how good a coach they have in Jim Les).

As for VCU, this loss probably ends any at-large hopes. Despite the gaudy record (22-6, 14-2 in conference), their RPI is in the high 50s, their non-conference SOS is sub-100, and they don't have that signature win to anchor their resume. Still, Anthony Grant has done a fantastic job with this team in his first year.

Winthrop 77, Missouri State 68

Barring a monumental upset in the Big South conference, the Eagles are going to take the auto bid and give somebody a very hard time in the first round (and possibly the second and third rounds). If that upset does happen, and they don't get the auto bid, I don't think this win is enough for an at-large. In essence, this is a nice win for Winthrop, but not terribly important to whether they make the Dance or not.

As for Missouri State, Barry Hinson reminds me of a saying Israeli statesman Abba Eban had about Yasser Arafat: he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. With consecutive home games against Southern Illinois and Winthrop, the Bears had a chance to show the world (and, more importantly, the Selection Committee) that they belonged in the Dance. After losing both, they are still a respectable 19-9 overall (18-9 vs. DI) and 10-6 in conference. The sky hasn't fallen yet, but they need to do something impressive to erase the ugly performance when they had the national stage all to themselves on Friday night. They play at Wichita State tomorrow.

Appalachian State 60, Wichita State 58

Speaking of Wichita State, this loss was the death knell in their at-large hopes. It's win the auto bid or start dreaming of cutting down the nets at Madison Square Garden.

Appalachian State, however, has put itself into a position where they still have a glimmer of hope. If they can win out their last three in the regular season (@Western Carolina, UNC Greensboro, @Elon), then make a run to the conference finals (where they would most likely face Davidson in a rematch of App State's win earlier this year), they might still have a chance at an at-large if they lost that game. There's a lot of "ifs" and "mights" in there, but that's more than Wichita can say right now.

Drexel 64, Creighton 58

An impressive road win for the Dragons illustrates just how good this team could be. That's how they played in winning consecutive road games at Villanova, Syracuse, and Temple. But with an RPI in the 50s, and losses to Penn, Rider, and William & Mary on their record, I'm not sure it's going to be enough to warrant at-large consideration. It's a start, though.

I don't think Creighton did anything to damage their at-large possibilities, but this game did show the world that the Jays are much less effective with Anthony Tolliver in foul trouble. If I were coaching against them in the future, I would throw as many bodies at him as possible. Without him, they are very beatable.

Old Dominion 73, Toledo 70

As I wrote in the preview, Old Dominion's win here didn't turn heads around the country. But if you consider that ODU is now 21-7 with two winnable games to end the regular season (Towson on Wednesday, at William & Mary on Saturday), which would put them at 15-3 in league play with an 11-game winning streak, then add their road win over Georgetown (which is now looking like a possible 2-seed), and this has the look of a Last Four In team. I would personally rate them the favorite to win the Colonial auto bid, but even if they fall in the finals, I think they have a good chance to make it. And if they do, pay very close attention to their match up. This may be one of the most dangerous teams on your bracket.

Hofstra 65, Holy Cross 64

What this game showed is that Hofstra will be a great sleeper pick in the NIT. Holy Cross gave them all they could handle, and they barely escaped with a W. Neither of these teams have an at-large shot.

Nevada 79, Northern Iowa 64

I don't know who they are going to draw in the tournament, but I will have a very hard time not picking Nevada to at least the Sweet 16. They are a quality team with multiple options on offense, good coaching, and a star in Nick Fazekas. There really aren't any glaring weaknesses.

Northern Iowa, on the other hand, just doesn't have enough perimeter offense to compete on that high a level. Eric Coleman could play for anybody in the country, but Ben Jacobson the coach just couldn't replace Ben Jacobson the player. In the end, that's the biggest difference between NIU this year and NIU the past few years.

Southern Illinois 68, Butler 64

Again, there were no at-large considerations in this game. SIU showed they can play with anybody. The Salukis forced A.J. Graves into his worst game of the season, scoring just five points on 1-of-8 shooting (1-of-5 from three). I'm not sure what this says about Butler. They got beat by a great defensive team. There's no need to make any more of it than that.

Three other notes:

New Mexico State held home court against Ohio (77-72). I still don't think the Aggies are in at-large position, but at least they avoided the killer loss.

Wright State did what they had to do against Cal State Fullerton (77-62). With one game remaining before the Horizon tournament, they've won nine straight. If they happen to meet Butler in the conference tournament final, that will be a must-watch game.

Iona beat Delaware for their second win of the season. That's nice.

Seth Doria is a freelance writer who will work for a press pass to any conference tournament within a four-hour drive of St. Louis. For weekly NCAA Sleeper Watch updates, daily notes and picks from the world of sports, and team-by-team MLB previews, visit The Left Calf.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 8:50 PM | Comments (1)

February 19, 2007

MLB Profits From Change in Immigration Law

Major League Baseball will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Jackie Robinson's entry into the major leagues on April 15, 2007, which ended the prohibition of integration of African-American players. However, it is arguable how much MLB has built upon his symbolic legacy as civil rights hero since it enjoyed complete integration in 1959.

For it is has been documented, and especially over the past 10 years, as the 2007 baseball season begins, that MLB has far more in common with American-based multi-national conglomerates than it does with the idea of inclusiveness, where bottom-line profits dictate company policy.

Ironically, MLB will also hold an exhibition game on March 31, 2007 in Memphis, TN between the world champion St. Louis Cardinals and the Cleveland Indians. It is lauded as the inaugural "Civil Rights Game" in the city where the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, for all of Commissioner Bud Selig's interest in diversity in MLB, there are scant African-American patrons in baseball stadiums nationwide. Although MLB argues that is not necessarily so, it denies even keeping such statistics.

Such could also explain why MLB does such a poor job of marketing to the African-American community, as it is one which MLB, it would appear, simply does not consider valuable. For as overall profits rise, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" In turn, why have a civil rights game if there are no African-Americans in the house?

There have only been 12 African-American MLB managers in the history of the game. The most at any one time was six in 2002. Today, after the 2006 dismissals of Frank Robinson of the Washington Nationals and Dusty Baker of the Chicago Cubs, Willie Randolph of the New York Mets and the newly-named Ron Washington of the Texas Rangers remain the only African-American managers in the major leagues.

Hall of Famer Frank Robinson became the first African-American major league manager in 1975 and was involved in almost every facet of the game for 51 years, from player to coach to manager to Vice President of On-Field Operations of MLB. Most recently, he was the Montreal Expos manager, followed by the Washington Nationals at the helm, where he led the transition of the two organizations for a period of five years.

Frank Robinson was unceremoniously fired as manager by new Nationals management last fall, but had at least been promised a community outreach position which he very much wanted. The Nationals management, which won its ownership largely based upon its promise to MLB to engage the African-American community, chose instead to relieve Robinson entirely of his services.

But Frank Robinson has been repeatedly vocal about keeping the game alive in the African-American community, in addition to outspoken Hall of Famer Joe Morgan and current Minnesota Twins outfielder Torii Hunter. Yet, MLB speaks only in platitudes about diversity, bypassing the inner-city and working class neighborhoods, seemingly looking for talent everywhere but there.

As its own ruling class, baseball owners have invested in multi-million dollar academies and facilities primarily in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. But it is now going even farther abroad into mainland China and even Ghana, subsequent to its interests in Japan and South Korea.

MLB has but one Urban Baseball Youth Academy in the entirety of the United States, located in Compton, CA, which opened in 2006. MLB donated but $1 million towards the project that is situated on the grounds of Compton Community College, which furnishes its buildings of operations. Hardly what one would call a triumph for American inner-city youth, at a time that Bud Selig describes as the "Golden Era of Baseball."

"China is the most important country for the game of baseball as it seeks to develop around the world," according to Randy Levine, President of the New York Yankees. He led a contingent to mainland China on behalf of the NY Yankees and MLB in February 2007 to contract with the Chinese Baseball Association in order to develop baseball, initially constructing fields and financing little leagues and equipment. The goal is to eventually provide an academy. Meanwhile, the New York Mets and MLB sent a group to Ghana to formally introduce baseball to West Africa.

But do not mistake such overtures as part of a tour of goodwill ambassadors, as MLB, which still remains the only professional sports organization in the U.S. with an anti-trust exemption, does nothing anymore without its eye on the proverbial money ball. It is baseball on the cheap, overlooking America's homegrown kids. It obviously has no compunction nor feels any obligation to develop an American program, investment, or facility built, for example, for every offshore program, investment, or facility built.

In 2006, more than 23% of players on major league rosters were comprised of foreign-born players, which has more than doubled since 1990. Foreign-born players do not include those from Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories or possessions or those born abroad to U.S. parents. The Dominican Republic enjoys the largest number of foreign-born major league players or about one out of seven in 2006, followed by Venezuela. Mexico, Canada, Japan, Panama, Cuba, Colombia, and Taiwan totaled just half of those from the Dominican Republic.

All major league teams have academies and/or share facilities primarily in the Dominican Republic with a few remaining in Venezuela, where building has tailed off due to civil unrest. But in its latest coup, MLB has gotten an even bigger break from the federal government in a recent change in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was hardly publicized. Amended by the U.S. Congress in 2006 and signed into law on December 22, 2006 by President George W. Bush, it is known as the "Compete Act of 2006" or the "Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals, Entertainers, and Teams Through Legal Entry Act of 2006."

The legislation changes the visa status of foreign-born minor league players to be able to use P-1 visas, formerly reserved only for major league players, and an upgrade from the H-2B visas, generally used by temporary foreign-born workers in numerous industries. Each team previously was limited to 26 H-2B visas per season for its minor leagues. Major leagues have no numerical limitations with the P-1 visa, valid for a period of 10 years.

Given that over 40% of minor leaguers are foreign-born and that most of them are from the Dominican Republic, this will enable a continuous pipeline of Latin American players. MLB's foreign academies house, feed, school, and teach athletic skills to boys as young as 10-years-old until they are age 16, who are then allowed to sign minor league contracts. In the U.S., a player must be 18-years-old to sign a minor league contract and then must go through the draft system.

Young Dominicans have the opportunity to benefit from more than just baseball skills, but preparation for a life in the U.S. as well. They are given a chance to at least temporarily leave a life of depravity. By the same token, very few of these youngsters statistically make it to the major leagues and even prior to their new visa status, hundreds of minor leaguers were brought to the U.S. each year only to be relieved of their services. Hundreds of Dominican players also never return to their homeland and remain in the U.S. as illegal immigrants, primarily surviving in the underground economy of New York City.

What MLB no longer finds useful becomes disposable. Unfortunately, these disposables are people; from retired players who never had benefit of the lucrative contract, true ambassadors of the game such as Frank Robinson, African-American youth, and even foreign-born players who are not major league material.

It has been said that Latin players in the Dominican Republic sign for contracts between five and 10 cents on the dollar compared to their U.S. counterparts. And with approximately 400 Dominican players signed each year to minor league contracts, MLB can celebrate its unhampered pipeline of such as well as its new surprisingly cozy relationship with the U.S. Congress, which it lobbied along with the U.S. State Department for these immigration law changes.

It may be a win-win for MLB as employers looking for cheap labor and even for those other employers willing to hire them at below market value wages, should these minor leaguers remain in the U.S. illegally upon their termination from their respective clubs. Their visas remain valid only as long as they are employed by MLB and its minor leagues. In addition, there will now be more available H-2B visas available per year for those multi-national corporations sniffing out labor with devalued wages in other industries. And the U.S. Congress gets a feather in its cap from some of its largest donors.

But it remains a lose-lose for communities across the U.S. which finance sky box stadiums, unable to afford tickets for their families, for games played on the backs of many exploited athletes who never make it to the big leagues and at the expense of our own children, who of little means are never even encouraged to play baseball by its biggest profiteers.

For there is a proviso in the immigration law which both the U.S. Congress and MLB conveniently overlooked. The policy developed in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Department of Homeland Security, granted MLB its visa program, contingent upon foreign-born players only occupying positions on a team that could not be filled by U.S. citizens.

Obviously, the U.S. government and MLB have come to the conclusion that playing baseball should be included among those "jobs Americans won't do." Terribly convenient, but sad for the game of baseball, no longer to be considered an equal opportunity employer. Happy Civil Rights Game, Commissioner!

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 6:12 PM | Comments (1)

NHL Has Red-Hot Playoff Race

With only five points (as of this writing) separating the fourth seed from the 10th in the Eastern Conference, defining who will make it and who will come up short is very tough. Teams are swapping positions in the standings daily.

I expect the Ottawa Senators to squeak into fourth, thus continuing their stellar second half of the season. Though their number one goaltender, Ray Emery, is out for three contests due to a suspension for slashing the Canadiens' Maxim Lapierre, the Sens will keep up the good work. With the resurgence of Dany Heatley and the return of Jason Spezza from injury, the Sens are now running on all cylinders.

Aided by constant scoring outbursts from their young but tremendously talented core, the Pittsburgh Penguins will give anyone a run for their money in the postseason. I'm still outraged at the fact that the Pens' front office hasn't picked up a proven enforcer to protect golden boy Sydney Crosby. These days, critics keep blabbing about how difficult it is to find a guy who can fight and play. Honestly, if your name is Sidney Crosby, do you really care? Don't you think Sidney will be able to pick up a bit of slack if that means his opponents will think twice before spearing him in the gut?

Tampa Bay and Carolina seem to have regained momentum in the race to the finish. That leaves the Montreal Canadiens fighting for the eighth and final spot. The Habs, who were not so long ago fourth in the standings, are fading fast. They have so many areas for concern that nobody knows quite where to turn. The media up there is running wild analyzing every little aspect of their game. If you ask me, the problem lies in leadership, or lack thereof! Everybody is pointing fingers and nobody in red white and bleu is stepping up.

But Montreal is not the only Canadian city panicking over their underachieving hockey club. The Toronto Maple Leafs sit in the eighth spot. This spring will mark the 40th season since the Leafs actually won the Stanley Cup. No need to say that the media has been dreaming about a storybook ending all year. That said, I think leadership is not a problem for the Leafs. They will stay above the New York Islanders and Monteal and slide in to the eighth spot. Sorry, Habs fans! Don't worry, though, that doesn't mean I see Alexei Ponikarovski drinking out of the Cup anytime soon.

Just a few weeks ago, the Boston Bruins still had a shot at making it to the dance. They had as much as five games in hand over teams ahead of them and were playing decent hockey. Looks like they've all but given up. Management has kept up with the trend of bad trades sending Brad Stuart, their number two defenseman, and Wayne Primeau to Calgary.

Many must be asking themselves why the B's keep letting key assets go. Look no further than last year's travesty in getting rid of Joe Thornton. They tried to fool everybody by signing big Zdeno Chara in the offseason. The fact is that nobody's blind. The Bruins are as conservative as ever. Until they start fighting to the death to keep their talent in town, they won't even get a sniff at the playoffs.

The clock is winding down. Teams that have the collateral to make a move must take a good look at offers because these days, windows for a championship are few and far between. Ask any Leaf fan.

Posted by J.D. Conway at 5:45 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2007

District of Discontent

Living in the Washington, DC sports community has its triumphs and tragedies. For every Verizon Center, as wonderful a city arena-going experience as you'll find in America, there's FedEx Field, an elephantine calamity with a postgame traffic tangle that resembles a Pennsylvania interstate following an all-night ice storm.

For every sold-out Saturday night between the Capitals and Rangers, there are those mid-week ghost towns between the Capitals and Panthers where the usher to fan ratio is 2-to-1.

Like I said, there's good and bad. Take the Washington Post. On Friday, at least in my edition, it offered a firebrand column by Michael Wilbon on the NBA All-Star Game and a very good article by Barry Svrluga on the new Washington Nationals manager, Manny Acta.

But the biggest sports news of the previous night was the trade of Peter Forsberg to, of all places, Nashville. This potentially historic power grab could be found in the second paragraph of a 50-word box score summary that detailed the Philadelphia Flyers' loss to Toronto. That was on Page 5; on Page 2, there was a story twice as large about a father who assaulted a youth wrestler in Illinois. I guess if the Forsberg trade had been captured on a camcorder and shown during the 11 o'clock news three nights ago, it would have earned a more prominent position in the section.

Triumphs and tragedies, fulfillment and frustration. It's all found here in DC sports. Please consider the following items...

GILBERT ARENAS, EGO ZERO

Gilbert Arenas is one of these athletes whose irreverent spirit has captured the imagination of the local media; and unlike a certain Redskins running back, he hasn't had to raid a costume shop to do it.

His banter has the right doses of self-promotion and trash talk. (How can you not love a guy whose been quoted as saying "My swag was phenomenal" after a big night?) He's referred to himself as everything from an assassin to a hibachi to Agent Zero, which has become his nickname this season. He's predicted game-winning shots, called out opponents, had a public sparring session with his coach after a recent Wizards' losing streak, and thrown himself a million-dollar birthday party.

He goes to Las Vegas as an All-Star Game starter armed with 100 jerseys he's created that have "Agent" and his number "0" on the back. He's going to toss them into the crowd, the same way he tosses his Wizards jerseys into the crowd during the regular season. He's second in the league in scoring, and has blossomed into a true superstar this season.

But for all the hype, for all the quotes, for all the big buckets, for all the accolades, the most lasting image of Gilbert Arenas is from Game 6 of the 2006 Eastern Conference quarterfinals against Cleveland — standing at the free-throw line in overtime on his home court, with a chance to extend a 113-112 lead with 15 seconds left to play. It's an image of LeBron James walking over to Arenas before his first attempt, whispering, "If you miss these, the game's over." Two bricks and a Damon Jones basket later, and the Cavaliers had sent the Wizards out of the playoffs.

None of these trappings of fame matter if Arenas can't replace that image with a more favorable one in the playoffs this season.

Save your arm on those jerseys, Gil. Make the damn free-throws this time.

ABE POLLIN WANTS CHARITY

Abe Pollin deserves respect and credit for funding and building the Verizon Center for $220 million about 10 years ago. Its presence has completely changed the Chinatown area of DC, turning it into a financial engine for restaurants, bars, museums, a movie theater, and an upscale bowling alley. Without the arena he built, there's no telling how dilapidated and unsafe this area still might be.

Now he's asking for $50 million of taxpayer money to renovate the arena's luxury suites and replace its scoreboard, and many fans and residents are eager to give it to him.

Nonsense, I say. Pollin took a financial risk that's paid off handsomely, because he owns the building. The Capitals games, Wizards games, college teams, and concerts that fill the arena do so because of its location next to a subway station and in the heart of the city; these same events would draw significantly less had they remained in Pollin's outdated arena in the Maryland suburb of Landover.

He wants this corporate welfare for two reasons. First, because he feels having put up the money to build the arena, and with the arena having drawn so many businesses to the several blocks surrounding it, he's owed a reward from the city's taxpayers. Second, he's witnessed the city bending over backwards for the Washington Nationals to the tune of over $600 million in public funds for a new stadium in another dilapidated area of the city.

First, the city doesn't owe Pollin any more than it owes the thousands of other businesses who have helped revitalize parts of the city. There may come a time when the arena needs serious upgrades, and that's when the city should offer financial support, because there's no question that Pollin's arena has made a positive difference in DC. But Pollin is asking for cosmetic changes to a still-new arena that will primarily serve his big-ticket clients. It's akin to a steakhouse near the Verizon Center asking the city to pay for Egyptian cotton tablecloths.

Second, the city's decision to publicly fund the Nationals' stadium was an awful one, too. What is it they say about two wrongs?

Pollin's charity work and commitment to the city are legendary. His decision to bring his arena to Chinatown has forever changed it for the better. But these are things that beg for a golden key from the mayor's office — not a blank check from taxpayers, when there are so many other ills facing the community.

And what's Pollin going to do if he doesn't get the money? Move to Virginia?

THE EXPANSION WASHINGTON NATIONALS

Can they be considered anything else?

A team that went 71-91 last season saw Alfonso Soriano — who, at one point, was touted as the face of the franchise for years to come — leave for Chicago during the offseason. It enters spring training with one pitcher locked for the starting rotation: John Patterson, who is coming off an injury-plagued season.

He goes down, and the Nationals have about as many quality arms as the Venus de Milo.

The Nationals' new state-of-the-art ballpark in D.C. will open in 2008. They will enter it as the worst team in baseball, based on what I believe will be the final 2007 standings, thanks to an apathetic offseason that left the team with some quality bats — especially Ryan Zimmerman at third base — but little else.

I'm not sure what the franchise slogan is for this season.

May I suggest, "Everyone Gets a Mulligan?"

Or perhaps, "See You Next Spring?"

I got it: "The Expansion Nationals ... Losing Baseball, Without the Added Frustration of Peter Angelos As Your Owner."

