Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

February 28, 2009

Post-Combine '09 NFL Mock Draft (Pt. 2)

Also see: Post-Combine '09 NFL Mock Draft (Pt. 1)

After an extremely controversial debut of this four-part round one mock draft, we're back with part two of what is likely to be an incredibly inaccurate and fairly useless prediction of the draft picks to come. Just like every other mock draft out there in the television press and interwebs.

As explained in the first part, the picks that follow are the ones that I think the teams should make — not necessarily the ones that I think they actually will make. And yes, in case you're wondering, I did actually watch a bit of college football this year and am not making things up and pretending to know what I'm talking about because I'm a sociopath or something. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

9. Green Bay Packers: B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College

Raji, a hulking mammoth of a defensive tackle, is pretty much hands-down the best available at his position in this year's draft. Many others have him going a lot earlier than this and this could definitely be the case once the actual draft rolls around.

However should he fall to the ninth spot for the Packers' selection, then it's very likely they'll pull the trigger with him despite a slightly greater need at the defensive end positions. Should Raji go earlier, though, then that is likely the route that they'll take.

10. San Francisco 49ers: Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas

There are a lot of different directions the 49ers can go with their first round pick, but you have to think that with Mike Singletary at the helm that he's going to want to get a nice strong and steady pass rush established on the defensive line. Barring pigs flying and B.J. Raji being available here, a defensive end — be it either Orakpo or Florida State defensive end Everette Brown — is a very logical and likely choice.

As with a lot of the other picks with positions that are too close to call, it would all come down to who the scouting team likes the most out of Orakpo, Brown, or even Aaron Maybin. Heck, look at Jerod Mayo last year — the 49ers might surprise everyone and take Michael Johnson!

Personally though, many other opinions vary, but I like Orakpo just a smidgeon more than Brown. We'll just have to wait and see!

11. Buffalo Bills: Everette Brown, DE, Florida State

The Bills definitely have a promising young defense, but seem to be a pass rush away from really doing anything special. They could go linebacker or even something on the offensive side of the ball, here but Everette Brown would make a tantalizingly promising pick here.

If Brown is gone, then either Orakpo or Maybin could be other potential picks. It all depends on the intel that the scouts have garnered up all year and polished off after the Combine. Is it April yet?

12. Denver Broncos: Aaron Maybin, DE, Penn State

A lot of different prognosticators had the Broncos taking a running back with their first round selection, but this now appears unlikely to happen after they recently signed not one, but two different free agent running backs in J.J. Arrington and Correll Buckhalter.

Like the Bills before them, the Broncos are in desperate need of a pass rush from the edges, so it would just make sense for them to take a defensive end now that they've shored up their spotty running back situation.

13. Washington Redskins: Rey Maualuga, ILB, USC

It's still up in the air as to who'll be the first inside linebacker taken out of Rey Maualuga and James Laurinaitis, but you have to agree that both of them look to pan out quite well in their transition to the pros. Maualuga played and excelled in a complex NFL-style defense at USC and has a well-rounded repertoire that should compliment recent free agent signing Albert Haynesworth and the rest of the Redskins revamped defense incredibly well.

Again though, Laurinaitis would be just as good of a pick so it might just come down to who the front office and scouting department was impressed by more.

14. New Orleans Saints: Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State

Out of all of the problems that Saints have had on defense, the secondary situation is arguably the worst. They are in dire need of upgrades at the corner position and Malcolm Jenkins looks to be just the right fit for the puzzle.

15. Houston Texans: Percy Harvin, WR, Florida

While the Houston Texans offense showed it can put on quite a fireworks display any given week, they could have benefited greatly from having another premier wideout for when Andre Johnson was injured and even when he was healthy and on the field.

Although the team could certainly go in the defensive building block direction with this pick, they'll be hard-pressed not to take one of the four wide receivers who are expected to go in the first round and of at least one will most definitely be available for the Texans at pick 15.

16. San Diego Chargers: Andre Smith, OT, Alabama

While Smith's decision to publicly tell the world he doesn't like to work out and basically is lazy wasn't the smartest thing in the world, you have to think that a small glimpse of the NFL world will get his ass in gear and his physical, athletic tools will assure that he'll be just fine.

Still, it seems like taking him will be a small gamble and while a team could definitely roll the dice before the Chargers at 16, they probably wouldn't mind doing so considering their immense need at the position.

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

Posted by Josh Galligan at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)

February 27, 2009

Sports Q&A: HG "H" For "Honesty"

Alex Rodriguez recently admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs, dealing another blow to the integrity of Major League Baseball. How does this revelation affect Rodriguez's Hall Of Fame aspirations, and how will MLB deal with the growing problem of superstars, tainted statistics, and the Hall of Fame?

Hey, why does everyone think that another baseball player's admission of drug use is such a bad thing? It's not. Don't you know what this means? It's time to celebrate! Jose Canseco just started another tell-all book, chronicling his amazing ability to witness drug usage. The book, titled Juiced Deuced, should be out by Tuesday, and is available in paperback, hardback, and in powder or pill form.

But seriously, let's give Rodriguez credit for owning up to the use of a banned substance, even if he "owned up" only after Sports Illustrated reported that a 2003 A-Rod sample had tested positive for a drug called Primabolan and testosterone. While so many baseball players in the past seem intent on denying any wrongdoing to their graves, it's refreshing to see one of the biggest stars in the game admit culpability, albeit with one hand on the Bible, and the other in the cookie jar. Coming "clean" has never been so dirty.

Finally, it appears that Major League Baseball stars are learning their lessons about taking performance-enhancing drugs. Unfortunately, the lesson they are learning is not that they shouldn't take them, but that they should admit to it, but only after they are caught. So A-Rod chose the route of giving us "guilty pleas," as opposed to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, who said nothing other than "Guilty? Please?" It's a lesson Bonds and Clemens failed to digest, so let's give A-Rod a "B-" for "effort" and an "HGH" for "honesty."

Rodriguez subsequently elaborated on his drug indiscretions, revealing that he and a cousin, Yuri Sucart, obtained "Boli," another term for Primabolan, and used it in the Dominican Republic from 2001 to 2003. Rodriguez was in his early 20s at the time and blamed his poor judgment on "immaturity," "stupidity," "curiosity," and "irresponsibility." Nice try, A-Rod, but that's such a common defense. How many of us haven't used those words to defend our own actions with a cousin?

And really, can you claim ignorance in such a matter as this, injecting yourself and others with needles? No one sticks a needle into their body without knowing, or, at the very least, thinking, that some benefit will derive from it. A-Rod's former girlfriend, Madonna, has been with hundreds of men of numerous nationalities, but I find it hard to believe that even she would be as reckless in allowing foreign objects into her body.

Rodriguez could not say for sure what benefits he expected from taking "Boli," or whether he observed any physical changes, but he did point out that he noticed a vast improvement to his selective memory.

Rodriguez has also been linked to Angel Presinal, a personal trainer who has been banned from MLB clubhouses since October 2001. Among other things, Presinal and former slugger Juan Gonzalez were linked to a bag full of steroids found in a Toronto airport in 2001. Presinal told police the bag was Gonzalez's; Gonzalez told police it was Presinal's. The cops never got to the bottom of the incident. However, one clever department employee spliced together video of Gonzalez's and Presinal's questionings, which became a YouTube sensation, as well as a hilarious homage to Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine. Anyway, as any good baseballer doing banned substances can attest, it's never a good idea to be linked to a person whose last name sounds like a banned substance, and "Presinal" sounds like something that would have caused a "Panic at the BALCO." Rodriguez was wise enough, however, to answer "no" when asked if he had ever "done Presinal."

And what happens when you put A-Rod's cousin and Presinal together? More bad news for Rodriguez. Presinal and Sucart roomed together as they accompanied Rodriguez throughout the 2007 MLB season, spending their time together stuffing goody bags, playing 'Pin the Syringe on the Yankee,' and pitching their idea for a hilarious sitcom, "The Rod Couple," to various networks. Under the guise as Rodriguez's "personal trainers," Sucart and Presinal were essentially A-Rod's "mules," toting duffle bags of banned substances city to city, while A-Rod reaped the benefits.

Rodriguez was just one of several names in the Mitchell Report, which identified players who were alleged to have used steroids or drugs. So expect other players to follow Rodriguez's lead and admit their own drug history with puppy-dog eyes and tears of clowns. Hey, baseball players don't like making outs, nor do they like being "outed." Heck, once we know all those names in the Mitchell Report, we can play the "Six Degrees of Separation Games." Inevitably, you can take any name in that report and it will lead to Bonds, or Clemens, or Mark McGwire, or Carrot Top, or Vince McMahon. And I doubt you'll need six degrees to do so.

So, for Rodriguez, does one "admission" negate another "admission?" In other words, will Rodriguez's admission of drug use keep him from being admitted into baseball's Hall of Fame? His statistics will forever be tainted, but maybe A-Rod's apparent sincere apology may be the catalyst that leads to changes the game of baseball needs to repair its integrity. Mind you, the change to which I'm referring is not more stringent drug testing, but the widespread use of asterisks, not just in the record books, but in box scores, as well.

But why stop there with the asterisks? For those players who have admitted drug use, or lied before Congress, or perjured themselves in front of a grand jury, or denied drug use when all else sharply points to their guilt, or else been caught with their pants down and a needle in, I say give them their bronze busts in the Hall of Fame, but engrave an asterisk on their cap where their team's emblem should be. And if you want to give visitors to the Hall an interactive experience, offer a free urine sample kiosk right there in the Asterisk Wing. And a lie detector test. And unlimited heckling. And a fantasy batting cage, where lazy pop flies miraculously become home runs.

Rodriguez, in his press conference, asked that he be judged "from this day forward." We can do our part, but can he? It doesn't look so. Just this week, Rodriguez was seen leaving a spring training game in a vehicle driven by Sucart. So much for distancing himself from the person who helped get him into this mess in the first place. In that game, A-Rod was booed and cheered. There was little, if any, middle ground. As fans, we need to embrace that middle ground. Don't cheer. Don't boo. Don't care. Let our silence let these players know that we know.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2009

Post-Combine '09 NFL Mock Draft (Pt. 1)

In the interests of keeping this as non-complicated as possible, this mock draft will consist of the choices that I think the teams should make. I'll explain why I think they should take who they do, but as we all know, it's definitely not an indication that its who I think the team will actually take. Anything can happen on any given NFL Draft Saturday and Sunday after all (see: the Houston Texans taking Mario Williams with the first selection in 2006).

Anyway, without further ado, let's get into part one, which will encompass the first eight picks. Please do enjoy and feel free to vehemently question my football intelligence in the comments!

1. Detroit Lions: Jason Smith, OT, Baylor

It seems like everyone and their cousins, ex-boyfriends, florist thinks that the Lions are going to go with Matthew Stafford with the first overall pick. This is all well and good and could most definitely happen — however, I just can't shake the fact that the team has not one, but two young and possibly starter-worthy quarterbacks that they haven't really even seen pan out yet in Dan Orlovsky and Drew Stanton.

The Lions' staff, of course, knows more than we all do about the potential of these two, but you have to think that even if they both had the ability to pretty decent that the team would want to go with a cornerstone, franchise offensive tackle like Jason Smith. Besides, it's not like they couldn't take one of the other quarterbacks in this year's crop — despite the fact that it's supposed to be a very weak year overall. It seems like every year, we put all of our hopes in the quarterbacks who are supposed to be taken very early and assume that everyone else can barely manage to throw a tennis ball skillfully.

It can really go either in any direction — heck, they could even take Michael Crabtree for all we know (which would be the highest of high comedy) — so as with most years number one pick predictions, expect the debate on this one to rage right up until the seconds before the actual selection.

2. St. Louis Rams: Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech

Despite the fact that there are three top-10 caliber offensive tackles, which is a spot that the Rams sorely need, unless Jason Smith falls to them, then Michael Crabtree is a very plausible selection. For one, Isaac Bruce is gone and Torry Holt is getting ever closer to finally becoming eligible for his AARP subscription. The Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" offense of yore was successful with a multi-talented running back in Marshall Faulk complimented by a fearsome duo of wide receivers in Bruce and Holt. Currently, the Rams have the multi-talented back in Stephen Jackson and Donnie Avery certainly showed signs of being able to fill in one of the fearsome wide receiver roles.

Pair Crabtree with Avery and Jackson, somehow ensure Marc Bulger you're going to protect him and he doesn't have to worry about his emergency room concussion bills after every single game, and what you get is an offense that can put up quite a lot of points on any given Sunday. Done aaaand done.

3. Kansas City Chiefs: Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia

Most of the mock drafts that have Stafford going number one to the Lions have Mark Sanchez going to the Chiefs at three. However, even if Stafford does go number one, I don't think that Scott Pioli would fall into the trap of taking any quarterback unless it's Matthew Stafford with their number three pick. All signs would point to them taking an Aaron Curry-type player and I assure you of this because I've had the immense pleasure of watching Pioli (along with partner in crime Bill Belichick) select someone who was never who the pundits all said they would — and it almost always ended up being the correct selection. Think Jerod Mayo last year.

But if Jason Smith does indeed go number one to the Lions as I have occurring in my little fantasy NFL universe, then I can see Pioli pulling the trigger on the Georgia alum and then building around him. I'm sorry, Mark, but I just can't get over your under-thrown and erratic ball throwing at the Combine. I just can't do it!

4. Seattle Seahawks: Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri

It seems like, besides from Deion Branch, that Matt Hasselbeck has never really had anyone even close to being considered an elite receiver. This is a testament to both Hasselbeck's skill and precision as a passer, as well (to a lesser extent) as the coaching philosophy of Mike Holmgren. Despite the likelihood of Michael Crabtree being taken in the first three selections and thus not being available for Seattle, Jeremy Maclin cemented his status as the number two wideout in this year's class with his sub-4.4 40.

Hopefully, we are gifted with a shot of Matt Hasselbeck's living room after the Seahawks take a promising young receiver at number four. I just can't see the pick going any other way — especially with Mike Holmgren gone to the prospect of golf and lazy Sunday's beside a Florida pool.

5. Cleveland Browns: Aaron Curry, OLB, Wake Forest

Sometimes teams are given the gift of a player falling to them in the first round that just makes sense and despite what they say to the press to disinformation everyone, the whole entire thing is really a no-brainer and they probably just giggle and talk about "Lost" episodes in the meeting rooms each Friday.

This is exactly the case with the Browns and the high possibility that Aaron Curry will fall to them at pick number five. Curry has done nothing but rise up everyone's draft boards the past few weeks and nothing changed at all in large thanks to his Combine performance. He was the quickest outside linebacker there and he hung right up there strength-wise, as well, with 25 bench press reps.

Then again, this is Eric Mangini we're talking about here, so he may very well take someone completely different just because everyone thinks he's going to take Curry. He's very special like that.

6. Cincinnati Bengals: Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia

Thanks to Andre Smith's incredibly questionable decision to publicly state that he's lazy and cause himself to drop out of the top offensive tackle debate, Eugene Monroe is now considered by many to be the second best at his position in this year's draft.

The entire Bengals team is a mess and they have needs at almost every conceivable position, but it would make the most sense for them to cash in on this rare and talented class of offensive tackles by selecting either Eugene Monroe or Michael Oher. My money is on Monroe being the second tackle taken, though.

7. Oakland Raiders: Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss

Like the Bengals, the Raiders are tasked with the wonderful pleasure of having more holes to fill than Little Jack Horner. It's highly likely that they are going to stay on the offensive and defensive lines in terms of their first overall selection and with the offensive tackles likely being taken like wildfire up until this portion of the draft, it's hard to see them passing up on the last of the top three before someone rolls the dice with Andre "I Don't Like Money" Smith.

8. Jacksonville Jaguars: Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State

I haven't seen many mock drafts that think this is the route that the Jaguars will take, but as I'm sure you've surmised, this is the direction that I think they will go. The Jaguars don't really have top-echelon wide receiver talent and a big, reliable and athletic tight end target like Pettigrew will probably have David Garrard giggling with glee.

Unless one of the top three offensive tackles is still available, it just seems like a good fit for them to take one of the most talented tight end prospects to come out in a long, long time.

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

Posted by Josh Galligan at 11:22 AM | Comments (11)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 2

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth won his second consecutive race, taking charge late and holding off Jeff Gordon to win the Auto Club 500 in Fontana. In leading a race-high 84 laps, Kenseth became the first driver to start the season with two wins since Gordon triumphed twice to begin 1997.

"I guess duplicating Gordon's feat puts me in 'fast company,'" says Kenseth. "And 'fast company' is better than 'fist company,' which is what you call being around an angry Carl Edwards. Who's the big shot now, Carl? The only time you'll raise a hand to me now is when you want to ask me a question."

"As for Gordon, it's always cool to be compared to a four-time Cup champion, although the last time I was this close to Gordon, he shoved me into next week at Bristol in 2006."

2. Jeff Gordon — Gordon led entering the final pit stops in Fontana, but Matt Kenseth won the race out and led the final 37 laps to deny Gordon the win. Gordon shadowed Kenseth in the closing laps, but was unable to get close enough to attempt a pass. Gordon's winless streak now stands at 43 races, but two successful runs to start the season point to an end of that streak.

"We lost this race in the pits," says Gordon. "You know, there was a time when the 'Rainbow Warriors' set the standard for remarkably fast pit stops, as well as outlandishly garish uniforms. Now, the only thing 'colorful' about them is the language I used to berate them. I told my crew they couldn't hold the jock straps of Matt Kenseth's 'Killer B's' pit crew. In NASCAR terms, my guys couldn't 'lug their nuts.'

3. Kyle Busch — Busch swept the Camping World Truck and Nationwide races on Saturday, and became the only driver to win two races in any of NASCAR's top three series on the same day. His quest for the trifecta fell short, although his third in the Auto Club 500 was quite welcome after his 41st in the Daytona 500.

"Dale Earnhardt, Jr. said he felt bad for 80% of the drivers that were involved in his wreck at Daytona," says Busch. "The other 20%, he could care less about. I'd just like to know in which category I stand. I'm guessing I'm in the 'minority report.'"

"But that's okay. I understand the pressure Junior's under to live up to the accomplishments of a more famous relative. I've been there. There was a time when I worried that I would never win a Sprint Cup championship like my brother Kurt. Now, I don't even worry about it. I've found success on my own terms. Kurt and I have both found our niches in this sport. I've beaten nearly every competitor I've faced, while Kurt's been beaten by nearly everyone. That's why I'm surprised Kurt's first name is abbreviated as 'Ku.,' instead of 'Ko.'"

4. Tony Stewart — Stewart matched his Daytona 500 result with an eighth in Fontana, a track that is traditionally not a Stewart favorite. The Stewart-Haas Racing owner/driver is fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 91 behind Matt Kenseth.

"To all those pessimists who thought I wouldn't be competitive this early," says Stewart, "I've just got one thing to say: 'Stewart Ha!'"

"Now, if you would have told me three months ago that I'd start the season with two top-10s, I would have said, 'Heck, let's celebrate!' and invited you to my hauler for a drink or two, provided you passed inspection, which usually involves a look under the hood and a few yes/no questions, of which I don't take 'no' for an answer."

5. Carl Edwards — After sub-par practice and qualifying sessions, Edwards and the No. 99 Aflac team knew a win in Fontana was unlikely, but the team made the necessary adjustments to capture a seventh-place finish.

"We just couldn't get the car where we wanted it," says Edwards. "You could say we were 'missing something,' although, for this team, that usually makes us go faster, not slower."

"But we'll gladly head to Las Vegas, where we won the spring race last year with a little help from a missing oil lid, a regrettable incident that has followed me since. So I guess the old saying 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' is not true in my case."

6. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson started strong on Sunday, leading the first 43 laps at Fontana, and 74 of the first 77, but the No. 48 team's adjustments couldn't keep up with the changing track conditions, and Johnson slipped from contention for the win. Still, he finished a solid ninth for his first top-10 finish of the year.

"After being so fast in practice," says Johnson, "I'm surprised we had such trouble finding speed on Sunday. But, in the end, what can I do, but stroke my well-groomed beard in bewilderment and ask Chad Knaus to make my car faster by any means possible. The great thing about Chad is that even in the midst of difficulty, he's able to find a silver lining. And, in most cases, he can take that silver lining and secretly apply it to a part of the No. 48 car and make it faster. To my knowledge, NASCAR hasn't banned silver linings — yet."

"I'm also somewhat confused by those that say ratings for the Auto Club 500 were hurt because the race went head-to-head for a few hours with ABC's telecast of the Academy Awards. I may be mistaken, but I don't think there's a whole lot of crossover between NASCAR fans and Academy Awards fans. The only 'Oscar' NASCAR fans care about is Oscar Meyer. Maybe on that cold day in Hell when Larry the Cable Guy accepts that lifetime achievement award from the Academy, NASCAR fans will forego a race for the awards ceremony."

7. Greg Biffle — Biffle was running second before a pit road error cost him a chance at the win. As he brought the No. 16 Ford into his it stall on his final pit stop, Biffle slid over the air hose, causing a delay in the pits. The extra time dropped him to 12th, but he fought his way back to fourth by race's end.

"As a native of the white-collar section of a whitebread city like Vancouver, Washington," says Biffle, "I'm quite far removed from what a street pimp would experience in a more hardened city. Until now. That's because, after my pit road mishap, I was left saying the same thing as a pimp — 'damn ho's!'"

8. Kurt Busch — The elder Busch brother finished fifth in the Auto Club 500, completing a solid weekend in which he qualified fourth on Friday and ran up front for most of Sunday. Busch is third in the point standings, 91 behind Matt Kenseth.

"Sure, it's surprising to be ahead of my younger brother in the points at this stage," says Busch. "But is it as surprising as NASCAR's choices to perform pre-race concerts? First, at Daytona, we get Keith Urban. Then, at Fontana, Gavin Rossdale performs his song 'Love Remains the Same,' which is a perfect song to get you in the 'mood,' but not for NASCAR race. What's more amazing? That Rossdale was performing, or that people actually knew the lyrics to his song? These are probably the same people that wear 'Digger gear.' These are also the same people you should kick in the rear for wearing 'Digger gear.' That's why I'm proclaiming the race weekend in Las Vegas as national 'Kick a Person Who's Wearing Digger Gear' weekend."

"As for Rossdale, he's got one good thing working for him — he's the former frontman of a rock band called 'Bush.'"

9. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished 19th at Fontana, leading the way in a disappointing day for Richard Childress Racing, as teammates Casey Mears, Jeff Burton, and Kevin Harvick finished 24th, 32nd, and 38th, respectively. Bowyer is sixth in the point standings, 119 out of first.

"NASCAR personalities have lately made themselves prominent on the national stage," says Bowyer. "First, Daytona 500 champ Matt Kenseth made the rounds on the talk show circuit, then my teammate Jeff Burton appeared on General Hospital. I don't want to say Jeff's a bad actor, but he needed an acting coach just to play himself. Just like on the track last Sunday, he was a little 'tight,' but I hear his fluffers made just the right adjustments."

"But that's just the start of the stars of NASCAR going big time. You ain't seen nothing yet. FOX lap-by-lap announcer Mike Joy is set to release an album of fun-loving, positive rap songs under his happy-go-lucky, hip-hop persona of 'Mic Joy.' And, Burton's brother plans to star in a movie about a funny-talking driver who wins the Daytona 500, then does nothing else. The movie is called The Curious Case of Wadd Button."

10. Michael Waltrip — Waltrip followed up his third in Daytona with a 15th at Fontana, following Michael Waltrip Racing teammate David Reutimann across the finish line. Waltrip is seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, 121 out of first.

"I must say," says Waltrip, "I've had a great start to the season. Daytona was a blast. My 'Speedweeks' were quite memorable, probably more memorable than any of Aaron Fike's 'speedweeks,' which, for him, refers to a three-week heroin binge."

"And look, what do you know, there's another drug scandal in NASCAR. A member of Jeremy Mayfield's team has been suspended for failing a drug test. He was the first person punished under NASCAR's revised drug policy that went into effect this season, a policy which aims to identify drug users before they are nailed by cops in a car with their girlfriend and/or admit publicly to drug use while on the job."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:11 AM | Comments (0)

February 25, 2009

The C-Word

con∙tent - /kənˈtɛnt / [kuh n-tent]
1. satisfied with what one is or has; not wanting more or anything else.

In every day speech, I am sure all of us have used the term above. Whether it's regarding your life, your job, your relationships, we have all felt contentment at one time or another. How many, however, who follow sports or play sports, have been content in the middle of a season?

Isn't the whole meaning of playing a game and playing a season, to win?

Let's take at another definition:

com⋅pete -  /kəmˈpit / n [kuh m-peet] –verb (used without object), -pet⋅ed, -pet⋅ing.
1. to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.

Every NBA player has said they love to compete. They want to win. So why, each year when there is a major opportunity for the elite teams to get better, they express contentment over competing?

Unlike last year, there are no frontrunners. Unlike last year, there isn't one team dominating the league and the rest trying to catch up. Unlike last year, no one stepped up and said, "Let's get better at the trade deadline."