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 is "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History." His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2007

Sham Dunk Contest

The NBA All-Star Weekend arrives this weekend and the big news is that the Slam Dunk Contest will feature Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Dr. J, Vince Carter, and Kobe Bryant ... as judges.

Through most of my adolescence, one poster hung over my room, almost like a shrine. It was from the 1988 Slam Dunk Competition. The photo featured Michael Jordan soaring through the air, ball cocked, tongue out, number 23 about to take his place as one of the baddest dunkers ever to grace this planet.

To most NBA connoisseurs, this is viewed as the greatest Slam Dunk Competition ever. Jordan and Dominique Wilkins in their prime battling it for who could top who. Jordan took the title, but it is still debated to this day, with many saying the "Human Highlight Film" was cheated. I say the right man won.

Nowadays, there is still debate, but for a much worse reason. Last year's champ, Nate Robinson, won the competition after 82 attempts at one dunk to beat Andre Iguodala. Not to take away anything from either of them, because both proved they belonged in the competition, but the whole point of this event is to have the best dunkers in the NBA vying for slamming supremacy.

From the first competition in 1984 until 2000, the Slam Dunk Competition not only brought the biggest and brightest stars to the competition, but also entertainment. During that time, we've seen the likes of Dr. J, Clyde Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Michael Jordan, Spud Webb, Shawn Kemp, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and many others. This year we have the honor to watch Gerald Green, Robinson, Dwight Howard, and Tyrus Thomas ... who?

Anyone who has followed basketball during the slam dunk era has a favorite. I am probably in the majority who remember two different years. 1988, for the 'Nique/Jordan epic, and 2000 for Vinsanity.

1988 will go down as probably the best battle. Two of the top-50 players in the history of the game battling for nothing more than bragging rights. To put this into perspective, imagine Kobe and LeBron James battling out this weekend. Pardon, they will be battling it out this weekend ... in the skills competition, with Dwyane Wade, as well. But I digress.

Wilkins and Jordan were the top two scorers in the league, both had won a Slam Dunk Competition, Jordan the year before, and Wilkins in 1985. On a side note, the 1986 slam dunk champ, Spud Webb, was also in the building, providing Chicago Stadium with three of the four slam dunk champions.

Jordan and Wilkins would go back and forth through the finals with Jordan pulling it off with a free throw line jam that has stood as the litmus test for 50-point scores. Jordan didn't do it for the money — he did it to let everyone know he's the best.

That's the problem with today's athlete: competition comes second to the all-mighty dollar. Chicago rookie Thomas was quoted saying he plans to collect his check and be done with it. Which is why Chicago should try to trade him immediately. What makes players great is their competitiveness. There are numerous stories about Jordan's competitive streak. I'm sure the greats all had it.

Now we have players like LeBron James, who has the talent and ability to be the greatest. Too bad that James takes games off and coasts too much.

Players will tell you that all they want is the ring, but when push comes to shove, their financial future is all that really matters.

We can look to the mid-'90s as when this became apparent. Players lost interest in competing. Most players cited concerns of injuries and others felt that all the different kinds of dunks had been exhausted. With most of the superstars choosing not to participate, lesser-known players began to compete. This led to the NBA canceling the Slam Dunk Contest after the 1997 event, with the winner that year Kobe Bryant.

That all changed in 2000. The field was set with high-flyers and stars alike. Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Ricky Davis, Steve Francis (when he was still Stevie Franchise), Jerry Stackhouse, and Larry Hughes were the ones who would bring the contest back to prominence, if only for one night.

You all know what happened next, Carter blew everyone out the gym, and cemented his place as one of the greatest of all-time. All thought that a comeback was on the way. We were all wrong.

Since then, we've been wowed here and there, but nothing like year's past. I still hope that one day the best will dust off the Reebok Pumps for one more time, and have an ultimate contest.

Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, D-Wade, Vince, Josh Smith. Now that's a Slam Dunk Competition. But that won't happen, either for fear of injury, or lack of player interest. Which will leave us with a contest like this year, with no real fan interest.

And maybe we'll have to hope for another cancellation to get the big guns out once again, and then just maybe, we won't have to hear talks about the judges being more exciting than the actual dunkers.

Posted by Wailele Sallas at 7:43 PM | Comments (2)

February 15, 2007

Calling Out Sportswriter Schmucks

Longtime readers of this column know I like to bag on popular sportswriters, so I thought I'd start off this week by bagging on a popular sportswriter.

I've never been much of a fan of Rick Reilly, but he at least has been competent enough to avoid being satirized and mocked by me. But his last couple of columns, ay-chi-wawa. ... really bad.

It's almost like someone important told him he wasn't edgy enough, he doesn't take any risks, and he is afraid to alienate any athletes except for obvious transgressions. So he goes Carsenio on us and writes the hatchet job on Rex Grossman that was his post-Super Bowl article.

The point of the article was, boy, Rex Grossman sure sucked during the Super Bowl. Now, I'm not here to tell you that every opinion that a columnist has to be controversial, but they should at least be debatable. It isn't debatable that Rex Grossman had a terrible Super Bowl. The only point to writing a column with an undebatable point is if you are making this point in a particularly hilarious or insightful way. Really hilarious. Really insightful.

You want to know the funniest and most astute line in the Grossman piece?

"I mean, there is bad, there is terrible, and then there is Wrecks Grossman, who did for the Bears on Sunday what scallions did for Taco Bell."

Zing! No wonder you get asked to do beer commercials and have your own backpage column in America's No. 1 sports magazine! "Wrecks" Grossman! Haha! Do you have any other puns for us, Mr. Reilly? You do? The Bears need a "Rexorcism?" Wow! Every one, a Maserati!

I can't decide if that piece is worse than his latest, which is yet another "dese wimmin" columns so beloved by The Sports Guy. Except unlike Bill Simmons, Reilly doesn't have the nerve to go all the way with it, ending the piece with, "But the truth is we love you more than we say and need you more than you know. Now will you tell us where you hid the remote?" (Zing! Beer commercials!)

Simmons, who gets more abuse from me than any other writer by far, would die before throwing such a hoary caveat onto one of his anti-feminine screeds. But I suspect the now-edgier-than-ever Reilly couldn't bear not to include it, which it makes the worst of two worlds: half-hearted chauvinism.

Most of the article is an allegedly humorous guide for women to understanding men. My favorite is this one:

"Just because we haven't played catcher in years, it's not okay to throw out our jock and cup. Do we throw away your pom-poms?"

Touche. Wait, what?

I guess we can all relate to that universal truth of being ... married to an ex-cheerleader. Who still has her pom-poms. But we like the pom-poms because we like for her to still occasionally dress up like a cheerleader, or ... or ... nope. I just can't wrap my head around this one. I'm lost. Sorry, Reilly.

I will say this for Reilly. There is absolutely no noxious, veiled, insulting implications in any of his columns, which is more than I can say about the recent CSTV column from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, in response to the SEC having five or six of the top 10 recruiting classes depending on where you look (the Big Ten, one or none):

"I love speed and the SEC has great speed, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically, or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards."

Yeah, you fasters! Fasters may be on top of the world now, but they aren't as academically-enriched or smart as our kids! You give fasters an inch, and they take a mile and get all uppity, acting like they own the world. I'll stick with my own kind, thanks. What's wrong with that? People being different? We will do things our way here, with our people, and you fasters can go wherever you want in the crazy liberal South. Oh, you fasters. And Urban Meyer is a faster-lover.

So which is more odious about Delany's comments?

1) That's he clearly suggesting that the kids SEC schools recruit (and earn their schools high recruiting marks) are too dumb to be admitted into Big Ten schools, but he gutlessly dances around it rather coming right out and saying it, giving him some plausible deniability later. (No! That's not what I meant!)

2) That, whether he implies that or comes right out and says it, he would even make such a dubious, unsupportable claim?

The Big Ten has Northwestern. The SEC has Vanderbilt. The rest of the schools in both conferences are all public and state-funded. Generally, this means their entry criteria is pretty broad, forgiving, non-subjective, and similar. I got accepted into Ohio State with a 2.2 high school GPA and an ACT score of 26, and I didn't even play a sport.

But just in case Delany or his supporters want to argue ("Illinois requires a 2.5 GPA while Mississippi State only requires..." or whatever), I want to know exactly which SEC signees are the ones that would not have qualified for a Big Ten scholarship. After all, we would all like to have six of the top 10 recruiting classes like the SEC, but we can't, because of our "discipline," "restraint," and "academic mission." You probably have to gather some paperwork to answer that question. I'll wait.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 10:13 PM | Comments (3)

February 14, 2007

John Amaechi's Coming Out Party

When an otherwise forgettable journeyman NBA center makes such a statement, his legacy begins and ends with it. His career will be defined by it. In the testosterone-driven landscape of American team sports, John Amaechi withheld his secret until his NBA career came to an official end only weeks ago. Whether that decision was wise, foolish, or ultimately necessary to survive depends on what NBA star you ask.

The English center's career was spent with the Cavaliers, Magic, and Jazz, with the Knicks recently cutting him from the roster after he had not played in an NBA game in four years. His career totals: 294 career games played (301 if you count playoffs), 6.2 points per game, 2.6 rebounds per game, 40 percent shooter from the field, 67 percent from the foul line, 1837 total points. In only one season, 1999-2000, with Orlando, did Amaechi average over 10 points per game.

In essence, it was an unremarkable playing career that is now transformed into something infinitely more meaningful. John Amaechi's career, struggles, and his stunning admission in the form of an upcoming book entitled Man in the Middle implore us as a sports nation to look into our composite reflection and ask the question: can we handle the truth?

Since then, a number of NBA personalities have answered with colorful, mixed, and controversial results, often washed down with media backlash. The most notable of these opinions belongs to the one NBA fans have deemed a king.

"With teammates you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy. So that's like the No. 1 thing as teammates — we all trust each other. You've heard of the in-room, locker room code. What happens in the locker room stays in there. It's a trust factor, honestly. A big trust factor."

It was predictable and right that LeBron James would be bashed for expecting a gay teammate to come clean to his teammates. After all, his quote contains an obvious flaw. What happens when one of those teammates you so trust with that secret gets traded two weeks later and decides to "trust" his 11 new teammates with that same information?

76ers center Steven Hunter added fuel to the fire with his quote, as well. "As long as he don't make any advances toward me, I'm fine with it," said Hunter. "As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself like a good person, I'd be fine with it."
Both of these comments were slammed harshly in the press and on television the next day as sportswriters around the nation reacted in some ways out of disgust, but in other ways out of fear. Perhaps the situation appeared most striking on ESPN's duo of sportswriter debate shows, "Around the Horn" and "Pardon the Interruption," on the day following Amaechi's admission.

The writers seemed to all be engaged in a game of politically correct hot-potato, as they appeared to discard their own inner voices to eliminate all risk of being made the next poster boy for homophobia. This couldn't be how they talk about the situation off-camera, could it? After all, sportswriters of all people know that it only takes the slightest verbal slip to be called bigot and given a cultural dunce cap by all others with a voice — after all, it's what they do for a living themselves.

The chief example of this phenomenon was the reaction to Hunter's quote. Hunter clearly expressed tolerance of a gay athlete in the league by saying he "would be fine with it." This was not good enough for the sports media because of the grain of salt he poured on that tolerance by saying "as long as he doesn't make any advances towards me." But in many outlets, this was printed as, "as long as he doesn't bring his gayness on me," thus making the comment appear to be perhaps more close-minded than it may have been.

This begs the question. Is it wrong and homophobic in today's culture for a straight male to simply request that he not be hit on by a gay male? If this is true, then perhaps most of us need to do some soul searching of our own before pointing the finger. If this is true, then perhaps we have to deal with the reality that we are being brought up in a partially homophobic world, and as such, have somewhat of a bias to overcome.

Growing up and going to school in the 1990s, gay slurs were thrown around the hallways, locker rooms, and cafeterias like the day's lunch food, to the point where they seemingly lost all meaning, at least to us straight males. Machismo was the only way to prevent alienation, and this theme proved only stronger for the sports teams, where head coaches would use these same gay slurs to invoke fear and disgust in their players. All the while, the assumptions were seemingly made that everyone who heard these words and jokes were straight themselves, and thus, no one was allegedly offended.

As we matured however, as individuals, and as a nation, on our understanding of the gay community and just how prevalent it was, most of us learned to accept the alternative lifestyles and not pass judgment. However, this did generally come with the unwritten, but well-known clause that Hunter speaks of. Just don't hit on me. It was a way to assert that while we tolerated and could be friends with gay men and women, we still did not want anything to do with joining their lifestyle. This implies a sense of discomfort that could perhaps be construed as insulting to the gay community, and yet it is so embedded into the consciousness of the heterosexual male, many of us believed this concept to essentially be taken for granted by all.

Yet this was lost upon many, until a recent Super Bowl ad for Snickers was pulled due to complaints of homophobia. The ad, as I'm sure you can recall (and I'm sure more of you were snickering right along with that commercial than are willing to admit now) featured two men eating the same Snickers bar from opposite ends until their lips meet in the middle, prompting panic for both and one of them to cry out "quick, do something manly." The second man answers by gratuitously ripping off a patch of chest hair as a means to try to negate the act.

However, this act was considerably less homophobic than Jim Carrey burning all his clothes while he agonized in the shower and consumed every piece of chewing gum he could find after realizing he had kissed fictional Dolphins kicker Ray Finkle in 1994's comedy hit Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Where was the moral outcry then?

Perhaps it's merely a sign of the times. For some, 1994 doesn't seem too long ago, but it was pre-Queer Eye and pre-Brokeback. Since then, our culture has made some serious adjustments that can often conflict with the thought processes of individuals still looking to do little more than maintain and assert their own identities.

Once again, the issues of sport do a great job to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of our culture. In this case, the current result, as seen on ESPN's sportswriter shows mentioned earlier, is a whirlwind of homophobia and the subsequent counter-homophobia sensitivity to the point where few know what to say and how to say it in a way that is both acceptable and candid. Even as I write this piece myself, I question whether I am being considerate enough and honest enough to all parties involved, for gay men, straight men, and my own voice. It sure has become a tough tightrope to walk — for everyone.

Far from a secret is the fact that team sports, especially rugged, high-contact ones, are the final frontier for the gay community. While a select number of athletes in different sports have come out, like Amaechi, after retirement, only one notable athlete so far has admitted to being gay in mid-career. That athlete was Sheryl Swoopes of the WNBA. Her willingness to come out was seen as an inspiration and a breakthrough moreso than anything else, but the men's game appears decidedly more difficult to crack.

Yet Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has decided this is a challenge he is more than willing to take on. The innovative and outspoken owner spoke out and managed to put an intriguing new spin on the old question of "will we ever see a gay male athlete come out during his career?"

Said Cuban, "From a marketing perspective, if you're a player who happens to be gay and you want to be incredibly rich, then you should come out, because it would be the best thing that ever happened to you from a marketing and an endorsement perspective. You would be an absolute hero to more Americans than you can ever possibly be as an athlete, and that'll put money in your pocket."

Cuban's comments appear to make perfect sense so long as the athlete who makes this commitment possess some marketable talent and personality. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be for someone like Amaechi, who was rarely, if ever, under the public spotlight off the little time he got on NBA courts.

This one statement alone greatly increases the chance that someone, possibly someone already prominent, will muster up the courage and tell the sports world he is gay. Whoever does this may be able to turn a potential burden into dollar signs and end up benefiting greatly from the decision in the long run. Many other athletes may also see this and admire this man for being such an inspiration and an icon to so many.

Amaechi has added to the speculation of such an event by stating also that he is certain of a number of other gay NBA players currently populating the league. Perhaps that future chosen one is already among them.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 8:04 PM | Comments (0)

Lew Burdette, RIP: The Fauna

If you are my age, and you became a baseball fan early enough in childhood, you probably know the name Gene Schoor. He wrote a library's worth of sports biographies for children in the 1950s and early 1960s. For all I know, enough of them still survive in a few elementary schools. Maybe.

Schoor's technique (he didn't invent it, but he did it well enough) involved mulcting as many newspaper and/or magazine articles as he could find about his subject, using the creamier quotes, making sure they included tales of how his subject was scouted, a quote or three in which our hero had his doubts, and as much rah-rah in the triumph as could be tolerated short of a need for Tums.

The reporters who actually did the legwork for the stories Schoor and contemporaries rounded up for their quickie kids' bios (Milton Shapiro was another such biographer) probably fumed, but the books were hits and they did give a lot of kids an entree into reading by way of their game. The longtime New York Yankees public relations executive Marty Appel wasn't the only kid who cranked out a third- or fourth-grade book report on a Gene Schoor book.

Mine was Lew Burdette of the Braves.

Being a New York Mets fan since the day they were born, there was one reason alone, beyond a swelling baseball passion, to pick up a book on an enemy pitcher. (Burdette had yet to be swapped to the St. Louis Cardinals for Gene Oliver and Bob Sadowski.) The Milwaukee Braves were Hank Aaron's and Eddie Mathews' team, you liked Hank Aaron and Eddie Mathews even if they brutalized your team. (But who wasn't brutalising the 1962-64 Mets?). And Burdette on the cover in looked pretty fly in those fancy 1950s Braves silks.

But it was Burdette's expression, too. He was shown in follow-through finish, perhaps having delivered one of the spitters he usually denied throwing even if he didn't exactly object to the accusation, which usually had its origins in his fidgety mound habits. ("If I could get one of the first three hitters in the first inning to go back to the dugout saying I was cheating, by the fifth inning everybody on the team wanted to see the ball when they batted," he once told historian Danny Peary.)

Then you noticed his face. And you paid closer attention. Burdette — who died of lung cancer at 80 at his Winter Garden, Florida home Tuesday — was a pleasant looking man, but the slightly hooded eyes and slim grin suggested that the latest victim of a practical joke was about to get his while he was winding up as you faced him, or while he was sharing a handshake with you, far from the scene of the crime. He resembled the uncle who'd just left another set of nieces and nephews uncertain about whether to laugh or kill him. If not both.

If this story Schoor told from Burdette's West Virginia boyhood was actually true, it telegraphs the merry prankster Burdette's said to have become as a major leaguer. (That's merry prankster in the comic, not the Keseyian sense, gentle reader.) Bear in mind that I haven't seen a copy of Lew Burdette of the Braves in four decades, and my version springs strictly from memory, but I'm willing to gamble, anyway.

Selva Lewis Burdette, Jr. was enough of an animal nut in boyhood that he liked to bring a few of his little exotic rural pets to school in his pockets, for company and to amuse his peers. Then came the unexpected playlet that could have come from an Our Gang script. (It wouldn't shock me to learn Burdette himself was a fan.) One of the creatures slipped out of Burdette's pocket for a little classroom exercise.

The classroom got exercised, all right. Burdette's classmates shrieked (I don't remember if it was delight or dismay, though it was probably both) and his teacher fumed. The marm barked his full name, minus "Jr.," and the racket stopped. Since this was one school that practiced corporal punishment, as many did in that time and place, Boy Burdette was a breath away from getting his rear end turned into an impression of two flags of Japan.

But a breath was all he needed to plead with the old bat not to let him have it. When she demanded to know why, Boy Burdette admitted he had two other such creatures in his rear pockets, and if he got spanked they were liable to get killed. That did it. The old bat folded her wings, sighed, and handed him a pardon.

She encouraged him to bring a different member of his exotic rural pet collection and talk about him/her/it in detail to the class each day. According to Schoor, he did precisely that, making him the star student of his grade for about a fortnight. That was long enough for one of his more slithery creatures (it could have been a snake) to escape his control and scare the old bat right out of her hosiery. She put a stop to the live exhibitions but not to Boy Burdette's daily fauna lectures, apparently.

Bear in mind that it's open to debate just how true the story really was. Marty Appel has long since noted the Schoor biographical style enabled at least thirty sports biographies in just over a decade's time. (Ty Cobb, Casey Stengel, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, and Joe DiMaggio were other Schnoor baseball subjects.) Then someone else's similar work put an end to Schoor's involvement, Schoor graduating himself to team histories.

Milton Shapiro, a movie critic turned juvenile sports biographer in his own right, was taken to court by a subject who just so happened to be Lew Burdette's Milwaukee rotation elder. Warren Spahn wasn't thrilled about two things. One was being misquoted and the other was seeing not a dime from that sort of biography. (Their era was the era in which a baseball player had no right to test the market for his services and most often worked offseason to make ends come to within sight of each other. Burdette himself worked for the Miller Brewing Company in each offseason during his life with the Braves.)

Spahn lost when the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but Schnoor decided to get out of the quickie-bio business regardless.