Last season, we had trades in the beginning of the season (Celtics) and trades at the deadline (Lakers, Mavericks, and Suns). All made a move with the idea that being content would lead to an early trip to the golf course. They all wanted to compete for an NBA title.

It worked for the Lakers, who went from a mediocre team to the NBA Finals and this year's frontrunner. It worked for the Celtics. Boston won it all.

So why this year, with six teams with actual chances to compete for the NBA Finals, did they all decide to stay put? The only team that gets a pass is Denver because they made a trade that has been an outstanding play for them. Moving Allen Iverson for Chauncey Billups has produced a better brand of basketball in the Rockies and the Nuggets currently sit at No. 2 in the West.

The Lakers get a pass, as well, because they are still seeing the benefits of last year's trades. If Andrew Bynum can get healthy before the end of the season, Los Angeles has to be the clear-cut favorite, and when you're at the top, there's no reason to rock the boat.

Besides those two, every top-tier team has a need.

The Celtics miss James Posey more than you know. You don't think in Boston's two losses to Los Angeles, Posey would have hit at least one three? The Celtics need a sixth man to give them the intangibles. They need a big play guy who hustles, boards, facilitates. Right now, no one off the bench provides that for them. Posey provided the starters rest on defense by guarding anyone on the floor. Posey provided the starters rest on offense by scrambling for loose balls, setting up in the corner, and drilling the three-ball. Now you have Eddie House, who is a spot-up shooter, Glen Davis, who at times has acted like a "Big Baby," and a host of others who do not provide the "x-factor" Posey did.

And Boston had a chance to get better. Their old pal, Kevin McHale, had the one piece that would have put the C's over the top once again. Mike Miller is not the scorer he was last year, but his production has increased in every other stat category. He has been relegated to the six-man facilitator that Posey was, only on a mediocre team. If they were to somehow work out a swap for Miller, the Celtics could have been lighting up the cigars once again.

Instead, they chose to be content rather than compete.

The same could be said for the Cavs' lack of an outside shooter, the Magic's lack the toughness and the defense, the Spurs' need for an energy guy, and Portland ... well, the Blazers just completely missed the boat.

Raef Lafrentz's contract was the most ridiculous trade bait in the history of expiring contracts. $12.7 million. Do you realize how much a team would have saved by picking up that contract and in turn Portland getting a marquee scorer to take some of the burden off of Brandon Roy? Go get a Vince Carter or a Richard Jefferson. You can't tell me Portland feels confident sending Travis Outlaw or Nicolas Batum out into the lion's den come playoff time.

Instead, every GM in the league is worrying about his job. They all think playing it safe will get them into the playoffs, and if they make it past the first round, it is a success. Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak knew last year his job was on the line and he went out and got better; the competitive nature in him would not stand for contentment. And Denver Nuggets GM Mark Warkentien got tired of watching his team collapse in the postseason and changed it up.

For every Kupchak and Warkentien, there are 10 general managers wanting to just ride it out and tell their owners that it all can change in the summer of 2010. In the meantime, we, the fans, will suffer.

Just like last year, the C's will own the league. The only difference is it may or may not be the Celtics this year, but it sure will be Contentment.

Posted by Wailele Sallas at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

A-Rod and the Steroid Era

It seems that many want to pretend that they were not surprised by the admission of one Alex Rodriguez that he injected steroids — not just the evasive term of performance-enhancing drugs, but steroids — into his body on a regular basis, thereby cheapening the slew of hitting records he remains in pursuit of.

Even the ever-outspoken Curt Schilling was fooled in this case. Curt had once said respectfully about his pinstriped rival, "If anything, it makes me appreciate the fact that Alex Rodriguez is more of a genetic freak than we ever thought, because he is truly the only 40-40 guy to ever play the game." This was in the wake of many of the steroid revelations that claimed the reputations of faux-legends Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and the rest of the all-'roid roster.

Tragically as our economic deficit grows, so too does our faith in our ballplayers. Not that Congress should make such issues comparable, but one of the small areas of life we Americans can traditionally find joy, solace, and most importantly, escape, is slowly eroding into a dark, chemically-polluted sea.

Like Schilling, many of us truly believed that Alex was too much the squeaky-clean role-model type to force a drippy needle where the sun doesn't shine. We were looking forward to the day that he took Barry Bonds' career home run record off the books, thus cleansing the mark. Now we may have to shift our thinking to hoping instead that he doesn't break the record by too much and leave it unreachable for the next "Great Clean Hope." Such a scene also begs the question: will Barry Bonds have prepared a pre-recorded congratulatory message from jail to mark the occasion?

Ultimately, the scariest prospect for this baseball fan is the idea that no hero, no icon from this late-'80s to early-'00s generation of ballplayers is truly suspicion-free. If Rodriguez's reputation has gone from a guaranteed clean to a certified user, how can we doubtlessly say that Derek Jeter or Albert Pujols or Ken Griffey, Jr. never took steroids? Being friendly with the media, appearing in commercials helping underprivileged kids play ball, and smiling a lot all work wonders for a star's image, but why should that give them a free pass from the ongoing witch hunt when none of those things are truly relevant to it?

Just last year, it was Roger Clemens in the same situation, albeit Clemens went about responding to it the wrong way, while Rodriguez made some refreshing admissions (even if they were not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him, God) that put him way ahead of most other busted ballplayers. The similarities were in the public shock that these two men could have been steroid users. Clemens was a family man with a tireless work ethic and a daily regimen that often left his Yankee teammates in awe. Surely, his 98 mph fastball had to be the result of nothing more than the hard work of a blue-collar Texan.

These kinds of revelations allow us to cook up all sorts of horrid what-if scenarios. For example: there is no proof of this and I pray there never will be. However, many ballplayers claim they took some performance-enhancing substances, particularly HGH, in order to avoid injuries. This was the reason Andy Pettitte showed up on the Mitchell Report. Now, what if the beloved Cal Ripken, Jr. had found out this nifty little secret, as well? Is it feasible the modern day Iron Man had a little artificial reinforcement to lessen the impact of the various injuries he played through during all that time? Ripken could have still very well been filled with the selfless desire to do it for his team and give them the best chance to win every day. The legacy would still be tainted nonetheless.

After all, Ripken's teammate was Brady Anderson, who magically became a power guy and hit 50 homers in 1996 when he had hit 16 in the full year before. Never a proven user, many writers as well as former players have gone as far as to assume that Anderson had to have been on something that year to produce those numbers for a speed-and-defense type player as Brady. If Anderson had been on something, perhaps a few conversations with Cal could have led to No. 8 learning how to get his hands on some substances not yet as-of-then banned. Where does that leave the incredible streak of 2,632 consecutive games then? Hopefully, this nightmarish hypothetical remains just that.

As more admissions and accusations come out, some of us inevitably start to change our outlooks on the steroid issue. There is certainly some truth to the matter that players in the '90s through 2002 took substances that were legal in the United States that are now considered illegal banned substances in the country and in the majors. Even Alex Rodriguez' positive steroid test in 2003, prior to mandatory testing, was essentially none of our business even after the story came out.

Others will question just how much of an impact these banned substances really had on the games of the era, especially if such a large percentage of players were taking them. If a 'roided-up Jose Canseco came to bat against a 'roided-up Roger Clemens sometime around 1998, aren't most of the advantages for either man nullified at that point?

And yet we must also keep in mind that steroids have been taken seriously enough by other communities, particularly the International Olympic Committee, that gold medals have been stripped from countless athletes found to have been using. American sports tend to operate on a de facto law that game, series, and championship results and statistics are generally irreversible once a score goes final or a season ends. This means that the 2000 Yankees, with a roster half-full (or is it half-empty?) of Mitchell Report guest-stars, will still keep their World Series rings. This means no MVP award will literally be wrested from the cold, dead fingers of admitted steroid user Ken Caminiti and awarded to someone else.

There is one exception to all this, where glory and credit can essentially be stripped from a player found to have used, and that is Hall of Fame balloting. Mark McGwire has not come close to making the necessary 75 percent since he became eligible, and this may set precedents for those such as Roger Clemens who follow him. McGwire and his record 70 home runs in a season was considered a lock, as was Clemens and his record six Cy Young awards. But is it truly fair for every player who tested positive for something to be eliminated from the Hall? Eventually, there are going to have to be some guidelines put in place as to what level of banned-substance use is worth having the writers weigh it into the equation along with all the statistics. Otherwise, the '90s may see very few inductees even if there was no true shortage of Hall of Fame talent.

The entire sport of baseball will have no shortage of tough questions to answer on this issue for a very long time to come. For now, though, all those questions fall on the broad shoulders of a man who has just been publicly labelled as A-Fraud. This spring, the walls of media members will undoubtedly be closing in on a man who had the gall to select jersey No. 13 for the New York Yankees after leaving Texas with a positive drug test.

All I can say is good luck with that.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 11:52 AM | Comments (1)

February 24, 2009

NHL Trade Deadline Needs

With less than a month to go to the NHL trade deadline, no less than 25 out of 30 teams still have a chance at making the Stanley Cup playoffs. And, as the Edmonton Oilers demonstrated a few years back, once you get into the playoffs, just about anything can happen.

With such a tight margin separating teams — as of this writing, fifth and 15th place in the Western Conference were separated by a mere 11 points — the amount of actual sellers at the trade deadline will most likely be diminished from previous seasons. That may change if a more distinct separation forms between contenders and also-rans. In the mean time, here's a list of what teams will be targeting come trade deadline time.

Who needs goaltending?

Washington Capitals — Really, does anyone trust Jose Theodore in the long-run? Theodore's inconsistent play is a far cry from his Hart Trophy-winning days in Montreal.

Detroit Red Wings — Have you caught the latest episode of "As Detroit's Crease Turns?" It involves veteran netminder — and last year's Cup-run hero — Chris Osgood getting sent home while the Wings turn to Ty Conklin and untested Jimmy Howard.

Philadelphia Flyers — Regardless of which Philly netminder is starting, the Flyers have had inconsistent goaltending — sometimes brilliant, sometimes atrocious. By adding some stability in net (though this is Philly, the land where goaltending careers go to die), the Flyers greatly increase their chances for a long playoff run.

Montreal Canadiens — How bad have things gotten for wunderkind Carey Price? So much so that Toronto coach Ron Wilson publicly states that he wants to take things slow with rookie netminder Justin Pogge to avoid what happened to Price. Perhaps it was too high of expectations too song, or perhaps the pressures of playing in Montreal for the Canadiens' centennial was too much for a guy who can't legally buy booze in the U.S.; whatever the case, things aren't playing out as planned.

Who needs scoring?

Pittsburgh Penguins — It's rather scary to think that a team with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin needs scoring help, but those two can't do it alone. Pittsburgh's lack of secondary scoring will hurt them even further should they make the postseason, where checking becomes even tighter. If only Marian Hossa had stayed...

New York Rangers — Apparently, $7 million ain't what it used to be. When you're forking over that kind of dough, you expect top-line scoring in return. Scott Gomez and Chris Drury forgot about that part of the job description. Petr Prucha fell off the planet, and Markus Naslund will be lucky if he tops 50 points this season.

Minnesota Wild — The Wild can't score. Marian Gaborik is hurt. What else is new?

Columbus Blue Jackets — Ken Hitchcock's finally got the Blue Jackets molded in his identity while Rick Nash is comfortably growing into the captain's role and Steve Mason has established himself as one of the scariest goalies in the NHL. However, hard work and two superstars can't do it alone. R.J. Umberger and Kristian Huselius have provided secondary scoring, but it's not enough.

Nashville Predators — At one point in the recent past, the Predators had one of the most high-flying cast of forwards in the league. That was before Nashville's ownership situation created a ton of roster upheaval. Now the Preds, who retained their identity of a defensively sound squad with a strong work ethic, have regressed in their ability to put the puck in the net.

Who needs everything?

Carolina Hurricanes — Scorers not scoring, inconsistent goaltending, spotty defense. The thing with the 'Canes is that they have all the tools to get it done in the organization, it's just that not all of it clicks at once. That's what a coaching change is supposed to spark, but bringing back Paul Maurice hasn't done that just yet.

Phoenix Coyotes — The funny thing about the Phoenix Coyotes is that they have the players to fill in their needs. Scoring? If Olli Jokinen and Peter Mueller woke up, the Yotes would be okay. Defense? How about better penalty killing from Derek Morris and Ed Jovanovski? Goaltending? Ilya Bryzgalov can't decide if he's a strong starter or a poor backup.

It's not to say that the teams not on this list are perfect — you can bet that Boston and San Jose would like a little more depth, and not everyone on the Calgary roster is bringing his A game (hello, Dion Phaneuf). Bubble teams like Buffalo need healthy and overall consistency more than anything else. But if you're looking for what's going to get specifically targeted come March 4th, this is what you'll see.

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)

February 23, 2009

In the Rotation: NBA Week 17

For some reason, award season always gets the better of me. I don't care about people I'll never meet getting dressed up; I don't care about art direction or animated shorts; I don't care about achievement in cinematography.

But come this time of the year, you better believe the Golden Globes and the Oscars are queued up on my TiVo. First of all, award shows are ideal on TiVo because you can watch a three-and-a-half hour show in about 45 minutes if you plow through commercials and boring acceptance speeches. Secondly, there's something about seeing the best of the best in one place at one time that is special.

Maybe my penchant for wanting to always see the best of the best can explain why I watch every NBA game I possibly can, yet I haven't seen a single college basketball game this year. I'm going to spend my time watching the best talent in the world play basketball, period.

A slight addiction to NBA basketball could also explain how, for the first time since I can remember, I haven't seen at least one of the nominees for Best Picture. With over 40 games a week on the League Pass, who has time to go to the movies?

You can bet on the fact that "Slumdog Millionaire," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Wrestler," and "Frost/Nixon" will be headed to the top of the Netflix queue as soon as they are available on DVD, but until then. I guess I'll just have to live with the fact that I'm more caught up the NBA than I am with Hollywood.

The writer's strike put a big damper on award season last year and I felt obligated to counter with the First Annual NBA Oscars.

Not releasing the Best Picture nominees on DVD ruined the Oscars for me this year, so it's only natural to counter with The Second Annual NBA Oscars.

This week's Starting Five brings back five of the top categories from last year and crowns a new winner as we review the NBA season and hand out some coveted hardware of our own:

1. Most Disappointing Season (Team) — Detroit Pistons

Things have gotten so bad in Detroit that before the Pistons went into the Q to play Cleveland Sunday night on ESPN, one of the biggest Piston fans I know told me, "We're going to lose by at least 25 tonight." The Pistons got down by 36 in the third quarter, before limping to a 21-point defeat.

The fans may have wanted to go into another direction after six straight trips to the Conference Finals, but only one NBA Title to show for it, but south certainly wasn't the direction they had in mind. Detroit has lost 15 of its last 20 games, and Sunday Night's embarrassment in the Q was the first game of a five-game trip that still includes stops in Miami, New Orleans, Orlando, and Boston.

The promise of tons of salary cap space in the offseason to fix some of the many problems the Pistons face gives hope that the rebuilding may not last long. But anytime the question heading into the playoffs goes from, "Who are we going to play in the Conference Finals this year?" to "Are we going to get in?" is a pretty good indication that you've had a disappointing season. In fact, a season so disappointing that it's worthy of an NBA Oscar.

2. Most Disappointing Season (Player) — Elton Brand

Elton Brand turning down the Clippers offer and signing with the Philadelphia 76ers for five years, $82 million was the biggest free agent acquisition of the offseason.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what's most disappointing about Brand's 2008-09 campaign. Is it the fact that the soap opera he caused by verbally agreeing to a deal with the Clippers, then leaving days later for Philly was the most entertaining thing he did all year? Could it be that statistically he put up career lows across the board, missing a combined 53 games in the process? Or is it the sad realization from Sixers fans that the team is better off with their $82 million-dollar man in street clothes?

No matter which way you look at it, Elton Brand has provided disappointment in the last year at an NBA Oscar-worthy level.

3. Best Performance by a Coach — Stan Van Gundy

As stated in the guidelines last year, this isn't the same thing as Coach of the Year. My vote for Coach of the Year goes to the coach who gets the most wins out of the least amount of talent. That's not always the same thing as the best coaching performance.

This year, Stan Van Gundy has the Orlando Magic playing the perfect style of play for the team they have assembled. If the Magic are burying their threes, they are virtually unbeatable. With Dwight Howard on the inside putting up insane numbers night in and night out, it makes sense to surround him with the most talented group of shooters in the league.

Putting the right pieces in place is the first step to building a championship caliber team. Finding a coach to match them up with the perfect playing style is the second. The Orlando Magic have the talent and system in place to contend for an NBA title. All they need now is a good learning experience (a good beat-down at the hands of the Celtics or Cavs in the playoffs ought to work) and some better luck (a healthy Jameer Nelson would be nice) and the Magic become real scary in the East.

Unfortunately, the experience and the luck factor probably won't come until after this season, but that isn't enough to prevent Stan Van Gundy from taking home the Oscar for Best Performance by a Coach for 2009.

4. Best Performance by a Player — LeBron James

Our only new category this year, and who better than LeBron to take home the inaugural award? All apologies to Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, and any other superstar out there, but right now only LeBron brings the possibility of making history to the table each and every time he steps on the floor.

Whether he's flirting with a triple-double, bringing the house down with dunk after dunk, or binge-scoring to the tune of 16 points in two minutes and 16 seconds like he did Friday night against the Bucks, King James has certainly morphed into the must-watch NBA player of 2009, and the first-ever winner of the Best Performance by a Player Oscar.

5. Best Team — Los Angeles Lakers

Whether they're blowing teams out (26 wins by at least 10 points) or finding ways to win close games, the Lakers just keep rolling along. Not even the injury to Andrew Bynum has been able to slow the Lakers down: they are 9-1 since losing their starting center back in mid-January.

The Lakers have swept the season series with both the Celtics and Cavaliers, beating each team with and without Bynum in the lineup, and winning the four games by an average 9.25 points per game. They've taken a commanding eight-game lead over the second best team in the always deep Western Conference and hold an impressive 14.5-game lead over the Suns for the Pacific Division crown.

They've got nothing left to prove until the playoffs start and are the easy choice for this year's winner for the biggest NBA Oscar of them all — Best Team.

In the Rotation: R.I.P. Larry Miller

Like most of you, I never met Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller. But I will always remember Miller for doing, in my opinion, the most selfless thing I've seen a professional sports team owner do in my lifetime by letting Derek Fisher out of his contract in the summer of 2007 so he could relocate his family to a city that was better equipped to treat the rare medical condition of Fisher's infant daughter.

NBA players are the best athletes in the world, play the greatest game in the world, and play it on the biggest stage. Because of that, sometimes as fans we have the tendency to lose sight of the fact that they are regular people; fathers, husbands, brothers, just like the rest of us.

In a day and age where making money and winning titles (in that order) have become the only things that matter to those who are privileged enough to actually own professional sports teams, Miller's willingness to prioritize the needs of Fisher's family ahead of his own desire to win an NBA title will go down in my book as one of the classiest moves in the history of the NBA.

Miller will be remembered for a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but he will always have a spot In the Rotation for doing the right thing for Derek Fisher, even if it was at the expense of the team that meant so much to him.

Out of the Rotation: Zach Randolph

Zach Randolph lived out one of my bucket list fantasies this week: he punched a Phoenix Suns player in the face. Okay, so maybe my hatred for the Suns doesn't run that deep, but it's close (more on that later).

Z-Bo isn't out of the rotation for decking Louis Amundson, he's out for stopping there. Randolph is a complete head-case and was caught up in the heat of the moment. I mean, anything was possible at that point. And he just walked away.

Zach Randolph had the chance to make my biggest dream come true and punch everyone associated with the :07 seconds or less style of play right in the face before leaving the court, but somehow managed to put his crazy in check before ever getting to anyone even remotely associated with my least favorite NBA team in history.

Closure on my bloodlust for all things Phoenix Suns was in the maniacal hands of Zach Randolph, and he let me down.

A two-game suspension will not suffice for Randolph. He's out of the rotation, and isn't getting back in until he lays out Steve Nash.

Inactive List: Phoenix Suns Owner Robert Sarver

Why even bother hiring Steve Kerr if you won't let him run the team? Kerr was brought in to transform the fun-and-gun Suns into a legit playoff contender, and that's exactly what he was trying to do by bringing in Shaq and replacing Mike D'Antoni with the defensive-minded Terry Porter.

Then, using all of the basketball savvy Robert Sarver has acquired in his five years of being around the game, he decided to go over the head of GM Steve Kerr and personally shop all-star forward Amar'e Stoudemire to the other 29 teams, only he had a ridiculous asking price and no one would take him.

Then, realizing that trading a superstar is much more difficult than it sounds, Sarver did the only sensible thing he could think of and fired the defensive-minded coach that Steve Kerr was told to hire in the first place, basically undoing all the work that Kerr had put into the team over the last year or so.

Now the Suns are right back to where they started, except they have alienated the one piece they have left to build around by very publicly trying to trade him and all but assuring he will walk when his contract is up; traded two guys in Boris Diaw and Raja Bell who were perfect for the :07 seconds or less style only to scrap the idea of building a conventional championship team; and have gone back to the gimmick offense that has proven year after year to be ineffective during the playoffs.

The Suns are back to running up the score on terrible teams (140 points each in the three games against the Clippers and Thunder), back to playing no defense (68 first half points against the Celtics), and back to the good old days of "seven playoff wins or less."

For singlehandedly setting the Suns back years from ever achieving legitimacy again, from myself and everyone else out there who cannot stand the Phoenix Suns, we say, "Thank you, Robert Sarver."

Be sure to check back at Sports Central every Monday to see who cracks Scott Shepherd's rotation as he breaks down what is going on around the NBA.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

March Madness Conference Predictions

I have been filling out NCAA tournament brackets for 20 years and I'm always amazed how many surprises there are year in and year out. It truly is one of the most unpredictable events in all of sports. Those first four days of the tournament are four of the best days of my entire year. Brackets are not solidified yet, but here's a look at who will potentially represent each conference, focusing especially on the mid-majors and who actually has some potential to make it past the first weekend.

American East - 1

Binghamton

The Bearcats of Binghamton have already beaten Vermont twice, look for them to have the upper hand and make the tournament as at 13-16 seed, but don't expect any wins.

Mid-American - 1

Buffalo

This conference is usually represented by Kent State or Miami University (Ohio), but Buffalo has the upper hand currently. However, three of their final four regular season games are against teams that are only one game behind them in the division (Akron, Miami U, and Kent State). It could be a tough road for the Bulls. Look out for the Golden Flashes, though, they're on a seven-game winning streak and could be a force to cause an upset from a 13-15-seed (if they make the tournament).

Atlantic 10 - 2

Dayton and Xavier

The Atlantic 10 has two great teams in Dayton and Xavier. True, Xavier has been waffling lately, but they still should make the tournament as a 6- or 7-seed. Dayton is a team I'd look for to make a run in the tournament. If they can stay out of an 8- or 9-seed, expect them to make the Sweet 16.

I am a bit uncertain of Temple and Rhode Island. They have shots at tournament spots, but they'd have to steal a spot from the Big 10, Big East, or ACC and that just seems unlikely. If Temple can finish strong, they have a decent shot.

Mid-Eastern Athletic - 1

Morgan State

Nobody else looks to be challenging the Bears for their spot, but they won't be a memorable tournament entry. One and done for Morgan State from the bottom of the bracket.

Atlantic Coast - 7

North Carolina, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Boston College

The ACC looks poised to rule the tournament alongside the Big East. I'd expect at least one (if not two) in the Final Four and five in the Sweet 16, but I honestly don't see the champion emerging from the ACC. Expect an early exit from Duke and Boston College.

Missouri Valley - 1

Creighton

The Bluejays have to hold off Northern Iowa and Illinois State and they should be a solid 12-14-seed, but no miracles for Creighton. Their only amazing win came against Dayton in December.

Mountain West - 3

Utah, Brigham Young, and UNLV

It's a bold move putting all three in the tournament, but BYU's losses have only been to quality teams. UNLV has beaten Arizona and Louisville and had the upper hand on BYU and Utah the first time around. If anybody will be left out, it will be Utah. They play both BYU and UNLV in the next week. We'll see who holds up.

Atlantic Sun - 1

Belmont

Another one-and-done from the bottom of the bracket.

Northeast - 1

Robert Morris

Nothing too impressive from Robert Morris (or anybody else in the Northeast Conference), a one-and-done to be sure.

Big 12 - 6

Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas State

Definitely some bubble teams here, but the top three have looked great lately. Missouri is obviously the biggest surprise and Oklahoma is a real contender for a national championship. If Texas, Nebraska, or Kansas State makes the tournament, expect early exits at the expense of mid-majors.