In Lew Burdette of the Braves Schoor fashioned a mushy little rah-rah scene of buddy-buddy/all the way next year season-ending huggery between Spahn and Burdette that had to be read to be believed. If you were a 9-year-old kid, you'd have found it inspiring, at least in the early 1960s. (Spahn and Burdette probably did toast their freshly-bonded friendship with an oath to win the pennant next year, but they wouldn't have been half as mawkish about it as Schoor had them.) If you grew up to be a bit of a baseball excavator, you harked back in nausea if one of your excavations revealed that the two pitchers were partners in crime in the clubhouse comedy department.

Their gags are said to have included sending limousines to bring to the ballpark hitters whom either or both pitchers owned. (Spahn must have had one hell of a bill when it came to Joe Garagiola.) I'm not entirely clear what Burdette's role was in that kind of gag, but I wouldn't have been surprised to discover the dynamic duo had arranged for Burdette to be the driver when the hapless hitter got his little surprise.

Burdette's wit got him into trouble once in awhile, however. He had a few bragging rights over the Yankees — who had signed him in the first place, only to unload him in a swap for veteran Johnny Sain, when they were in need of veteran pitching help down the stretch in 1951 — after waxing their tails in the 1957 World Series and beating them again in Game Two of their 1958 rematch.

It didn't exactly hurt Burdette that he had seven runs to play with before going to the mound for the second inning, after the Braves' first inning assault that only began with Bill Bruton's leadoff launch against Bob Turley. As a Yogi Berra biographer (Joe Trimble) quoted him after that win, Burdette purred, "I wish the Yankees played in the National League. They'd be lucky enough to finish in third place."

Whoops. With the Yankees in check at a three games to one deficit, Burdette and Turley had a Game 5 rematch that sat at 1-0, Yankees, until the bottom of the sixth. Two singles, an RBI double, an intentional pass, and another RBI single sent Burdette to the clubhouse, after which reliever Juan Pizarro surrendered the three runs he left behind.

Burdette and Turley went at it again in Game 7. It started with a 1-0 Braves lead after an inning. It was the first Braves lead of the game. It was the only Braves lead of the game. The Yankees hung up a deuce in the second and a four spot in the eighth and they had the Series in seven games. After losing the 1959 pennant in an arduous playoff against the Los Angeles Dodgers (the two teams ended the regular season in a dead heat for the pennant, in the pre-divisional play era), the Braves won no further pennants during their Milwaukee tenancy. Lew Burdette never saw postseason action again.

But he did see front office ignorance turn into one of baseball's most notoriously lopsided deals. The Cardinals had shipped Burdette to the Chicago Cubs early in the 1964 season, following a couple of useful seasons in St. Louis. A fortnight later, Burdette became aware that the Cubs' front office had eyes for another Cardinal pitcher named Ernie Broglio. The Cubs' College of Coaches (that infamous experiment of rotating head coaches rather than a manager was in its final season in 1964) had nausea over the prospect because the Cubs were offering a young outfielder they liked, even if he hadn't yet hit stride.

"[W]e didn't like Broglio," then-head coach Bob Kennedy would remember to Jerome Holtzman and George Vass (for Baseball, Chicago Style). "Lew Burdette ... was on our club and he told us Broglio had been having arm problems. He'd been getting shots."

The coaches listened to Burdette. But the front office didn't listen to the coaches. The front office listened only to the whisperings of a 21-win season in 1960 and an 18-win season in 1963. They ended up having to listen to indignant Cub fans' fuming for years to come, especially after Burdette's warning proved only too right. Ernie Broglio won exactly seven games for the final two and a half seasons of his career, all with the Cubs. Lou Brock lasted just a little longer and went just a little farther.

That wasn't the first time Burdette was in the best seat in the house for history actual or potential. That was Burdette going the distance against Harvey Haddix in Milwaukee, on the night the diminutive Pittsburgh Pirates lefthander entered the bottom of the 13th inning with not a man reaching base against him to that point.

But Felix Mantilla, a late-inning second base replacement for the Braves, opened the home 13th by reaching when Pittsburgh third baseman Don Hoak's throw hit first baseman Rocky Bridges in the knee. Eddie Mathews sacrificed Mantilla to second and Henry Aaron took an intentional pass. Then Joe Adcock drove one over the left field fence.

Haddix's heartbreak was lessened only slightly when Adcock's bomb was turned into a long double, after Aaron broke from the basepaths for the clubhouse when he knew Mantilla scored the winning run (Aaron may not have realised the ball cleared the fence), and Adcock trotted past Aaron's breakaway point and was called out for passing the runner. To Haddix, it hardly mattered whether you lost it 1-0 or 3-0.

Lew Burdette was among those who congratulated and consoled Haddix graciously in the clubhouse after the game. "You pitched the greatest game that's ever been pitched in the history of baseball," Burdette told Haddix. (For his part, Burdette scattered twelve hits but gave up no walks.)

It's how Burdette's believed to have phrased it to the Braves' front office, during the offseason, negotiating a raise for his 21 wins in 1959, that seems just as typical. Quoted by Bruce Nash and Allan Zullo, in The Baseball Hall of Shame #2 (the entry wasn't to honor Haddix or Burdette, but the Hoak error that fractured the extra-inning perfecto): That guy pitched the greatest game in baseball history and he still couldn't beat me. So I must be the greatest pitcher of all-time.

Burdette probably got his raise. I'd have given him the raise for chutzpah alone.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 6:00 PM | Comments (1)

February 13, 2007

Brett Favre vs. Peyton Manning

I am a student of NFL history. Longtime readers may remember my analysis of every great dynasty the league has seen, or a column on the NFL's greatest records, or my repeated assertions that Art Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame. A decent portion of my free time is spent researching — or at least thinking about — the NFL.

A week or two ago, I was doing just that, mentally going over a list of the greatest quarterbacks the league has seen. To make sure I keep things in historical perspective, I go by decade, starting with 1946 (the beginning of the NFL's modern era). 1946-55, Otto Graham. 1956-65, John Unitas. Then Fran Tarkenton, and so on. When I got to the current period, starting in 1996, I almost automatically said Brett Favre, but thought to myself, "You know, I bet Peyton Manning is getting pretty close."

And it turns out, Manning is really close.

Statistics

Let's start with stats, and we'll go from there. Obviously, Favre — who has played 16 seasons to Manning's nine — is way ahead in gross numbers.

	Att	Comp	Yds	TD	INT
Favre	8,223	5,021	57,500	414	273
Manning	4,890	3,131	37,586	275	139

In average production per season, the tables are turned. All the numbers below are per-season averages, rounded to the nearest whole number.

	Att	Comp	Yds	TD	INT
Favre	514	314	3,594	26	17
Manning	543	348	4,176	31	15

Okay, so Manning leads in every category. But he's not just a guy who throws a lot. Manning leads Favre in every major efficiency stat, too.

	Cmp%	Yds/Att	TD%	INT%	Rating
Favre	61.1	6.99	5.0	3.3	85.1
Manning	64.0	7.69	5.6	2.8	94.4

Manning also leads in yards per completion (12.00-11.45) and adjusted yards per pass (6.97-6.00), an efficiency rating originally published in The Hidden Game of Football, by Carroll, Palmer, and Thorn. There's a very reasonable argument to be made in Favre's defense here. In fact, there are several. But the first one is that Favre is old. His play has declined sharply in the past two seasons, and that's hurting his averages. So the charts below present only Favre's first nine years as a starter (1992-2000), the same number of seasons Manning has played in the NFL.

	Att	Comp	Yds	TD	INT
Favre	4,927	2,997	34,706	255	155
Manning	4,890	3,131	37,586	275	139

	Cmp%	Yds/Att	TD%	INT%	Rating
Favre	60.8	7.04	5.2	3.1	86.3
Manning	64.0	7.69	5.6	2.8	94.4

Favre's averages get better (except completion percentage, which drops slightly), but Manning remains ahead in every category — now including the gross numbers. But Favre had several good seasons after 2000, so let's present his averages from 1991-2004, which includes everything except these last two years.

	Cmp%	Yds/Att	TD%	INT%	Rating
Favre	61.5	7.10	5.4	3.2	87.4
Manning	64.0	7.69	5.6	2.8	94.4

Again, better, but Favre is still far behind, and there can be little doubt that Manning has been a much more efficient quarterback. But Favre has been doing this for a long time, and there's no guarantee that Manning can keep this up for that long. So presented below are Favre's statistics from only his nine best seasons: 1994-98 and 2001-04.

	Att	Comp	Yds	TD	INT
Favre	4,831	3,007	35,301	297	148
Manning	4,890	3,131	37,586	275	139

	Cmp%	Yds/Att	TD%	INT%	Rating
Favre	62.2	7.31	6.1	3.1	92.1
Manning	64.0	7.69	5.6	2.8	94.4

Now this is close. Favre has gone ahead in touchdowns and TD percentage. But Manning leads in completions, completion percentage, yards, yards per attempt, yards per completion, fewer interceptions, interception percentage, passer rating, and adjusted yards per pass. These are the nine best seasons of Favre's career. If Manning goes on to play six years (Favre didn't play as a rookie, which is why it's not seven years) the way Favre did in 2006, or when his thumb was injured around 1999-2000 — which is to say, six pretty average seasons — he'll still finish with better stats.

I haven't included rushing statistics yet, but they don't change much. I'll also show the number of sacks taken. These are career numbers.

	Rush	Yds	Avg	TD	Sacks
Favre	526	1,774	3.4	13	424
Manning	269	701	2.6	13	170

One potential defense for Favre is historical perspective. The majority of Favre's career overlaps with Manning's, but he also played six seasons, 1992-97, before Manning was in the league, and the game has changed. Passer ratings have gone up over time. Presented below are the average passer ratings of the league's top 10 in passing yards, for every year since Favre became a full-time starter.

1992	83.7		2000	86.3
1993	84.6		2001	84.6
1994	85.8		2002	86.2
1995	88.6		2003	87.6
1996	83.2		2004	96.0
1997	84.3		2005	87.4
1998	85.7		2006	87.4
1999	85.5

Favre was in the top 10 every year except 2003, and Manning is in for every year starting in 1998, his rookie season, so their statistics affect the averages. This is especially noteworthy for 2004, when Manning's was 121.1, easily the NFL record for a season.

What these averages show is that passer ratings are higher than they were when Favre's career began. The averages have risen from (mostly) the 83-86 range toward (mostly) the 86-88 range. The main reason is that interception percentages have dropped. Favre's, though, have risen. He still throws for 3,800 yards every year, but now he's throwing 20 picks a season.

Manning, statistically, is the better quarterback. Right now. Not projecting, or at least not much. Right now, nine seasons into his career, Manning has better stats than Favre.

Team

Four words help explain why Manning's stats might be better than Favre's: Marvin Harrison, Antonio Freeman. Favre hasn't played with a great receiver since Sterling Sharpe retired. Harrison will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Let's examine the company kept by these two great quarterbacks, and see who comes out ahead.

Receivers

The most important category, obviously, and Manning definitely has more help. Besides Harrison, he has Reggie Wayne, who has been a really special player the last few years, and he's always had a good tight end (Marcus Pollard or Dallas Clark). Manning's wide receivers and tight ends have made a combined nine Pro Bowls, eight of them by Harrison.

Favre's best receivers were Sharpe and Freeman, plus Robert Brooks, Javon Walker, and Donald Driver — who does look really good right now. Favre also played with tight ends Jackie Harris, Mark Chmura, Keith Jackson, and Bubba Franks. Favre's wide receivers and tight ends have made a combined 14 Pro Bowls, not including two by Sterling Sharpe before Favre's career began. Manning gets the edge here, but not by as much as you might think.

Running Backs

Before this year's tag team of Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes, Manning had Edgerrin James, plus one season with Marshall Faulk (1998) and another with Rhodes (2001, when James was injured). Favre's primary RBs have been Dorsey Levens and Ahman Green.

I'll give Manning a very slight edge here, but Green isn't far behind James, and Levens was better than you probably think.

Offensive Line

I'll call this equal. Favre has always had a great line, including standouts like Mike Flanagan, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, and Frank Winters. Indianapolis has one of the best o-lines in the NFL, led by center Jeff Saturday and left tackle Tarik Glenn.

Defense

This doesn't have much direct impact on a quarterback, so I'm lumping the entire defense together. This area is a huge edge for Favre. This year's postseason run notwithstanding, the Colts have never backed Manning with a good defense, while the 1990s Packers had exceptional defenses: the 1996 Super Bowl team led the NFL in both yards allowed and points allowed. Suffice to say Dwight Freeney is no Reggie White.

Coaching

Both quarterbacks had high-quality head coaches. Mike Holmgren and Tony Dungy have similar coaching records, and both are borderline Hall of Famers. Holmgren's talented offensive assistants included Jon Gruden, Steve Mariucci, and Andy Reid. Dungy has Jim Caldwell and Tom Moore working with Manning. I'll call this equal, too.

But consider that Favre has never been the same player without Holmgren. The physical ability is still there, but his decision-making is not. Favre's yards per attempt and interception percentage have gotten dramatically worse in Holmgren's absence. And while Manning has flourished with Dungy and his staff, he also succeeded with Jim Mora, winning two all-pro spots with Mora as his coach.

Overall

I believe Manning has gotten more help from his offensive coaches and teammates than Favre has, which helps to account for some of his huge statistical advantage. But Favre has gotten more help from the team as a whole, impacting wins and championships.

In the Clutch

Peyton Manning is a better winner than Brett Favre. The Packers have gone 148-92, a .617 winning percentage. That does not include an 11-9 record in the postseason (.550). Manning's Colts are 92-52, a .639 winning percentage. That doesn't include their 7-6 record in the postseason (.538). Those numbers are pretty equal, but remember, the Colts don't have a defense.

Both players were on a Super Bowl-winning team. Favre's Packers won Super Bowl XXXI on the strength of Desmond Howard's returning and Drew Bledsoe's four interceptions. The Colts won Super Bowl XLI on the strength of everything except special teams, and Manning was named the game's MVP.

Manning is the game's best clutch quarterback (yes, he's better than Tom Brady), just as Favre was in his prime. Both have led a ton of fourth-quarter comebacks, including a pair of record-breakers by Manning: last month's AFC Championship Game against New England, and 2003's 21-point comeback in the final four minutes of a Monday night game against the defending champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

What about the Patriots? Manning's Colts are 3-6 against the Pats in the Tom Brady Era, including 1-2 in the postseason. Favre's biggest nemesis in his prime was the Cowboys. From the beginning of Favre's career until the end of Troy Aikman's career, the Packers went 1-8 against Dallas, including 0-3 in the playoffs and with all eight losses by double-digits. If you think Manning struggled against New England, the Cowboys owned Brett Favre.

All that said, this is at least close, so I'll call it a tie.

Honors

Stats are fine, but how about an objective — or at least ostensibly objective — look at these two great quarterbacks?

Favre has been named to eight Pro Bowls and five Associated Press all-pro teams, including three first-team selections. He was also NFL MVP three times, counting his 1997 co-MVP shared with Barry Sanders. Few players can boast a more impressive résumé.

Manning has been named to seven Pro Bowls and six AP all-pro teams, including three first-team selections. He has also been NFL MVP twice, counting his 2003 co-MVP shared with Steve McNair. Few players can boast a more impressive résumé, and Manning is only halfway through his career.

I'll call this a tie, also, but if you project at all, Manning goes way ahead.

The Streak

Part of Favre's legend is his incredible, record-breaking streak of consecutive starts by a quarterback. Actually, scratch "record-breaking" — let's go with record-shattering. Favre, at 237 games, is way ahead of second place on the list, a position held by ... Peyton Manning, who has played in 144 consecutive games and has never missed a start. Favre has the edge in this category, but it is conceivable that Manning could break his record.

Conclusion

There can be no argument that Favre and Manning are both among the greatest quarterbacks ever to play. Both make my list of the 10 best QBs in the history of the game. It should be interpreted as no slight to Favre that I now believe Manning has had the better career.

In the modern era of professional football, seven quarterbacks stand out as statistically dominant over their peers, outdistancing their contemporaries to the point that there is almost no comparison: Graham, Unitas, Tarkenton, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Favre, and Manning. This is not to say that those are the seven greatest quarterbacks in history, or even in the modern era. But for Manning to have joined that group this early in his career is remarkable, and leads me to believe that Manning has a very real chance at retiring as the greatest quarterback ever to play.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 10:59 PM | Comments (38)

The Most Volatile Team Ever

Remember when we were little, we'd put two bugs in a jar and watch them fight to the death? Or remember the time we learned baking soda and vinegar causes an awesome explosion? Or better yet, have you ever put two beta fish in the same tank? It's like aqua cock fighting.

We have a fascination with volatile things — or at least I do. So, naturally, I'm going to assemble the most volatile starting five in the league. This team is going to cause trouble on the court, meaning they aren't going to be committing felonies any time soon. Every press conference is going to be glorious. Every interview will be "colorful," as the media folks like to call it. And every game will have technical fouls sprinkled in among the selfish drives to the basket, outrageous passes into the ninth row, and passes off the backboard to themselves.

But the players cannot be a disturbance to the community. They can only be a disturbance to their team. So that means no empty Grey Goose bottles piled on the passenger seat, no magic mushroom busts, and no beating up the random guy at the bar who drunkenly stumbled on you. But then again, if they slip here and then, we'll let it go.

RASHEED WALLACE

This team will be built around the player who inspired this team. The 'Sheedman himself, Rasheed Wallace. Each year, Wallace leads the league in technical fouls. This year, he already has 16 — seven more than any other player in the league. Not only is he great in the community, but he says his share of quotables ("We don't see ourselves as four all-stars. We see ourselves as one unit. It's like five fingers on a hand. You can do more damage together as a fist than spread out flat.")

BOB SURA

Joining Wallace is none other than Bob Sura. Now, you might be wondering why I put Sura on here. Well, here's the thing: how many players do you know that will shoot on the opposing basket in order to get an additional rebound for the stat book? Granted, that additional rebound gave him a triple-double, but this has to be applauded in some fashion. Not only was Sura shameless enough to pull the stunt, but he was smart enough to think of it in the first place.

RICKY DAVIS

Next on the list is Ricky Davis. The two-guard is known for his facial hair and his knack for attempting the spectacular. Note the word "attempting." Three years ago, Davis attempted a between-the-legs dunk against the Lakers. Yes, he missed. But he got the ball back and he softly put the ball off the backboard and into the basket — right? Nope. Not Ricky Davis. Instead, he decided to attempt a standstill windmill as defenders chased him down from behind. It rattled in.

Oh, and guess who took a page out of Sura's book and missed a shot on purpose to complete a triple double? You guessed it — the one and only Ricky Davis. Against the Utah Jazz, Davis clanked one off the bottom of the opposing hoop as Randy Livingston was guarding him. As Davis dribbled up the court, Livingston just shoved him toward the sideline. Thank you, Randy.

SAM CASSELL

When you think of whiny players, who do you think of? Most people don't have a name in mind, but they have a face. Sam Cassell. He whines and whines and whines to the refs. He does get fouled often, but that may be due to the fact that he has the ball 90 percent of the time he's on the court — and that's according to him.

"It affects me a little bit because I'm used to having the ball 90 percent of the time on the court," he said. And because he likes having the ball so much, he has even studied the times in which he can get his hands on the thing: "Lots of guys don't want the ball in the fourth quarter in the last three minutes of the game. I think that is the easiest time of the game to get the ball. So I try and get the ball and do the things I can do." Strangely, Cassell bears a resemblance to Gollum from "Lord of the Rings" — "Oh precious, oh precious."

Now, you're probably thinking the last player on this team is going to be Ron Artest. Well, you're sadly mistaken. Artest isn't exactly peaceful within the community. Not only does Artest run up into the stands and attack fans (who probably deserve it), but he pollutes the air with his rap album — not good for the community.

GILBERT ARENAS

When Arenas was criticized for shooting too much, he would come out the next game and not shoot at all. Then the following game, he'd shoot the ball as many times as he did before. The kicker here is that he'd make those shots. And so the legend of Gilbert Arenas is born.

Three years ago, he tried to trade his shoes and his jersey for a box of All-Star Game ballots — so he could vote himself in. Sometimes, he comes out wearing a boxing robe during the player introductions. Oh, and last month, he told a reporter he'd probably score 84 or 85 points on Duke if he played against them — because Coach K cut him from the national squad. During half-time, he plays online poker. During road trips, he sits in his room and orders from infomercials. And he wears No. 0 because that's how many minutes his high school coach told him he would play on the collegiate level.

Luckily for all of us, he makes it bearable by donating $100 to charity for every point he scores. And he seems like a fun-loving guy.

Nevertheless, put these guys on the same court and watch it explode. And despite all the criticism this team would get, tell me you wouldn't have fun watching these guys play. In a way, I feel like they would mesh well. But then again, I thought those two beta fish would get along, too.