Big East - 7

UConn, Pittsburgh, Marquette, Louisville, Villanova, Syracuse, and West Virginia

At one point, it looked as though the Big East would post nine or even 10 teams in the tournament, but the excessive downfall of Georgetown and Notre Dame has led to any more than seven being unlikely. What's amazing is despite the downfall of some, the Big East could very well have five teams in the Sweet 16 and I would venture to guess they'll post the NCAA champion in one of those Sweet 16 teams. I'll go with Pitt.

Ohio Valley - 1

Tennessee-Martin

The Skyhawks (one of the better mascot names in the NCAA) looks poised to make the tournament with one of the greatest players in the country in Lester Hudson, who became the first player in Division I history to record a quadruple-double and he could very well be the type of guy to help a 14- or 15-seed pull off a huge upset in the tournament.

Pac-10 - 5

Washington, California, UCLA, Arizona and Arizona State

The Pac-10 doesn't really have any amazing teams headlining the charts this year. I'd expect lots of early exits from them with Arizona State being the only team to make the Sweet 16 and perhaps not even them. It's a very poor year for the Pac-10.

Big Sky - 1

Weber State

The Wildcats have been nearly the perennial entrant from the Big Sky. No great expectations on this team, though; they have no quality wins beyond their own conference.

Patriot League - 1

American University

Another one-and-done.

Big South - 1

Radford

Though Radford got off to an awful start, losing eight of its first 11 games, they've won eight straight and could enter the tournament the largest win streak in the entire NCAA (provided Memphis loses).

SEC - 5

South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and LSU

The SEC seems to be filled with bubble teams. There are no real powerhouses in the conference and I'd be surprised if they post a team with a seed better than a 6. And amazingly, it's possible that not a single team from the SEC will make it past the first weekend.

Big Ten - 6

Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State

The Big Ten is another conference filled with bubble teams. They get a bad rap because they don't have the high scores that the Big East and ACC post, but they should still post six or seven teams in the tournament. The Golden Gophers seem to be sliding a bit and the Badgers seem to be climbing. The Big Ten Tournament should give us a better idea of which teams will be included and which will be left out. This conference really is just a step away from joining the ACC and the Big East as a truly dominant conference. Hopefully, we'll see a lot of players stay in school and continue the upswing.

Southern - 1

Davidson

Really a no-brainer on them being the representative from the Southern Conference. Stephen Curry had 20 points in his comeback against Butler on Saturday in a losing effort, but looked pretty cold. I'd expect him to be at the top of his game by tournament time, poised to have another amazing tournament. Could this be the year Davidson screams into the Final Four?

Big West - 1

Cal State Northridge

Whoever makes it into the tournament from the Big West will probably have to pass the play-in game.

Southland - 1

Stephen F. Austin

And here we are at another one-and-done.

Colonial Athletic Association - 1

George Mason

The Patriots get the nod over Virginia Commonwealth. If there is a team that has a little bit of history for the upset, it is George Mason, but I'm not placing them past the first round in my bracket.

Conference USA - 1

Memphis

It is crazy to think that Conference USA may only have one team in the tournament and that team may be a No. 1 seed, but it is quite possible. It most certainly looks likely if Memphis continues their win streak. But if UAB or Houston can beat the Tigers and break their streak, they may sneak into the tournament.

Southwestern Athletic - 1

Alabama State

Losing seven of their first nine, the Hornets have come on strong in their conference schedule, only losing one game in the past 14. Even so, I don't expect a tournament win out of them.

Summit League - 1

North Dakota State

The Bison have one of the best one-two punches in the country in Ben Woodside and Brett Winkelman. They are both fifth-year seniors that have taken the Bison to a beautiful level that will put them in the NCAA tournament for the first time in their history. They'd be my pick for a real unknown upsetting a big name team early.

Sun Belt - 1

Arkansas-Little Rock

Can you say ... one-and-done?

Horizon - 1

Butler

Butler avoided three-loss week by beating Davidson on Saturday, but chances are they'll drop to a 7-seed, which might be a dangerous place for them.

West Coast - 2

Gonzaga and Saint Mary's

Gonzaga is a perennial mid-major contender that could go places again this tournament. Saint Mary's is a more interesting story. Without Patrick Mills, they struggle to produce and they almost beat Gonzaga without him, so if he can make it back and be 100% for the tournament, Saint Mary's would be my pick to bust up lots of brackets.

Ivy League - 1

Cornell

The Big Red are the only team in the Ivy League even above .500, so don't expect anything amazing out of this conference of brainiacs for quite a few years.

Metro Atlantic - 1

Sienna

The Saints don't have any big-time wins this season, but they've played tough against a number of big name schools including Pitt, Tennessee, and Kansas, so they could find their way to an upset.

Western Athletic - 1

Utah State

The Aggies snuck into the Coach's Poll Top 25 last week, but they lost twice in eight days. Their home win streak continues, but that means pretty much nothing in the NCAA tournament. Despite a miraculous season, I'm not giving them a tournament win. They will be a popular pick perhaps even for the Sweet 16, but I don't see it happening.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2009

A Sport With Ethics and a Conscience

Unfortunately, in so many cases, politics have a direct effect on sports. None more so than the politics in the Middle East. No one can forget that day in Munich in 1972 when Israeli Olympic athletes were held hostage, then died at the hands of terrorists. Again in Moscow in 1980, when the U.S. boycotted and led a multi-nation boycott of the Olympics over an issue with the Soviet Union and their troop presence in Afghanistan.

The Olympics, and sports, are supposed to be where all these differences and issues take a back stage, where politics, religion, and ethnicity don't matter. The winners and losers are supposed to be determined on the fields and courts, not by the whims of governments and political movements.

Once again, politics reigned supreme, this time being the denial by the United Arab Emirates of a visa to Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer. The denial prevented Shahar from competing in the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour Premier Tier Dubai Championships. With a total payout of $2,000,000 and a boatload of ranking points up for grabs, the denial hits the 45th-ranked women's player in the pocketbook, with repercussions that will follow her for several tournaments to come.

It also taints a sport known for being truly international. It dishonors a sport that has players of all races and religions, including at its upper ranks. Tournaments are granted their calendar slots as part of the tour with the understanding that they will abide by the rules of the tour, which include non-discrimination in all forms. In this case, the UAE and Dubai Championships violated that agreement and trust.

Just today, the UAE issued a reversal on the policy for Israeli athletes. A little too little and a lot too late for Shahar. Some good did come of it, though, as Andy Ram is scheduled to compete in the ATP Tour event that will be held there next week.

Shahar summed it up best in her statement just released: "It is still very unfortunate that due to the decision of the Dubai tournament and the UAE, I could not participate in the tournament this year. This has hurt me significantly both personally and professionally. However, I am very happy for Andy Ram, who will be able to compete next week in Dubai. I hope and believe that from this day forward, athletes from all over the world will be able to compete in the UAE and anywhere else in the world without discrimination of any kind. I personally look forward to competing in Dubai next year."

Larry Scott, CEO of the WTA Tour, also released a statement. It supported Shahar, and seems to assure the tennis fan and tennis world that this type of politics should not and will not be tolerated, especially when it's all about what goes on between the white lines. I'm not privy to what went on behind the scenes, but it is clear that the stance taken by the tour and Mr. Scott could have and may still have financial impacts on the tour in seasons to come.

Larry Scott said:

"Shahar Peer is owed all of our thanks for her courage in challenging an unjust policy and for forcing action to be taken that resulted in today's announcement. We thank all of the many organizations and individuals that rallied behind Shahar and pressed the UAE to change their discriminatory stance. It is deeply regrettable that Shahar had to suffer the negative consequences of the UAE decision this past week in order for this policy to get turned around for the benefit of others.

"What happened to Shahar last week was discriminatory, reprehensible, and unacceptable, and the Tour will shortly be determining remedies for her, penalties to be imposed on the tournament, and the additional assurances we will require to guarantee all Israeli athletes entry to the UAE so that future tournaments in the UAE may take place. I welcome the decision just announced by the United Arab Emirates and the Dubai tournament to reverse a stance that until now has prevented Israeli athletes from competing in the UAE. This is a great victory for the principle that all athletes should be treated equally and without discrimination, regardless of gender, religion, race, or nationality. It is also a victory for sport as a whole, and the power of sport to bring people together."

It is rare in professional sports when the top person takes a strong stand against injustice. In today's culture, the dollar reigns supreme. Thank you, Larry Scott, and thank you to all the players, media, and fans that brought pressure on the UAE and Dubai Championships to correct this great injustice. Tennis and politics should never mix, at least not in this way.

Imagine if all other professional sports did this. Imagine if Bud Selig actually took a stance, let alone a strong stance, now that Alex Rodriguez has confessed...

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 11:25 AM | Comments (1)

February 19, 2009

Suggestions For the NFL Rules Committee

Every offseason, the NFL Rules Committee gets together to discuss potential rule changes designed to allow the AFC South to better compete with the rest of the league.

Or something like that.

This season, I'd like to make a few suggestions.

The Overtime Rule

The NFL's overtime rule has outlived its usefulness.

Back when the NFL tried to create an environment where offenses and defenses were on equal footing, a sudden-death overtime made sense. But in today's NFL, where every offseason they push through rules in an attempt to neuter aggressive defensive players, it just doesn't make sense anymore.

There seems to be some momentum building for an overtime rule change, but that momentum doesn't seem to exist in the competition committee.

Jeff Fisher is on record saying that we need to take some time to analyze statistical data to figure out whether 60% of the NFL's overtime games ending on the first possession is a fluke or a trend.

I'm not sure it matters either way.

Sudden-death works in hockey because both teams get to touch the puck. In baseball, the home team gets a chance to bat even if the away team scores in the top of the tenth.

The thing is, fixing the overtime rule is simple. Just make a rule that says both teams must have an offensive possession in overtime.

If the first time to have the ball scores, make them kick off. Give the other team a chance to match them.

Think back to the Jets/Patriots game back in November. The Patriots made a miraculous comeback in the second half. The Jets won the overtime coin toss and drove for the game winning field goal.

Wouldn't it have been exciting to give Matt Cassel and company a shot to either tie the game with a field goal, or win it with a touchdown?

It's a no-brainer.

Quarterbacks Are Football Players, Too

Okay, I get it.

Quarterbacks are important. They make the most money. They bring in the most money. You can't win without a good quarterback.

You can't allow defensive players to purposely attempt to kill the opposing quarterback. Completely understood.

On the other hand, if Justin Tuck is blitzing and his arm brushes up against the quarterback's helmet, you simply can't give him a 15-yard penalty. You can't.

There needs to be some common sense here.

When Jared Allen dives at Matt Schaub's knee, it's a 15-yard penalty. When Dwight Freeney's pinky taps Matt Cassel on the helmet, let's not pretend that's the same thing.

I understand why the NFL wants to take judgment calls away from their officials. I've seen their officials in action. They're terrible. But you have to give them at least a little wiggle room.

You can't allow an NFL playoff game to be lost because a defensive lineman's fingernail brushed the facemask of the opposing quarterback.

When it Comes to Sideline Catches, Let's Go With the College Rule

As the Super Bowl proved, it's damn near impossible to tell during live action whether a player got one or two feet in bounds on a sideline catch.

Sometimes it's impossible to tell on replay.

But you can pretty much always tell whether or not they get one foot in bounds.

This rule goes hand-in-hand with the force-out rule they did away with last year. If you're going to allow defenders to knock receivers out of bounds, let's give the receivers a break and allow them to play by the same rule they learned playing in college.

If you're able to get one foot in bounds, it's a catch.

Pass Interference Should Be a 10-Yard Penalty

Peyton Manning drops back to pass. He throws a completely uncatchable ball to a well covered Reggie Wayne. Wayne, seeing the ball is under-thrown, stops dead in his tracks. The defender, who thought he had a beat on the ball, runs into a suddenly stationary Wayne.

Pass interference, Colts gain 40 yards on a play that probably should have been a harmless incomplete pass.

The NFL isn't going to do away with their insane pass interference rules. They're terrible at calling it. It's inconsistent not only from game to game, but from quarter to quarter and play to play.

It's the biggest turn-around play in the NFL. It's brought back many an offense from the dead. It's cost many, many teams many, many points.

Since we're not going to do away with the penalty, let's make it a little less painful and unfair.

If Manning throws that same pass from his own 30-yard line, and the interference happens in the end zone, make it a 10-yard penalty.

Instead of handing the Colts a touchdown by giving them the ball on the one, you reward them with 10 yards and a first down, but make them earn their points.

To me, this is as much of a no-brainer as the overtime rule.

Do you have any ideas for NFL rule changes? Or do you like the NFL just the way it is? Either way, e-mail me at [email protected] or post a comment below and let me know. I'd love to hear your suggestions.

Sean Crowe is the New England Patriots Examiner at Examiner.com. He writes a column every other Thursday for Sports Central. You can e-mail him at [email protected].

Posted by Sean Crowe at 11:53 AM | Comments (53)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth won a rain-shortened Daytona 500, passing Elliot Sadler for the lead just moments before showers forced an end to the race. Kenseth's run to the front was hastened by a nine-car crash prompted by contact between Brian Vickers and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., a wreck that wiped out many of the frontrunners.

"This victory is the realization of a lifetime of dreaming," says Kenseth. "In fact, I had a dream the other night that I was being chased by Carl Edwards. Turns out, he was chasing me to congratulate me on winning the Daytona 500."

"I'm proud to win such a historic race. Not only was this the 51st running of the 500 and the first without a Petty in the field, it was also the first broadcast in which the pre-race show lasted longer than the race itself. They call this the 'Great American Race,' yet organizers had that bloody Kiwi Keith Urban performing beforehand. Not to mention a creature from another planet, Tom Cruise, driving the pace car. Plus, a dude singing the national anthem in a language I believe was something other than English."

"Now, if there's someone named 'Keith' performing before a NASCAR race, shouldn't it be Toby Keith? Unlike Urban, Keith looks like a NASCAR fan, and he also looks like a man. Plus, he's his own bouncer at his concerts."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick, winner of the Bud Shootout on February 7th, nearly won his second Daytona 500, finishing in the runner-up spot to Matt Kenseth. Harvick pushed Kenseth past Elliot Sadler and into the lead and raindrops began to fall soon after.

"Matt helped me to my Daytona win in 2007," says Harvick. "So it was only fitting that I pushed him to the victory this year. Frankly, I'm surprised Matt was able to win with my help. Usually, when Matt is 'pushed,' he goes backwards, not forwards."

3. Kyle Busch — Busch had led 88 of 124 laps, his No. 18 Toyota appearing to be the car to beat, when he was victimized in a lap 125 crash that started when the lapped cars of Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and Brian Vickers tangled, sending Vickers into much of the field. Busch suffered serious front-end damage that left him 41st.

"As everyone knows, '88' is Junior's car number," says Busch. "Don't think the significance of me leading 88 laps is lost on me. That's either ironic or symbolic, but most of all, it's idiotic."

"I imagine Earnhardt fans and Vickers fan will be involved in many heated discussions. Of course, that's assuming those Earnhardt fans can find some Vickers fans."

"But seriously, lapped cars should never go to such measures when battling for position, especially with the front of the field roaring just a few car lengths away behind them. I'm not sure who is mostly at fault, but those 'Crash Fest Dummies,' Earnhardt and Vickers, need to take their Amp versus Red Bull energy drink war somewhere else."

4. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer and Richard Childress Racing teammate Kevin Harvick hooked up in the late stages of Sunday's race, with Bowyer finishing fourth to Harvick's second, giving RCR two top-five finishes.

"I'd have to say I was a little apprehensive about switching to the No. 33 from the No. 07 car," says Bowyer. "Having Hamburger Helper and Cheerios on my car just isn't as glamorous as the world's most famous whiskey, so you could say free sponsor samples don't mean 'Jack' to me anymore."

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart was successful at Daytona in his debut as owner/driver of Stewart-Haas Racing, bringing home the Office Depot/Old Spice Chevrolet in eighth. Stewart led 15 laps on Sunday despite starting in a backup car after wrecking his primary ride in Saturday's practice. He also won Saturday's Nationwide race, outpointing Kyle Busch to win the Camping World 300.

"Hey, I'm thrilled that nothing has changed for me," says Stewart. "Just like last year, I've got a fast car, I'm highly opinionated, and I've got nothing nice to say about Goodyear. And, whether it's parties or panties, you can still find them in my hauler."

"I've set some lofty goals for myself this year. One, I want to be the first car owner to call a press conference and reprimand himself as driver. And, I want to be the first car owner to punch Kurt Busch. It's possible I could accomplish those goals on the same day."

6. Jeff Gordon — Gordon ran in the lead pack for the first half of the race, but persistent right tire wear forced him into a green flag pit stop that left him a lap down. He quickly regained that lap and was well within striking distance when NASCAR called the race due to rain. Gordon's 13th-place finish was tops in a frustrating and disappointing day for Hendrick Motorsports.

"We've got a 'Senior,' Mark Martin, and a 'Junior,' Dale Earnhardt, on this team," says Gordon. "And if Juan Pablo Montoya was a Hendrick driver, we'd have a 'Señor.'"

"Now, as a 50-year-old, Mark has his share of 'senior' moments; as the race at Daytona showed, Dale had his share of 'junior' moments. Let's not 'Junior' mince words — Earnhardt made some big mistakes last Sunday that cost him, and others, any chance of victory. First of all, it's called a pitstop for a reason — you're supposed to stop. Junior could also stand to work on his parallel parking. But Brian Vickers is no innocent bystander. I live by, and subscribe to, the maxim that you should always be skeptical of a NASCAR driver who's ever been sponsored by Garnier hair care products."

"In any case, fellow drivers aren't to happy with either Earnhardt or Vickers. Is anyone happy with Earnhardt? First this year, he rightly criticizes Bruton Smith for saying that drivers don't do enough to promote races. Now the crash at Daytona. I guess you could classify a lot of peoples' relationship with Earnhardt as 'Junior Frosty.'"

7. A.J. Allmendinger — Allmendinger led a successful debut for Richard Petty Motorsports, finishing third in his first Daytona 500, and leading three of the team's cars in the top 10. Ironically, in the first race without a Petty in the field in more than 40 years, the name "Petty" was in prominent display in the race results.

"The word 'fast' hasn't been used in association with the name 'Petty,'" says Allmendinger, "since Kyle went on that crash diet some years back."

"But I'm thrilled to be racing under the Petty banner. It's one of the biggest names in racing, and now I want to make people proud of the name 'Allmendinger.' I want the Petty's to be proud, I want my fans to be proud, and I want my family to be proud, especially my great-great-grandfather, who lives in Germany — John Jacob Allmendinger Heimerschmidt."

8. Elliot Sadler — Once the dust cleared from the Dale Earnhardt, Jr./Brian Vickers wreckage, Sadler found himself leading the Daytona 500 with rain approaching on the radar. On the radio with his crew chief Kevin Buskirk, Sadler lamented the fact that the radar showed rain all around the track, although it wasn't falling on the track.

"As a veteran driver," says Buskirk, "Elliot should know that leading the Daytona 500 is no time for 'drivin' and cryin.'' And, you shouldn't even trust the weatherman for your weather, much less your Daytona 500 fortunes. If there's one thing Elliot needs to change, it his defeatist attitude, followed very closely by his grating, southern Virginia drawl."

9. Carl Edwards — Like many race favorites, Edwards saw his hopes for victory dashed by damage suffered in the lap 125 melee resulting from contact between Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and Brian Vickers. Edwards' No. 99 Fusion suffered front splitter damage that compromised his car's handling. He managed to stay on the lead lap and finished a respectable 18th.

"Last year," says Edwards, "I may have gotten angry and confronted the person or persons responsible for damaging my car. As I found out, that's unproductive, and can cause even more damage, usually to my ego and/or the hood of the car I'm slammed upon."

"This year, I'm a changed man. As most of you know, I had a summer wedding, and I now happily married to a doctor. Despite what Kevin Harvick will have you believe, my wife's name is not 'Jerry Punch.'"

10. Michael Waltrip — Waltrip, a two-time Daytona 500 winner, finished seventh in Sunday's edition, as teammates David Reutimann (12th) and Marcos Ambrose (17th) accounted for the top three Toyotas in the race.

"I said at the beginning of the year," says Waltrip, "that I would call it quits and the end of the year if I wasn't competitive. I think a seventh at Daytona qualifies as competitive. And my competitive juices are still flowing. When 'Michael Waltrip Racing' and 'competitive juices' are discussed, naturally the subject of jet fuel arises. I'm here to tell you that I can be competitive without jet fuel; that stuff tastes awful."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:51 AM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2009

2009 NFL Draft Risers and Fallers

Without further ado, let's just get right into it, shall we?

RISERS

Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia

Despite the high-caliber of the top offensive tackles in this year's draft, Eugene Monroe has gained top overall status on many draft boards due to the fact that he's so well-rounded. He might not be the sexiest pick of the bunch, but he can do everything and he can do it well enough to play in the NFL at a high level. Although between Monroe, Jason and Andre Smith, and Michael Oher, it's close enough that a strong and impressive showing at the Combine can end up doing wonders for who's the first one taken come April.

Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas

Brian Orakpo's upside has hypnotized some people so much that he's been slated to go as high as eight and the sixth pick in some Internet mock drafts. Orakpo finished just shy of 11 sacks (10.5) in his 2008 senior year campaign and should make an enticing option for any team in need of a pure pass-rusher with plenty of reasons to look fondly on the future.

Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia

Barring their NFL Combine performances, Knowshon Moreno could very well overtake Chris "Beanie" Wells as the consensus number one running back heading into the 2009 draft. For most of the offseason, it was Wells hands down, but as we get closer and closer to draft time, more and more people are beginning to come around with Moreno. He has all of the tools necessary to be a highly efficient NFL running back and we're primed to see just that from him during the Combine.

Everette Brown, DE, Florida State

Unless you've been living under a rock the past few weeks, than you've likely seen clips and heard gushing descriptions of Everette Brown, a defensive end from Florida State who is, plain and simple, a tackling machine. When combining this with his athleticism, it's really no wonder as to why so many NFL teams and draft enthusiasts are going wild over the guy.

Aaron Curry, OLB, Wake Forest

Last, but certainly not least, OLB Aaron Curry from Wake Forest has absolutely rocketed up practically every draft board in the nation. He's even gone so high as to be penciled into the Kansas City Chiefs third overall selection slot. The only downside to such an occurrence is that he really has nowhere to go but down — however, all signs are pointing towards him staying right in the 3-7 draft pick range.

HOLDING STEADY

Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia

Stafford has been the unanimous number one since what seems like the exact moment Tim Tebow announced he'd be returning to school in Florida. He has all of the tools required of a successful young quarterback who from the looks of things, has the drive and desire to put the work in that will be necessary for pushing him over the success hump. Barring a complete and utter catastrophe at the Combine, expect Stafford to be donning Lions blue come draft day.

Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech

Despite the fact that he will not be running the 40-yard dash due to injury, Michael Crabtree hasn't gone anywhere at all on the majority of draft boards across the nation. Unless Jeremy Maclin manages to run a ridiculously fast 40, Crabtree should find himself as the number one wide receiver in this year's draft without having to do an ounce of working out for anyone.

Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri

Jeremy Maclin has been a mainstay directly behind Crabtree in mock drafts since the end of the season. Usually, once Crabtree is off the board, Maclin goes within the next 3-4 picks to whichever team needs a high-profile rookie wide receiver (and there are a lot of them). With Crabtree's injury forcing him on the sideline for the Combine, it's all up to Maclin, Percy Harvin, Darrius Heyward-Bey, and Hakeem Nicks as to who wants to try and gain the front runner lead for second best WR of this year's crop.

FALLERS

Michael Oher, OT, Mississippi

While he hasn't necessarily been what you could call "falling" off the draft boards, he has gone from what seemed like the number one offensive lineman in the draft, down to the third or fourth overall. Again, we still have yet to see the Combine workouts and they usually can tell us a lot, so we'll have to wait and see if Oher can regain his former number one title or will stick to being the third or fourth best lineman this year.

Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State

Chris "Beanie" Wells has gone from what seemed like the unanimous number one running back, down to perhaps a lock-in for the second one taken. A lot of people will be watching both Wells' and fellow top running back Knowshon Moreno's performances at this year's Combine and quite frankly, so should you!

That will do it for this year's "pre-Combine" edition of the risers and fallers, boys and girls. May your Combine viewing be bountiful, may your mock drafts be accurate, and may your hometown team get the best possible selection that you were hoping for.

Posted by Josh Galligan at 11:37 AM | Comments (1)

Wouldn't Touch it With a 25-Team Poll

Our lives seem to be run by polls. Which presidential candidate is doing better in the latest exit poll? Which foods do you consider worst for your health? What features on a car are most important to our customers? Every point in our routine can be questioned. And it didn't just start when you turned 18.

Grade schools ask kids to pick a class president or secretary. High schools crown kings and queens at homecomings and proms around the country. Yearbooks have pictures from "Best Dressed" all the way to "Class Clown" and in between. Polls can pop up anywhere and at any time. Sports might even have a lead on all other aspects of life.