Posted by Alvin Chang at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2007

NCAA BracketBusters Preview

If you're a diehard hoops fan, you no doubt have been waiting impatiently for this weekend's O'Reilly ESPNU BracketBusters series. With games like Southern Illinois/Butler and Drexel/Creighton, it's like an NCAA tournament without the BCS conferences. And though it may lack the star power of North Carolina and Florida, there are some serious NCAA tournament ramifications on the line.

Overall, there are 102 teams from 16 conferences tipping off on 51 courts across the nation as part of this series. One thing you can bet on for sure is that many of those teams will be on your bracket comes the real Selection Sunday. Cal State Fullerton/Wright State might not jump out at you as being terribly significant, but both teams have a very real shot at landing their conference auto bids. In the eternal search for the perfect bracket (the Holy Grail of college hoops), every chance you get to see a potential tournament team is critical.

We'll take a look at the 14 televised games, plus a few others that may well have an affect on the madness to come (all times Eastern).

Bradley (MVC) at Virginia Commonwealth (Colonial), Saturday, 8 PM, ESPN2

VCU's loss to Old Dominion on Saturday underscored just how precious each game is for mid-major teams. Any slip, and it could be a three-letter postseason instead of a four-letter one. This game against Bradley will be just the second shot against a team in the RPI top 50 for the Rams (they lost to Xavier in November), and they need it badly. Though still sitting atop the Colonial, a home loss here does major damage to their at-large chances.

As for the Braves, their at-large position is perilous at best. They do have wins over DePaul, Southern Illinois and Wichita State, but have also lost at home to Missouri State and Creighton. Neither of those losses is necessarily terrible, but could nevertheless be the difference between Last Four In and Last Four Out. A win here over the top team from the Colonial, plus a run to at least the Arch Madness semis, would probably make Jim Les feel a lot better.

Pick — VCU

Winthrop (Big South) at Missouri State (MVC), Friday, 7 PM, ESPN2

The kick-off game to the festivities, there can be no overstating the importance of this game to Missouri State. Though a win over Southern Illinois at home on Tuesday would probably cement them as the third team in from the Valley, a loss here might still give the committee pause and put the Bears at risk should there be upsets in the Horizon (Butler), WAC (Nevada) or Conference USA (Memphis), or if some non-at-large candidate from a BCS conference plays themselves into the conversation. If they lose to SIU, this game becomes doubly important.

As for Winthrop, this is their last big shot at making an at-large statement (though they look to be the class of the Big South, so should probably get in regardless). Their four losses this year: North Carolina by 7, Maryland by 11, Wisconsin by 3 in OT and Texas A&M by 20. In other words, the Eagles are not going to be intimidated by playing in Springfield, MO.

Pick — Winthrop

Appalachian State (Southern) at Wichita State (MVC), Saturday, 1 PM, ESPNU

Both teams harbor at least some hope of an at-large, and the loser can probably abandon those hopes after this one. The Apps went on the miracle run in Puerto Rico, taking down Vanderbilt and Virginia. They also have wins over Virginia Commonwealth and Southern power Davidson (Davidson's only conference loss). If it weren't for losses to sub-200 RPI teams Elon and UNC Greensboro within five days of each other in January, they would be in much better shape.

Wichita, meanwhile, was once thought to be a tournament lock. They went on the road and beat George Mason, LSU and Syracuse (before anybody realized all three of those teams were about to have down years), but then fell apart in Las Vegas, losing to New Mexico and Southern Call (PJ Couisnard was ill). They then opened up conference play with five of their first eight on the road — and lost all five. Look at them now, though, and they've climbed to a tie for fourth in the Valley with Bradley. A win here (assuming they don't blow it at Drake on Wednesday), and the Shocker revival will continue full steam ahead.

Pick — Wichita State

Drexel (Colonial) at Creighton (MVC), Saturday, 10 PM, ESPN2

Drexel, currently fourth in the Colonial, was supposed to be "the next George Mason" after consecutive road wins at Villanova, Syracuse and Temple put them on the map heading into the new year. Since then, though, they've stumbled against the Colonial's best, going 1-4 combined against VCU, Old Dominion and Hofstra. The Dragons still have semi-decent computer numbers (RPI 50, non-conference strength of schedule of 16), but really need this road win against the Missouri Valley's second best.

Creighton, for its part, has put together a solid season. They have a great RPI (25) and their only losses in their past dozen games are to Wichita State (away) and Southern Illinois (season sweep), a streak that includes road wins at Missouri State, Northern Iowa and Bradley. With three of their last four at home, the Blue Jays look to be locks for the tournament. Even a loss here would probably only cost them a seed line.

Pick — Creighton

Old Dominion (Colonial) at Toledo (MAC), Saturday, 6 PM, ESPN360

In another tough draw for the Colonial, this is one of those "big deal if you win, devastating if you lose" games for Old Dominion. That's nothing against a very good Toledo team (don't let the pedestrian 13-10 overall record fool you), but a game against one of their at-large rivals (Missouri State, Wichita State, New Mexico State) would have served them much better.

Despite some tough losses to top teams from other mid-majors (Marist from the MAAC, Winthrop from the Big South), and a horrible loss to James Madison, ODU is still within reasonable range of an at-large. Not only have they been playing well late (seven straight, including at Drexel and at home over VCU), they also have a huge win at Georgetown to anchor their resume. With only four games left in the regular season, the Deacons really can't afford to lose this game.

Pick — Old Dominion

Holy Cross (Patriot) at Hofstra (Colonial), Saturday, 3 PM, ESPNU

At 12-3 and second in the Colonial, Hofstra took a big hit to their at-large considerations when they lost at home in overtime to Drexel (not to mention earlier losses to Northeastern and Delaware). With a road game at Old Dominion on Tuesday before hosting the Patriot League's best (HC is actually tied with Bucknell for first at 10-1, but they have the higher RPI at 67), the Pride really could have used a bigger name this weekend. With there being no chance Holy Cross could land an at-large, the ramifications from this game are much larger if Hofstra loses (which would probably sink any at-large hopes). Otherwise, they still have plenty of work to do.

Pick — Hofstra

Northern Iowa (MVC) at Nevada (WAC), Saturday, 6 PM, ESPN2

With losses in six of their last seven, even the most optimistic of Panthers fans has to admit the at-large hopes are bleak at best. Now with three road games in a row (Creighton, Nevada and Bradley), NIU could be looking at a possible seventh place finish in the Missouri Valley. If there's any hope for a miracle, it has to start with this game against the best team out west not a member of the Pac-10. Nevada is cruising, and should easily have a chance to better their disappointing first-round loss to Montana in the 2006 tournament.

Pick — Nevada

Southern Illinois (MVC) at Butler (Horizon), Saturday, 4 PM, ESPN2

With both teams ranked and in the NCAA lock category, this one is more for fun than at-large considerations (the reason it's ranked so low on this list despite being one of the best games of the weekend). Well, it's actually more about seeding than fun, but it will be fun for fans around the country who haven't gotten a chance to see either of these two "mid-major" powerhouses. It will be interesting see if Butler star A.J. Graves can light up the super-tough Saluki defense, and if SIU's interior duo of Randal Falker and Matt Shaw can overpower the Bulldogs inside.

Pick — Southern Illinois

Ohio (MAC) at New Mexico State (WAC), Saturday, Midnight, ESPN2

The last game of the 2007 BracketBusters series, this game is vital to the already-on-life-support at-large hopes for Reggie Theus' Aggies. With two consecutive losses heading into tonight's game at Hawaii, the polish on the Aggies' resume is more tarnished than they hoped for after a big win over Nevada in January. And like Old Dominion above, they could have used a bigger name than the fourth-best team in the MAC East. It's too bad, though with their top four scorers all juniors, keep an eye out for New Mexico State next year (even if Theus bolts for a bigger job, which has to be a possibility).

Pick — New Mexico State

Cal State Fullerton (Big West) at Wright State (Horizon), Saturday, 8 PM, ESPN360

If you weren't paying attention to Wright State before they beat Butler on Saturday, hopefully now you are. With losses to Coastal Carolina, Bowling Green, and UW-Milwaukee, all with sub-240 RPIs, the chances for a Raiders at-large are still virtually nil. Nevertheless, it is they — not Butler — currently sitting on top of the Horizon League. If I were a bubble team, I would be very worried about Wright State injecting themselves into the bracket with the Horizon auto bid. Fullerton, meanwhile, is a half game out of first in the Big West, with a huge game against first-place Long Beach State on Wednesday. To them, that game is far more important than this one.

Pick — Wright State

Austin Peay (OVC) at Akron (MAC), Saturday, 5 PM, ESPNU

With Akron's loss to Toledo and a resume with some bad losses and no real big win, it's debatable whether the Zips have any shot at an at-large (and I'm being kind, here). Take advantage of the chance to watch Austin Peay, though. The Governors have a three-game lead over second-place Samford, and it would take a major upset to knock them out of the bracket.

Pick — Akron

Utah State (WAC) at Oral Roberts (MCC), Saturday, 7 PM, ESPNU

Third place in the WAC visits the Mid-Con's best. Like Austin Peay, this may be your only shot outside of Championship Week to see one of the lower seeds on your bracket. Remember, ORU has won at Kansas and has a great inside-outside duo of Ken Tutt and Caleb Green.

Pick — Oral Roberts

Albany (America East) at Boise State (WAC), Friday, 9 PM EST, ESPNU

The fourth-place team in the WAC hosts the second best in the America East. This game is at least worth watching in case Albany beats out Vermont for the auto bid. The 16-seeded Great Danes gave Connecticut all they could handle in last year's tournament.

Pick — Boise State

Kent State (MAC) at George Mason (Colonial), Saturday, 4 PM, ESPN360

At 7-8 in the Colonial, George Mason needs to sweep through the conference tournament for the automatic bid if they want to reprise their miracle run of 2006. Kent State is in the same boat, though they look to be better positioned going into the MAC tournament. There really aren't any at-large ramifications to this game. I would have picked Hawaii-Long Beach State or Sam Houston State-Fresno State instead.

Pick — George Mason

Others with potential at-large impact:

Miami (MAC) at Indiana State (MVC), Saturday, 2 PM

Since Indiana State has beaten at-large candidates Purdue, Wichita State and Northern Iowa at home this year, it would be better for those teams if the Sycamores could turn back Miami, currently sitting at third in the MAC East.

Towson (Colonial) at Bucknell (Patriot), Saturday, 2 PM

If Bucknell can stop Gary Neal (25.5 ppg), you would have to take that into consideration in picking against them if they come out of the Patriot over Holy Cross.

Evansville (MVC) at Samford (OVC), Saturday, TBD

Like the Indiana State game, it would bode well for the MVC bubble teams if the Missouri Valley's seventh best could beat the Ohio Valley's second best. It may be a bit of a reach, but you never know what is going to swing a selection committee member's mind.

Hawaii (WAC) at Long Beach State (Big West), Saturday, 10 PM

For Big West pride, I would expect Long Beach to be up for this game against a WAC team that already has wins over Oregon State, Hofstra, Nebraska and Creigton.

Sam Houston State (Southland) at Fresno State (WAC), Saturday, TBD

The Bearkats (not a typo) are one of four teams that could come out of the Southland, while Fresno is coming off a big win over New Mexico State and has a non-conference win over Creighton. Neither team is in the at-large conversation, but I see Fresno as having an outside chance to steal the WAC auto bid.

Iona (MAAC) at Delware (Colonial), Saturday, 7 PM EST

The teams are currently a combined 6-45. One of them is getting a win on Saturday. That'll be nice.

The Rest

UW Milwaukee (Horizon) at Drake (MVC)
Ball State (MAC) at Illinois State (MVC)
Bowling Green (MAC) at Morehead State (OVC)
Detroit (Horizon) at Buffalo (MAC)
Central Michigan (MAC) at Illinois-Chicago (Horizon)
Manhattan (MAAC) at Eastern Michigan (MAC)
UW-Green Bay (Horizon) at Northern Illinois (MAC)
Valparaiso (Mid-Con) at Western Michigan (MAC)
William & Mary (Colonial) at Fairfield (MAAC)
James Madison (Colonial) at Siena (MAAC)
UNC Wilmington (Colonial) at UNC Greensboro (Southern)
Maine (America East) at Northeastern (Colonial)
Elon (Southern) at Georgia State (Colonial)
Pacific (Big West) at Montana (Big Sky)
San Jose State (WAC) at Northern Arizona (Big Sky)
Eastern Washington (Big Sky) at UC Santa Barbara (Big West)
Portland State (Big Sky) at Cal-Poly (Big West)
Canisius (MAAC) at Coastal Carolina (Big South)
Liberty (Big South) at Niagara (MAAC)
Jacksonville State (Ohio Valley) at Tennessee-Chattanooga (Southern)
Eastern Illinois (OVC) at Loyola (Illinois) (Horizon)
Eastern Kentucky (OVC) at Youngstown State (Horizon)
Murray State (OVC) at Rider (MAAC)
Louisiana Tech (WAC) at Southeast Missouri State (OVC)
St. Peter's (MAAC) at Tennessee-Martin (OVC)
Loyola (Md) (MAAC) at Tennessee State (OVC)
Northwestern State (Southland) at Tennessee Tech (OVC)
Colgate (Patriot) at Marist (MAAC)
Cleveland State (Horizon) at Cal State Northridge (Big West)
UC Riverside (Big West) at Idaho (WAC)
UC Irvine (Big West) at San Francisco (WCC)

Seth Doria is a freelance writer and poet living on the out-skirt of St. Louis. For weekly NCAA Sleeper Watch updates, daily notes, and picks from the world of sports, and semi-insightful political commentary, visit The Left Calf.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 6:22 PM | Comments (1)

Jerry Jones' Gem For Arlington

With Super Bowl XLI in the history books, here is an interview about a stadium that will be host to plenty of future ones. I spoke with Diane Brandon, Vice President of Communications and Research for the Arlington (TX) Convention and Visitors Bureau. I asked her about plans for the Dallas Cowboys' future home in Arlington.

SC: How will the new stadium change the face of Arlington?

Diane Brandon: We couldn't be more excited about the new Dallas Cowboys stadium relocating to Arlington. Since Arlington is halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth, the location of our city will make attending games for those in the western areas of the Dallas-Fort Worth area easier. But much more importantly for the Arlington Convention and Visitors Bureau, the stadium opens up new markets for us for tourism and for booking large events such as truck rallies, religious events, and even Olympic Trials and the Super Bowl.

According to ESPN, the Dallas Cowboys are one of the top three sports brands in the world and they have fans across the country and even in other countries like Mexico. Those fans travel to games and that helps our tourism business. And we're not even counting the money the team spends here for printing, food service, building, and contracting. Oh, then there is the endless advertising and marketing for the city through football radio and television broadcasts. Even I can't think of all the ways in which we'll benefit positively!

SC: What things about the Cowboys' new home will mark it as unique?

DB: The Dallas Cowboys are always top-notch in everything they do. The team has been a trendsetter since Tex Schramm was so influential in the NFL by starting the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and the Cowboys Ring of Honor, among many other innovations. This stadium is at one time paying homage to Texas Stadium in Irving with the world-famous "hole in the roof" where God can watch his favorite team, while at the same time rocketing forward into a new age of building technology and design. Here are a couple of gee-whiz facts about the new stadium:

• It will be the biggest enclosed stadium in the world.
• It will have the largest continuous arches in the world.
• The Statue of Liberty could stand up inside the stadium.
• The roof is retractable, which is a requirement of the NFL in order to host a Super Bowl (if the city in question could have cold weather during Super Bowl time).

The building is truly remarkable, and fans can see more of it at our website or DallasCowboys.com.

SC: Will the annual Cotton Bowl game ever move to this stadium?

DB: That's a question for the Dallas Cowboys. At the CVB, we would be most happy to help the team with any kind of proposals to bring that business from Dallas. Since Glorypark (a new entertainment, retail, residential, and restaurant development) will be here by then, linking Ameriquest Field and the new stadium together, there will be plenty of fun and food for fans to enjoy. For the time being, Dallas has the contract on the Cotton Bowl, but we'll be glad to take that event off their hands.

SC: Is the stadium in the vicinity of the Rangers' ballpark and Six Flags?

DB: Yes, it is. We call this area the Entertainment District in Arlington. Six Flags Over Texas, the Arlington Convention Center, Ameriquest Field in Arlington, Glorypark, and the Dallas Cowboys stadium will all be within walking distance of each other.

SC: Who will the architect be, and what is their sports facility track record?

DB: The HKS Sports and Entertainment Group, ranked as one of the top-five sport/stadium designers by BD World Architecture, has ushered in a new generation of multi-revenue-generating, world-class facilities. These venues are known for enhancing and leveraging team identity, delivering an exciting fan experience, and serving as destination environments. HKS, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, is among the top-five architectural/engineering firms in the United States, operating from 17 U.S. and worldwide offices.

SC: Thanks so much, Diane.

DB: You're welcome.

Posted by Bijan C. Bayne at 6:01 PM | Comments (0)

February 9, 2007

How the NBA Can Save the Dunk Contest

The NBA Dunk Competition, a monumental event with a spectacular history of creativity, is playing center stage this coming Friday in the City of Lights. The question, however, is whether it will be able to live up to the hype of the almost distant past or whether it will once again fall short of adding another chapter to the legacy.

Last year, Nate Robinson beat out Andre Iguodala in an awkward finale which made the fans almost as embarrassed as lil' Nate should have been. There were some nice displays of creativity, though, with Robinson eventually finishing off with the double-between-the-legs pass off-the-backboard alley-oop dunk (on his 953rd attempt).

Most thought, though, that Iguodala put on the best display of athleticism by ducking the backboard for an alley-oop reverse, throwing down a bounce pass alley-oop behind-the-back dunk, and putting it between the legs both ways on separate attempts to prove he's more than just one-dimensional.

The problem with the dunk comp these days, however, isn't that the players can't put on an amazing show. The problem is that there are players that could put on an even better show. This year, one could argue, the judges are more capable dunker's than the contestants themselves.

No disrespect to Gerald Green, Dwight Howard, Nate Robinson, and Tyrus Thomas — it's not their fault that the NBA chose such prestigious judges for the big show.

The judges for the event are Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, and Dominique Wilkins.

When will NBA fans ever get to see Kobe Bryant and Vince Carter square off? When will we get to see LeBron James even compete? How about throwing in Ricky Davis, Steve Francis, Kevin Garnett, or Tracy McGrady? It would even be nice to see James White participate for the first time; a man known for his ability to do pretty much any dunk while also taking off from the free-throw line. Okay, I guess it's all right if the NBA saves his show for when he's actually getting playing time in the Association, but fans everywhere can hardly wait to see what he'd have prepared.

The problem with the NBA Dunk Competition isn't that the players can't do enough, it's simply that they aren't going against the best of the best. The stars of the NBA seemingly want nothing to do with the event other than judging or watching it.

It would be completely fine to have this years contestants all participate if they were going up against a few of the elite. If one of these four emerge from this year's battle, then they're okay, but if they took on four more of the best, they could be great.

Gerald Green has been saying that he has something up his sleeve that will shock the unshockable. His teammate Tony Allen professed to ESPN that if it is successful, it will go down as "one of the top 10 in history." Dwight Howard has supposedly kissed the rim a few times in practice, and Nate Robinson is still short and still allowed to take two minutes to make a successful attempt.

Tyrus Thomas, on the other hand, states that he is, according to the Chicago Tribune, "just going to go out there, get my check and call it a day."

Profound.

The winning contestant gets $35,000, while second place receives $22,500. Third- and fourth-place finishers end up with $16,125 apiece.

The event will still, undoubtedly, be an amazing show. We all know that they can dunk with creativity and know that they will, regardless of their motives. Thomas won't want to be booed off of the Vegas center-stage and might even have just been downplaying the event (while in the meantime earning a $10,000 fine by the Bulls for his comments) in order to surprise. All four contestants will come out firing, but the winner will never be proclaimed the best dunker in the NBA, simply because there are too many amazing athletes left off of the entrants list.

The NBA should adopt a six- or eight-player event in which three or four of the competitors are high-flying youngsters and the rest are the big-name players that everybody wants to see. Not only would it add a bang to the event, but it would also continue to allow the NBA to market it's youth movement.

Next year, I want to see Kobe in his 1997 form, Vinsanity upping what he did in 2000, and King James throwing it down with the new kids on the block. Let's see if the young guns can really prove themselves against the fiercest competition.

Let's make this dunk competition all about being the best — of the best.

Posted by Chad Kettner at 8:04 PM | Comments (1)

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl Edition

Have a sports-related question you want answered? Send it to [email protected] and you might find an answer in the next column.

Just as Ohio State did in the BCS title game, the Bears returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown, yet still lost handily. Is returning the opening kickoff for a touchdown a curse?