You can't go half a day without getting a new poll from ESPN's "SportsCenter" about who the best candidate is for "so and so's" championship or which all-time great you would select first in a draft. This discussion pretty much comes to a head in collegiate athletics. Every sport (and I mean every sport) has a poll ranking the top teams in that athletic discipline, but the most commonly known are the ones for football and basketball.

Over the last few years, these ranking systems have become larger in the technological boom and marketing campaigns of things such as BCS bowl games and March Madness. In football, it has become imperative to be highly ranked at some point in the season. Even if you are number one in the country before a game kicks off, you'll be in the discussion for the biggest prizes until you absolutely work your way out of contention. Stay up there by December, and people begin to discuss your plans to go to Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix, or Pasadena. Bluntly stated, if you want the title, you must be at the top of your class come final exams.

Basketball is a little different. Rankings have been available for the perusing since the late 1930s, but the path to a championship is a little hazier. Since the NCAA playoff system expanded to 64 in 1985, the final Associated Press poll has been somewhat telling of how the brackets will shake out ... but only somewhat.

From 1985 to 1989, the final poll ranked the top 20 teams. With regards to the Sweet 16 round of the tournament, the 1989 list had the most number of participants (14). The other four polls averaged 10 teams that made it past the first two rounds. Once the list expanded to 25 teams in 1990, there was more opportunity for the writers to get it right and predict all 16 teams in the third round of the tourney. While the mark of 14 out of 16 squads was established two other years (1995 and 1996), the writers still haven't picked every one of the regional semifinalists right in their last poll before the tournament began.

Going deeper into the bracket, things get even more muddled. The eventual champ started the tourney ranked number one or two eight out of the last 24 years. If you expand to top-five teams, the percentages get a little better (15 out of 24 champs). Final Fours have been a little better for the poll, but the writers correctly predicted three of the last four participants in nine of twenty-four years (with 2008 the only time all four teams were top-five caliber).

Thing is, it seems that at least a couple underestimated, under-appreciated, or off-the-radar squads make a deep run each year. So, do we need to have a top 25 poll in college basketball? As shocking as that sounds to me, I think the answer is no.

I understand the argument. What kind of measuring stick is there without a poll? What'll we talk about, argue over, and hype up during the regular season? How can we shake out the talented and hungry from the underdogs or the underachievers? When tournament time comes around, who'll debate which seeds got hosed and which ones were set too high?

All of them are valid points. Trust me, I debate my friends on all of them throughout the season. But what gets talked about the most after Selection Sunday and before the games tip on Thursday?

1) Who got snubbed all together.
2) What dark horse will make a deep tourney run.
3) What upsets will happen in the first round.

The answers mostly center around teams that are near the bottom of the ranking list or off of it completely. These teams on the fringe turn out to be the most interesting. Cinderella stories like George Mason in 2006 give the tournament its special flair. Unranked champions such as Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988 prove that a team's name doesn't need to be beside a 1, 2, 7, 13, or 24 on a list to make talent and teamwork lead to "One Shining Moment."

And being in the polls isn't all it's cracked up to be. Utah State didn't even make the tournament after finishing in a tie for 25th in the final rankings of the 2004 season.

Tournament committees always look at the body of work of a team that is "qualified" to make the field of 64. Two key points that always seem to be brought up are how that squad plays against both other tournament-quality teams and the "bad" losses they have on their schedule. Let me tell you one thing. A team that would be ranked 1, 25, or 55 in any poll can't lose to a team with a record of 3-8, 7-12, or even 12-14. Those are bad losses for any tournament-quality team.

In the end, the tournament seems to work itself out. Whether you are the top team on a list or a squad with a .500 record, the same pressure applies to everyone. And that, more than a poll, weeds out a champion.

In a world where polls range from family dinner choices to greatest invention that affects our everyday lives, just take a second a look into a life without a list of choices. The sixth number one team will grace college basketball on Monday. But the answer to who can win it all? Fill in that bubble marked "M. All of the above."

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2009

You Can't Always Get What You Want

A man who used to hold baseball's career bomb record, after earning it the hard enough way, shouldn't require much effort to convince people that, try though they might, it's an exercise in futility to suggest it can be stripped from his successor — something whose possibility Bud Selig is pondering aloud — without an awful lot of difficulty, and maybe twice that much contortion.

Enough people wish it had been ABB (Anyone But Bonds) who bumped Hank Aaron to one side, but trying to strip Himself of the record may equal in futility mining coal with a fingernail. Strip Barry Bonds, Aaron tells Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Terence Moore, and "you'd have to go back and change all kinds of records, and the record was very important to me.

"It's probably the most hallowed record out there, as far as I'm concerned," Aaron continued, "but it's now in the hands of somebody else. It belongs to Barry. No matter how we look at it, it's his record, and I held it for a long time. But my take on all of this has always been the same. I'm not going to say that Barry's got it because of this or because of that, because I don't know."

The three toughest words in the English language to enunciate when it comes to Bonds, and any or everyone else suspected or demonstrated to have used actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances, and what they might or might not have done, really, beyond enhancing musculature, advancing recuperation, replenishing what's normally found in your body, what have you. I don't know.

What we do know is that Bonds was in fact what one writer merely speculated Roger Maris to have been, on the night Maris tried but failed to meet and pass Babe Ruth's single-season home run mark within then-commissioner Ford Frick's insouciantly ignorant "legitimate" seasonal deadline: He was not what we wanted in a record-breaker.

Beyond the baseball ghost they chased and conquered, Maris and Aaron shared a plainness that would have been seen as virtuous in other times and places. Private, unpretentious men, Maris and Aaron were neither glib nor spotlight hungry, vaporizing a ghost whose achievements were as outsized as the posthumous ribaldry by which he'd be remembered for flaunting boorishness and vices that would inspire demands for public drawing and quartering when shown by players nowadays.

That ghost co-provoked an American League rules change (Ken Williamson was his fellow provocateur) after he was caught using a bat pieced together from four distinct slabs of wood. He even used a corked bat now and then, never mind that it's as often as not difficult to prove a corked bat equals a power surge. But nobody demanded Babe Ruth's records be erased over that.

"Once you start down the road of erasing records," writes William C. Rhoden, the longtime New York Times baseball essayist, "there's no coming back." And, as Rhoden reminds us, no one's been calling for erasing the records prior to Jackie Robinson's advent, never mind whether Ty Cobb wouldn't have set the stolen base records he set but for Cool Papa Bell's disallowance from major league play; whether Ruth wouldn't have set his home run records but for Josh Gibson's disallowance. And no one's been calling for erasing the records set by the Greenie Generation of the 1960s and 1970s.

"In all fairness to everybody," Aaron told Moore, "I just don't see how you really can do a thing like that and just say somebody isn't the record holder anymore, and let's go back to the way that it was."

Rhoden notes some seem to hope for moving the line of demarcation back to the season in which Aaron smashed Ruth's career bomb record; or, back to the season in which Ruth dropped his final major league bomb. For several seasons there were those who hoped to see the single-season home run record rolled back to 1961, back into Maris's compromised possession, minus the shameful performance of Frick the one-time Ruth ghost writer.

Bonds all but invited the furies upon him as he chased, caught, and cast Aaron to one side, his misanthropic personality possibly inviting as many to cringe and cry the closer he got to passing Aaron even if he'd never been suspected of anything above the level or legality of a vitamin pill, even if he'd never faced perjury charges over the BALCO grand jury.

Neither plain nor unpolished, Bonds from nearly the beginning of his major league career behaved as though baseball was his entitlement and its record books, his birthright. Not even their worst opponents or most venal hate mailers could have accused Maris or Aaron of indecency or outsized entitlement senses and made the charges stick.

If we don't really know what actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances did or didn't do for Himself, above or beyond musculature enhancement, do we have the call to ask for something that could compromise statistics, the life blood of baseball, even worse than the steroid era is so widely thought to have done?

"It's probably the most hallowed record out there, as far as I'm concerned," Aaron told Moore, "but it's now in the hands of somebody else. It belongs to Barry."

Suppose the broken records in question had been not the home run records but, say, Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. It almost was, in 1978, a decade before we learned the sort of clay from which were made Pete Rose's feet. (And, maybe, his head.) And two decades plus before we learned the sort from which were made the Clipper's.

At least for one period of 36 years, and another of 34 years, the hallowed home run records were held by two decent enough men out of the six who've held the records as we've known it, men who didn't ask for the nightmare into which their lives were made by others who thought, for venal enough reasons of their own, that they had no business even thinking about meeting, greeting, and beating the Babe.

Maybe that's the real reason so many people have wished the hallowed home run records could be restored to Maris and Aaron. They didn't ask for the pressure under which they approached and broke them, neither man believed he had a birthright to do so, and the one enough of us think remains the legitimate home run king has made his pronouncement.

Says King Henry, and with apologies to the Rolling Stones: you can't always get what you want.

Whether you're the one breaking the record, or whether you'll be among the ones watching it fall once again, possibly at some time over the next nine years. The time remaining on Alex Rodriguez's Yankee contract.

PASSAGES

TED UHLAENDER, 68 — Center fielder for the 1965-69 Minnesota Twins; brought up too late to play on the Twins' 1965 World Series team; more of a defensive asset (lifetime fielding percentage: .991; lifetime range factor: .25+ to his league) than a hitting asset (he often didn't have a set position in his lineups, batting anywhere from third to eighth), though he was a tough strikeout (lifetime strikeouts per 162 games: 50), Uhlaender's best season was 1968, when he finished fifth in the American League with a .285 batting average and among the top 10 in at-bats per strikeout (10.6). He went 1-for-2 in the 1972 National League Championship Series with the Cincinnati Reds and 1-for-4 in the World Series; he also played for the Cleveland Indians (traded with Graig Nettles and pitchers Dean Chance and Bob Miller---as in, one of the 1962 Mets' two Bob Millers---for pitchers Luis Tiant and Stan Williams).

Uhlaender died of a heart attack on Valentine's Day following a long battle with bone marrow cancer. A longtime coach for several major league teams and their organizations, he was also the father of U.S. Olympic skeleton competitor Katie Uhlaender, who finished the World Cup season last week with a silver medal.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

Spring Practice: What it Tells Us

College football junkies can attest to certain things. At the times in between the games in-season, they'll scour the scoreboards and peep the message boards to get the latest gossip. After the season, we'll keep glued to those same message boards and Rivals.com to track each potential recruit's moves on campus — how he liked the stadium, did he smile or not, whether the steak and potatoes he had at the local college super-restaurant was to his liking, etc.

And on Signing Day, we'll be locked to any ESPN subordinate channel that gives us the latest updates like CNN giving reports from the front-lines at the first Gulf War on what each prospect announces in real-time. And after Signing Day, we can thank heavens for the two words almost as big as season-opener in the world of college football: spring practice.

Spring practice is bigger now than ever due to that fact that all sports media outlets commit more time to beat writers, bloggers, and experts to cover it. It's become a big deal, amongst all other offseason things that have been placed in the Big Deal bin. It's different, however, from the others because so many plots heading into spring practice have a direct effect on how things may be on campus in the fall. So what are some of the things that spring practice tells us?

It can tell everything and/or nothing at all.

Spring practice position battles and scrimmages are intriguing, especially after that three-year starter at QB, stalwart running back, or All-American linebacker left a gaping hole or that legendary coach that has retired or been fired replaced by the new guy who is like the guy meeting his date's father. That first spring practice for some is the first impression. In either of these situations, you can have a great battle or maybe a great spring session or a disaster. The bottom line is that there is probably no way to tell how the whole season will go from the spring. Remember, leaves drop in the fall. I know a few powerhouses who had optimistic spring outlooks after practice and their seasons went in the toilet.

"He who emerges in the spring is usually king."

Speaking of position battles, it holds true to form in that that player that leaves with the edge in spring practice more than likely ends up with the job to start the season. A player has to have a near-disastrous summer to find himself out of the starting lineup. The freshman or sophomore that is looking to replace that three-year starter, or at least get a considerable piece of playing time, knows he cannot afford to have a so-so spring practice. Players who have bad spring practices are usually thrown back in the pecking order and have to work incredibly hard to get back towards the light of day in depth charts, outside of injuries to key players.

Having a good spring includes being good in practice, showing up to team activities, going to class, and staying out of trouble. Nothing could screw up a player's spring than an arrest/other legal troubles, academic troubles, or ineligibility. As you find out with some players, that could lead to suspensions or even being dismissed off the squad altogether. Nothing could be worse than losing a scholarship and future over the result of something that was due to the individual's own judgment and execution.

Whether Mr. "High School Superstar" can actually play college football.

Everyone knows the guy who arrives on campus with the big fanfare. Broke all the records to be broken, won every major award, all-state, All-American, all-world. He arrives overconfident and brash, but as soon as the first few practices take place, most can tell if he's a significant player on this level or whether he was all "high school legend." Rick "Doc" Walker once said in his pro days with the Bengals and Redskins and it still rings true today, that it takes only a practice or two for those who know the game to see if a guy can play on that level.

Football is a sport more than any other that as you step a level up, talents and accomplishments are compromised more than anything else. College football has shown its fair share of super high school heroes who have been relegated to struggles getting in the lineups on their squads and have the tag-line follow their names in broadcast such as: "Who arrived with much fanfare after a record-breaking career at (fill in the blank) High School" or "Hasn't yet reached the potential thought to be in his capabilities." When you're talked about in past-tense, it's can't be a good thing.

Scrimmages are welcome to those who love the game.

The biggest phenomenon of spring practices is probably the spring game. Marking the end of the spring in places like Gainesville, Columbus, State College, Athens, Lincoln, and Norman, you'll have crowds upwards of 50,000, tailgating and enthusiastically cheering. The intra-squad scrimmages gives fans their first taste of football after five or six months and shows them what they might be able to look forward to (or not look forward to) in the fall. With spring games now being broadcast nationally on a number of different stations, the exposure of the end-of-spring ritual offers us a another exclusive look inside the white lines. Plus, the recaps of these spring games for those of us who can't witness it first-hand are like Grammy and Oscar reviews right from the press row.

Here's to a happy spring for all. Here's to hoping folks on the Plains, in Knoxville, Seattle, Clemson, and Boston enjoy their first spring with the new guys. For their sake, let's hope they don't blow the first impression.

Posted by Brian Cox at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2009

In the Rotation: NBA All-Star Weekend

NBA All-Star Weekend is an unofficial holiday for NBA junkies like me. In fact, it took precedence over an actual holiday this year, as I, like so many fans around the country, bypassed the first of many of the year's Hallmark Holidays (Valentine's Day) to stay at home and watch NBA All-Star Saturday.

Who needs chocolate or lingerie to celebrate Valentine's Day when you've got seven straight hours of Ernie Johnson, Jr. and Kenny "the Jet" Smith?

If you've been following In the Rotation this season, you've noticed that the format is basically the same. There will always be a Starting Five, usually recapping the top five stories of the previous week from around the NBA, something that makes the rotation, and something that doesn't.

Next week we'll get back down to business, but this week was All-Star Weekend. Normal NBA rules do not apply.

The problem with the usual In the Rotation approach is that All-Star Weekend is such a crapshoot. You never know from one year to the next what events are going to be the most fun to watch.

So instead of the usual Starting Five, in this week's very special edition of In the Rotation, we take a look back at all the events from the NBA's biggest weekend to determine if the 2009 version of each competition had what it takes to make the rotation.

The Rookie Game: In the Rotation

Really, it should have been called "The Kevin Durant Show featuring appearances by 17 other players." Durant was that good.

You could see from the very beginning that Durant came to play, and that he was going to do something special by the time it was all said and done.

What he did was shatter the Rookie Game scoring record with an unbelievable 46 points on 17-of-25 from the field.

He was just absolutely head and shoulders above the rest of the Rookies and Sophomores out on the floor. No one else from that group is even close to being on his level, and he proved it by completely controlling the game for the entire 30 minutes that he was out there.

Durant's performance should come as no surprise to anyone who's been following him this season; he's been playing out of his mind lately. Unfortunately, it's for a Thunder team that is slowly but surely coming around, but nonetheless remains one of the worst teams in the league. It's because of his team's record, and only that reason, that Durant isn't getting any publicity for the year he is having.

After putting on such a show in the Rookie Game, then winning the H-O-R-S-E challenge the following afternoon, Durant may have finally put himself on the national radar. His team may not win any more games because of it, but February 13th, 2009 officially marked the last day that Kevin Durant was able to fly under the radar in what is shaping up to be a potentially magnificent NBA career.

H-O-R-S-E: In the Rotation

All in all, the NBA's first attempt at a H-O-R-S-E challenge during All-Star Weekend was pretty good. My biggest fear going into the event was that it wouldn't make for very good TV if the players missed a bunch of shots and it just dragged on with no one in danger of getting a letter.

Of course, that is exactly how the competition started. The slow start was probably a combination of the fact that the players were cold, and the fact that the sun made it about impossible to shoot from the left side of the court for the first half of the competition.

Once the players settled in, though, things got pretty entertaining. O.J. Mayo nailing the shot from the crowd was pretty cool, and after that, the players started to loosen up a bit and had some fun with it.

The main problem is that there wasn't enough personality in the game. There was no trash talk, no side bets, and no real sense of one-upmanship. All three guys were just out there taking shots.

Kevin Durant eventually won the competition because he got crazy hot, but aside from a few little one-liners after a made basket, he was pretty reserved the whole time.

Putting rising stars in the game was a good idea on the surface, but in hindsight, trash-talking old vets like Eddie House would have made the event about five times more enjoyable.

Still, I liked the idea, I like the potential of the event moving forward, and I think there's at least a few more years left to tinker with the event before it needs to be scrapped.

Shooting Stars Competition: Out of the Rotation

It's out-of-shape old players and WNBA players at the same time. I'll pass.

Skills Competition: Out of the Rotation

Slow and steady wins the race, but it also makes for boring television. Watching the fastest players in the game go half-speed through some basketball camp drills probably isn't what the NBA envisioned this event would turn into when it started back in 2003, but that's exactly what's happened.

Somehow over the years, the competition has basically become a contest to see who can nail an 18-foot jumper in the fewest amount of tries. Derrick Rose's first place-winning 35-second trot through the course hopefully signaled the beginning of the end of this event.

Next year, either the course will be altered, or the event will be done away with entirely, but I can't see the league starting off All-Star Saturday with back-to-back surefire snoozers again like they did this year.

Three-Point Shootout: Out of the Rotation

The Three-Point Shootout was by far the most disappointing event of the weekend. Usually, the Shootout is the unsung hero of All-Star Saturday. Everyone wants to talk about the Dunk Contest, but the Three-Point Shootout almost always delivers some good action.

Not this year. There wasn't a single player that got hot. I couldn't find the exact totals from previous Three-Point Shootouts, but I'd be willing to bet that this is first time in history that no player, in any round, scored at least 20 points.

There's nothing wrong with the competition itself, just an off year really, but it got me thinking: will we ever see another world-class shooter in the NBA?

Think about it, in the last six to eight years, who's the best shooter to come into the league?

I'm wondering whether we'll ever see another Reggie Miller or Ray Allen come along. I'm talking about a guy that has the potential to have 10 to 12 straight seasons where he consistently hits close to 200 three-pointers a year.

Since 2000, the league leader in three point field goals made has had at least 200 in each season. In that span, the only five players have made at least 150 in three consecutive seasons: Ray Allen, Gilbert Arenas, Steve Nash, Raja Bell, and Antoine Walker. There were more than twice as many players who did it in the '90s.

We've had plenty of guys come into the league in recent years that have a chance to just completely rewrite the NBA record books, yet we haven't had a single marksman enter the NBA. With the draft focusing more and more on guys who are freakishly athletic with lots of potential, it's possible that once Ray Allen passes Reggie Miller for the most three-pointers made in NBA history, it's a record that could stand for a very long time.

Dunk Contest: In the Rotation

Begrudgingly, I'll put this year's dunk contest In the Rotation. Looking back, Dwight Howard's theatrics before his 12-foot dunk were pretty annoyingly over-the-top, but I admit he had me on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

That's what the dunk contest is all about. The dunker should have the "how'd-he-do-dats?" (It's what magicians call the audience) on the edge of their seats. Howard changing in the phonebooth and Nate Robinson emerging from the locker room in his "Krypton-Nate" outfit certainly created an aura of anticipation, even if the dunks themselves couldn't match the buildup.

(This is the point where I unnecessarily stir the pot with a conspiracy theory. I think that Howard had more dunks planned on the high rim, but David Stern (who I'm sure had to approve of using the higher rim in the first place) had a change of heart once he actually saw the rim and the real danger that Howard could hurt himself if he missed a dunk and fell, a la Clyde Drexler.

Stern knew it was too late to put the kibosh on the dunk once Howard started going through all his pomp and circumstance, but quickly got on his corded telephone (I didn't realize they still made those, by the way) and passed word along that they were to take the high rim away as soon as the dunk was over.

Howard, having planned on using the 12-foot (or higher) rim in the finals, had to quickly think of new dunks to do for the finals, froze up, and pulled out the tired old "free throw line dunk" as a last resort.)

It might not go down in history as one of the all-time great dunk contests, but while it was happening, it was mildly entertaining. For an event that went from must-see to can't-watch in a span of about five years, a classic Dunk Contest (last year) followed up by a mildly entertaining one (this year) is enough to keep me coming back.

The 58th NBA All-star Game: In the Rotation

The most important thing you have to ask yourself about an All-Star Weekend is, "was there something that happened that we will remember 10 years from now?"

We'll always remember the dunk contest in Chicago in '88. We'll remember Magic Johnson's "Going Away Party" in Orlando in '91. Who could forget Kobe Bryant winning the MVP in Philly in '02 and being booed or Michael Jordan hitting what should have been the game-winner in his last All-Star Game in Atlanta in '03? Last year, we had Dwight Howard as Superman in New Orleans, an image and a dunk that will be remembered as one of the best moments in All-Star Weekend history.

The question is: what, if anything, will All-Star Weekend '09 be remembered for?

I think that as time goes by, this year will be remembered as Shaq's last All-Star Game. From his "Big Jabbawakee" introduction, to being named co-MVP with Kobe, Shaq's giant fingerprints were all over this game.

Coming into the game, all I wanted was for the game to be close in the fourth quarter so that Kobe and LeBron would go at each other with everything they had for the last six minutes to prove who really is the best player in the world right now. Instead, we got the third biggest blowout in NBA All-Star Game history. So much for that.

Nonetheless, we had two of the greatest players in league history, five years removed from the messiest divorce is league history, joining forces and writing (hopefully) the final chapter in the bizarre but fascinating story of their careers together.

I would have preferred this weekend to be remembered as the "Kobe vs. LeBron in the Fourth Quarter Game", but I'll gladly settle for some closure on the seemingly never-ending Shaq and Kobe saga.

Both of these players should be remembered for their countless accomplishments on the court during their respective Hall of Fame careers. Ten years from now, the fact that Shaq and Kobe were willing and able put aside years of tension and put on one final show at the All-Star Game could help these two players get remembered for what they were on the court, the best 1-2 punch in the history of the league, and not the participants of the ugliest feud in NBA history.

That's how I'll choose to remember the 2009 All-Star Weekend. And if Shaq's smart, he'll stop freestyle rapping about Kobe in the offseason, and everyone else will remember it that way, too.

Be sure to check back at Sports Central every Monday to see who cracks Scott Shepherd's rotation as he breaks down what is going on around the NBA.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:38 AM | Comments (2)

Five Rules For Picking a Champ

Welcome to Hell.

Sports hell, that is. Without a whiff of football to be found and basketball in its dog days, the latter weeks of February are sports' darkest hours.

But fear not! Selection Sunday is only four weeks away, and with it comes our sports salvation. Selection Sunday begins an unstoppable chain reaction, leading from brackets to weekends ripe with the tournament's exciting bounty, and when it ends on the first Monday in April, we will have reached the safety of baseball's Opening Day.

And which team will lead us all the way to that promised land? Well, if past tournaments are any indication, we can eliminate quite a few candidates right now with a few rules:

Rule No. 1: This year's champ will come from a BCS conference or be in the final AP top 10.

Rule-Breakers: Every team EXCEPT those from the Big Ten, Big East, Big Twelve, ACC, PAC-10, SEC, Memphis, Butler, and Xavier.

Since the 1995 tournament (which is the last year a team from a now-defunct conference made the Final Four, the Big Eight's Oklahoma State), only one Final Four team has not met this rule. You know who they are, but more on them in a second.

Marquette and Louisville made the Final Four this decade from Conference USA, but both are now in the Big East. Memphis made it from C-USA last year, but they were No. 2. UMass made it in 1996 as the AP's No. 1 team. Utah's national runners-up performance out of the WAC in 1998 was the biggest stretch for a non-BCS contender, and they were No. 7. Of this year's crop, Memphis is currently in the top 10 and it's foreseeable that Xavier and Butler could be by the end of the year.