Statistics don't lie. In the last two football championship games, the team that returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown has lost, surprisingly. Why on Earth teams continue to win the coin toss, elect to receive, and then return the kickoff for a touchdown is beyond me. Maybe it's just a case of bad preparation, bad coaching, inadequate scouting, or a combination of the three.

Here's another statistic that bears attention: in the last two football championship games, the team that kicked off and allowed a touchdown to begin the game has won. Obviously, the Florida Gators and Indianapolis Colts did their homework. Devin Hester had five kick return touchdowns in the regular season.

Why would the Colts choose to kick right to him to start the game unless they knew that allowing a score to open the game and go down 7-0 would practically guarantee a victory? Mad kudos to Colts special teams coach Russ Pernell for identifying this weakness and exploiting it, and props to kicker Adam Vinatieri for accuracy in kicking right to Hester, and for making his tackle attempt look genuine. Vinatieri is a firm believer in statistics, as he knows that the team that successfully kicks a game-winning field goal as time expires has won 100% of those games.

Now, the Bears could have easily countered the Colts game plan by having Hester simply step out of bounds at the one-yard line instead of completing the touchdown run. Thomas Jones punching it in from one yard out on the game's first play from scrimmage would have clearly changed the fortunes of the Bears.

What was the best Super Bowl commercial?

I'd have to call it a draw between two ads: the Snickers commercial in which two guys working under the hood of a car share a Snickers and a kiss, and the Bud Light ad in which the open-handed slap replaces the "high five" and the "pound" as a new form of manly greeting. Beer is an easy sell, but peddling chocolate to the masses via the image of two men kissing took balls.

How will we ever look at a Snickers bar the same again? For certain radical bible-thumpers and hardcore rednecks, this means never eating a Snickers bar again. In fact, sales of Snickers in auto mechanic shops nationwide have all but ceased in the last week. For me and many others, however, when hunger strikes, I'll reach for a Snickers, and feel comfortable enough in my manhood not to deny my feelings, even if that means snacking on what is now known as the "gay bar." Just like locking lips over a rebuilt carburetor, Snickers really satisfies. Let's just hope Hillshire Farms doesn't get any crazy ideas when they try to advertise their Polish sausage.

Bud Light chose the opposite approach to sell their product — not men kissing, but men slapping each other, good-naturedly, of course. Don't be surprised to see the Three Stooges in a follow-up, or the entire Bears team "high-fiving" Grossman.

What does the future hold for Rex Grossman in Chicago?

Ask Lovie Smith, and he's sure to tell you, "Rex Grossman is our quarterback." And I'm sure Lovie feels much better saying that in the offseason than he did back in December. Grossman's future's so bright, his seeing-eye dog has to wear shades. Speaking of shades, former Bears quarterback Jim McMahon made them famous in Chicago's 1985 run to Super Bowl glory.

The Bears have to ask themselves: is Grossman the man to lead them to their second Super Bowl win, thereby ensuring Grossman's immortality in Chicago sports lore, plus the many trappings that come with it, such as appearances on Pros Versus Joe's, or entry in the World Hot Dog Eating Championship? Or, should the Bears look elsewhere for the quarterback who will lead them there?

Grossman has one more year remaining on his contract; if the Bears fail to resign him, then, after next year, he's fair game. Can you imagine the bidding war for Grossman's services, especially when teams from the Canadian Football League become involved? Seriously, the Bears have invested too much time and money in Grossman to waste, so expect Chicago to resign Grossman to a long-term deal (although Chicago's criteria for "long-term" may change from "years" to "games").

Can the Colts repeat as Super Bowl champions?

While the Chargers look like early favorites, the Colts are certainly capable of repeating, and Marty Schottenheimer is not their coach. Will they repeat? Who knows? There's always the talk of a letdown, and Peyton Manning will have to face the criticism as the "greatest quarterback never to have won multiple Super Bowls." Overcoming all this will be the key to the Colts season.

Now, if this were the "all offense, no defense" Indy teams to which we've become accustomed, I'd give them no chance. But the Colts seem to have transformed into an entirely new team during their playoff run. They're now a good defensive team with a ball-control offense. You know, like the Ravens or the Bears, just without the quarterback who will lose the game for you. And the Colts have proved they can win games even when Manning doesn't play well. Plus, the Colts play in the AFC South, a division they've owned, so a good playoff-seeding is almost guaranteed.

Of course, after winning Super Bowl XL, the Steelers missed the playoffs, but I don't see Manning getting on a motorcycle, much less wrecking one. So Indy will definitely make the playoffs, but a repeating as NFL champions is too much to expect. A trip to the AFC Championship Game is certainly attainable.

Beat the NFL odds next season when you sign up for expert picks at BetFirms.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:27 PM | Comments (0)

February 8, 2007

2007 NFL Mock Draft: Version 2.0

This is a follow-up to 2007 NFL Mock Draft: First Look.

Based on the responses received after my first mock draft posting, it seems that many of you out there have some very realistic opinions about the upcoming NFL selection meeting. A few of the loyal readers out there frankly did not agree with my positioning in some regards, which is to be expected. However, much of the opposition to my insight came relative to the draft order that was laid out. There were also some readers curious about the omission of some very capable players from my first listing.

Hopefully, version 2.0 of this mock draft will alleviate some of those concerns as the regular season is now over, fleshing the draft order out a bit. More importantly, the list of collegiate players who have announced themselves as eligible has now been finalized and the college bowl results are now in, and all of those previously unavailable facts have been incorporated in this version.

For the purposes of this article, let's assume Tampa wins the coin flip for the third overall pick.

With those housekeeping items out of the way, let's get to the picks.

(*denotes eligibility-declared underclassmen)

1. Oakland Raiders: *JaMARCUS RUSSELL, QB (LSU) — Russell showed scouts what they had hoped to see during his team's impressive 41-14 Sugar Bowl trouncing of Notre Dame, displaying the pocket poise, accuracy, and solid decision-making skills that pro teams crave in their field-generals. His 28/8 TD-to-INT ratio against one of the tougher NCAA schedules is another strong resume-building factor and he figures a lock to have an impressive personal workout/combine performance with his size, arm strength, and improved decision-making. With Al Davis's love for the deep pass and a dearth of qualified QBs in his current stable, Russell makes sense for a team that needs tons of help on the offensive side of the ball.

2. Detroit Lions: *ALAN BRANCH, DT (Michigan) — Obviously, there is no football god, as Matt Millen will, in fact, be part of the Lions' 2007 management team. While that should keep WR Calvin Johnson on the edge of his seat, even Millen can't miss the potential of in-state defensive star Alan Branch. Branch is big (6-6, 330) and talented and would be a nice addition to an ever-evolving Lion defensive unit.

3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: * CALVIN JOHNSON, WR (Georgia Tech) — No player not named Bush or Young that I've watched over the past two college football campaigns has impressed me more than Johnson from a purely awe-inspiring potential standpoint. He's huge (6-4, 225), athletically gifted, and a model teammate. The Bucs will be giddy if they do wind up winning their coin toss with Cleveland for this pick. If Cleveland gets this pick, it is likely that they will trade down with a team looking to land the gifted Yellow Jacket underclassman, leaving Jon Gruden high-and-dry in his search for consistency from the receiver position.

4. Cleveland Browns: *ADRIAN PETERSON, RB (Oklahoma) — The Browns aren't far from being a really competitive team, and I'm not just saying that. If you look up and down their roster, you'll see that, if healthy, they are set at most every position, with a few notable exceptions at running back and in the defensive backfield. With no real eye-opening cornerback to be taken this early in the draft, the Browns may well snag the proven Sooner runner with their top pick. However, this mostly will depend on how Peterson looks in his workouts and how he interviews ... otherwise, look for Cleveland to work the phone lines for a trade scenario that will fill their cornerback need later in round one.

5. Arizona Cardinals: JOE THOMAS, OT (Wisconsin) — If this does wind up being the Cardinals' pick, a celebration will ensue from Edgerrin James's offseason Florida home. Thomas is a legit stud as a blocker ... he has ideal size (6-7, 313) and remarkable quickness for a man of his size. While the ex-Badger standout has suffered through some tough injuries, the Cards' need for a difference maker up front far outweighs any concerns they may have, especially if this two-time All-American left tackle is still available with the fifth pick.

6. Washington Redskins: *JAMAAL ANDERSON, DE (Arkansas) — While I personally like Gaines Adams more as a defensive end, Jamaal Anderson had such an electrifying 2006 season (SEC-leading 13.5 sacks and No. 2 in conference in TFL with 19.5), he likely will be the first of the two coming of the draft board. Anderson has good size (6-6, 275) and fits the mold of a top-tier NFL pass rusher better than the other DEs in this draft class, and Washington will undoubtedly look to grab a sack artist after totaling a league-low 19 in 2006.

7. Minnesota Vikings: BRADY QUINN, QB (Notre Dame) — If Quinn remains undrafted by this pick, his selection by the Vikings is the easiest call on this board. Brad Johnson has been an adequate starter throughout his career, but the sun is clearly setting on his playing days. Tavares Jackson is certainly not the future of Minnesota football and the no-nonsense style and down-to-earth toughness of Quinn makes all the sense in the world for the old-school grit of coach Brad Childress. Having tallied an almost ridiculously low 13 passing touchdowns in 2006, the Vikings players and fans will welcome the promising Quinn to town with open arms.

8. Houston Texans: GAINES ADAMS, DE (Clemson) — Let me preface this by saying the following: the Texans' front office made one of the most egregious mistakes in recent draft-day history by neglecting to select either Reggie Bush or Vince Young last season. There, I said it. Now, on to this year's pick ... with Adrian Peterson off the board, the dynamic Adams, a ferocious pass rusher with tons of athleticism, is the best potential fit to what the Texans are looking for in this year's draft. Picking Adams solidifies the Texans for years to come at a historically weak position, giving them bookend pass rushers with youth, athleticism, and power.

9. Miami Dolphins: PATRICK WILLIS, LB (Ole Miss) — While Ted Ginn, Jr. may tempt the offensive-minded Cam Cameron, nobody will question that Miami's defense is beginning to show signs of age. The team needs some help in the secondary and some youth in the front-seven. Smart money says Miami makes a strong push for Asante Samuel should he become available in free agency, filling the former of those two needs, which leaves the latter as the most pressing concern. Willis is a consistent and strong-willed leader, making him a great long-term solution to compliment and eventually succeed Zach Thomas as the linebacking anchor of the Dolphin "D".

10. Atlanta Falcons: *TED GINN, JR., WR (Ohio State) — This is what we call in the biz a "no brainer." Atlanta is desperate for some more offensive weapons. Warrick Dunn is no longer a spring chicken, and the talent of their current corps of receivers can be categorized as being somewhere between terribly ineffective and non-existent. It is true that they could use some help on their D-line, but that particular area is so deep in this draft that they can wait for round two to start addressing that need. Ginn is the all-around weapon with blazing speed and jaw-dropping potential that Vick needs to occupy those defensive backs if he wants to have a shot at becoming a serviceable passer in this league. While USC receiver Dwayne Jarrett may also be an option here, Ginn's speed makes him hard to pass up.

11. San Francisco 49ers: *CHARLES JOHNSON, DE (Georgia) — Johnson figures to benefit from a huge bump in terms of his value once the workouts are complete. He can rush the passer with power, but he is surprisingly quick and strong for his stature, which are measurables that will translate into a high rating once the numbers are all crunched. His speed allows him to play the edge in a 3-4 scheme even with the 280 pounds that he is currently carrying on his 6-foot-2 inch frame, and his power make him a decent fit as a down lineman, as well. This flexibility should pique the interest of the defensive-minded Mike Nolan as they look to shore up a pass rush that was less than stellar in '06.

12. Buffalo Bills: LEON HALL, CB (Michigan) — The Michigan standout is a solid cover-first corner with great instincts and safety-like tackling ability. With the impending departure of Nate Clements becoming more and more likely, the Bills will be looking to find a replacement, and Hall fits that bill very nicely. Though Hall's stock dropped a bit following a disappointing week of Senior Bowl practices, he is still clearly the best corner in this year's draft and could step in and play immediately in Buffalo.

13. St. Louis Rams: AMOBI OKOYE, DT (Louisville) — Not unlike Hall, Okoye's stock was clearly impacted by his Senior Bowl performance. Unlike Hall, however, the surprisingly svelte (287 pound) Louisville defensive tackle actually did himself some good with his explosion off the line of scrimmage and aggressive play. While his eventual pro team may ask him to bulk up some after draft day, even as an undersized prospect he clearly warrants a top-15 draft grade and makes good sense for a Rams team that was routinely blown off the defensive line in 2006.

14. Carolina Panthers: LaRON LANDRY, S (LSU) — Landry has been a consistent collegiate performer. He has excellent instincts as a safety and is a hard-hitter who demonstrates great technique, a combination that translates well to the Panthers' defensive style of attacking the opposition's offensive line with their front-seven. He will provide a safety valve in the defensive secondary that craves the reliability and play-making ability that Landry has consistently brought to the table.

15. Pittsburgh Steelers: *DWAYNE JARRETT, WR (USC) — The Steelers are badly needing some components to help their passing game and Jarrett's superior route running and favorable size make him a likely pick for a team that could use a compliment to the productive Hines Ward. While Pittsburgh's front office would certainly prefer a more dynamic wideout like Ted Ginn to fall in their lap here, landing Jarrett is by no means a disappointing scenario and he may well end up as the more productive of the two.

16. Green Bay Packers: *LAWRENCE TIMMONS, LB (Florida State) — Timmons has ideal size (6-3, 233) and an adequate motor to be a real hell-raiser in the linebacking corps. He plays a consistent and all-out style of football that makes him standout in workouts and on film, and for good reason. His presence would give the Packers a truly formidable group of linebackers, which in my book is one of the most often overlooked components to a successful NFL team.

17. Jacksonville Jaguars: *REGGIE NELSON, DB (Florida) — In my opinion, Nelson falling to the Jags here represents a coup for Jacksonville. He has perhaps the most appealing upside for all non-pass rushing defensive players in this draft with his versatility, speed, play-making ability and willingness to contribute on special teams. He can play any of the defensive backfield positions and play them well and he tackled consistently in college. In short, he is all you could ask for as a contributor in the secondary and would be a great fit for Jaguars team coveting some consistent defensive production, especially in pass coverage.

18. Cincinnati Bengals: MICHAEL GRIFFIN, DB (Texas) — Griffin, like Nelson, is versatile and has been asked to play both corner and safety during his collegiate career. Also like Nelson, the UT standout has never looked overmatched or intimidated regardless of the competition, traits that historically translate well into pro success, particularly for defensive backs. Griffin is, however, much less outspoken than Nelson and generally has let his play do the talking ... a novel idea in Cincinnati, but one that would play well in a locker room full of windbags and braggarts.

19. Tennessee Titans: DWAYNE BOWE, WR (LSU) — Year one of the Vince Young era was a rousing success by any measure considering the dearth of talent in and around Music City. For year two to match or exceed the expectations this success has brought, the Titans will require some more offensive firepower, especially at the receiver position. As any of you that pay attention to this sort of thing will undoubtedly know by now that no player created more of a stir with his Senior Bowl performance than did the 6-foot 2-inch, 222-pound LSU receiver. His showcasing of toughness, precision in his routes, confident hands, and, most-importantly, his surprising size-to-speed ratio all catapulted Bowe from a potential late first round sleeper to a mid-round steal and Tennessee would not bat an eyelash en route to the podium should he still remain available once their selection came up.

20. New York Giants: *MARSHAWN LYNCH, RB (Cal) — Clearly, the G-Men will need to fill the void left by the retirement of Tiki Barber. Brandon Jacobs will be the de facto starter and will likely succeed in that role, but he is far too vanilla to be the only option for the Giants going into the season (I'd like to add just for posterity's sake that I wouldn't be shocked to see the Giants make a play for Miami RB/holistic healer Ricky Williams should he be granted re-instatement into the league for '07 ... stay tuned). With Lynch's recent run-in with the law (he has been accused of sexual assault among some other potential charges) clearly drops him out of consideration in the top 10, anything short of a prison sentence and he'll remain on first round radar screens. The Giants will happily take the chance on him if he is still on the board as his upside is too attractive to ignore entirely.

21. Denver Broncos: DAYMEION HUGHES, CB (Cal) — Tragedy in sport is like tragedy in all other walks of life; it is unexpected, painful, and thoroughly difficult to recover from. The untimely and unfortunate loss of Darrent Williams creates a void in friends and family members that can never truly be filled. But the sad truth of the matter is that the Broncos as a football team must try and fill the void they now have as a result of the Williams atrocity. Hughes makes sense for that reason, and I'll leave it at that.

22. Dallas Cowboys: QUENTIN MOSES, DE/OLB (Georgia) — While this pick will remain hard to figure until the Cowboys settle on a new coaching staff (still up in the air as of writing of this article), Quentin Moses is an intriguing potential selection for the Cowboys. While he was once rated at the top of a talented defensive end class, Moses has seen his stock fall precipitously as a DE prospect. However, at 6-5 and 245, he projects well to the edge of a 3-4 defense, and this could keep him in or near the top 20 picks. Dallas may look safety here, or even inside linebacker, but Moses is a decent value pick and fits their scheme nicely.

23. Kansas City Chiefs: LEVI BROWN, OT (Penn State) — Brown has slipped a bit since my first mock draft, but KC still makes a good landing spot for the 6-5, 325 tackle. With needs at both tackle spots, Brown's increasingly obvious weakness with his footwork won't necessarily turn them off — they'll just project him to the right side rather than their QB's blind side.

24. New England Patriots (via Seattle): PAUL POSLUSZNY, LB (Penn State) — My distaste for the Patriots aside, this is a franchise that seemingly makes all the right moves. For this reason, I would not be shocked to see the New England brass make a bold move and deal their two first round picks for a shot at a Ted Ginn type of impact offensive weapon. That said, I've already precluded myself from consideration of trades, so the other likely scenario nets the Patriots either Georgia's DE/OLB hybrid Quentin Moses or Posluszny, and the Penn State linebacker is a better fit considering the varying condition of Tedy Bruschi.

25. New York Jets: DeMARCUS "TANK" TYLER, DT (NC State) — Not much changed here since my last posting. Tyler is a great fit for the Jets and would allow them to get rid of Robertson, who has been a bit of a bust in New York. DE Adam Carriker is another player that might be on the Jets radar screen, but until further notice, I'm sticking with Tyler.

26. Philadelphia Eagles: MICHAEL BUSH, RB (Louisville) — Short of the Patriots, the Eagles are the only team in the league that has consistently shown the savvy to be a competitive force year in and year out, and much of this savvy is demonstrated through the draft. The Eagles are very unlikely, based on past experience, to remain in this position, but if they do select here, Bush is a great compliment to the dynamic Brian Westbrook in the Philly backfield.

27. New Orleans Saints: *DARRELLE REVIS, CB (Pittsburgh) — "Aint's" no more, the NFC runners-up cannot hide their weakness: they need to get faster on defense. Revis is all kinds of fast and was at one time considered the top corner prospect in the nation, though his ranking has slipped over the course of the season. He has solid cover skills on top of that speed, but does lack consistent tackling technique, which hurts his value. Still, snagging such a prospect this late in round one would be a bit more good fortune for the Saints as they continue their march away from their checkered history.

28. New England Patriots: *ROBERT MEACHAM, WR (Tennessee) — Having already disallowed my very likely trade scenario involving the Patriots, New England will be in the market for another receiver to throw into their stew. That sound you just heard was my head hitting my keyboard in frustration as I realized the likeliness of Mr. Meacham falling to the hated Beli-Bradys. Meacham falling this far was unthinkable just two short months ago, but with the announcement from Ginn that he'd be going pro combining with Dwayne Bowe's recent surge has left the acrobatic Vol receiver as the odd-man-out. If this scenario plays out, you're looking at the clear steal of the 2007 draft.

29. Baltimore Ravens: ADAM CARRIKER, DE (Nebraska) — Stocking an already overstocked defense may not make sense to many of you readers out there, but this is how sustained success is achieved in today's NFL and the Ravens have already had one bout with salary cap mismanagement (see 2004 season). Carriker is a fast-riser and has ideal size for a 3-4 end and surprising speed for his build (6-6, 292), which makes him a great Raven-style of defender. While there may be players that fill needs out there, I find it difficult to justify the Ravens passing on a value pick of Carriker's stature.

30. San Diego Chargers: *SIDNEY RICE, WR (South Carolina) — The Chargers would absolutely jump for joy if Rice fell to them. The South Carolina receiver is tall and lanky and has flypaper hands, making him an opportune get for a team starved for a possession receiver to compliment the unmatched talents of LaDanian Tomlinson and Antonio Gates on offense.

31. Chicago Bears: MARCUS McCAULEY, CB (Fresno State) — McCauley’s stock has leveled a bit of late, but he still finds himself near the top of his class at that position. That said, cornerbacks aren't a top priority for most teams around the league, as the "have nots" have many more pressing needs and the "haves" needn't waste picks for depth alone. This suits the Bears just fine, who would pick up an excellent player to solidify their pass coverage defense, which certainly took its lumps at times last season.

32. Indianapolis Colts: *BRANDON SILER, LB (Florida) — It is painfully clear that the Colts lack defensive fire, particularly against the run. Florida's defensive heart may have been safety Reggie Nelson, but its soul was Siler and that soul plays with a competitive fire that is hard to match. Siler's aggression, passion, and defensive leadership make him a hard player to pass on, especially when considering how other teams pushed the undersized Colts defense around throughout the regular season.

WATCH OUT FOR FALLING STOCK

The following players have taken a hit in their value over the past two months for one reason or another and have fallen out of my top round projection:

OT Tony Ugoh (Arkansas), RB Kenny Irons (Auburn), OG Ben Grubbs (Auburn), DE/OLB LaMarr Woodley (Michigan), QB Troy Smith (Ohio State), C Ryan Kalil (USC), DT Quinn Pitcock (Ohio State)

MAYBE NEXT TIME

The following players just missed top round billing and are considered rising talents:

LB Mike Okwo (Stanford), WR Craig Davis (LSU), OT Marshal Yanda (Iowa), OG Arron Sears (Tennessee), DE/OLB Anthony Spencer (Purdue), S Brandon Merriweather (Miami)

***

While this mock reflects a much more complete understanding of team needs, player values, and potential draft scenarios than did the first version, it is far from complete. Still unknown elements such as free agency losses/gains and the all-important NFL combine are upcoming in the very near future, so there will be a need for further fine-tuning in the weeks to come.

I hope to share at least one more (post-combine) edition of my mock drafts prior to my final pre-draft posting in mid-April (the intent is for my final mock posting will include the first three rounds and "likely" draft day trades, pending my editor's approval, of course).

Posted by Matt Thomas at 7:25 PM | Comments (6)

Remarkable Aggies Among Elite

Texas A&M has the best basketball team in the Big 12.

If you have been following the Big 12 since its inception in 1996, this statement feels like saying something along the lines of, "Vanderbilt has the best football team in the SEC" or "Kansas City has the best baseball team in the majors."

But yet, with an 8-1 record in Big 12 play and a 20-3 overall record, even the biggest of skeptics cannot deny how good the Aggies truly are.

Three seasons ago, Texas A&M suffered the worst season in Big 12 history, going 0-16 in league play and finishing with a 7-21 overall record. None of the Aggies' victories that season came against any team ranked in the top 200 of the RPI.

The most embarrassing part of that season was that A&M lost both meetings to a Baylor team that was coming off of the Dave Bliss scandal and had to be fielded by a team of essentially walk-ons.

Then-coach Melvin Watkins promptly resigned and Texas native Billy Gillispie was brought in.

The turnaround Gillispie made at UTEP was remarkable, as he guided a once-hopeless basketball program into the NCAA tournament in just two seasons. However, the prevailing opinion throughout the state of Texas was that Gillispie was a good coach, but that A&M was even more hopeless of a situation than that of UTEP's.

That is, of course, if you actually looked around long enough to hear or read an opinion on Texas A&M basketball.

Now, no basketball fan in Texas can help but take notice of what the Aggies and Gillispie are doing.

In Gillispie's first season, the Aggies, almost miraculously, won 20 games and got to the NIT quarterfinals.

Last season, A&M went to the NCAA tournament for the first time in 19 years and nearly went to the Sweet 16 before LSU hit a last-second three-pointer in the second round.

The Aggies are currently taking the next step in Gillispie's year-by-year upward progression, a step that may see Texas A&M end up in Atlanta at the end of the season.

Before Saturday, the Aggies were tied with Kansas and Texas atop the Big 12 at 6-1, but only had one true marquee win, a home victory against Oklahoma State. The amount of marquee wins for the Aggies now sits at three just three days later after defeating both of the teams they once shared the Big 12 perch with.

On Saturday, the Aggies became the first team from the Big 12 South (Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State) to win a game at Kansas with a 69-66 win.

However, the win was indicative of a team that was superbly coached and had even better play in the clutch on both ends of the floor. Kansas fans and viewers likely thought that the game was over when the Jayhawks were up by double-digits with six minutes to go. The athletic and deep cast of Kansas characters was simply outplaying the Aggies, and there was really no reason to think that the game would turn around like it did.

Eventually, it did turn around as Gillispie's team never quit and shut down Kansas in the final five minutes as Acie Law heated up in the clutch, driving to the basket and making seemingly impossible jumpers against a Jayhawk defense that had held the star point guard in check for nearly the whole game. Law made the go-ahead three pointer for Texas A&M with just 20 seconds left.

As monumental as the win in Lawrence was, the Aggies' 100-82 victory at home against Texas may end up being more significant to A&M's success.

A 100-82 score is simply not the kind of game that the Aggies and Gillispie like to play. Texas A&M is far more comfortable playing a 65-54 game with tough defense and an efficient, non-running style of offense.

Gillispie admitted as much in his post game news conference when he said, "If you would have told me that they would score 82, I would thought there would be no way we could win."

The game that the Aggies and Longhorns played early last March in College Station featured a combined 89 points. The same two teams scored 97 points in the second half alone on Monday night. Two important Aggie starters in Dominique Kirk and Joseph Jones were in foul trouble and eventually each fouled out. Seldom-used reserves Brian Davis and Donald Sloan were forced into action and combined for 19 points in 37 minutes.

The best teams in the country find ways to win even when they are forced into a different style of play or when they don't play their best. In the past two games, the Aggies have done each and established themselves as not only not your same old basketball Aggies, but as very legitimate Final Four contenders.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 6:48 PM | Comments (0)

February 7, 2007

Don't 'Zo (Or Mutombo) Quietly

Sometimes you can find comfort in the face of an old acquaintance. Sometimes the sight of a person you haven't seen in a long time brings back fond memories, and even if you never really liked them much, you'll happily reminisce for a minute.

And sometimes people outstay their welcome, and it starts to piss you off.

Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo: you're starting to piss me off.

Hey, I listen to Pavement and Superchunk albums with the same nostalgia for the early-'90s as everyone else, but the surprise resurgence of these two particular players is really starting to grind on my already tattered nerves.

Normally, this would be the part where I'd stop foaming, and logically over the course of a paragraph or two explain the reasons why I get angry every time I see either of these two on the court.

Unfortunately, there aren't really any reasons. Okay, there are like one and a half reasons.

One is that as a Torontonian, city by-law requires me to wish a communicable disease on Alonzo Mourning at least once a week before bed, at least until he's no longer being paid by the Raptors.

After that, things get a little fuzzy.

The half reason is best described as a combination of the discomfort I feel looking at a 40-year-old Mutombo, and fury over the fact that he still wags his finger at the expense of transition offense, even though the guy he blocked will dunk over him the next six times down the floor.

I recognize Mutombo would struggle to help the transition offense of the Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway, and yes, I hated Mourning long before he was traded to the Raptors. So I know I'm reaching here, but you don't ask how a rainbow's made, so don't bother me on this.

The worst part is that I thought we were done with these guys. Most of the players from their drafts and generation are long gone, and the ones still around are rarely contributors.

Everything was going so well.

In 2003, Mutombo played just 24 games with the Nets and was inching towards the door like Michael Richards at a UNCF meeting.

Ditto for 'Zo, whose pathetic, Karl Malone-esqe hunt for a ring was being stymied by an uncooperative kidney.

Note: I'm wish kidney failure on no one. I'd love to see a healthy Mourning, just behind a Sun Network studio desk where he belongs.

And when Mourning played 49 games between 2003-2005, I thought it was time.

But then, as if waking from a blissful dream to a 6 AM wake-up call, it all went horribly wrong.

After successfully screwing the Raptors out of more than $10 million, ruining Rob Babcock's career (which, let's be honest, was ripe for the picking), and getting himself relocated on his old team/a championship contender, 'Zo plays 65 games in 2006, blocks close to 200 shots, and, of course, gets his friggin' ring.

Meanwhile, Mutombo is back in business in Houston, and while he hasn't put up huge numbers, still cracks the lineup enough to wag that stupid finger I've been haunted by since he was swatting Alvin Williams during the 2000 Eastern Conference Semifinals.

So what does this all prove?

Not much really, except that sometimes the people you like are the first to go, while just as often the ones you're dying to be rid of hang around like a once-great shot blocker on an NBA bench or, I suppose, an aging left-hander in a major league bullpen.

God, I hate sports sometimes.

For more from Aaron Miller, visit GrandstandAdmissions.com.

Posted by Aaron Miller at 10:19 PM | Comments (5)

Another Forgettable Super Bowl?

For whatever the reason, the Super Bowl is consistently one of the least competitive games in the football calendar. Two weeks of hype for a game that continually disappoints, and this year was no exception.

Granted, the first quarter got off to about as exciting a start as one could possibly hope for. The opening kickoff returned for a touchdown? By the 7½-point underdog, no less? I'm sure everyone was thinking that this game could wind up going down to the wire!

After all, this was the first game the Indianapolis Colts had played on grass in the playoffs. And it was pouring, giving the defensive-orientated Chicago Bears yet another supposedly decisive advantage.

And then somehow, amid all the penalties, the kicking mistakes, and the turnovers, the game went according to how most everyone predicted it would. The heavily-favored Colts, representing the superior AFC, dominated their NFC counterparts with relative ease.

The Bears' defense couldn't get off the field, and their offense couldn't stay on it. The Colts almost doubled the Bears in time of possession — they did in fact double them in first downs (more so, actually, 24-11), and out-gained the lackluster Bears by 165 yards — including 80 more than Chicago on the ground! The Bears were getting killed all day at the line of scrimmage.

Even that glimmer of hope that Devin Hester provided proved to be the exception instead of the omen that every Chicago fan was hoping for. Peyton Manning, after a shaky start, was predictably good. Rex Grossman, after a misleading start, was even more predictably bad. At times, it looked like Sexy Rexy was throwing uphill.

Like so many of the Super Bowls before this one, there was no reason to watch deep into the fourth quarter — excluding all the over/under bettors. Everything else was decided, unless you were somehow naive enough to think Peyton Manning wouldn't win the MVP (maybe you thought the voters had a sense of humor and voted for Grossman).

Of the last 25 Super Bowls, eight have been competitive — that's a little more than a third. The sad truth is the season ends on Conference Championship Sunday. The Super Bowl remains the most anti-climatic of any title game in sport.

***

On a side note, Phil Simms was outstanding Sunday in his analysis. One example: after the Colts had converted another in what seemed to be a never-ending string of third downs conversions, there was a shot of Brian Urlacher gesticulating toward the sideline.

Now a lot of broadcasters would have gone with the obvious "Urlacher beside himself" or "Urlacher frustrated." Many more would have exploited the opportunity to suck up to Peyton with a "Manning just too good and Urlacher knows it."

Showing why he really is the best color commentator, Simms actually explained what Urlacher was trying to convey to his coaches. Simms noted "Urlacher saying let's get aggressive, blitz this guy, and not sit back and let him pick us apart" and then used the replay to show how every defender dropped back into coverage.

Posted by Piet Van Leer at 10:06 PM | Comments (1)

February 6, 2007

Madness in the Making: Part II

Continued from Madness in the Making: Part I

With the Colts' Super Bowl championship DVDs on order, it's time to set the NFL aside. It was a great season, filled with breakout new stars, a farewell to legends, and one of the worst performances by a QB in Super Bowl history. And between now and the NFL draft, college basketball has the stage to itself (with baseball spring training/fantasy draft prep in the two hole).

With teams well into their stretch run, some have-nots are starting to fall a little bit further behind, while others are starting to think they may have something after all. Last week, we checked out the Pac-10, SEC, Colonial, and Missouri Valley. This week: the Big East, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten.

THREE ON THE WAY UP

Virginia (15-6, 7-2 ACC, RPI: 39)

After they lost to Appalachian State by 11 and Utah by 24 in Puerto Rico, the red flag went up on the Cavs. Then they lost three straight to Stanford, North Carolina, and Boston College, and I dismissed them as nothing more than a heartless guard-dominated team that couldn't hang with a legit defense. (The UNC and BC losses weren't terrible, but they should have been able to beat Stanford at home.)

But now Virginia has won six in a row, including home wins over Maryland and Duke, and a road win at Clemson. They made sure those wins would stand up by taking care of business against Wake Forest, NC State, and Miami. They are 7-2 and tied with BC atop the ACC.

And while they keys to this team are obviously Sean Singletary (19 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 5 apg, 89% FT, 41% 3pt) and J.R. Reynolds (18.5 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 4.0 apg, 82% FT, 39% 3pt), the difference between the team that lost to Appalachian State and the team that beat Duke is Mamadi Diane and Jason Cain, both of whom were no-shows in Puerto Rico.

Overlooking a stink bomb (1-for-7 for 2 points) against NC State, Diane has been far more consistent, putting up double figures in the other five games in this current win streak, including 14 in each of the past two games (on 11-of-18 combined shooing). And Cain has been attacking the boards, with three double-digit rebounding games in the past six (after three the whole season before that, none in the previous nine), including 16 against Maryland.

If Adrian Joseph can become a consistent fifth contributor (he's made only 9-of-27 shots over the past six), and someone like Will Harris or Laurynas Mikalauskas can step up, head coach Dave Leitao might well have an NCAA tournament second weekend in his near future.

Kansas State (17-6, 6-2 Big 12, RPI: 41)

Count me among those who bought into the Bill Walker hype, giving up on the Wildcats when the touted freshman went down in the Texas A&M game. But what I (and the rest of those outside of Manhattan, KS — a lovely town by the way, great hot tubs) forgot was that Cartier Martin is not only a legit scorer (15.5 ppg, including 27 on 7-of 11 from three in their upset at Texas on Saturday), but he's also a clutch team leader in the mold of Acie Law IV and Mario Boggan.

With a seven-game winning streak and 6-2 record in conference plan, Bob Huggins is approaching lock status for this year's tournament. I say only "approaching" because their resume is still somewhat devoid of any huge RPI wins. (I stress the RPI in that sentence because I certainly consider winning at Texas about as impressive as it gets, but the Longhorns are only ranked 54 in the RPI, so it's not big from that narrow perspective.) In fact, K-State has only one win over an RPI top-50 team (USC at No. 44 on a neutral court) and two losses to sub-100 teams (New Mexico at 108 and Colorado State at 101, both on the road).

I still think the Wildcats will get in, but a split with Kansas (at the Phog on Wednesday, at home on 2/19) and a sweep of winnable home games against Colorado (2/10), Iowa State (2/17), and Oklahoma (3/3) would take the pressure of them going into the Big 12 tournament.

Indiana (16-6, 6-3 Big Ten, RPI: 18)

After seeing them lose to a quietly improving Iowa team, one might forget just how good the Hoosiers looked in beating Wisconsin last Wednesday. If anything, I'm leaning toward writing off the Iowa loss as a letdown game combined with an upstart playing out of their minds at home. In other words, don't let the loss fool you. The Hoosiers are good.

The first difference you notice between this Indiana team and previous Mike Davis-led editions is the intensity. They made Alando Tucker, a very serious candidate for national POY, look downright human in beating the second-ranked team in the country. If you look at the statistics, Indiana's rankings don't jump out as dominant, but they play with a doggedness you didn't see from the Davis teams.

Another important element to this team's success is the offensive efficiency. Now that Marco Killingsworth, aka "The Black Hole From Which No Pass Shall Emerge," is gone (only Maurice Ager and Tucker threw up more shots last year, and both played at least five more minutes per game), Indiana is playing much better team offense. Shooters are getting the ball in better positions, leading to a conference-best 38% team three-point average. They are only turning the ball over 12.5 times per game, third lowest in the conference and down two per game from last season.

With good players playing good basketball under a good coach, good things are sure to come. Though only ranked 25th in the latest AP poll, a decent draw and I could see Indiana making a serious March run. (Like, Final Four serious.)

THREE ON THE WAY DOWN

Syracuse (16-8, 5-5 Big East, RPI: 60)

I was going to have Syracuse in this category before Monday's loss to Connecticut, and now I know for sure they belong here. With losses in four of their past five, the Orange Bubble is just about Orange Crushed.

The problem with this team is the lack of glue. In other words, with Gerry McNamara dominating the ball for the past few years, nobody else seems to have learned how to run the offense. There's nobody to make everybody else better, and nobody to take charge in the clutch (i.e. nobody to make miracle shots to save the season).

If you look at Demetris Nichols' numbers, they look pretty good. He leads the team in scoring at 18.6 and shoots 48% from the floor (44% from three). The rest of the team doesn't look horrible, either. Terrence Roberts averages 10 points and eight boards per game. Eric Devendorf shoots 40% from three and averages 13.5 ppg. Josh Wright averages 4.7 assists per game, and Darryl Watkins 3.4 blocks per game.

Though I'm not a huge fan of tempo-free stats (I think they extract a critical element from the analysis, assuming teams would perform at equal levels if pace were somehow neutralized), they do provide an interesting look at this Orange team. For instance, though Syracuse ranks No. 51 in adjusted offensive efficiency (points scored divided by 100 possessions), they rank only 100 in effective FG% ((.5*3FGM+FGM)/FGA) and 160 in offensive turnover percentage (TO/possessions). (Courtesy kenpom.com. More information on these and other stats can be found on the site.)

The story is the same on defense, where Syracuse ranks a relatively respectable No. 41 in adjusted defensive efficiency, but a terrible 242 in defensive turnover percentage (turnovers forced/opponents' possessions) and an even worse 297 in defensive offensive rebounding percentage (OR allowed divided by (OR allowed+own DR)).

If none of that makes sense, here's the bottom line: whether you use regular stats or tempo-free stats, the Orange come out mediocre, and that's exactly why they are only .500 in a down Big East. With their next three at home vs. St. John's, at South Florida, and at home to UConn, the Orange can certainly still make a run. But even if they make the Dance, they are going to have to rise above mediocre to avoid a one-and-done.

Clemson (18-5, 4-5, RPI: 22)

While the Tigers are still certainly in the at-large conversation, they are by no means a lock. The last team in the nation to lose has now made it somewhat of a habit, losing five of six, including a disheartening 18-point drubbing at Georgia Tech on Saturday that saw head coach Oliver Purnell ejected for the first time in 12 years.

Perhaps the biggest concern right now is that one-time super sub K.C. Rivers seems to have run dry. After scoring in double-digits in the first 18 games, he has done so only once in the past five, including back-to-back six-point efforts in their last two losses to Virginia and the Jackets. Without Rivers lighting it up, it's debatable whether the Tigers have another player capable of carrying the offense.

Another concern is that the team is starting to get into a little bit of a "woe is us" rut with some of their recent misfortunes. This Purnell quote from clemson.scout.com, speaking about his ejection on Saturday:

"I apologized to our team for leaving them out there alone, but yet at the same time, enough is enough," he said. "We had the errors at Duke, an obvious no-call and walk that cost us the game against Virginia, and now in this game. ... We've got excessive contact on a foul that should have been called that way and now we have (the missed backcourt call two possessions earlier), and my frustration just boiled over. ... You've got to fight for your team. All we want is a fair shake."

One the one hand, he's right. You have to fight for your team. They've been getting jobbed recently, and I can only imagine how that messes with a coach's mind. On the other, he's giving his players an excuse to fail. With a home game against Florida State on Wednesday, we'll see which way his team responds.

Oklahoma State (18-4, 4-3 Big 12, RPI: 21)

It's hard to say an 18-4 team is on the way down, but the question with this team was always going to be how they would hold up through a brutal schedule with so little depth. After scoring only in the low-to-mid 60s against Oklahoma and Iowa State, then losing 89-77 at Colorado (which had been 1-7 in conference play), those concerns are growing.

Mario Boggan should be included in any national POY conversation, averaging 20.6 ppg and 7.8 rpg, and JamesOn Curry is about as solid a No. 2 scorer as you're going to find. But a seven-man rotation is no way to go through life, and poor Sean Sutton is a few more overtimes from looking like Nick Nolte's mug shot.

With a schedule that does the Cowboys no favors (at Oklahoma, Texas Tech, at Texas, Missouri, Texas A&M, at Texas Tech, Kansas State, at Baylor, at Nebraska), it's going to be hard for this team to have anything left for the postseason. This may be one of those situations where an early exit from the Big 12 tournament helps them, even if it costs them a seed line.

COULD GO EITHER WAY

Big East Middle

Like the Missouri Valley, we know who's at the top of the Big East (Pittsburgh, Marquette, probably Georgetown even though I'm not entirely convinced), and we know who's at the bottom (Cincinnati, Rutgers, Seton Hall, South Florida). We also know DePaul, St. John's, and Connecticut are dead from an at-large perspective. That leaves six teams that could make a Sweet 16 run or lose in the first round of the NIT.