And then there's George Mason. Yes, they made the 2006 Final Four, knocking off Michigan State, North Carolina, and UConn (sorry, Wichita State, you're not quite as sexy). But I would argue that even just two wins away from the national championship, they still weren't contenders. That was a crazy and fun-filled run (unless, like some unfortunate columnists, your online "sports investing" account was severely drained when GMU upset Connecticut). You could probably call it a once-in-a-lifetime tournament. Well, this is still the same lifetime.

Rule No. 2: This year's champ will rank in the top 30 in team FG percentage.

Rule Breakers: Every team EXCEPT UCLA, California, Wake Forest, Oklahoma, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas, Arizona State, Ohio State, UConn, Missouri, and Arizona.

Every champ from this decade has at least been one of the 25 best field goal shooting teams. 2000 Michigan State was the worst at No. 25, while the last four champs have all been in the top five. (On a side note, 2007 Florida was probably an even better team than we realize, shooting 52.8% as a team that year. The next closest team this decade was 2008 Kansas, which was still a full 1.8% worse.)

The above list, admittedly, is generated from the current FG percentage rankings and not the year-end list. However, there are only a handful of teams that meet Rule No. 1 and are on the cusp of the FG top 30 (Only Xavier, Marquette, NC State, USC, Georgetown, and Baylor are between 30 and 50 in the FG percentage rankings and meet the first rule).

The interesting eliminations from this rule? How about perennial contenders Duke (100th in FG percentage), Michigan State (53rd), and Louisville (202nd)? Those three rabid fan bases will have to hope their teams start shooting the lights out or wait until next year.

Rule No. 3: This year's champ will have seven or fewer losses.

Rule-breakers: California, Kentucky, Florida, Syracuse, Ohio State, and Arizona.

The most losses by a national champion this decade were Michigan State's seven in 2000 (between that and the FG percentage, it's somewhat amazing they were a No. 1 seed and won the tournament). It's not that the eighth loss turns carriages into pumpkins, but rather that the team was beaten eight times makes it suspect to expect it to win six-in-a-row against tournament teams.

Of the teams not eliminated by rules 1 and 2, the six above are either past seven losses (Arizona), at seven losses on the nose and highly unlikely to run the table from here on (Kentucky and Syracuse), or at six losses and facing a tough closing stretch (Cal still has conference battles with both southern California schools and both Arizona schools; Florida still hosts Kentucky and Tennessee, travels to LSU, and has the SEC tourney; Ohio State has Illinois at home, Purdue on the road, and its conference tournament). It seems safe to rule these six out by means of likely exceeding seven losses by Selection Sunday.

On a side note, those seven losses by the 2000 Spartans are a little more understandable than they might look on first glance. The 1999-2000 season was a classic example of a Tom Izzo non-conference schedule; Michigan State played Providence, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina, Kansas, Arizona, and Kentucky in less than a month. Three of their seven losses came in that stretch, so it's probably fair to assume those Spartans would have had fewer than seven losses against a normal schedule. That's why I feel their seven-loss threshold is a comfortable cutoff for championship contenders.

Rule No. 4: This year's champ will have no more than eight players averaging 10 minutes or more per game.

Rule-Breakers: UCLA, Wake Forrest, North Carolina, and Missouri.

We've all heard depth glorified and canonized by scores of college basketball broadcasters. But as it turns out, depth might not be all that it's cracked up to be in determining a national championship. Of this decade's champions, all but one (again, those freaky 2000 Spartans) have had eight or fewer players average double digits in minutes per game.

Now, admittedly, this fact could be caused by any number of puzzling factors. The distribution of a team's minutes can be affected by the number of blowouts it is in, the pace of the game they play, or the whim of the coach. However, I'd suggest two influences that are most important: injuries and talent.

The influence of injuries on the average distribution of minutes is fairly straight-forward. If a team loses a starter to injury in the middle of the season, that starter will probably maintain his 10+ minute average on the strength of the minutes he had already played. In addition, the minutes he was previously getting will likely be inherited by one replacement player, very likely driving his minutes into the double digits. However, this team now is getting significant minutes from a lesser player than the injured starter, so by nature this team most often will not be as good as before the injury. The spread of significant minutes to a larger number of players reflects that.

Additionally, the distribution of minutes on a team reflects how good its best players are. Now, I happen to think a lot of Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim. However, it didn't take superhuman coaching in 2003 for him to play Carmelo Anthony more than 36 minutes per game. As you would expect, Syracuse wanted to maximize how much Anthony was on the floor, and his average of less than four minutes on the bench per game shows just how much Boeheim thought of Anthony. It also shows a lot about Anthony's performance, as that average suggests he was able to avoid foul trouble, injuries, and getting winded.

Of the nine national champions in the 2000s, seven had a leading minute-getter play more than 33 minutes per game. Of the four teams eliminated by this rule for this year, none has a leading minute-getter much past 31. In fact. Missouri's leader in minutes, DeMarre Carroll, only logs an average of 26.6 minutes per game. Now this partly speaks to the Tigers' uptempo style, but what does it say about Mizzou's best players that their coaches are willing to let them sit for well more than a quarter of the game?

Rule No. 5: This year's champ will have at least four scorers averaging 10 or more points per game.

Rule-Breakers: Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Kansas, and Arizona State.

Without exception, every national champion this decade has had at least four players average double digits in points per game. More specifically, every team except one (you guessed it, Michigan State in 2000) has had four scorers average at least 11.1 points per game.

Why does this matter? While we showed that depth on the bench isn't all that helpful in Rule No. 4, it makes sense that having depth of scoring ability in a team's best players is very important. After all, it makes sense that the best teams have four players good enough to average at least 10 points per game in major college basketball (certainly no small feat). And as the tournament progresses, it becomes more likely an opponent will find a way to shut down any other team's best scorer, so having a quartet of adept scorers is a huge benefit.

So who does that leave us with? If past tournaments are any indicator, the Connecticut Huskies are in good shape to take down another national title. Sure, last week's injury to Jermone Dyson makes things complicated. If Dyson does, in fact, miss the remainder of the season, it will affect the makeup of UConn. However, UConn's ninth minute-getter is only at 4.5 minutes per game, leading me to believe Jim Calhoun will distribute Dyson's minutes to the current major players rather than try to replace Dyson with a single individual. And Kemba Walker (8.7 ppg) and Craig Austrie (7.9 ppg) seem likely to up their averages to cover some of Dyson's scoring. Austrie, in particular, is a seasoned player who has handled larger roles before.

Sadly, we're still four long weeks away from even beginning to know if the Huskies will deliver. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to read up on two of the least likeable corners of sports: A-Rod and steroids.

Welcome to Hell.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2009

Sports Q&A: Phelps' Bong Hits

A photograph of Michael Phelps smoking from a bong was printed in the London's News of the World, tarnishing the image of the 14-time Olympic gold medalist, and jeopardizing many endorsements deals. Can Phelps repair his image and reclaim his status as a respected Olympic hero?

I can't begin to explain my disappointment when I learned of the photograph showing Phelps and a bong. When I first heard that a photo had surfaced depicting an Olympic champion's lips around a tubular object, I was crestfallen upon learning that it wasn't Olympic softball's fire-balling hottie Jennie Finch. That's disappointment.

Once I regained my composure and gathered the full details of the incident, I reacted as most anyone interested in this story would — I put down my own bong, lamented the fact that a photo of me and my trusty bong had never gone public, and welcomed a newfound respect for Michael Phelps. We've watched Phelps inhale and exhale on his way to 14 gold medals — what's one more harmless round of respiration?

Phelps is a victim of the information age, burned by a cell phone picture taken by some sleaze-bag out for a quick dollar. Ten years ago, the photograph wouldn't have even been possible. . What is this world coming to when a 14-time Olympic champion can't attend a fraternity party at the University of South Carolina without having his bong hit photographed and dispersed worldwide? That's an invasion of privacy. It's appalling that someone would try to tear down the accomplishments of an American icon in such a way. Selling this photo is akin to pulling for the Russians in the Olympics. It's unpatriotic and treasonous.

There should be retribution. As they say, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Let's take that one step further — a "hit" for a "hit." I say Phelps should demand a "hit" on the snake who photographed this bong "hit." Any red-blooded American who finds this traitor should beat him/her with a camera, phone, or bong, whichever is handy.

Don't get me wrong. Phelps wasn't just an innocent bystander. He wasn't practicing some newfangled "breathing technique" to strengthen his lungs. So much for the advice of Barry Bonds. Phelps made a huge mistake by smoking from the bong in the first place, not to mention placing himself in such a vulnerable situation. Phelps wouldn't stand in a prison shower in his starting stance in a pair of Speedos three sizes too small, would he? Then he shouldn't take a bong hit if he even remotely suspected someone would digitally document the occasion. Chances are this wasn't his first time partaking from a bong; I'm guessing he's fogged his goggles before. Obviously, he has no problem taking to the "water."

I doubt Phelps was so unfortunate to have his first and only meeting with a bong made public. Who's to say, when he was photographed, Phelps wasn't in the midst of the individual medley of marijuana, in which the leadoff leg is marijuana smoked in a joint, followed by a pipe? Phelps was probably caught engaged in the third leg, the bong hit, before he could move on to the anchor leg, in which marijuana is smoked through a snorkel.

And this wasn't Phelps first legal misstep. In 2004, he was charged with driving under the influence after a traffic stop in Salisbury, Maryland. This incident received little notoriety, because Phelps' fame had yet to explode, and it's been proven time and time again that a "PWB" (photographed while bonging) is imminently more newsworthy than a common DUI.

It's yet to be determined whether Phelps will face criminal charges in Richland County, South Carolina, where the bong hit took place. In other words, the Richland County sheriff hasn't decided whether he wants to deal with the firestorm of publicity that comes with such a charge, which includes, but is not limited to, autographs, handshakes, and photo opportunities with an Olympic champion.

Some news reports indicate that the sheriff's department has been making arrests in an attempt to make a case against Phelps. It's an indication that Richland County is taking a tough stance on drugs. In fact, they've publicly stated that if you do drugs in Richland County, and are photographed, and are a world-class athlete, then there's a slight chance that you may be prosecuted.

So where does this leave Phelps? Well, instead of hearing the theme song to The Greatest American Hero when he sees himself on television, he'll now have to get used to Cypress Hill's "Hits From the Bong" as his unofficial theme music. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Heck, if he's smart, he'll have that play as he enters to swimming venue in London during the 2012 Olympic Games. I doubt any of the white people who raised a stink over this bong hit fiasco will recognize the tune, and therefore won't object.

Phelps has lost at least one endorsement deal and has been suspended for three months by USA Swimming, and the organization has also cut his funding for those three months. On the surface, it would seem like Phelps is up Shit Creek without a paddle. Luckily though, Phelps is a world-class swimmer and doesn't need a paddle. However, the swim back down said creek to respectability is a laborious trek, but can it be any harder than the work he put in to win 14 gold medals? I doubt it. Besides, Phelps doesn't have any tattoos, doesn't have cornrows, and usually wears his gold only for publicity photos, so the public should be generally forgiving.

So what can Phelps do to salvage his career? Well, if life gives you lemons, then you should fill your bong with lemonade. He did the right thing by apologizing immediately and admitting poor judgment. In today's sports climate, the apology is the new "innocent."

And while he may lose more endorsement deals, it's not out of the question that Phelps' contrition and commitment to recovering his good name leads to new endorsement deals. As of now, he's only had his Kellogg's endorsement deal extinguished. No great loss. Everyone knows cereal comes in boxes. Phelps should be pimping a product that comes in a bag. And is leafy. Maybe some sort of salad. Besides, Phelps has the support of the pot-smoking community, who have vowed to boycott Kellogg's cereals, at least until they get hungry.

As a swimmer, Phelps must shave his body hair, so there has to be a deal with some hair removal product, maybe Nair or Neet. If they need a clever tag line for Phelps, then here it is: "Excessive body hair in the pool is like a bong hit: it's a drag."

And who better to advocate hydroponic horticulture than Phelps? There's a glossy ad on the inside cover of the March 2009 issue of High Times magazine just waiting for a picture of Phelps. And this time, the picture will be taken with his consent.

Of course, the entertainment world will soon come calling to take advantage of Phelps' newfound versatility. Could a Broadway show be in the works? Definitely, and Phelps, in the role Yul Brynner made famous, could display his acting chops in The Bong and I. Or he could host a talent show, as stoned contestants go onstage and perform acts they wouldn't think of doing straight in The Bong Show. And, there's already an excess of dancing shows on television. What would be the harm in one more, appropriately titled Same Old Bong and Dance.? Finally, it would be a travesty if Phelps didn't guest host Cartoon Network's Adult Swim program at least once.

Phelps didn't waste any time before implementing damage control, so he is well on his way to reclaiming his iconic status and renewed prominence in the advertising world. Heck, who says you can't smoke an upright bong and still be an upright citizen? Phelps should remain apologetic and humble, and most of all, he should avoid all contact with bongs, and drug paraphernalia in general. If he plays his cards right, Phelps will once again be a role model. However, one more marijuana-related mistake, and his career will be ruined, and he'll be nothing more than a "roll" model.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2009

Liveblogging the USA/Mexico Match

So the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team kicks off the final round of World Cup qualifiers against its toughest opponent in the region and their bitter rivals, Mexico. Lucky for the Americans, they are at home. I'm liveblogging the match.

Pregame: It's a longstanding tradition for the U.S. to play their homegames against Mexico in Columbus, because it's the city feasible for a World Cup qualifier with the least Mexican contingent.

Pregame: Brian Ching starting at striker for the U.S. is kind of controversial. I think Jozy Altidore is ready now.

Pregame: Conditions are very rainy and windy in Columbus, where they are playing, enough so that match officials considered postponing it. Mexico manager Sven-Goran Eriksson said the whether is comparable to Albania, causing Pedro Gomez to muse of Columbus and Albania are "sister cities." Idiot. Incidentally, playing Mexico in Columbus has become a tradition, because of the feasible cities to hold a World Cup qualifier, Columbus is where Mexico has the least local support.

3' Tim Howard makes a point-blank kick save from about four feet to save the Americans' bacon. That sound you heard was the last man forgetting about Kasey Keller.

11' DaMarcus Beasley, who hasn't been getting much time on the pitch in Europe, just completely whiffed on a header in Mexico's box and looks as rusty as I feared.

13' Beasley also just took a U.S. corner. I don't often see Landon Donovan not taking them when he's on the field. Curious.

15' I'm sorry to keep piling on Beasley, but it's 52 degrees and he's wearing gloves. He's from Indiana. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's so the ball doesn't slip out of his hands on throw-ins.

21' Free kick upcoming for the U.S. in a very dangerous position, right at the edge of the box ... take us home, Donovan.

22' Damn, just wide from Donovan.

23' Sacha Kljestan has cut his long hair very short. You can't get this kind of critical news anywhere else.

26' Pedro Gomez, who we already established is an idiot, just did a sideline piece on voodoo dolls in U.S. jerseys the Mexican fans are sticking pins into. Gomez, seemingly serious, assured us this won't really hurt the American players.

I know Gomez gets these gigs because he speaks Spanish, but do we even need a Spanish-speaking sideline reporter for this match? Eriksson coached the England squad for many years.

31' Mexican keeper Oswaldo Sanchez just made a save off the foot of Clint Dempsey equal to Howard's save at the outset.

37' Michael Bradley, who has a lot of haters being the coach's son, didn't do himself any favors with that hero shot from well outside the box.

40' Mexico just had a free kick in about the same spot as Donovan's kick in the 22nd minute, but Howard barely needed to take two steps to make the save.

42' In the announcer's booth, Eric Wynalda just used "sportsmanship" and "gamesmanship" together in such a way that suggests he thinks they mean the same thing.

43' GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL USA!!!!!!!!! Michael Bradley on the ricochet after a beautiful curving corner kick from Beasley.

Halftime: Just saw a U.S. Marines commercial for the umpteenth time. For as long as I remember, different branches of the military have advertised very heavily for U.S. soccer matches. I don't quite understand the strategy. Soccer is not a very popular sport, and many of those who do watch probably come from countries where it is popular and would thus be ineligible or uninterested in serving. Of actual Americans who might enlist because of a commercial ... I'm thinking NASCAR.

49' After questioning why Beasley was taking the corners and not Donavan, my doubts were slammed shut after the U.S. scored off a Beasley corner. So who takes the first corner for the Americans in the second half? Donovan, of course.

53' Dempsey just beautifully ripped a Mexican defender with no one in front of him, but too much space and no closing speed to bring it home.

64' Game has hit a lull with lots of fouls, but nothing too chippy (no yellows shown thus far). Trinidad & Tobago leads the Cinderella of CONCACAF qualifying, El Salvador, 2-0 at home in the first half. U.S. goes to El Salvador next, March 28th, and return to Mexico August 12th.

65' No sooner do I write this than Mexico misses an easy opportunity to equalize by not having anyone in position off the near post, then when Howard makes a save off the ricochet, the Mexican captain Rafael Marquez goes at him studs up and gets the red card.

70' Interesting stat: neither team has a shot on target in the second half.

71' Mexico prepares to make their last substitution, and possibly the last substitution the beleaguered Eriksson ever makes for Mexico, with over 20 minutes left to play considering extra time. The U.S. has yet to make a substitution.

80' Two shots back-to-back from Mexico, including a scary one where Carlos Bocanegra had to make a kick save. They are throwing everything at the Americans now.

81' Altidore prepares to come into the game for Ching. An offensive substitution? I like it. I think Bob Bradley's "defense" is to put this game on ice with a goal on the counterattack.

86' Now a defensive sub for the U.S.: Ricardo Clark for Kljestan.

93' Again, a overambitious shot from Michael Bradley from outside the box. This time, though, he hits it. 2-0, USA. Sanchez perhaps should have come up with that one.

94' Game over. Mexico played with less passion than I've ever seen them play against the U.S. and I think they've quit on Eriksson. I'll say again, I do believe this will be his last game in charge of El Tri.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:19 AM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2009

A-Rod Agonistes

With the New York Yankees, there's no such thing as a subdued season, and it isn't as though they've gone untouched by the long arm of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances.

But they've barely let it sink in that their former, longtime manager collaborated on a revelatory book with a respected sportswriter, when the arguable biggest name in the game, who just so happens to wear a Yankee uniform, cops to using actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances for three years as a Texas Ranger.

The timing was particularly intriguing. Alex Rodriguez's exposure and then confessional poured forth within a month following the disclosure, in Joe Torre and Tom Verducci's The Yankee Years, that he was known as A-Fraud in portions of the Yankee clubhouse. Within a fortnight after that, there appeared stories and analyses enough portraying him not as the narcissist he is sometimes thought to be but, rather, the somewhat self-loathing boy whose most hungering need is that to be loved, cared for. Within two days after his exposure provoked the prospect that his primary regret would be that he was caught.

"When I arrived in Texas in 2001," he told ESPN's Peter Gammons, barely three days after the news broke (courtesy of Sports Illustrated's David Epstein and Selena Roberts) and he referred initial questions to a players' union that might have betrayed him, "I felt an enormous amount of pressure [over his $252 million deal, the highest in professional sports at the time he signed it]. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me, and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level ... I was naive, and I wanted to prove to everyone that, you know, I was worth .[the contract] ... and being one of the greatest players of all-time.

"I did take a banned substance and, um, for that, I'm very sorry and deeply regretful." he continued, a clipped quiver in his customarily mellow voice, almost as though he were trying to choke the impulse to cry. "And although it was the culture back then, and, uh, and major league baseball ... was very ... I'm just, I just feel that, you know, I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time, I'm sorry to my fans, I'm sorry to my fans in Texas, it wasn't until then that I ever thought about substance of any kind, and since then I've proved, to myself and to everyone, that I don't need any of that."

And what becomes when our own self-righteousness evaporates, when we see him under coming pressure the like of which even Barry Bonds, who isn't and wasn't half as likable when all was said and too much done as Alex Rodriguez in even his lesser moments, with nine years to go on his incumbent Yankee contract and a weight upon him that might — might — make the one that stirred his naivete and stupidity resemble a gentle prod upon his shoulder?

Because when Bonds yanked himself past Hank Aaron it was a very brief moment before finger after finger pointed toward A-Rod as the man most likely to extend clean hands to rescue the career bomb record from the soiled hands that now possessed it. Jayson Stark, another ESPN analyst, isolates the point:

I do have some measure of sympathy for him, though. We can't forget that these test results were supposed to be confidential. So the leaking of the results of those tests — particularly his tests — is outrageous on one level, suspicious on another.

I also know that he isn't alone. I know there are 103 other positive tests on that list, capable of being leaked any minute. And I know there are hundreds of other players who never failed a test, who never have had a finger pointed, who never have come up in this conversation, who are just as guilty of performance-enhancing-drug use as the names we spend all our time talking about.

So even now, it isn't particularly fair to single out A-Rod. I'll concede that.

But those are all just subplots to the big show, under A-Rod's big top. And that show isn't going to close for the rest of Alex Rodriguez's life.

He should resign himself to that before he takes another step or utters another word. The yolk is never going back inside the egg. So whatever he does next, however he explains himself this week and next week and for the rest of his career, all he can possibly accomplish is damage control.

But the damage itself already has been done. And it's never going to be undone.

That's the crime here. Oh, it may not just be his crime. It's a crime shared by everyone who allowed the steroid era to exist and persist. But that doesn't make our man A-Rod any more innocent, either. No, in some ways it makes him even more guilty.

He was a special player, with a special gift — and an even more special opportunity: He was the man with the opportunity to reconnect baseball's once-indelible dotted line between past and present, between great-grandsons and great-grandfathers, between his home plate and your hometown.

And now he's squandered that gift, squandered that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

So weep not for what A-Rod has done to himself.

Weep for what he's done to his sport.

We and they believed Alex Rodriguez would lead baseball beyond the era of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances. And now we and they have to believe that we're certain we don't know what to believe, except perhaps how foolish it is to commit to temporal saviours.

Not even his best friend would have accused Barry Bonds of having been such a saviour in training approaching 2007. Not even his worst enemy would have accused Mark McGwire of having sought the assignment in 2008. And not even his least convinceable teammate would reject that Alex Rodriguez, who was suddenly supposed to be on such an assignment, turned out to be only too human, after all.

Forgiving him for testosterone and primobolan — or, translated to human terminology, replenishing a substance his own body produces while getting a little help in burning off a little extra fat — will be simpler than forgiving him for having been established as a temporal saviour but exposed as a human being. For ourselves, and perhaps for the Yankees, as well.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

Taking Bracket Notes

Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not hearing the hype this year on the college hardwood.

It could be the economic woes. It could be the rebuilding of two of the most storied programs going: Kansas and Indiana, as well as Kentucky's second year of progression under Billy Gillispie.

Nevertheless, college basketball seems to be at a quiet roar this year.

Maybe it's because good teams are found at schools where basketball isn't the claim to fame. Arizona State's got a very good team, yet draw very small crowds. Oklahoma's got an outstanding team, and their fans come out somewhat, but at just over 11,000 per game, OU isn't drawing the crowds that Creighton draws.

Maybe it's the feeling that you can't jump on anyone's bandwagon just yet...

Tennessee was hot ... now they're just another mediocre team.

Gonzaga was hot, then cold, then hot ... then cold after the Memphis debacle.

Georgetown was red-hot, then totally disappeared from the national scene.

Arkansas shocked Oklahoma and Texas, and then fell flat on their faces once the SEC slate began.

Illinois State had Cinderella written all over them ... but since have gone 8-5 in conference play.

Texas was a preseason Final Four pick by many, now they're unranked and have lost their last three games.

Marquette was rolling ... now they're slumping at a bad time in the Big East.

This year's March Madness could be the toughest picks to date.

So who could be the teams to watch for come bracket time? Thankfully, we've had a few teams stand out in a very crowded field that should add some serious spice to this year's tournament.

Let's start with the Missouri Tigers, who's on fire and moving up the Big 12 ladder with their frantic style of play. When you have a team with a deep bench that loves to run up and down the court, they make tournament teams uncomfortable, especially when trying to create matchups. Missouri will keep a lot of coaches up at night.

There's Villanova, who seems to be the hottest team going, and as long as Scottie Reynolds stays hot, will be a tough out anytime, anywhere. The Wildcats have put up 102 points in their last two games, both of them surprisingly easy routs of Syracuse and Marquette, respectively.

How about the Utah State Aggies? Though BYU was the talk of the Beehive State at the start of the season, it's the boys from Logan who have won 18 straight and have the look of wearing this year's glass slipper come March. Stew Morrill is a talented, veteran coach, and this might be his most talented team yet. He should get serious consideration for National Coach of the Year honors.

Finally, there's VMI, who have quietly rolled to a 20-4 season with a win at Kentucky on their resume. The Keydets have scored more than 110 points in six games, and have three players that average more than 15 points a game. No doubt, the goal in March is to slow down shooters, and that'll be a challenge for anyone playing VMI.

I definitely hope to see college basketball get some more hype. No doubt, with unemployment going up, Americans saving money, and jobs being harder to find, March Madness will be a lot more subdued this year, especially at office pools. However, the quality of the action is still there, and with so much parody, making your selections this year could be the tempting challenge that keeps you going in such tough times.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2009

The Biggest Draws in the NBA

The NBA All-Star Break is upon us (and I'm headed to Phoenix on Friday to join in the fun). The intermission, our economy, and the appeal of the game raises a question about your entertainment dollar. A pro basketball ticket is one of the most expensive in sports, but the league is doing better than ever at the gate — even losing clubs draw exceptionally well. We want to see Chris Paul's drives, LeBron James' "looking-down-into-the-basket" dunks, and Dwight Howard's acrobatic blocked shots. But who are the best draws in the League, whether at home or on the road? Here are the NBA's most electrifying performers:

LeBron James, G/F, Cleveland Cavaliers

When he throws one down on the break, it appears as if he could put his entire forearm down through the rim, or drop the ball in from above the square. His blind passes are breathtaking, and his fluid movements belie his listed size of 6'8", 240. He's had this appeal since his prep days. LeBron is a one-man show — the icon he dreamt of being. Whether off the dribble, following a shot, or setting up teammates in traffic, you don't want to turn away, or hit the concession stand, because you might miss something.

Chris Paul, G, New Orleans Hornets

C.P. lifted this franchise out of the doldrums, and himself onto national magazine covers. He's explosive, he's lightning-quick, he has a scorer's killer instinct, and he can bait defenses like few young point guards. That baiting and deception often results in a highlight reel pass. Who doesn't like Chris Paul? Players with his knack for the game, court vision, and genuine sense of community involvement for Katrina-rebounding New Orleans are what the game needs.

Dwight Howard, F, Orlando Magic

Look up in the sky — it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Dwight Howard. When the quiet, born-again Atlantan entered the League, who expected him to literally don a cape and showcase his dunking skills? Still waters run deep. He makes thrilling plays in reaction to missed shots, or blocking those by the oppositions. He has the ferocious dunks and surprising creativity. More importantly, he gives his all, from the weight room to the paint. Howard's enthusiasm is the hallmark of his early success — that and the "S" on his chest.

Steve Nash, G, Phoenix Suns

In Basketball 2.0, the man with the ball rules. Gone are the days when the focus of the game was the center of action (Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Dave Cowens, Bill Walton). It's the little catalysts who capture our attention. Nash is the most savvy of the current crop. He knows what to do, when, and why. He dictates spacing and tempo to opposing defenses. He can turn or stop on a dime. Nash is an expert passer off the dribble, and never telegraphs a pass or shot (largely because he keeps his dribble alive as he explores options). The former national soccer star is athletic, conditioned, durable, and is a threat to pass, shoot, or penetrate at all times. It will be interesting to watch him operate as a coach on the floor in Mike D'Antoni's absence.

Kobe Bryant, G, L.A. Lakers

As some have said, it's exhausting to score 81 points when one is shooting alone in a gym. Whatever you (or Shaq) think of him, Kobe is something to see. He can make defenders look foolish from the top of the key or the baseline, and he finishes with flourish. When he's on, he's Mike-like. No contemporary player possesses the focus we see on his face when he enters pure Kobeville. You saw how they adore him in Beijing. How many players could have survived both Shaq-gate and the Vail sexual assault case? To a large extent, Kobe doesn't care what you think — and though he couldn't do it all by himself- — the last NBA Finals demonstrated that he is all about winning.

Baron Davis, G, L.A. Clippers

Now that he plays in a big media market, he's on the "other" team. No worries. Davis brings his no-holds-barred game to Hollywood, full of the relentless drives, astounding dunks, and the joy with which he plays. The man looks like he's having fun (it is, after all, a game). Paul and Nash both share elements of his game, but Davis is so determined and so strong; he's got a style all his own. Unlike A.I., he isn't out of control, and has the frame to endure constant contact. In an era of dazzling point guards in which Deron Williams, Raymond Felton, and other youngsters are solidifying their status, Davis is among the elite.

Amar'e Stoudemire, F/C, Phoenix Suns

Power. Agility. Maximum effort. Amar'e Stoudemire, when healthy, is scary good, and a handful to handle. He's more versatile on offense than Dwight Howard, and a lot stronger than willowy dunkers Josh Smith and Shawn Marion. What makes a player worth the price of admission is the special things he can do — even when you expect them of him — and those he accomplishes that others cannot. The NBA boasts a surplus of elite power forwards, from Elton Brand to Tim Duncan to Kevin Garnett. Like Stoudemire, some see duty at center. What sets The Stud apart is that edge-of-your-seat anticipation he gives you that he can, and will, take control in there.

That's my list. Next year, a Greg Oden could work his way here. Vince Carter still displays flashes of Vinsanity, but never enters Kobeville, particularly in the postseason (a la LeBron vs. Detroit in that crucial 2007 game). Gilbert Arenas is gifted, but self-absorbed. Ditto Iverson. Night in and night out, the aforementioned guys give you bang for your buck.

Posted by Bijan C. Bayne at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

Addition By Subtraction

The Dallas Stars' season was saved on December 2. Yet that day seemed like, and probably was, one of the most infamous in the team's history. That seems to be an amazing assertion when the team won the game it played that night, 3-1, at Calgary with goalie Marty Turco stopping 36 of the Flames' 37 shots.

If you don't recognize the date, it was when former Star Sean Avery made his disparaging remarks about Flames defenseman Dion Phaneuf and actress girlfriend (and former Avery girlfriend) Elisha Cuthbert. Those comments were dissected and discussed to no end on ESPN and other outlets, so it would be pointless to say much about what was actually said here.

It is worth at least wondering what would have happened if Phaneuf played for say, Nashville or Columbus, and Avery said what he did without the throng of Canadian media present or if the Stars weren't dead-last in the West at the time.

It's a sad fact about the state of the popularity of the game in the U.S. that the whole Avery saga has been the most high-profile NHL story this season (with the possible exception of the Red Wings/Blackhawks outdoor game). The only thing that the Stars should have done differently in the handling of Avery is that they should have let him play that night against Calgary in order to get pummeled by Phaneuf.

When the Stars signed Avery last July to a nearly $4 million a year contract over four years, he was promised to the fans as the gritty, but productive player that the Stars needed by co-GM Brett Hull. The season then began and Dallas hardly resembled the team that had stunned the Ducks and Sharks in last year's playoffs with awesome goalkeeping from Turco and timely goals.

The thing about the Avery signing, at the time, was that almost every single Stars fan I know was opposed to it. It especially made no sense to the casual Stars fans that watch maybe 15 regular season games and all of the playoffs (a group I consider myself in) who were aware of Avery's antics with the Kings and his disrespect of Martin Brodeur last year with the Rangers.

It's dangerous to jump to the conclusion that one single guy could have ruined the locker room and chemistry of the team so badly that the club who was two wins away from the Stanley Cup Finals could somehow now have made the same team the worst in its conference with just about the same playing group.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

In the two-month long Avery era, the Stars won just 8 of 23 games and had 20 points. In the two months and change since, Dallas is 18-8-3 with 39 points. Remarkably, Dallas has climbed 10 spots in the standings and is now in fifth.

The turnaround was accentuated last week on either side of a loss to Colorado, as the Stars beat Calgary with the same scoreline as on December 2. Friday, the Stars demolished the Rangers, 10-2, on the same day it was reported that New York could be interested in re-signing Avery. The Stars, ranked 20th in the league on the power play, racked up five goals on the advantage against the Rangers.

Moreover, Turco is once again playing incredibly after struggling with Avery in the lineup. In 21 starts in October and November, Turco gave up 3 or more goals 15 times. Since then, Turco has allowed less than 3 on 15 occasions.

Turco seemed to have an important role in the Stars choosing not to keep Avery after the NHL-mandated six-game suspension.

If you remember, right after Avery made his comments, Stars coach Dave Tippett was asked about what was said and responded that the media had made it a bigger deal than it needed to be. Then, Turco and Mike Modano spoke out very critically against Avery, more or less ensuring Avery was no more in Dallas.

And that skilled, agitating player Hull wanted so badly? The Stars have had him in the organization for eight years now, but Steve Ott is just now rounding into career-best form.

Ott has always been known as a guy who will give big hits, get into fights, and annoy teams, but usually that was all he was. Now, and especially after missing nearly a month with a broken hand because of a fight, Ott has found the right mix between annoyance and brilliance as he has had seven games in a row with at least a point.

The Stars still have huge amounts of work to do if they want to equal the feats of last year's group. But there's an infinitely better chance now than there was a couple months ago.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

February 9, 2009

In the Rotation: NBA Week 15

"Catch me front and center at the Knick game — big chain — in all my splendor." — Jay-Z in 2002

What is it about basketball at the Garden that's so electrifying?

The song Welcome to New York City, where Jay-Z raps the previous phrase, came out in 2002. The Knicks as a basketball team had stopped being relevant years prior to that.

The last time they won a playoff series was 2000, the last time they had an all-star was 2001, and they last time they weren't a punch line was December 21st, 2003. (Isiah Thomas was hired as President of Basketball Operations on the 22nd.)

None of that matters. Being courtside at a Knick game was, and still is, the place to be.

Maybe that's part of the mystique of playing at the Garden — no one knows for sure why it's such an event, it just is.

Maybe it's the celebs sitting courtside, maybe it's because it the oldest remaining NBA arena, maybe it's playing on Broadway, or maybe it's a combination of all that. Whatever the reason, the world (myself included) can't help but stare wide-eyed, open-mouthed, and in awe of the possibility that something great might happen in that building.

This week, something great happened in that building.

On Monday, Kobe Bryant set the record for the most points scored in the Garden by dropping 61 on the helpless Knicks.

It was a statement game for two reasons.

First and foremost, Bryant was sending a message to his teammates, "even though we lost one of our best players (Bynum), I'm still going to play at an elite level, and you should too." It worked. The Lakers are 4-0 since Bynum's injury, including winning back-to-back road games against the Celtics and Cavaliers.

The second statement that Bryant made with his 61-point game was that on any given night he can still turn it on and show you why he's going to go down in history as the most explosive scorer in NBA history.

On Wednesday night, LeBron James made a statement of his own.

In what was clearly a response to Kobe's record-setting game just two nights before, King James stormed into the Garden and finished with 52 points, 9 rebounds, and 11 assists. Had the NBA not taken away a rebound the following day, it would have been the second most points scored in a triple-double game ever. LeBron didn't set out to make Madison Square Garden history; he was trying to make NBA history.

Now the debate has been raging all week: Kobe or LeBron?

The Rotation's official answer: who cares?

I watched both games this week with a giant smile on my face, because twice in a three-night span, I was experiencing the rare sports phenomena of realizing while it was happening that I was watching something special happen right before my very eyes.

Sometimes it can take days, weeks, or even years to fully appreciate the historical significance of a particular sporting event.

By halftime of both games, I knew what I was watching was one of a kind.

I didn't spend Monday night convincing myself that Kobe was the greatest player in the world because he was scoring 61 in the Garden, the same way I didn't spend Wednesday watching LeBron go 52-9-11 and crown him the greatest.

It doesn't matter who is better. The point is they are two of the greatest to ever play and both are still in their prime. I don't want to waste a second of my time trying to decide who is better, because there's a good chance in that second I'll miss their next great play.

Having both of these players visit the Mecca of Basketball in the week leading up to their final regular season showdown of the season was brilliant, even if I'm not quite sure why.

Maybe we never will find out exactly what it is about playing at MSG that makes superstars salivate.

Kobe said it best on Monday after the game, "It's the Garden, man."

Enough said.

In case you missed it, the other 28 teams in the league also played this week. Just in case you were too busy comparing Kobe and LeBron, this week's Starting Five includes five of the top storylines from around the NBA this week as we reach the unofficial midway point of the season.

Starting Five

1. The Lakers Roll

Kobe's 61 at the Garden stole the headlines this week, but truth be told, it was the fourth most important game of the week for the Lakers. They also played, and won, in Boston and in Cleveland.

I talked earlier about making statements, and the Lakers spoke loud and clear this week.

Not only were they without starting center Andrew Bynum, but they caught the Celtics on the backend of a back-to-back, and ended a six-game road trip in Cleveland, who just so happened to be undefeated at home at the time. Lesser teams could have used any of those three things as an excuse, but the Lakers kept plowing forward.

Coming into the week, the Lakers had a giant question mark hanging over their head. By week's end, they put themselves in a class by themselves, not only by giving themselves the best record in the NBA, but by putting the finishing touches on sweeping the only two teams in the league that can even think about giving them a run this June.

Bynum or no Bynum, the Lakers proved that as long as they have a healthy Kobe Bryant, they are obviously still the class of the NBA.

2. The Injury Bug Bites Again

Andrew Bynum is out for 8-12 weeks. Jameer Nelson is likely done for the year. Elton Brand is done for the year. Andrew Bogut is out 8 weeks with a stress fracture in his back.

I wrote four weeks ago about how the injuries at the time could shape the playoff races in each conference. Now, with this new wave of injuries piled on top of the already lengthy list of injuries, the playoff picture becomes even more muddled as more and more teams find themselves adjusting to life without their stars.

3. So Does the Flu Bug

Remember the scene from My Cousin Vinny where Joe Pesci drops his suit in the mud and has to buy another suit, except the only suit shop in town is closed with the flu, so he goes to a second hand store and buys a bellman's outfit?

When he explains his outfit to the judge, he rants about how ridiculous it is that an entire store has the flu.

That's kind of how the NBA was this week. The whole league, out with the flu, can you freakin' believe that, judge?

You couldn't turn on an NBA game this week without at least one or two guys from each team either out with the flu or having the announcers say that many players on the team are battling flulike symptoms.

Hopefully the extended time off for the All-Star Break gives the league enough time to shake this bug, or else were going to see a lot more games where teams are playing bellmen in crunch time.

4. Trade Rumors Swirl

The NBA trade deadline is just 10 days away, and trade talks have really heated up around the league.

Steve Kerr and the rest of the Phoenix Suns front office have set the tone by basically announcing that they will be trading Amar'e Stoudemire to the highest bidder, but don't expect STAT to be the only big name dealt before the deadline.

Already rumors have swirled around former all-stars Shawn Marion, Brad Miller, Baron Davis, Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace, Tyson Chandler, Josh Howard, and even Shaq.

Last year, we saw teams finally shed their recent fear of blockbuster deals, and it's a copycat league, so expect to see a flurry of activity in the next week or so as teams make one last push to make the chase for the Larry O'Brien Trophy more than just a three-team race.

5. Happy 25th Anniversary, David Stern

A gambling scandal; drug problems; a vicious player vs. fan brawl; an image crisis; conspiracy theories galore; the WNBA. All of those terrible events have happened during the 25 year tenure of NBA Commissioner David Stern.

Yet, despite every controversy, David Stern manages to continually push the NBA to new heights.

The NBA is always making subtle changes to put out a better product, and the most noticeable improvement I've seen from the league this season has been the scheduling.

Make no mistake, it was no coincidence that in the week immediately following the Super Bowl Kobe and LeBron both visited the Garden, there was a Lakers/Celtics NBA Finals rematch on TNT, and the four best teams in the league were all featured on the first Sunday doubleheader of the year on ABC, culminating with Kobe vs. LeBron II as the grand finale.

The NBA is a marketing machine, and they know how to steal headlines. In the time between the Super Bowl and March Madness, the NBA is the only game in town. No one cares about hockey, and John Q. doesn't start watching college hoops until the conference tournaments at the earliest.

Instead of lying low, the NBA wisely scheduled several potentially huge headline-grabbing games, dominated the sports headlines for most of the week, and generated a big buzz going into the All-Star Game and into the second half of the season.

You don't have to like him, but you have to admit, the man knows how to run a league.

In the Rotation: H-O-R-S-E Coming to All-Star Weekend

I'm not going to pretend pitting NBA stars against one another in a game of H-O-R-S-E was my idea. In fact, it's been brought up so many times in the past that it's about impossible to say whose idea it actually was, but whatever the case, I couldn't be happier that it finally came to fruition.

The only thing left is to pick the three contestants, but based on how well the NBA has done selecting the competitors for the other events this weekend, I'm confident that whoever they chose will make for an entertaining and hopefully groundbreaking new wrinkle to NBA All-Star Weekend.

H-O-R-S-E coming to the All-Star Game, it's almost too good to be true. I don't see how the league could possibly screw this up...

Out of the Rotation: The 1997 NBA All-Star Game

The NBA All-Star Game is less than a week away and that can only mean one thing: a week full of classic NBA All-Star Games on TV. This week at any given time during the afternoon or late night, you can turn on either ESPN Classic or NBA TV and there's about a 90% chance you'll find an old-school NBA All-Star Game to watch.

This week on NBA TV, I caught the replay of the 1997 All-Star game from Cleveland. It was the All-Star Game at which they introduced the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time at halftime.

If they play it again, it's worth watching if you're into the history of the game for the halftime ceremony featuring so many legends of the game, or if watching Latrell Sprewell raise the roof after ridiculously athletic dunks is more your thing, then the '97 All-Star Game is for you.

But after watching it again this weekend, I realized something: how on earth could the NBA let Glen Rice win MVP?

As I mentioned, the NBA honored its 50 Greatest Players at halftime of the game. Michael Jordan was obviously among them.

In the game itself, Jordan achieved the first and only triple-double in All-Star game history. He had 14 points, 11 rebounds, 11 assists, and 2 steals in just 26 minutes.

Even if Glen Rice did score an All-Star Game record 24 points in the second half, how could the league blow such a golden opportunity?

All season, the NBA promoted the All-Star Weekend of its 50th season to be the highlight of the celebration of the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time. The league had a chance to put an exclamation point on its 50 Greatest Players weekend by naming the Greatest of the Great, Michael Jordan, MVP of the much ballyhooed All-Star Game, and they missed the boat completely and gave the award to volume shooter Glen Rice.

Rice finished with 26 points on 10-for-24 shooting from the field. He was not named one of the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time.

Jordan was at the apex of his career, led his team to a record 72 wins the previous season and was in the midst of putting together a 69-win season, was already regarded as one of, if not the greatest of all-time, and had just achieved the only triple-double in NBA all-star history. How could David Stern allow anyone other than M.J. to be the last image from the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time weekend?

I said earlier that sometimes it takes years to realize the historical significance of a sporting event. It took 12 years, but over the weekend, I finally realized how big of a blunder this all-star moment truly was.

Inactive List: Not H-O-R-S-E, But G-E-I-C-O

I knew it was too good to be true. Just when you think the NBA has given us something we can all get behind, they go and sell it out and ruin it before it even starts.

Honestly, how much more money was the NBA able to make off Geico by having the players spell out G-E-I-C-O as opposed to having the "Geico presents the H-O-R-S-E Challenge?"

Here's an idea for you, Geico: sponsor the event, let it keep it's dignity by playing a game of H-O-R-S-E, and during commercial breaks, run a series of ads where your little European lizard miraculously beats various NBA stars in a game of "G-E-I-C-O", therefore putting your own funny little spin on a game that, if it weren't being played in a completely sold-out way, would become wildly popular.

Instead, NBA fans who just want to watch the competition and not an extended car insurance commercial are out of luck, all for the sake of a little extra M-O-N-E-Y.

Be sure to check back at Sports Central next Monday for a special All-Star Weekend recap edition of In the Rotation.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:43 AM | Comments (1)

Timid in Tampa

We've all done it. You know, spouted thoughts in the heat of the moment that we will eventually regret deeply. Or, at the very least, things that we recognize after-the-fact to be patently false. We just hope no one remembered them.

They can vary in severity, indicating either a mere lapse in your verbal filter, or outright brain damage. Simple flubs could be as innocent as "Pabst beer doesn't taste all that bad," or "the Jets are a Super Bowl contender." Some are more serious: "I wouldn't mind seeing that new The Fast and the Furious movie," or "let's move in together." ("That was the greatest Super Bowl ever" certainly fits in somewhere this year, considering the quality of what would remain without the last 12 minutes of the game or the last play of the first half.)

But one statement during the Super Bowl XLIII still remains as valid as when it was first muttered between a gulp of beer and another barrage of potato chips across the country: "The Cardinals need to give up on running the ball and at some point throw to, I don't know, the best player on the field."

We all love to play Monday morning — or even Sunday evening — quarterback. Most such naysayers know as much about quantum physics as they do putting together a game plan.

But no amount of deep, self-critical introspection has led me to believe that the Cardinals offensive strategy was correct in basically any way. Kind of interesting for a sought-after offensive coordinator, Todd Haley, that just became the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs.

Much was made about the lack of any apparent desire to get Larry Fitzgerald the ball. They threw to him zero times in the first and the third quarters. He caught one (1!) ball before, finally, his fourth quarter Chernobyl nearly obliterated Pittsburgh's dreams. But Fitzgerald's absence not withstanding, the entire offense reeked of conservatism unbefitting a Ken Whisenhunt-led team.

To be fair, let's play devil's advocate. Say Larry Fitzgerald was being triple-covered every play. Let's even go crazy and pretend that a triple-team would actually stop Larry Fitzgerald. The Steelers are a great defensive team, and if they want to take one thing away from you, it's not unrealistic to believe they will. So what do you do? Arizona chose to run the ball and made sure not to throw more than five yards downfield. Interesting choice, with two more 1,000-yard receivers on payroll.

Turns out Pittsburgh can stop the run, and the matching dink-and-dunk aerial attack that came with it. This surprised no one. But Arizona persisted, running into the same Steel wall over and over. Albert Einstein, having defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, would have had the Cardinals committed. They didn't throw any intermediate routes to try to keep the Steelers honest. They didn't throw deep to try to stretch them out further. The whole situation has only become more mind-boggling in the week that has passed.

Kurt Warner would finish the day ahead of Joe Montana and John Elway in career Super Bowl passing yards, and in fewer games. With him as your quarterback and three different 1,000-yard receivers, trying to run-and-dink down the field is like the Fonz trying to pick up the hottest girl in the joint by showing off a stamp collection while wearing the a ski mask.

Then desperation time set in once the fourth quarter started. The Cardinals started running a hurry-up offense. They threw the ball downfield. Sure enough, the Fonz dropped the stamps and the disguise, popped his leather jacket, and with a thumbs-up "heeeeyyy," started laying down his "A" game.

The Steelers, with all their defensive might, had no better luck stopping it than the Falcons, Panthers, or Eagles. Let's not forget the latter two had pretty strong units, too.

It took three quarters to even try this approach? How? Yes, the Cardinals' running game was improved (read: less miserable) in the playoffs. Yes, they wanted to keep the Steelers off-balance. But come on, when you do one thing better than anything else (pile up passing yards with a trio of serious weapons), then you have to lead with that. The Cardinals are built to setup the run with the pass, not setup the pass with two-yard runs.

We'll even give Haley a pass for calling that slant through traffic to Anquan Boldin that was picked at the goal line and housed nearly 1/17th of a mile later by James Harrison. We'll even neglect that the fade to Fitzgerald might be the most unfair and unstoppable play since Kareem's sky hook, a fact confirmed in the fourth quarter. It was just a 10-14-point swing, but hey, no big deal. They still almost won. And who really would blame a single play (even one that monumental) when the entire offense was in the witness protection program for 48 of 60 minutes.

I don't care what looks the Steelers were giving Arizona. If you argue that they were somehow taking away all the intermediate and deep routes, I would counter that they seemed to be taking away the run and short stuff pretty effectively, too. And when you leave your biggest assets on the shelf, you are effectively bringing a knife to a gunfight. And that knife better be getting you more than 2.8 yards per rush.

Not to say that there weren't other culprits in the loss. The Cardinals allowed the Steelers the first 10 points while providing about as much resistance as a thick fog. They were penalized 11 times for 106 yards. A stingy distant cousin of Satan owns the team. (Did I mention I grew up football-less in St. Louis in the early 1990s?)

But against a great defense, a great offense has to do what it does well.

This is not to say Haley can't coach. He has risen fast through the coaching ranks. As a receivers coach, he got a Bears wideout to the Pro Bowl (seriously!), and helped build up Tony Romo for his recent tumble from grace. He helped turn the Cardinals into one of the most dangerous offenses in the league. But this game he made a big mistake by leaving the defining element of the entire team out of the blueprint for the first three quarters.

There is good news for Haley: the Chiefs don't have a defining element to neglect.

Other Random Super Bowl Thoughts

Santonio Holmes was the rightful MVP. That performance spoke for itself; he took over the game at points, slashing and burning the Cardinals when it mattered most.

One for the other thumb: While this article focused on Arizona's curious use of strategy, the Steelers still came out on the other end of a brutal schedule that really didn't let up until the Super Bowl. Go figure: they played nine games against teams that finished with fewer losses than their Super Bowl opponent. They didn't play the greatest game themselves, but over the course of the year, they were consistent, one of three teams never to lose twice in a row (Panthers, Patriots). The better team won. The more passionate (albeit annoying) fan base won. And the classier owner won.

But wow, they sure couldn't run the ball. Pittsburgh quietly was more useless on the ground than Arizona. At 2.2 yards per carry, they proved inept in short yardage situation that could have ended the game before it started.