We mentioned Syracuse already, so let's focus on the other five teams, bottoms up in the standings.

Villanova (15-7, 4-5, RPI: 20) has perhaps the best resume, despite its sub-.500 record in conference play. With wins over Georgetown, Notre Dame, Texas, Providence, and Louisville, Jay Wright's team has rallied around senior Curtis Sumpter and freshman Scottie Reynolds (who has made Mike Nardi far more effective). They also have a fairly favorable schedule the rest of the way, with their toughest road game at Marquette on 2/19.

Providence (14-7, 4-4, RPI: 49) has lost four of six, including a damaging loss at Seton Hall. They have wins over Marquette and Boston College, but their road swing to Pittsburgh (2/10) and Notre Dame (2/15) will tell the story of the Friars' postseason hopes.

Notre Dame (18-5, 6-4, RPI: 42) has probably done enough to earn an at-large if they don't screw it up with more losses to teams like St. John's (RPI 141) and South Florida (RPI 146). They have six games left in the regular season, and should/almost have to win at least five.

Louisville (16-7, 6-3, RPI: 59) has avoided the big loss, but hasn't gotten the big win, either. They host Georgetown on Wednesday, then (after hosting South Florida) travel to Pittsburgh (2/12) and Marquette (2/17). If they can beat the Hoyas and take a split against Pitt and Marquette, they would be in much better shape.

West Virginia (18-4, 7-3, RPI: 40) may be the least-tested of any 18-win team in the country (they have the worst overall SOS in the conference, and a terrible 294 non-conference SOS). That ends in their next two games against Pittsburgh on Wednesday and UCLA on Saturday. Both games are at home, so if the Mountaineers are who their record says they are (as Bill Parcells might say), they should win at least one. If they get blown out in both, they still have to go on the road to Georgetown (2/12), Providence (2/10), and Pittsburgh (2/27) in their last five.

Texas Tech (15-8, 404 Big 12, RPI: 34)

With wins over Arkansas, Kansas and Texas A&M, you would think Bob Knight would be a shoe-in for another run at the title, but a recent three-game losing streak (at Missouri, at home to Texas, at Oklahoma) has put the Red Raiders squarely back on the bubble.

I'm kind of at a loss to describe what's going on with this team. With seniors Jarrius Jackson and Darryl Dora, and juniors Martin Zeno and Charlie Burgess (who missed the Missouri game), you would think this team would be past the inconsistency you normally see from much younger teams. How do beat the Jayhawks and Aggies, then lose to middling conference teams like Mizzou and Oklahoma? Sure, those were tough conference road games, but NCAA tournament teams are supposed to be able to win those.

With Kansas State rising (their last loss was actually at home to Tech), the Red Raiders are now sitting in a position of hoping the Big 12 lands six bids. I'd say that's a very definite possibility, but I doubt Knight thought his team would be No. 6 on that list. After hosting Nebraska on Tuesday, Texas Tech goes to Oklahoma State and Texas A&M. They also have to go to Texas, and play OK State in the back end of the home-and-home. If they don't want to be up against it come the Big 12 tournament, they need to win at least two of those marquis games. Lose all four and ... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be a reporter asking Coach Knight what he thinks about the NIT.

Maryland (17-6, 3-5 ACC, RPI: 30)

With a non-conference schedule that included non-conference wins over Michigan State and Illinois, this was supposed to be the year the Terps finally climbed back into the upper echelon of the ACC (they haven't finished above .500 in conference play since 2002-03). But after losing three of their past five (albeit all three were on the road to Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Florida State), here they are again, looking up at the world.

Like Texas Tech above, you would expect better out of team with experience. D.J. Strawberry (14.8 ppg) is a senior. So are Mike Jones (12.6 ppg) and Ekene Ibekwe (11.1 ppg, 8 rpg). James Gist (12.8 ppg, 7.0 rpg) is a junior. Gary Williams is an established successful coach. So what gives?

It's a hard label to throw on somebody, but Strawberry has not brought his best against the best competition. In the home loss to Miami (by far their worst of the season), he shot 1-of-8 for seven points. Against Clemson (a game Maryland won), it was 4-of-8. Against Virginia, 2-of-11. Against Virginia Tech, 5-of-13. Against Florida State, 3-of-8.

Contrast that against Strawberry's better games. He has scored 19 or more eight times this season. The opponents: Hampton, Vermont, St. John's, Missouri-Kansas City, American, Mt. Saint Mary's, Siena, and Iona. Siena is a respectable team from the MAAC, but that's not exactly ACC-caliber opposition. For a guy who leads the team in minutes played and shots attempted, you need better.

Like other teams playing in the BCS conferences (a huge advantage over teams from the mid-majors), the end of the schedule provides teams on the bubble an opportunity to turn things around. The Terps host Virginia on Wednesday and Duke on Sunday. The rest of their schedule is at NC State (definitely not a gimme), at Clemson, home against Florida State and North Carolina, at Duke, and at home to NC State. At the end of that run, they will either be primed for an at-large, or looking at a Madison Square Garden ending as their best-case scenario.

Seth Doria is a freelance headline writer, blogger, and communications specialist living on the outskirts of St. Louis. For daily news and notes from the world of sports, politics and beyond, visit The Left Calf.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 10:46 PM | Comments (1)

Super Bowl XLI Breakdown

Five Quick Hits

* I'm writing this Monday night, and it's been almost impossible to find television coverage of the game. Memo to ESPN: the Super Bowl is the biggest sporting event in North America. It was yesterday. Perhaps you should cover it.

* There was plenty of coverage about the commercials, but no one said much about my favorites. I'm not a big fan of the Coca-Cola corporation, but I thought their ad people did a nice job on the spots that aired during the Super Bowl.

* Prince put on a pretty good show at half-time.

* The Super Bowl XLI officiating crew did a mostly good job.

* Some minor complaints aside, I thought Jim Nantz was terrific on the Super Bowl play-by-play.

***

Super Bowl XLI will be remembered less for individual plays than for the Indianapolis victory that gave both Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning their first Super Bowl rings. This wasn't a particularly well-played Super Bowl, and in the second half, it wasn't a particularly close game. What made it significant were the ramifications for both Manning and Dungy. The former has been the game's best quarterback this decade, but was viewed in many quarters as a choker, or at least as a guy who couldn't win the big one. Now he has a ring and a Super Bowl MVP award.

Dungy was also tagged as a choker. He turned the Buccaneers around after two decades of mediocrity, but never got them to the Super Bowl. When he left, the Bucs finally won it all. Then Dungy's Colts couldn't beat the Patriots. Last season, they started 13-0 and lost their first playoff game. Now, though, both Dungy and Manning are over .500 in the postseason, and Dungy has become the first African-American head coach to win a Super Bowl.

Pre-Game

I want to focus on the Super Bowl itself, but I have to call out one of the coldest things I have ever seen from a pre-game show. Dan Marino was sitting between Bill Cowher, on his right, and Shannon Sharpe, on his left, when Sharpe said of winning the Super Bowl, "You don't have to hang on, play one more year, because this game validates you, this is why you play the game. All those gaudy numbers, they don't mean anything unless you hoist the trophy." CBS cameras caught Marino, who has the gaudiest passing numbers in NFL history, but never hoisted the trophy, biting his lip and staring into his coffee cup.

Cowher immediately followed up: "There's no doubt about that, Shannon. It's a defining moment for a lot of players' careers, and it's what they'll be looked upon." Guys, Marino's sitting right next to you. Have a heart.

Why the Colts Won

Indianapolis played a very patient game on offense. Chicago made clear, early on, that its plan was to prevent the Colts from winning with deep passes. With the exception of the blown coverage that led to Reggie Wayne's touchdown catch, the Bears were effective in limiting play-making opportunities for Manning and his wide receivers. The Colts adjusted by throwing short passes and by running the ball. Chicago never had an answer for the dump-off pass to Joseph Addai, and in the second half, Indy's running backs gained yards at will.

Defensively, Indianapolis just didn't let the Bears pick up first downs. Chicago's offense didn't have a drive longer than four plays until near the end of the third quarter. The Bears' offense only crossed midfield twice all game: in the first quarter, on Thomas Jones' 52-yard run, and on the last drive of the game, after Indianapolis voluntarily turned the ball over on downs rather than run up the score. The Colts were ballhawks, too, flying to the ball whenever Rex Grossman floated a pass or fumbled a snap. The Indianapolis defense finished with four turnovers, and that's a pretty reliable recipe for winning games.

Why the Bears Lost

Simply, the Bears lost because they were totally outclassed. The Colts were a much better team, and probably should have won by more than they did. Chicago had the advantage on special teams, defense looked about equal on Sunday, and on offense — do the Bears even have one of those? — there was no contest. The AFC is a lot better than the NFC, and the Patriots, Chargers, or Ravens would have beaten Chicago, too. This Super Bowl was almost anticlimactic after the dramatic AFC Championship Game between the Colts and Patriots.

Chicago's defensive performance had to be one of the biggest disappointments we've seen this postseason. The Bears got three turnovers, but only one sack and only two three-and-outs. They allowed over 400 yards of offense, including nearly 200 on the ground, and gave up a first down on nearly half of the Colts' third downs. Manning never looked uncomfortable, except at the very beginning of the game, but that might have been adjustment to the weather, or just nerves. The Bears generated very little pressure and never adjusted to prevent the Colts from moving the chains and controlling the clock.

On offense, Jones had a pretty good game, and the offensive line did a nice job of protecting Grossman. But the Bears didn't commit to the run, handing off only 17 times. This was a close game throughout, and Indianapolis didn't lead by more than a touchdown until several minutes into the fourth quarter, so it wasn't as though the Bears needed to throw. That's bad game-planning, or at least bad play-calling.

Chicago also never seemed to adjust to the loss of Cedric Benson. The Colts lost their starting right tackle and their top cornerback to first-half injuries. Charlie Johnson did a great job filling in on the line, and Kelvin Hayden scored the game-clinching touchdown on his first NFL interception. The Bears responded to Benson's injury by having Grossman throw more, rather than by giving the ball to Jones or to Adrian Peterson.

Of course, the Bears also lost because Grossman was in no way up to the task of quarterbacking a Super Bowl team. Grossman actually completed over 70% of his passes, 20-of-28, against the Colts. But he also committed three turnovers, including two interceptions, and he didn't make a big play all game. The Bears were running on 3rd-and-4, because Grossman isn't a good bet to pick up the first down, and he's a turnover threat every time he touches the ball. With mediocre QB play, the Bears still lose that game. But with anything above-average, Chicago might have stolen that game with turnovers and special teams.

Chicago's offense scored 10 points in this game, but it also surrendered seven on Hayden's interception return. That's a net of +3 points for the Bears' offense. Why did Chicago lose? Because the defense allowed more than three points.

Coaching

Where on earth were Lovie Smith and his assistants on Sunday? They played the same defense all game, and after that early interception, it never worked. Sure, they didn't give up the long ball, but they couldn't get off the field. Rather than scoring touchdowns quickly, the Colts scored field goals slowly, marching down the field and controlling time of possession. Chicago's defense was hopelessly winded by the end. On their last drive, the Colts handed off to Dominic Rhodes eight times in a row, mostly up the middle, and he picked up 30 yards and a pair of first downs. The Bears knew what was happening — they just couldn't stop it.

Chicago's offensive coaches didn't do much to help their cause, either. I've already written about their failure to establish the running game — and when Rex Grossman is your quarterback, that's a really important thing to do — but where was the attempt to shake things up? The Bears got some momentum by switching to a no-huddle offense late in the fourth quarter, but that was motivated by necessity. Why not try it earlier in the game, when Chicago's offense was busy doing nothing?

On the Indianapolis sideline, I think the Colts took an unnecessary risk by turning the ball over on downs at the end of the game, rather than attempting a 34-yard field goal to go up by 15. I know Dungy didn't want to run up the score, and I applaud that, but 1:42 is a lot of time, and while it was certainly unlikely, it was not beyond the realm of possibility that Chicago could have scored a quick touchdown and recovered an onside kick. You can't take chances like that.

MVP

In the five years I have covered the NFL for Sports Central, only once have I voted for a player who was actually chosen as Super Bowl MVP (Deion Branch, XXXIX). This year, I picked Joseph Addai. He led all players in yards from scrimmage (143) and nearly set a Super Bowl record for receptions (10). Addai was Indy's backbone early, picking up yards on the ground, and throughout the game, he was Manning's escape valve — gaining seven yards here, eight yards there — on short passes. He positively shredded the Bears, and it seemed like he made the first guy miss every time he touched the ball.

That said, Manning was not a bad choice. He had a solid, fairly mistake-free game, coping with both the elements and the Bears' defense. Manning became the ninth player to win Super Bowl MVP with an interception, and just the fourth QB to win MVP despite having at least as many interceptions as touchdown passes (joining Hall of Famers Len Dawson, Terry Bradshaw, and John Elway).

Lots of Indianapolis players would have been reasonable selections for the honor: besides Manning and Addai, Kelvin Hayden, Dominic Rhodes, and Bob Sanders all come to mind, not to mention pretty much everyone on the Colts' offensive line. A guy who's nowhere near an MVP candidate, but who made a couple of nice plays I noticed, was #43, Matt Giordano. He's the one who almost caught Devin Hester on the opening kickoff return, and he broke up Grossman's pass to Desmond Clark on 4th-and-9 — the one Clark had in his hands, for a first down — to effectively end the game with 5:05 left.

Soggy Field, Sloppy Game

Super Bowl XLI produced eight turnovers, including a Super Bowl-record four in the first quarter alone. Rain certainly played a role in that, and so did the play of the participants, but let's not discount slippery footballs. If bad officiating was the negative storyline in last year's postseason, this year it was the K-Ball used on kicking plays.

Tony Romo fumbled it on a key field goal attempt. Hunter Smith mishandled it on a punt in the wild card round, and on an extra point hold in the Super Bowl. Terrence Wilkins and Eric Parker muffed returns in the divisional round. Hester had three fumbles against Seattle. And on Sunday, Smith's dropped extra point snap was immediately followed by a fumble on the kickoff. The K-Ball is too slippery. It probably doesn't help that the league uses special footballs for the Super Bowl, either.

Until this year, the Colts' only Super Bowl victory was in 1971: Super Bowl V, in Miami, possibly the worst-played Super Bowl ever. The game was so heavily marked by offensive ineptitude that the game's MVP was won by a defensive player for the losing team. This year's game wasn't that bad, but it wasn't pretty, especially in the first quarter. After the game, Steve Young said of the sloppy play, "For a moment, I thought it was July and preseason."

Conclusion

It seems appropriate, for some reason, that Manning finished the game by handing off. He didn't attempt a single pass on the three-and-a-half minute drive Indianapolis used to close the game. While Manning and Dungy have gotten most of the attention — this column not excluded — the Colts' defense, running backs, and offensive line have unfairly been somewhat neglected, and all played vital roles in Sunday's victory.

It was a nice touch having Don Shula walk down the row of Colts players with the Lombardi Trophy. Shula, of course, used to coach the Colts, and also the host city's home team, the Miami Dolphins. I also liked seeing Norma Hunt and Dan Marino as honorary captains at the beginning of the contest.

Be sure to check back over the next week for an in-depth look at Manning's place in history, plus a column on this year's Hall of Fame class.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 10:14 PM | Comments (1)

February 5, 2007

Boston's Never-Ending Youth Movement

It may have been the Ghost of Wilt Chamberlain, or a retaliatory blow struck by karma in her defense of equilibrium. Perhaps it was a conspiracy, or the climax of some melodrama staged for the entertainment of the gods. Whatever the inspiration, some unseen force drove NBA schedule makers to bring two Los Angeles teams into Boston for back-to-back games last week. Awaiting them were the hometown Celtics and their 12-game losing streak that was but one shy of the longest in team history.

What more painful metropolis to help the once-mighty Boston Celtics set a dubious franchise record than Los Angeles, the city that ensnared itself in Celtics folklore as a seven-time victim of Boston's 16 NBA championships? And so their delegates were dispatched.

On Wednesday, with the Lakers in town, the Celtics fell behind by 12 in the first quarter and never regained the lead, falling 111-98 for their franchise-tying 13th consecutive time. Boston was without the services of captain Paul Pierce, out since December 20 with a left foot injury, and 18-game starter Tony Allen, who tore ligaments in his left knee on January 10 and will miss the remainder of the season.

Two nights later, the Celtics cemented that franchise mark with their 100-89 Groundhog Day loss to the Clippers at T.D. Banknorth Garden. In so doing, The Green validated Punxsutawney Phil's prognostication earlier in the day that, indeed, it would be an early spring.

Short winters were a phenomenon unknown to previous generations of Celtics fans, but times have sure changed. Lame duck schedules now fill the New England April as reliably as Easter egg hunts and budding tulip beds. Boston has missed the playoffs in eight of the last 14 seasons, and was a first-round victim four other times over that span. Nearly 21 years have passed since the Celtics last hung a championship banner from their overcrowded rafters. Only the jersey numbers from those bygone days are hoisted anymore — Dennis Johnson, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Reggie Lewis, Robert Parrish, and, most recently, Cedric Maxwell. Given Paul Pierce still has several more productive seasons, there don't figure to be more ceremonies any time soon.

And their quests have changed as well. If a championship is the stated goal of the post-Red Auerbach regime, it is in lip service only. The reigning administration seeks the Larry O'Brien Trophy with the prowess of Monty Python's King Arthur in his calamitous search for the Holy Grail, equipped with Danny Ainge pointing his phantom horse in the opposite direction of the postseason and GM Chris Wallace rhythmically banging two coconut shells together.

Since his 2003 appointment as Executive Director of Basketball Operations, Ainge's plan — which is perennially diametric to reaching the NBA postseason — has been the maximization of ping pong balls in June. These balls, of course, are redeemable in ever-younger draft picks, such as Ohio State's 7'0" frosh phenom, Greg Oden. The afternoon after the Celtics' epic losing streak was established, Celtics Nation found itself tuned into the Buckeyes' game, where the former Indianapolis high school standout scored 16 points and grabbed 11 rebounds in a 63-54 win at Michigan State.

Not since 1997, when a 15-67 record virtually assured the Celtics faithful and incoming wonder coach Rick Pitino of the draft rights to Tim Duncan, has so much energy been invested in one draft pick. And for good reason. Legitimate centers are a scarce commodity in today's NBA and the last Indianan drafted by the Celtics produced three of those elusive Larry O'Brien trophies.

As of now, the Celtics' current roster includes four players — Kendrick Perkins, Al Jefferson, Sebastian Telfair, and Gerald Green — who entered the NBA as first-round draft picks right out of high school and whose classes have not yet graduated college. Currently at an average age of 24.8 years, the Celtics roster has been among the youngest in the NBA over the last three years.

Of course, all this youth breeds mistakes, which in turn begets chronic losing, and — most importantly — more ping pong balls, this in spite of The Green's envious address. The Atlantic Division vies with MLB's National League West and the NFL's NFC West as the worst in all of American team sports and sinks to increasingly deplorable depths each week. This past Sunday the Toronto Raptors defeated the Clippers, marking only the second day all season in which any Atlantic team reached as much as two games above .500. The once 5-3 New Jersey Nets did it back on November 17 before starting a six-game losing streak the next night.

But, for the balance of this season, it will be the 12-36 Memphis Grizzlies and not the divisional-leading Raptors that occupy the focus of Danny Ainge and the Greg Oden Welcoming Committee. To that extent, the Celtics may best serve their future by following Punxsutawney Phil's lead and resume their hibernation until spring.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 10:09 PM | Comments (3)

ATP 2007: And So it Begins...

The 2007 tennis season has begun in earnest. With the Aussie Open in the books, the question to me is what will this year really look like? I think just about everyone figured that Roger Federer would pick up at least two majors, and the early season hopes for the first male Grand Slam since 1969 was truly a possibility.

But I don't think anyone realized how truly possible it may be, at least not until the semis of the Australian Open. Watching R-Fed kick Andy Roddick's butt around the court at will was just an amazing feat. What made it more enjoyable is that A-Rod was at his best, and Roger had an answer or 10 for every single shot and point. Roddick was outclassed, outgunned ... heck, he was just out.

I'm not going to put Roger in the pantheon as the greatest player ever, but I will say that his shot-making in this match was maybe one of the top three exhibitions I have ever seen in my time on earth. He never looked hurried, he never looked frazzled, and he just was everywhere he needed to be to answer the attack of Roddick.