David Tyree's catch is still the best in Super Bowl history. Sorry, Santonio. And for all you "best ever" knuckleheads, this game is probably in the top 10, but not in the top five greatest Super Bowls. (I'll admit, I had it higher in the immediate afterglow of that finish.) It shouldn't be over, in no particular order, Rams/Titans, Patriots/Rams, Giants/Patriots, Patriots/Panthers, Broncos/Packers, Giants/Bills, and Steelers/Cowboys II. (I guess there were more of these great ones than we tend to think.) The teams combined for 162 penalty yards, but just 91 rushing yards. That's not greatness. That's sloppy.

But Harrison's 100-yard INT runback was the best defensive play in the game's history. Not too easy to argue against that one. Meanwhile, as Harrison continues to catch his breath, Antrel Rolle was still trying to forget the memory of being too close to the field and getting in the way of a pursuing Fitzgerald on the sidelines. The bump slowed Fitzgerald, before he later brought Harrison down literally on the goal line. I'm sure there won't be any tortured nights for Rolle this offseason.

Warner's final play may well have been a fumble, and the Cardinals composed themselves well by not complaining. But how in the world is that not reviewed? It was nearly as bad as the Brett Hull overtime game-winner in Game 6 with his foot in Dominik Hasek's crease to win the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals for Dallas. You don't even look? What's replay there for?

The league, confirming what we already knew, said they should have reviewed it. They also said Santonio Holmes should have been flagged 15-yards for excessive celebration after salting his hands with the football and tossing it in the air after a SUPER BOWL-WINNING TOUCHDOWN. Really? Two questions; first, why bring up a mistake no one was accusing you of? Secondly, every week we watch guys flamboyantly celebrate first-quarter sacks, routine special teams tackles, and batting away under-thrown passes despite the fact that the receiver had three steps on the corner, leaving burn marks. Are we really supposed to be bothered by a brief pantomime after a title-winning play like that? Are we supposed to potentially change the outcome of the Super Bowl with 15 free yards on that? Why are circumstances never taken into account with regard to excessive celebration?

Speaking of celebrations, Larry Fitzgerald might have the most organic, genuine ones of any big-time receiver in 20 years. So there isn't a clause that says you have to be a jackass to play WR in the NFL.

So that's it. Like Fitzgerald, I go with an understated end to the season. Yup, it's all over. Enjoy the Pro Bowl.

Just kidding.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)

February 6, 2009

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl Edition

Was Santonio Holmes a worthy selection for Super Bowl MVP?

Yes, Holmes was a worthy selection, but one could easily make a case for James Harrison. Like Holmes, Harrison accounted for one touchdown, but took a much more difficult route to get there, navigating practically the entire Arizona offense to score on a 100-yard interception return. You could argue that Cardinal left tackle Mike Gandy cost Harrison the trophy. Gandy was called for holding two times on Harrison, which cost Harrison one, and maybe two, sacks. As it was, because of those penalties, Harrison's statistic line was pretty empty, save for the interception return.

Of course, it's hard to deny Holmes the award. He repeatedly made big catches, and of course made the winning catch with a spectacular grab in the corner of the end zone, snagging the pass and getting two feet down as he went out of bounds. Most importantly, he maintained possession, and this time, the police didn't need to get involved.

Both Harrison and Holmes followed amazing paths to reach the pinnacle of pro football. Harrison wasn't even drafted, and was cut three times by the Steelers before he became the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year and nearly the Super Bowl MVP. Truly, it's a rags to riches story.

Holmes, prior to the big game, admitted that he sold drugs on a street corner as a youth in Belle Glade, Florida. That, my friend, is a "dime bags to riches" story. And I thought it quite appropriate that the public address system blared Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Down on the Corner" as Holmes was handed the award.

What was the turning point of the game?

Without a question, Harrison's 100-yard interception return, which likely resulted in a 14-point swing. Had the Cards scored a touchdown, they would have gone into the half with a 14-10 lead, and possession to start the second half. It's surprising that Arizona offensive coordinator Todd Haley didn't call for a "jump ball" to Larry Fitzgerald instead of the quick slant, which is a risky call from the one-yard line with the offense and the defense in such tight quarters. The lob to Fitzgerald, at worse, would have been an incompletion. It's a play that will haunt Kurt Warner for a lifetime, and that single play will probably be the reason Warner returns for another season (he'll most likely make the announcement after emerging from a cave that just recently had a giant boulder removed from it's entrance), or retires from the game (which would be called a "Christian 'Bail'").

Why did the Cardinals lose this game?

There are at least three reasons. One, penalty yards. Two, James Harrison return yards. Arizona probably faced more 1st-and-20 and 2nd-and-20 downs in Super Bowl history. And, the Cardinals had 100 yards to chase down a guy who probably squats half a ton, and they couldn't get the job done. Here's some advice: if you're trying to bring down a six-foot, 242-pound linebacker, go for his ankles (side note: Harrison will score two touchdowns next year as a fullback in short yardage situations).

Three, Ben Roethlisberger's scrambling ability, also known as the "Ben But Don't Break" offense. Arizona consistently got pressure on Roethlisberger, and even recorded two sacks, but they never could track him down once he scrambled out of the pocket. That inevitably led to breakdowns in coverage, and subsequent big gains. That's through no fault of Arizona's defensive backfield; for the most part, their coverage was pretty good until Roethlisberger took off. And, as Santonio Holmes has shown on numerous occasions this year, he's extremely dangerous when plays break down. Holmes and Roethlisberger make a fearsome combination on unstructured plays.

Does this win make the Steelers the NFL's greatest franchise?

If we're judging by number of Super Bowl wins, then of course the Steelers are the greatest franchise. Super Bowl XLIII was the Steelers' sixth championship, one more than the Cowboys and 49ers, and the sixth championship gives them "one for the other thumb." And for hardcore fans who pierce a part of their body for each Super Bowl win, then the true test of their fanhood is upcoming.

Does Pittsburgh kicker Jeff Reed have the coolest hairdo in the NFL?

Absolutely, Reed's zany hairdo is tops in the NFL, and second only to Nick Nolte's mugshot 'do as the coolest in America, with apologies to disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagovovich.

Reed's hairstyle asserts his individualism, and it also makes him recognizable in public. Without the style statement, no one would recognize Reed. I guarantee that after he introduced his new hairstyle, Reed signed his first autograph, and people actually started to believe him when he said he knew Ben Roethlisberger.

Sadly, with recognition come the perils of fame. It's only a matter of time before a photograph of Reed and a bong hits the airwaves.

Is Larry Fitzgerald the league's best receiver now?

Without a doubt. Next year, you can expect the Cardinals to give the opposition even more "Fitz." But seriously, Fitzgerald's playoff performance not only put him in the record book, but it likely will place him at the top of fantasy draft boards, as well as on the cover of the Madden 2010 video game. Fitzgerald's No. 11 jersey will also top jersey sales next year, and he will be the new face of Citizen watches, because, unlike Eli Manning, Fitzgerald is unstoppable. Everyone wants Fitzgerald to succeed, except Rush Limbaugh.

Fitzgerald will also be hailed as the second coming of Bob Marley, and will be crowned king of Jamaica.

How was the halftime show?

For a halftime show lacking nudity, it was pretty darn good. Bruce Springsteen and crew gave an energetic performance even though they appeared to be dressed for mourning (I haven't seen that much black clothing since Johnny Cash's funeral). Springsteen even threw in some guitar-twirling tricks that would make Steve Vai jealous, or relevant. And Clarence Clemmons was sporting the greatest outfit ever for a cowbell player.

Should replay officials have taken a look at Arizona's final offensive play, in which LaMarr Woodley caused an apparent Kurt Warner fumble as Warner was in the act of passing?

Any time a turnover is the last play in a game as close as Super Bowl XLIII, it should be reviewed. I know coaches can't challenge in the final two minutes of the halves, but Ken Whisenhunt should have thrown his red flag anyway, if only to cause a delay and give replay officials time to come to their senses. Not that the call would have been overturned; it probably wouldn't have. But judging by some of the replay decisions we've seen this year, you never know.

In addition, a booth replay would have given NBC time to squeeze in several more commercials. And a replay would have silenced the conspiracy theorists who insist the officiating was biased in favor of the Steelers.

What was the best commercial?

As usual, it was a beer commercial. This time, though, it wasn't a Budweiser or Bud Light commercial. Personally, I'm sick of Clydesdales and Dalmatians, and Bud Light's "Drinkability" campaign lacks one thing — laughability.

I'm going with Miller High Life's one-second spot in which their spokesman simply said "High Life." It was short and grabbed your attention, assuming you didn't blink. Most of all, though, it served an as early endorsement for Santonio Holmes as Super Bowl MVP.

Of course, there were other intriguing spots in between all the ads for movies I'll patiently wait three years to see on video. There were the two GoDaddy.com ads, one featuring Danica Patrick showering (yeah, I know what you're thinking: it's too bad A.J. Foyt doesn't endorse GoDaddy.com), the other spoofing drug hearings in sports with a heavy-chested beauty defending accusations that she had been "enhanced." The provocative and suggestive commercials demanded attention (now I know what they mean by the term "pop-up" ad), and came with a teaser promising "unrated content" on the website. For those who eagerly surfed over the web site, the grainy video of Patrick lapping a friend was surprisingly a disappointment. As a rule, I prefer pornographic web sites unsullied by ads bullying me into purchasing domain names.

NBC's ads for upcoming shows were pretty funny, including the "LMAO" bit, Jerome Bettis' clothesline, and the Celebrity Apprentice piece, in which Andrew "Dice" Clay calls Donald Trump "Donnie," which is sure to get him "fired," as well as a reality show of his own.

The McMahon and McHammer "Cash4Gold" commercial was a beauty, and solidified MC Hammer's status as the "celebrity" who has become more famous for not being famous anymore. I now know how Hammer lost his fortune — he was actually dumb enough to send his gold through the mail to one of these "send gold, get cash" outfits, only to find that they "never received" his mailing.

As for disappointing ads, my vote goes to Gatorade's "G," probably one of the most uninspired campaigns of all-time. You could see the disappointment in Peyton Manning's eyes when he closed the commercial with the quote "That's 'G.'" If you've got Manning in an ad and you don't provide him with a comical line, then you've failed him, consumers, and your product. How many people do you think went out and bought Gatorade "G" because of that ad? That's "Z"-ro.

What lies ahead for the Cardinals?

If Warner is in a Cardinal uniform next year, and Matt Leinart is in a baseball cap (or hot tub), then Arizona has the necessary ingredients to sweep their NFC West division games, win two or three more games, and make another run that culminates with the Super Bowl. I believe Warner will return, but it will be on his terms, which will be a huge, one-year contract. Not only is God his co-pilot, He's also his agent.

Offensively, Arizona is sure to show more of as commitment to the running game with Edgerrin James. And if they can satisfy Anquan Boldin with a contract extension, then they'll again have the best three wide receiver tandem in the league.

Defensively, linebacker Karlos Dansby's contract is a priority, and the defensive line could use speed-rushing end.

While it's doubtful that Warner, Boldin, and Dansby will be back, Warner should be the priority. With Warner, the Cards could easily take the NFC West again and make another playoff run, although they might want to earn home-field advantage for the NFC championship instead of having it fall into their laps.

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

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

February 5, 2009

Taking a Stand on Performance-Enhancers

Have you ever Googled yourself?

If you're bored, I fully recommend doing it. You'll find out things even your parents don't know about you.

For example, the entire NHL Internet community hates me because I wrote an article last year declaring the NHL dead.

There are entire message boards full of NHL fans doing everything from calling me stupid to challenging me to a fight.

Had I not Googled myself, I'd never know this.

I also discovered that I'm apparently on the fence when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs. Or at least, that's what procon.org says.

Procon.org is a non-profit organization that takes relevant topics and tries to present as many views as possible. Basically, they take as many articles they can find and present the authors' views on whatever subject they're researching.

Last year, they took up the question of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Apparently, I wrote an article back in June of last year defending Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens' Hall of Fame candidacy.

I write a lot of stuff. Approximately 400 articles in the last two years. I can barely remember what I wrote last week, never mind last summer.

Luckily, procon.org had a nice quote that summed up the basic premise of the article:

"The part of me that wants to eliminate all cheating from sports, both pro and amateur, agrees with this. I want PEDs [performance-enhancing drugs] out of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, bowling, golf, NASCAR ... I even want it out of gymnastics, swimming, and curling.

The realistic part of me knows that the scientists who are making the PEDs will always be a step ahead of the scientists who are testing them. After all, who do you think made more money? The guy who invented the Cream and the Clear, or the guy who helped the government figure out how to test for it?

Given that, is it really fair to tarnish Barry Bonds for doing something we're pretty sure a large percentage of the pitchers he was facing was also doing?

I understand that there are tests that detect most types of steroids. It's a no-brainer to include all of these types of PEDs on banned substance lists and to punish those who test positive for them. You can be relatively certain (as long as you're testing often enough) that only the players who test positive are using them, so it's perfectly fair to punish those who are caught.

But what about the PEDs you can't test for?

So, to sum this up: PEDs are cheating, players who use are scum and should be treated as such, but PEDs shouldn't be banned if we can't test for them."

Based on this quote and others from the article, procon.org has me listed as "Not clearly pro or con to the question 'Should performance-enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?'"

If there's one thing I'm not, it's a fence-sitter.

I didn't say the NHL was struggling, I said it was dead. I didn't say the Cardinals were a mediocre Super Bowl team, I said they were the worst ever.

I'm opinionated. Overly so and to a fault.

Just ask my wife.

Keeping with that theme, let me make this 100% clear: performance-enhancing drugs should never be accepted in sports. They should absolutely be banned. Barry Bonds is a cheating scumbag. Roger Clemens is one of the worst human beings on the planet.

I am 100% against PEDs.

That said, I'm still uncomfortable with the testing procedures.

When a Jason Giambi can take HGH for years and never fail a test, there's something wrong (but hey, he's really sorry ... for something).

When some fringe minor leaguer has his career ruined because he doesn't have the money to get the good stuff and fails a test, while the high draft picks get the BALCO premium junk that can't be detected, there's a problem.

The point of my article last summer was that we don't know how many players are on steroids, so it's unfair to single out the ones who screwed up and got caught.

It's the steroid era, for crying out loud.

I want steroids, HGH, and any other performance-enhancing drug banned from all sports. Just as soon as we have a test that catches them reliably and a fair testing program that catches the Barry Bonds of the world just as easily as it catches the Sergio Mitres of the world.

What I'm saying is, rather than expending all this energy hating on the guys who were dumb enough or unlucky enough to get caught, let's put that energy towards building a fool-proof testing system that actually works.

Let's get PEDs out of professional sports once and for all.

Sean Crowe is the New England Patriots Examiner at Examiner.com. He writes a column every other Thursday for Sports Central. You can e-mail him at [email protected].

Posted by Sean Crowe at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)

Nadal Blasts New Anti-Doping Rules

No, as classy a champion as Rafael Nadal was during the trophy presentation of the Australian Open 2009, the title of this article has nothing to do with what he said to a tearful Roger Federer standing behind him as the losing finalist. As a matter of fact, even though he said it during the tournament, it had nothing to do with it.

It was a short, accurate, and powerful sentence: "It's a disgrace!"

The new code from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) imposed on professional athletes identified by their international federations is precisely what Rafa called it: a disgrace!

Will WADA hear it? Considering Rafa is currently one of the most popular athletes on the planet, uncontested world number one in tennis, and the vice president of the ATP Players' Council, they should!

According the new rule, Rafa, along with other high-performance athletes from a variety of sports, is forced to designate an hour each day, for all 365 days of the year, during which he must reveal where he will be located.

Or else!

If he happens not to be found where he claimed he would be, oh let's say on September 3rd, and that happens two more times in a designated 18-month period, he is considered, or rather in this Gestapo-like system, he is "assumed" to have violated anti-doping rules and becomes a target of sanctions. How pathetic!

I wonder if WADA people know ahead of time where they will be at each hour of everyday, let alone a day several months into the future. I wonder if they are human enough to face the possibility that their daily schedule that they planned ahead of time, may change by that time, or even as early as the schedule of tomorrow. What if the tire on the car blows and one of them is not at the movie theater for a 2 PM matinee as they planned before? It's perfectly possible, right?

Personally, I may plan to read a book at the local bookstore tomorrow evening, but if my daughter asks me to take her to a kids show at the local park, you bet that I will be changing my plans. Now what? If I was under the same regulations, there goes one of my three chances. Oh boy! I have two left, I better be careful. Do I feel like a criminal, or what?

It does not stop there. The anti-doping agents may surprise you with a visit at the spot you designated for that hour to make sure that you are true to your word, or should we say, to "discipline and punish" as the title of the famous book about the history of surveillance and compliance by Michel Foucault.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Rafa. He has already had a visit by anti-doping agents once this month at 8 AM on a Saturday morning at his home in the island of Mallorca, Spain. He designated 7 AM for his time because he felt "that is the only time when I am sure I will be there." That morning, he was trying to get some sleep because he had a Friday night out with his friends. The nice and courteous agents made sure that he was there, and that he did not get his sleep!

And during the tournaments, he better be in his hotel room at 7 AM. Oh, and he must also predict which hotel he is staying at, 365 days into the future. What if he decides to change hotels? Or if the hotel previously designated is closed by the time of the tournament? Read on.

Keep talking, Rafa, nobody could put it better: "Even my mother or my uncle do not know where I am sometimes, so having to send a message or to be scared all day in case there is a last-minute change seems to me to be a complete exaggeration." What he is talking about is the addendum to the rule that in case there is a change of plans, the players can notify the authorities by text, e-mail, or fax. Hurray!

Stuart Miller, the head of the anti-doping program of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), says, "This should not be a problem." Yes, Stuart! Easy as stopping by a soft drink machine and getting a Pepsi, right? Can someone ask Stuart if he never, ever forgets to send an important e-mail, if he never forgets to notify someone when he had a change of plans, or if he ever forgot to call his wife at a time that he said he would? And if there does not happen to be an 18-month period during which he repeated the same mistake twice more? Can someone ask him if he is human?

So now, the ATP player, in the middle of his busy schedule and traveling, is supposed to predict where he will be for an hour all the way to the end of the year, notify the authorities of the details, and for each day that he may not be there, he is supposed to notify them again, and in case he has to change his plans several times in the last few days, he has to notify them all those several times. Easy as sticking a few coins in the machine and getting the soda, isn't it, Stuart?

So let's say Rafa, who designated his hotel as Hotel X in Rome during the Italian Open, happens to run into flight trouble the evening before. While he is at the airport and trying to figure out what flight to catch the next day and trying to figure out where to stay an extra night in the current town where he is located, packing and unpacking, is supposed to remember to notify the authorities of his change of plans and give them the name of the hotel in the current town, instead of the hotel in Rome, since he will be there at 7 AM the next morning due to flight trouble. Oh, and if his flight leaves at 7 AM, he is supposed to designate "in the air somewhere on the way to Rome." And he is supposed to remember to do that.

Now, Rafa is a bad example actually because one may say, "Rafa has an entourage, what are they there for?" It's true, but the point is still valid. Not everyone is Rafa, most players travel alone and do all their planning by themselves, and sometimes in the middle of a mayhem, finding an internet connection, a fax machine, or sending a text message is the last thing on their mind.

Well, Mike Bryan, half of the Bryan duo, the best doubles team in the world, happens to be human. The kind that Stuart Miller seems to ignore. He has already missed two dates in January, as of the 28th. He said that the possibility of a third is "a little scary." Long road ahead, Mike. Good luck!

So Rafa seems to share the opinion of 65 other athletes who are already appealing to the Belgian courts about this ridiculous decision. Again, he puts it elegantly, "I think it shows a lack of respect and privacy."

The sad thing is that this decision by WADA is probably triggered by doping scandals in certain sports, tennis not being one of them. Tragically, the pitiful "blanket" practice shows its ugly head again.

An agent of Octagon, a firm that represents athletes, said, "You almost have to think of WADA as your mother, father, girlfriend, and boyfriend." No kidding! Except that as Rafa said, even your closest relatives may not know where you are located, at a designated hour of each day. Let's go a step further; you may choose, in a free society, not to let even your closest relatives know ahead of time where you will be at a designated hour tomorrow, let alone every day for the next 12 months. But the world and the society, as Stuart Miller sees them, do not seem to be free ones.

Never mind a mother, father, boyfriend, or a girlfriend. It seems like the likes of Stuart Miller and WADA want to sleep in your bed! Rafa sent a clear message: it's a disgrace! Again, well said, Rafa!

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 11:43 AM | Comments (17)

February 4, 2009

NFL, Retirees Remain in Tussle on Benefits

Super Bowl XLIII was no better a reminder as to why so many Americans have made the NFL the king when it comes to the most watched professional sports league in the United States. And it is no coincidence that it continually is rated the favorite of sports fans in poll after poll. Additionally, the NFL also has bragging rights when it comes to yearly revenue, expected to be about $8 billion for the 2008 season as compared to Major League Baseball's nearly $7 billion annually.

And there is perhaps no better time to remember those who made it possible for the NFL's owners and players today to be able to revel in its continued success — the players who helped to build the league.

For the past couple of years, it has become public knowledge that a select group of retired NFL players have been struggling physically and economically since putting their playing days behind them. It is a serious matter, covering a complex and vast number of interrelated issues, rife with conflicts of interest.

As such, it has garnered the interest of the U.S. Congress, which held several hearings over the past two years, with the generation of a report by the Congressional Research Service, as requested by the House Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, and completed in April 2008.

Most knowledgeable sports fans realize that the professional sports industry represents another sector of big business. And that it too at times opens itself up to public scrutiny as concerns legalities, commerce, and anti-trust issues, not to mention pleasing its fanbase, the consumer.

But in this particular case, there has been dissent from numerous camps. The question remains as to whether there is a solution to help make those former NFL players whole again, to some extent legally, but moreover, whether there is any moral obligation to ill and/or financially-strapped former players by the NFL, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), or even individual players.

Given the complicated nature of this topic and its intertwining issues, it would fail to do it justice to assume it can be covered in one short article. However, it is important to keep illuminated some of the unresolved issues.

And in that effort, the following quote perhaps best describes the conflict at hand. How prevalent its sentiment is among current NFL players is hard to quantify, but at the very least, it needs to be more prominently exposed:

"There are some guys out there that have made bad business decisions. They've had a couple divorces and they're making payments to this place and that place. And that's why they don't have money. And they're coming to us to basically say, 'Please make up for my bad judgment.' In that case, that's not our fault as players."

That quote was made by New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees in Tampa, FL, during the week leading up to Super Bowl XLIII. He had been asked about the organization, Gridiron Greats, the non-profit organization which has raised funds and provided public awareness for alumni players who suffer disabilities and lack sufficient funds for costly medical care and insurance. Brees initially responded that Gridiron Greats' claims "are unfair because the picture they're painting is different than reality."

But perhaps Mr. Brees was unaware of an express-mailed letter that current Minnesota Vikings center Matt Birk had sent to every single NFL player in late November 2008 on behalf of the Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund. It requested that players donate a portion of their game check for Game 16 on December 21, 2008 to the non-profit organization for what was called Gridiron Guardian Sunday.

According to Gridiron Greats Executive Director Jennifer Smith, as of Thursday, January 29, 2009, a total of 15 players sent in check donations for the December 21st event. And to make it perfectly clear, the response was a total of 15 players league-wide, not 15 players per team.

Matt Birk has noted that, "The NFLPA has attacked Gridiron Greats, saying these retired players are in the predicament they are in because of their own doing, because of their own bad choices." Apparently, Brees got that memo, but not Birk's letter.

The NFL blames the NFLPA and the NFLPA blames the victims. And the history of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but muddies the water some more. One needs a veritable map to follow the history of the CBA and its history with the NFLPA. It is but a fragmented tale that contains twists and turns including strikes, lockouts, and continual changes in player benefits.

Unfortunately, some former players' benefits are still tied to whichever CBA was in place at the time of their playing careers or the actual years in which they played. Also, it is important to point out that for players who played at a time before the multi-million dollar contract or who had a shortened career, pension benefits are based upon the number of years played, not on earnings. In either case, it is a lose-lose for many.

In fact, the poor administration of pension and healthcare benefits certainly cannot be laid at the feet of former players, as the NFLPA would like to do. And given that the NFL administers the actual benefits fund, that is exactly what happens.

But it has only been since 1993 that a more encompassing CBA was installed, following years of sub-standard pension and healthcare benefits that began in 1959. At that time, the benefit plan kicked in at age 65 and was administered by team owners.

The Total Disability and Permanent (T&P) disability benefits and line-of-duty (LOD) disability benefits were established in 1970. However, to date, the criteria and claim filing procedures lack transparency and clarity for players. In general, only 42% of those applying for disability benefits ever receive them. The number of players who have applied for disability benefits and were denied them remains information hard to come by.

A former player may be disabled and suffer from a condition or illness that interferes with his activities of daily living from either a direct or an indirect result of playing in the NFL. Yet he may not be receiving any disability benefits at all.