One point sticks in my head. I believe it was in the second set. Andy made a very strong serve up the center of the court, and Roger lofted back a weak return. Andy came to the net and hit a very good, deep, and well-placed volley to the forehand court. Roger came from nowhere, got his racquet around the ball, and hit a sharp crossing forehand passing shot that hit an incredible angle and landed just past the reach of the hardy American. I'm sure Roddick was stunned, and I know I was.

So, the men's game, unless Federer gets hurt or decides to retire midseason, will come down to Federer vs. fill in the blank for the rest of the year. I will probably be covering the U.S. Open in the late summer and having to fight for a spot in the press room as Roger steps to the microphone and is getting asked if he can finish the Grand Slam off. All the other press rooms will be empty.

The story for 2007 for the men will be more about who will rise from the rest to challenge Roger all year. James Blake took a major step backward with his early exit in Melbourne. Mardy Fish's run was admirable, but not repeatable. Rafael Nadal looked human again. I wonder if he'll be as invincible on clay this year as years past, too. Team Roddick seems to have righted the ship and put it back on course, but even the unexpected appearance of James Scott Connors wasn't enough to put Andy back in the lead.

Aussie Open finalist Fernando Gonzalez of Chile looked like a world beater for two weeks, and has shown enormous potential at times in the past. His three set loss to R-Fed was actually a good match, and closer than the final scores made it seem. Problem is, Gonzalez is not consistent and for the next few months, he will be playing on the slow European clay, a surface not specifically suited to his talent.

Of all the South Americans on the men's tour, Gonzalez is probably the least suited to the slow dirt. Fernando was exceptional last year on the grass during the U.S./Chile Davis Cup tie in California and has consistently performed on the hard courts over the past two years. You might ask why I am highlighting this performance. Gonzalez has moved up to challenger status, and looks to be taking the place held by Marcos Baghdatis in 2006, but probably will not be the one player to push Federer all season long.

Tommy Haas made a very good run to the semis. Haas has always been on the cusp of something really good. Personal problems and injuries have always gotten in the way before. Haas has the tools to be able to challenge Roger. Maybe he will be the one.

Brad Gilbert has done amazingly well with Andy Murray. Murray's loss to Nadal in five sets in the fourth round showed that on the faster surfaces, Murray has some talent. If there is anyone in the world who can teach a player to compete and be a true challenger, it's Brad. I wonder if young Mr. Murray has the drive to finish it off.

One down, three majors to go. Men's tennis will be both interesting and boring, not unlike men's golf when Tiger Woods plays. Federer will either dominate completely, or his absence at certain events will allow the rest of the boys to showcase their talent.

I'm rooting for Roger. Why bother wasting my breath for anyone else?

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 9:50 PM | Comments (9)

February 3, 2007

Things I Hate About the Super Bowl

The Super Bowl has become an annual reminder that we, indeed, are a Christian nation.

Growing up Roman Catholic, I recall the calendar year seeming very much like a NFL season. There's a congregation of like-minded individuals every weekend, joining to celebrate or repent inside of a well-financed structure with ample parking, but limited restroom facilities. There are ritualistic chants and songs; all of us watching men in uniform following a time-honored game plan for a predetermined time limit.

Along the way, you have your highlights (Easter Sunday is the churchly equivalent of having Patriots/Colts in Week 5) and your lowlights (The Feast of the Assumption has all the glamour of Cardinals/Browns), but you never lose sight of the fact that you're building to something spectacular — a massive, global, and historic event at the end of the "season" that families gather for and traditions are build around.

Christmas. Or, in the NFL's case, the Super Bowl.

Parties are held. Feasts are prepared and consumed. Frequently, money changes hands between friends or siblings. For one day, we all come together to celebrate the same awe-inspiring event ... well, except for the Jews and Muslims in one case and bitter Patriots and Saints fans in the other. For one day, every single corporation in America attempts to find a way to use the emotions tied to an annual holiday to push product, whether it's through head-pounding commercial announcements or sponsoring garish parties; though one stark difference between Christmas and the Super Bowl is that Penthouse doesn't have a martini mixer in Nazareth with an ice sculpture of the Baby Jesus every Dec. 25.

Just like Christmas, the Super Bowl is a joyous time, but one with an undeniable amount of annoyances, nuisances and traditions I wish would die a rapid death.

Witness:

10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE SUPER BOWL

Getting "5 and 5" in the Office Pool — I was charged with running my office's Super Bowl pool this year, and what an absolute pain it was. I felt like that soccer mom who has to pimp her daughter's awful school fundraiser. ("Oh, there are all kinds of neat stuff! A $30 bag of white chocolate-covered ham, or this $50 pizza-making set that will stay unopened in your pantry until the apocalypse...")

It was $5 a square, but you'd think from the reactions I got that it was $5 million — my mistake for going around and asking the day before payday. If I get stuck doing this again next year, I'm going to completely revamp my approach: I'm going to walk around with a seeing-eye dog and a sign that indicates I'm a Vietnam vet who needs a kidney transplant. I see those guys making a mint on the highway median every day.

Worst of all, my girlfriend got stuck with the worst numbers in the box: "5 for the Colts, 5 for the Bears." Since 1967, the number 5 has only appeared four times as the second digit of a final score, and never has a game ended with both teams having "5 and 5." It's a nearly impossible scenario to meet that standard — a confluence of botched extra points, safeties or an inordinate amount of field goals or touchdowns without field goals — so I guess she'll have to be content watching me smile with glee at having "4 and 4" and "Bears 3 and Colts 7." It's good to be the king...

Party Store Decorations For the Super Bowl — Save your money, unless you're buying an Andy Reid piñata. No one cares about hideous green banners that spell out "The Big Game" or cheap paper plates that have a cheerleader and goal-post on them (unless the cheerleader is riding ... oh, never mind). And if you're dumb enough to buy officially-licensed party favors, then you're probably too dumb to even cook a meal. Speaking of which...

Awful Super Bowl Party Food — Look, we all enjoy a nice ziti or bowl of chili or a pizza from the place on the corner. But who are these people (Seinfeld, 1991) that bring a giant CorningWare dish with "26-layer taco bean dip?" You know, that mess of guacamole and salsa that looks like it was just mined from Horatio Sanz's colon?

Stick with the standards; no one wants to be on a s—t break when Grossman throws his fifth INT.

The MVP Award — First of all, the recent list of winners reminds me of both the Best Supporting Actress category in the Academy Awards and the Best New Artist at the Grammys. For every John Elway, there's a Dexter Jackson. For every Tom Brady, there's a Desmond Howard. Too many Mira Sorvinos and Milli Vanilis, not enough Cate Blanchetts and Mariah Careys.

Worse yet, the NFL changed the voting rules in 2001 to where online fan voting accounts for 20% of the MVP ballot (the media makes up the rest). Great idea: let's leave one of the game's greatest honors in the hands of a bunch of guys who've been pounding pints since noon. And by that, I mean the journalists...

Homeland Security Kills Tailgating — To be fair, the parking lot at Dolphins Stadium has a police blotter that reads like a quiet night in Compton. But Homeland Security's decision to outlaw traditional tailgating — lawn chairs, grills, etc. — is the kind of overprotection that I thought was exclusive to roughing the passer penalties. Remember when this was a fan experience instead of yet another police state in our post-9/11 nation?

Super Bowl in a Vacuum — No. 78 in my book "Glow Pucks & 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" is "Warm-Weather Super Bowls," the NFL's rule that requires a minimum temperature in February of 50 degrees or a domed stadium in order for a city to host the big game. This, of course, is a big middle finger to some of the most dedicated fans in the league (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New England, and Green Bay, to name a few). Kansas City was awarded the Super Bowl in 2015, but that's now up in the air after voters rejected a tax increase to put a retractable dome on one of the NFL's most electric open-air experiences.

As I said in the book, the biggest joke of the NFL postseason is that the games that determine the Super Bowl matchup can be played in blizzards, but the Bowl itself cannot.

Okay, second biggest joke ... the first being Marty Schottenheimer.

"The Big Game" — Yes, I understand the need to protect a copyright and the value the NFL has built around its brand. But when you have radio DJs twisting their tongues around baby-talk like, "Your home for continuous coverage of the Big Game between that city in Illinois and that other team with the horseshoe logo somewhere in South Florida, perhaps at a beach," it's time to just accept that "Super Bowl" has become public domain.

The Pre-Pregame Show Entertainment — The pregame show before the official pregame activities should be a time for intense scrutiny of the game for the football fans in the audience. Yet I guarantee on CBS there will be some apathetic music acts and "journalist" Katie Couric offering some nonsensical human interest snorefest where there should be a discussion about the Bears' secondary.

Those Truly Bad Commercials — I'm not talking about the divisive ones that some people love and others loathe, like the singing and dancing Burger King commercial from last year. At least that had some ingenuity. I'm talking about the depression that sets in when you realize that tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours have been spent on an advertising campaign, and the offspring is stillborn (See: Pepsi can ad with Jay Mohr or last year's ESPN Mobile launch).

Bringing an Idiot to the Party — Finally, a category I'm sure we can all identify with: the unwelcome party guest. This is that bubble-headed blonde on your buddy's arm who doesn't know jack about the Super Bowl, football, how televisions work, party etiquette, and the myriad of inside jokes that fly between friends and family. This also means the walking lug nut that a female brings to the party; the guy who cracks ill-timed jokes and pretends to understand everything about the game because he was a JV backup nose tackle in high school and watched "Inside the NFL" at least twice this season. And this also means the curmudgeonly cynic who always drinks too much beer and hates every player, coach, commentator, and commercial with equal unsettling passion...

... oops. I think I just outed myself as an idiot.

Enjoy the "Big Game," folks...

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 is "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History." His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].

Posted by Greg Wyshynski at 10:21 PM | Comments (0)

February 2, 2007

Tiger vs. Federer: By the Numbers

Genius can take many forms in our world. It might be classic and time-honored, like the masterpieces of Beethoven or Michelangelo. It might speak more to the vernacular, like the expertly-crafted writing of "The Office." Heck, it might even be Digger Phelps, a man who spent Saturday raving about Ohio State freshman Greg Odom, developing his coordinating-tie-and-highlighter shtick to distract from his criminally poor analysis.

But genius can tease any of us for a fleeting second. The true masters of any craft in this world are those who can channel genius at a whim, as if he or she were simply grabbing a few ice cubes out of the freezer.

Two such masters are dominating the sports world today in ways that, perhaps, no one has before. Roger Federer, fresh off an Australian Open in which he did not drop a set, and Tiger Woods, riding the crest of win number seven in his PGA Tour win-streak, stand at the summits of their sport's landscapes, having reached heights unimaginable to most. And without even a respectable David — be it Nalbandian or Toms — on the horizon to challenge either Goliath, it seems only fitting to pit them against each other.

Obviously, the toughest question is how do we cross the boundary between two very different sports? For starters, Federer faces a handful of competitors one at a time, while Woods simultaneously goes toe-to-toe with scores of the world's best players every weekend. However, the two seemingly distinct formats do maintain a common bottom line: winning.

Ultimately, sports are about one thing and one thing only. Triple doubles, strikeouts, and pancake blocks are all a means to an end. So to find a uniform measuring stick to assess these maestros, we needn't look any further than wins and losses (and ties). Sure, both Federer and Woods provide elements of style as they undress their foes. But at its heart, the substance of their greatness boils down to their abilities to win so frequently. And the purest stat for measuring the ability to win is — you guessed it — winning percentage.

Before delving into the numbers, a few considerations are worth noting. By all accounts, both men had superb years in 2006. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, we'll narrow the question to which man had a better 2006, Federer or Woods?

Secondly, we have to decide which wins count for each. Tennis players and golfers are, perhaps not unlike the rest of us, famously willing to work off the beaten path in the name of the U.S. dollar, the euro, or whatever the heck they use in Dubai (where, not surprisingly, both of our heroes of genius made trips in 2006). Therefore, to establish some standard of quality, we will only consider ATP sanctioned events for Federer (apologies to the Kooyong tournament) and PGA events (and the Masters) for Woods. This excludes Davis Cup and Ryder Cup matches from their records, perhaps unfairly, but our focus is what these guys do on a week-in-week-out basis on their tours.

With that in mind, Federer's 2006 is fairly accurately depicted by his gaudy won-loss record of 90-5, or a winning percentage of 94.7 percent. That is, Federer beat his head-to-head competition 94.7 percent of the time.

Capturing Woods' 2006 by the numbers takes a little more work. The core of what we want to know is, how did Woods do head-to-head against his competition through the year? While, other than a 2-1 showing in the WGC Match Play event, Woods did not literally take on individual opponents, he did play the same courses on the same days. With this in mind, we can work out a won-loss record based on each tournament.

For example, in the 2006 Masters, Woods finished tied for third out of a total of 86 players who finished the tournament (either by being cut after two rounds or completing four; this excludes those who withdrew, and it's worth noting none of Federer's wins came through a withdrawal). Therefore, in the Masters he earned two losses (two players had better scores), four ties (four players shot exactly the same score as he did), and 79 wins (79 players had worse scores), for a won-loss percentage of 97.5 percent. Using that same formula, in the 15 events that qualify, Woods posted a record of 1545-125-26, or a won-loss percentage of 92.5 percent.

So, by this admittedly simple measure of how both masters performed in 2006, Federer was a hair more dominant. Of course, of the 125 players who beat Woods in a tournament, 81 of those scores came at the U.S. Open, which was Woods' first tournament after the death of his father. If we give Woods a (groan) mulligan for that tournament, his won-loss percentage soars to 97.1 percent.

If nothing other than confirming the obvious — Woods and Federer have been great — hopefully this model establishes just how good Federer has been. His 2006 winning percentage was nearly 10 percent better than 2006's clear-cut No. 2 player, Rafael Nadal (85.1 percent). To put it in terms that non-tennis fans may appreciate better, the Phoenix Suns, on their current run of 33-2 in their last 35 games, are "only" winning at a 94.3 percent clip, or 0.4 shy of Federer's performance for all of 2006. Note that while Federer's winning percentage represents every sanctioned match from last year, that number for the Suns omits their 3-5 start to this season. In other words, as good as the Suns have been for the past 35 games, Federer was slightly better for every minute of 2006.

These sorts of analyses are, by nature, extremely unfair. As is the case when trying to sort through the best of the best in any genre, trying to decide which once-in-a-lifetime performer is better means searching for some microscopic flaw in a jewel of the sports world. Perhaps, as these numbers would indicate, Federer's 2006 was better than Woods'. But as a new year unfolds and each continues to plant his flag at higher and higher altitudes, it seems somewhat pointless to try to determine which artist paints the more genius portrait. No adjective adequately establishes how far apart each is from the rest of his sport. The greatest complement a master of his craft can receive is how easy he makes it look. If only genius were so easy for the rest of us mere mortals.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 7:27 PM | Comments (8)

February 1, 2007

NFL Predictions: Super Bowl XLI

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

Chicago vs. Indianapolis

Super Bowl week in Miami begins with a shocking development at the Miami International Airport.

"And it has nothing to do with Michael Vick," says Peyton Manning. "Tank Johnson cleared airport security! Sometimes the cavity search is entirely necessary. Speaking of Vick, I hear he was stopped again trying to bring water on a plane. I guess he realized you can't bring water in a bottle on a plane, so this time he had it in a bong. Michael, here's a simple fact of life. If you want to sneak some buddha on a plane, do the smart thing: place it inside a Cypress Hill CD and fold a High Times magazine over that CD. Then, swallow it all. Works every time. And it never hurts to have Ricky Williams by your side."

All kidding aside, the matchup in drug-infested South Florida between the favored Colts and the underdog Bears promises storylines galore. There's the purple purveyor of passion, Prince, starring in a half-time show that people might actually watch. And, there's Kevin Federline's next big moment, in a Nationwide Financial Services "Life Comes At You Fast" ad, which, by agreeing to appear in, is an admission that you've hit rock bottom, again. Also, there's the matter of capturing the Holy Grail of the National Football League, acquiring all eight Burger King Happy Meal toys featuring the King in various positions on the field.

But all of those pale in comparison to the historic fact that two African-American head coaches have reached the Super Bowl. Tony Dungy will face his good friend Lovie Smith for the right to lift the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

"There have been some monumental coaching matchups in Super Bowl history," says Dungy. "Chuck Noll versus Tom Landry. Don Shula versus George Allen. Vince Lombardi versus Hank Stram. But enough with the honkies. Never before has the 'Mack Daddy' faced off against the 'Daddy Mack.' I think this game will open the door for more and more success by black coaches in the Super Bowl. As the saying goes, 'Once you go black, you can never go back.' Sadly, though, there are never any true winners in cases of black-on-black coaching."

Like a black head coach, Manning has never won a Super Bowl. And nothing could be worse for the Indy signal-caller than to be known as the greatest quarterback in NFL history never to have won a Super Bowl.

"You're wrong there, pal," interjects Manning. "It could be much worse. I could be known as the greatest quarterback never to have won a Super Bowl and the guy who lost to 'Train' Rex Grossman. That's bad. Me losing to Grossman in the big one? That would be like Troy Aikman losing to Neil O'Donnell in Super Bowl XXX. Or Steve Young losing to Stan Humphries in Super Bowl XXIX. Or Matt Hasselbeck losing to Ben Roethlisberger in Super Bowl XL. What's that? Hasselbeck did lose to Roethlisberger? Smokin' Aces! That must really suck for Matt.

"Of course, who am I too talk? I lost to Roethlisberger in the playoffs, as well. Like us, the Steelers were a 'team of destiny.' If you'll recall, last year, Roethlisberger tripped up Nick Harper on what was sure to be a game-winning touchdown return of Jerome Bettis' fumble. That was the Steelers 'destiny moment.' After that, you knew they were going to win it all. Similarly, we are this year's 'team of destiny,' and our 'destiny moment' took place in the AFC title game against the Patriots, when Reggie Wayne fumbled into the air after a reception, then plucked it right out of the air. Smokin' Aces! That was close! This team would be nowhere without Reggie. He's a big-play receiver, and he serves as Marvin Harrison's interpreter during Marvin's vow of silence."

"How can Manning say that the Colts are a 'team of destiny?' asks Grossman. "I think the fact that we're in the Super Bowl with me playing quarterback all year proves that we are truly the 'team of destiny.' We won a game in which I had six turnovers. We won games in which my quarterback rating was in double digits, and that's counting the decimal place. And, we won games in which the pregnant wife of a fan had her labor induced so her husband wouldn't miss the NFC Championship Game. Apparenty, she's more of a man than he is. How can that kind of dedication and/or stupidity be denied? It can't. We're going to party like it's 1985. Say it one more time. Let's go crazy."

So, Super Sunday starts off with a bang. After the good people at Cirque de Soleil open things up with the most amazing display of flexibility in a non-X-rated manner ever, Billy Joel gets the capacity Dolphin Stadium crowd on their feet. Pleased with himself, Joel then speeds away haphazardly on a golf cart, where he slams into former Saints quarterback Adrian McPherson, who was likewise drilled earlier in the year by T-Rac, the Tennessee Titans' mascot.

After the carnage is cleared, the Colts win the coin toss, and Manning goes right to work. After dumping a screen pass to Joseph Addai, Manning takes a hit from the charging Johnson. While on his back with the hulking Tank on top of him, Manning, normally known for quick thinking on his feet, has an idea. He slips a water pistol from his waistband into Johnson's, and the Chicago defensive tackle is found to have broken the terms of his bail agreement, forcing his extradition back to Illinois.

"Now we go to school," says Manning.

The Colts, however, fail to capitalize on the drive, but two Adam Vinatieri field goals and a Manning touchdown to Harrison give the Colts a 13-10 lead at the half. Grossman has a mediocre half, with a passer rating that hoovers around the number of albums Prince has released. All things considered, Smith is pleased to be down only three points.

"How dare those bookies list us as seven point underdogs," complains Smith.

Check it, Lovie. All year long, the talk has been about the AFC's superiority. It's been a foregone conclusion that the NFC representative would be the underdog since about Week 3. Don't complain; do something about it.

"I would have settled for 6½," replies Smith.

In the second half, both teams finally come to their senses. The Bears realize that a few good defensive games in the playoffs doesn't necessarily mean the Colts run defense can't be attacked like a knife through hot butter. And Manning and the Colts realize that the Bears defense has been overrated all year. So the Bears go to work on the middle of the Colts defense, and Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson grind out tough chunks of yardage. The Colts attack the Bears down the middle as well, with the pass. Nursing a 28-27 lead, Manning directs the Colts on a 11-play, 71-yard, 6:45 drive that culminates with a Vinatieri field goal. Left with only 45 seconds to drive for the winning score, the Bears come up short when Grossman's pass is intercepted by Bob Sanders.

Colts win, 31-27.

After the game, MVP Manning announces his intentions to visit Disneyworld, on the conditions that they provide him with a film room, and he gets to ride Space Mountain.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:12 PM | Comments (1)