And most stunning of all is that there is no comprehensive data kept about the health of former players that has either been collected or maintained by the NFL, the NFLPA, or a third party designate. That means that out of the 13,000 former NFL players, of which 7,900 are fully vested for benefits, there is only documentation available for those players that have filed disability claims.

Furthermore, neither the NFL nor the NFLPA collects any data on the number or percentage of players who retire because of an injury or injuries.

It cannot be made more clear that unlike other professional sports, the NFL player injury rates are nearly eight times higher than that of any other professional sports league, including the NHL, NBA, and MLB, as well as NASCAR. And for that reason, it has become more and more difficult for former NFL players to overcome the hurdles necessary to receive the health and disability benefits they desperately need.

The NFL is a collision sport, rather than just a contact sport, which the NFL routinely says it is. And the physical toll that it exacts upon its players, especially for those who play many more years than the average player that lasts 3-4 years in the league, the long-term health impact may not be realized for several years after leaving the game.

When a player walks away from the NFL without catastrophic injury, it should not relieve the NFL or the NFLPA of their obligation to allow players to continue some semblance of an adequate quality of life thereafter.

During this economic crisis, big business has shown that it takes no prisoners. But let us hope that the NFL, its players union, and its individual players give a bit more thought to those who came before them. And let not the economy be the convenient excuse to not do the right thing.

Pay it forward.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 11:57 AM | Comments (1)

February 3, 2009

Super Bowl XLIII Recap

Super Bowl XLIII
February 1, 2009
Tampa, Florida
Pittsburgh Steelers 27, Arizona Cardinals 23

What is it about Kurt Warner and exciting fourth quarters in the Super Bowl?

Super Bowl XXXIV was one of the most boring championship games ever played — for three quarters. The fourth quarter was probably the most exciting in Super Bowl history, at least up to that point. Two years later, Warner played in Super Bowl XXXVI, which the Patriots won on a last-second field goal.

Now this. There were a total of 27 points scored in the first 52 minutes of the game. There were 23 points scored in the last eight minutes. Wild comebacks when this guy is involved.

I don't know if anyone else wondered about this, but I did. Warner's go-ahead touchdown pass to Larry Fitzgerald came with 2:47 left in the game. His winning TD pass to Isaac Bruce nine years ago came with 1:54 remaining. What a difference a minute makes.

Where Did That Ending Come From?

Halftime wasn't the real divider in this game. The fourth quarter was. For three quarters, this was Pittsburgh's game: low-scoring and slow-paced, with most of the big plays coming on defense. The teams combined for 11 offensive possessions and 27 points. The fourth quarter was exciting and fast-paced, with most of the big plays coming on offense. The teams combined for nine offensive possessions and 23 points. What changed?

Two of Arizona's biggest stars, Larry Fitzgerald and Darnell Dockett, broke free in the fourth quarter. Fitzgerald, the unquestioned star of this postseason, had one catch for 12 yards in those first three quarters. The Steelers blanketed him with coverage, and the Cardinals' offense was ineffective without him. In the fourth quarter, Warner finally started throwing it to Fitzgerald. Suddenly, their offense exploded. In that fourth quarter, Fitzgerald had 6 receptions for 115 yards and 2 touchdowns. Good things happen when this guy gets the ball.

Pittsburgh's offense played well throughout the game, except for a cold streak that lasted most of the fourth quarter. That cold streak was keyed by the play of Dockett. On consecutive plays, he broke into the backfield, stuffing Willie Parker for a four-yard loss and sacking Ben Roethlisberger for another 12 yards. Punt. The next time Pittsburgh got the ball, Dockett sacked Roethlisberger again, this time for 10 yards. That set up another three-and-out.

The heroics from Fitzgerald and Dockett gave Arizona the lead with 2:47 remaining. That's when Santonio Holmes took over.

MVP

For only the second time in my seven years covering the Super Bowl for Sports Central, I agree with the choice for MVP. Through 3½ quarters, when the score was 20-7, it had to be someone on defense. I was waffling between Ike Taylor, who had shut down Larry Fitzgerald, and James Harrison, whose 100-yard interception return set a Super Bowl record.

Taylor quickly took his name out of the running. He fell apart in the last eight minutes, getting burned by Fitzgerald several times and earning a 15-yard penalty. Harrison had a couple of tackles and he drew at least two holding penalties, but he was only a serious contender because of that interception return.

No one made more big plays in Super Bowl XLIII than Santonio Holmes. He had three catches on Pittsburgh's first touchdown drive and drew a 15-yard facemask penalty in the third quarter, but Holmes was even better with the game on the line. After the Cardinals went ahead, Holmes picked up four catches for 73 yards and the game-winning touchdown. He accounted for almost half of the team's offensive yardage (131/292, 45%), finishing with 9 receptions for 131 yards, not including two catches for 41 yards that were called back because of holding penalties.

Wide receivers won Super Bowl MVP only three times in the first 38 years of the event. In the five Super Bowls since, they've doubled that, with MVPs for Deion Branch (XXXIX), Hines Ward (XL), and Holmes (XLIII). Three of the six WRs to win this award did it with the Steelers (Ward, Holmes, and Lynn Swann).

A Little More About Receivers

This Super Bowl set records for fewest rushing yards (91) and fewest rushing attempts (38). The previous record low for yardage was 136, set last year. This year's total was the lowest by a huge margin. Super Bowl XLIII was a story of two receivers, Holmes and Fitzgerald. These were the two best players on the field Sunday, and almost every big play involved them.

Having said that, the play of the game — easily — was Harrison's interception return for a touchdown. That one play was a 10-14 point swing, +7 for Pittsburgh and -3 or -7 for the Cardinals. If that pass is incomplete, there's a good chance Arizona wins the game.

Super Bowl XLIII in Perspective

About every other year, there is a chorus declaring the best Super Bowl ever. We heard it for XLII (Giants/Pats), XXXVIII (Pats/Panthers), XXXVI (Pats/Rams), and XXXIV (Rams/Titans), which started this unfortunate trend. In all fairness, I really do think that XXXVI and XLII were the two best Super Bowls ever. This was a good game, probably in the top 10, but not the best.

I don't mean to bash a fine Super Bowl — I enjoyed the game — but this was an uneven contest. The teams themselves seem to have been evenly matched, but the quality of play was up-and-down all game. The Steelers led by 13 points entering the fourth quarter. At no point in last year's Super Bowl was either team ahead by more than four. This game was also marred by penalties. This Super Bowl had the most penalty yards in almost 40 years, since the notoriously ugly Super Bowl V. This year's championship game ranked among the top three Super Bowls in combined penalties (18), combined penalty yards (162), penalties by one team (Arizona, 11), and penalty yards by one team (Arizona, 106).

Here's my question for the overly-enthusiastic fans who want to call this the best Super Bowl ever: did you watch the first 52 minutes?

History

With Sunday's win, the Pittsburgh Steelers became the first NFL franchise to win six Super Bowls. This franchise, owned and run by the Rooney family for more than 70 years, is a model for how every NFL team should conduct itself. The Steelers are also the shining example of why the NFL is the best professional sports association in North America. Pittsburgh is a small-market team in other leagues. The MLB Pirates are never competitive, and the NHL's Penguins struggle just to exist. The Steelers are consistently one of the best teams in the NFL, and that reflects extremely well on both the league and the Rooneys.

This game was also significant with regard to the winning coach. Pittsburgh HC Mike Tomlin is the youngest head coach ever to win a Super Bowl (he's 36). He's also black. Deion Sanders noticed this, too, but we've heard a lot about Tomlin's age, and hardly anything about his race. That is, in my eyes, a sign of tremendous progress. Let's not ignore, though, that two of the last three Super Bowl-winning HCs have been African-Americans. That's hugely significant.

Announcers, Entertainment, and Commercials

This section is a scattered collection of thoughts that don't fit well into paragraph format, so I'm just going with bullet points.

• I have long maintained that Bruce Springsteen should play the Super Bowl halftime show pretty much every year. I rest my case.
• Cris Collinsworth is a suck-up. I remember when he would say what he felt, but now he just wants people to like him.
• NBC did a fine, professional job with the game itself.
• This was a disappointing year for Super Bowl ads. I might give the nod to that very strange Hulu ad, basically because Alec Baldwin is funny.
• Those commercials with the baby are really tired. They need to stop.
• Younger fans might not get this, but one of the soda companies parodied probably the most famous ad in Super Bowl history, the "Thanks, Mean Joe" spot from almost 30 years ago. When it started, I thought they were re-creating the original, and thought, "Oh, that's not a good idea." Well, it would have been a better idea than what they actually did.
• I don't think Super Bowl ads are safe for children any more. I bet about a third of them, you wouldn't want your daughter to see. The commercials that run during the most widely-watched event of the year should be safe for all audiences.

Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame announced the Class of 2009 on Saturday: Bob Hayes, Randall McDaniel, Bruce Smith, Derrick Thomas, Ralph Wilson, and Rod Woodson. Smith and Woodson were absolute locks, and there is no room for controversy in their selections. Hayes was a Senior candidate; he retired 34 years ago and died in 2002. Opinion has long diverged on Hayes' candidacy, but I believe he belongs in. Hayes made his reputation as an Olympic gold medalist, but he was also an all-pro receiver and a Super Bowl champion. McDaniel made 12 Pro Bowls and was a foundation for the great Minnesota offenses under Dennis Green. Ralph Wilson has owned the Buffalo Bills since their inception in 1960 and has resisted efforts to move the team to a larger city. All of those guys belong in the Hall.

I am not going to say that Derrick Thomas, who tragically died at the age of 33, doesn't belong in Canton. Thomas was an exceptional pass rusher, and outside linebackers are badly underrepresented in the Hall. But Thomas got in ahead of other, even more deserving OLBs. Here's hoping Thomas' election clears the way for Kevin Greene, and maybe even old-timers like Chuck Howley and Chris Hanburger.

The real mistake the voters made this year wasn't who they voted in, but who they left out: Senior nominee Claude Humphrey, a six-time Pro Bowl DE with the Atlanta Falcons. It's my feeling that the Senior candidates should pretty much always get in, unless they are obviously undeserving. Humphrey was not obviously undeserving; I would even argue the opposite, that he was obviously deserving of induction. I question whether the voters who nixed his candidacy really knew much about Humphrey. I'm also surprised that Shannon Sharpe didn't get in. He'll probably make it next year.

Other Sports Thoughts

Terrific men's final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the Australian Open. This match was more interesting and better-played than their overrated Wimbledon final last year. The final in Melbourne featured lots of long, exciting rallies, and three or four games with at least six deuces. It also became clear this weekend that Nadal is the best player in the world.

If you watched ESPN2's re-broadcast of the event, though, you would have thought the biggest sports story on Sunday was Michael Phelps smoking weed. SI.com thought Phelps was a bigger story than the tennis match. I respectfully disagree with my editor's opinion that this is a noteworthy sports story. Get a grip, all of you. This is tabloid gossip, and it has no foreseeable effect on anything related to sports.

Finally, MMA fans were treated to a pretty good January, with two major events in the UFC and another from the WEC, plus the Affliction/M1 card featuring Fedor Emelianenko. Following Saturday's fights, I'm prepared to say that Georges St-Pierre and Lyoto Machida are the two best pound-for-pound fighters in the world. Are they really ahead of Anderson Silva, Miguel Torres, and Fedor? Maybe not, but the way they fought this weekend, I don't see how anyone could be better.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:59 AM | Comments (2)

Compromise is Inevitable For PGA Tour

Last week's Bob Hope Classic on the PGA Tour is a shining example of the problem that the Tour faces in this economy. Chrysler, which was listed as the title sponsor of the event just weeks ago, asked tournament organizers to remove their name from the title of the event. Chrysler still paid title sponsor fees as part of its contract with the PGA Tour, but had a very low key presence at the event. There were fewer Chrysler vehicles at the event and none of the Chrysler executives were present on site. Even that annoying interview that is normally conducted with a sponsor executive at the last hole did not happen. Chrysler made a concerted effort to be neither seen nor heard in the California desert.

Reports have come out since that say that tournament organizers expect that Chrysler will again sponsor the Hope in 2010. Its understated presence this year, though, seems to suggest that Chrysler will try to quietly bail out of its contractual obligations. European automaker Fiat was sold a one-third stake in Chrysler during tournament week, which means Cerebus Capital will have to answer to another partner that is keeping it afloat.

Chrysler also has to answer to the American public. Chrysler and GM are recipient of bridge loans from the taxpayer, vis-à-vis the federal government. You and I have a vested stake in the success or failure of these two automakers. Never mind the impact on the job market if these companies fail. You and I are investors in the American auto industry.

We are also investors in the financial sector that grew so out of control and over-leveraged that they ruined our housing market, credit system, and faith in free market capitalism. The federal government has used its TARP program and the unlimited balance sheet of the Federal Reserve to make trillions of dollars of investments into our financial companies.

Many of these companies that have received funds are sponsors of PGA Tour tournaments. The PGA Tour schedule is littered with title sponsors that are in industries receiving investments of our money and backed by our goodwill. Citigroup, heavily involved in golf sponsorships, was rightly criticized this week for purportedly awaiting delivery of a $50 million private jet while simultaneously accepting billions of dollars from the federal government. Public pressure and outrage from those reports forced Citigroup to cancel the order.

While PGA Tour sponsorship is not a $50 million proposition, it is a multi-million dollar proposition. That is the kind of expenditure that draws a critical eye if exposed to the public. The executives at General Motors arrived to Washington for their second begging session with Congress by car and commercial jetliner instead of private jet because of perception. The perception that companies which are receiving federal government loans and equity could somehow invest in a fat cat sport like golf will be damaging. The clamors for change will come full throttle as the economy worsens seemingly by the day.

A good percentage of the schedule is up for renegotiation this year and in 2010. Invariably, events sponsored by troubled companies are on the list. Considering that economists do not expect things the economic bleeding to stop until the middle of this year at a minimum, sponsors will be cash-strapped and their balance sheets scrutinized by shareholders. That means that the PGA Tour is likely to face a lot of rejection in its sponsorship negotiations this year.

In order to maintain purse sizes and keep up with the European Tour, the PGA Tour will be forced to find a new wave of sponsors that are willing to pay the hefty price tag of sponsorship. That pool of potential new sponsors is dwindling. If the current television advertising environment is any indicator, that pool may also be undesirable.

A recent report showed that traditional primetime advertisers — financials, staple companies, and the like — have yielded their ad buys to companies and products that normally are seen during midday and night-owl hours. Have you noticed that you are seeing many more commercials for Snuggie, CashPoint payday loans, and Oxi Clean during primetime? They are taking up the space vacated and unwanted by bigger companies. They may be the kind of company most financially able to sponsor golf today at the PGA Tour's current rates.

Could you imagine such a thing? The World Golf Championships Snuggie Invitational? How about the ironic Cash Point Open? Well, it is that kind of company that is more likely to thrive during a lousy economy. People are cash-strapped and staying at home more. They will flock to these businesses and products. Perhaps the Netflix Championship is not too far off in the horizon.

Going this route would severely damage the brand that the folks in Ponte Vedra work very hard to protect. They want the PGA Tour brand shared with companies of long-standing tradition. They want transnationals. They want names associated with the richness of the game. Unfortunately, that is probably not available in this economy at the price they advertise.

That in mind, the PGA Tour can opt to take the hit in its brand, or lower the price tag of sponsorship across the board. Sponsors have said for years that the egalitarian price tag for PGA Tour events is bogus. U.S. Bank, which opted out of its sponsorship of the Milwaukee event, basically said that they were not getting enough bang for their buck. To sponsor an event scheduled opposite the Open Championship, the Tour would have to ask Golf News Net to pay $10.

The Tour should take this time as an opportunity to reconfigure its sponsorship rates. There should be tiers of sponsorship based on the quality of field it expects and its place in the schedule. World Golf Championship event sponsorship should cost way more than events opposite them or major championships. Fall Series events should practically be free until they prove their comparative value to the regular FedEx Cup season.

Even if it does not adopt this approach, it should cut prices across the board. Companies and their investors are likely to better stomach a smaller bill and are doubly likely to remain sponsors when the economy improves because of the kind of goodwill that the Tour would show by lowering the price of sponsorship.

Left with the choice between incongruent sponsors or traditional sponsors at a lower price, the Tour would probably choose for the lower price. It does come at a risk of angering players that have shown loyalty to the PGA Tour. The Tour would likely also be forced to change its restrictions on its players' schedules outside of the PGA Tour and potentially lift the ban on appearance fees for players. This would be part of the domino effect of trying to balance the reality of golf sponsorship demand and the competition that the PGA Tour faces from the European Tour.

The PGA Tour faces some awfully tough months ahead and I do not envy them. They will have to answer to a lot of different masters — their sponsors, their players, and their competition all breathing down their neck. It will likely have to make many compromises. And unfortunately for Commissioner Tim Finchem, not even Tiger Woods could bail him out of this one.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

February 2, 2009

In the Rotation: NBA Week 14

On Tuesday of this week, the Charlotte Bobcats went into the Staples Center and beat the Lakers 117-110 in double overtime. It was the Bobcats' fourth win in their last five tries against the Lakers, and the game featured plenty of huge plays and last second heroics.

Ultimately, however, the game will be remembered for this foul.

Andrew Bynum was issued a flagrant foul for his hit on Gerald Wallace, and as a result of the foul, Wallace suffered a broken rib and a partially collapsed lung. When he will be able to return to action is unclear.

The flagrant foul on Bynum sparked the obvious debate this week: was the hit on Wallace a cheap shot or not? When I was watching it live, I didn't think so, it just looked like Bynum was taking a hard foul to prevent an easy basket late in the game, a game in which the Lakers already trailed by five with 2:08 to play.

After seeing this replay, however, I changed my tune. Stu Lantz says it best during the clip: Bynum doesn't play the ball. For that, he deserved a flagrant foul.

Which leads me to my next question: is there a difference between a cheap shot and a flagrant foul?

The answer is yes.

There is a clear difference between a flagrant foul and a cheap shot. A cheap shot, in my not so expert opinion, is one that doesn't come within the flow of the game, and is issued with more intent to injure the opposing player than to make a play. In this instance, I don't think what Bynum did was a cheap shot at all.

What Bynum did was stop a layup that would have put his team down seven points with two minutes to play. The end result is the only reason it needs to be discussed.

The Lakers were raked over the coals after the NBA Finals last season for not being tough enough inside. Now, after two hard fouls late against Cleveland on MLK day, followed up by the flagrant against Wallace a week later, all of the sudden Bynum and the Lakers are dirty.

Either the Lakers can play tough and send players a message when they go to the lane, just like the Pistons and Knicks did every time Michael Jordan attacked the rim, or play soft and lose. It's a lose-lose situation for this team.

They add toughness via the hard foul, they get criticized for it. They don't make players pay for going inside in the playoffs, they get criticized for it.

I ask you this: if your favorite team was in this no-win situation, would you rather see them not take hard fouls and be dubbed "soft," or defend the rim at all cost, even if it means being called dirty?

There isn't a fan in the world that would choose playing soft in that scenario.

So to you, Gerald Wallace, I regret that fact that you injured yourself, I truly do. But I'm sorry to say, the next time any opponent comes flying into the lane against my favorite team, I want to see that player face-first into the photographers.

It's nothing personal. It's just how good basketball is played.

To further illustrate my point on the difference between a hard foul and a cheap shot, today's Starting Five is comprised of some of the most memorable cheap shots in NBA history.

1. McHale Fouls Rambis

If we're going to talk about cheap shots, we had might as well start with the mother of all cheap shots. This foul from the 1984 Finals sums up exactly what my definition of a cheap shot is.

Kevin McHale can and probably does defend himself by saying that he was just trying to stop a transition bucket. I'm not buying it. He two-arm clotheslines Kurt Rambis in the open floor. No matter how you size it up, it was a cheap shot.

The best part of this foul was that not only was McHale not ejected, but at about 18 seconds into the clip, the announcer says that both benches have cleared, and it doesn't have any implications on the series itself. If that foul happened now, not only would McHale serve like a five-game suspension, but both teams would have had to play five-on-five the following game because each bench player from both teams would have been suspended.

My, how the game has changed.

2. Raja Bell Clotheslines Kobe

It hasn't changed entirely, however. Some players still execute the clothesline; it just comes at a steeper price.

Not only was Bell ejected for this foul, but he was also suspended for the following game. Maybe Bell was upset with himself over the fact that he realized that he wasn't the "Kobe-stopper" that the Suns hoped he would be in that series (Bryant averaged 27.9 points per game in the series), or maybe Kobe was asking for it with dirty plays on the other end of the floor.

Whatever the case, Bell's unnecessary clothesline just three short years ago sheds light on what a real cheap shot is, and should have critics of Andrew Bynum's play taking a long, hard look back before they dub the Gerald Wallace play as "dirty."

3. Horry Fouls Nash

Even for someone who hates the Suns as much as me, it's pretty hard to defend this one. The game was far from over (not that it matters), and Robert Horry inexplicably just hip-checked Steve Nash into the scorer's table. As far as cheap shots go, this is as first-class (or classless) as they come.

The question here isn't whether Horry committed a cheap shot; it's whether it decided the outcome of the series. Remember, after the hard foul, Boris Diaw and Amar'e Stoudemire were both suspended for leaving the bench. Would the Suns have been able to close out the series back at home with those two players active?

Maybe. But probably not. The Suns' gimmick style of play had proven time and again that it wasn't good enough to overcome the Spurs. This is a team that lost to the Spurs in the playoffs in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2008.

With or without two of their best players suspended after the Horry cheap shot, this Suns team was not equipped to beat the Spurs. Period.

4. Bruce Bowen

Bruce Bowen has carved out a reputation as being one of the best perimeter defenders in the game. On the way to achieving this status, Bowen also developed a reputation as being one of the league's dirtiest players.

Over the years, Bowen has developed two signature moves, the undercut and the kick, and his choice of move varies depending on the situation.

When out on the perimeter, Bowen likes to undercut his opponent, as seen here.

When in tighter quarters, Bowen likes to use a kick to temporary disable/frustrate his opponent, as seen here.

But every once in a while, worlds will collide and Bowen will take his kick move to the perimeter and things like this happen.

Regardless of the situation, the "crafty" Bruce Bowen has proven time and time again that he is ready and willing to strike at any time, which surely won't hurt his reputation as a feared defender, for better or worse.

5. Laimbeer Fouls Everyone

It was hard to pick just one Bill Laimbeer foul to put on the list. After all, this is the same man who had a video game named "Bill Laimbeer Combat Basketball" to capitalize on his reputation as one of the dirtiest players in the league.

So instead, I went with a clip of Laimbeer being karate-chopped by "The Chief" Robert Parish. This video pretty much sums up how every opposing player felt about Laimbeer during his 14-year NBA career.

Love him or hate him, and unless you're from Detroit you hate him, Laimbeer had a great career. He was a four-time all-star in the '80s, had 10 consecutive seasons averaging at least 9 rebounds per game, including the 1985-86 season in which he led the league at 13.1 rebounds per game, and finished his career in the top five of virtually every statistic in the Detroit Pistons franchise history.

Yet, despite his talents, he will always be remembered as the Baddest of the Bad Boys, a title that I'm pretty sure he isn't ashamed of.

In the Rotation: Ernie Johnson, Jr.

Two things should be pretty clear by now if you've been reading In the Rotation this season: I love old-school NBA (see above) and I obsess over TV coverage of the NBA.

Already this season I've written about the comedy provided by home team announcers several times, vented on how bad C-Webb and G.P. are on NBA Fan night, and called out ESPN for blatantly taking Phil Jackson's quote about his future out of context.

It's time to finally give credit where credit is due.

On Wednesday of this week, E.J. was in the NBA studios for NBA Gamenight. He was teamed with Eric Snow (probably the most knowledgeable yet simultaneously the stiffest NBA analyst out there), and actually got some personality out of him. That in itself is worthy of making the rotation.

The next night, Ernie was doing his normal hosting duties for TNT on Thursday night, and he was joined by in dreaded duo of Gary Payton and Chris Webber.

Not only was E.J. able to curtail the childish antics of G.P. and C-Webb, but he also set them up perfectly for some expert analysis. And you know what? They actually sounded like experts.

I was just as shocked to see it as you, but when you get past the screaming and constant ball-busting, G.P. and C-Webb actually have great points to make. Apparently, Ahmad Rashad just isn't good enough as a host to get it out of them.

Props to Ernie for not only staying afloat during the Charles Barkley suspension, but for keeping the show at its best despite losing its star. It may sound like a small task, just a TV man doing his job, but after watching E. Snow awkwardly size up Andre Aldridge three nights a week, and Amahad lose complete control of the show regularly while Gary and Chris are whooping it up, I think E.J. deserves a medal for his work.

(P.S. Thank the NBA for Sir Charles not making the Starting Five. He wasn't just a cheap shot artist, he was a cheap shot Rembrandt. However, none of his fouls, or various other famous hard fouls for that matter, can be viewed on YouTube because the NBA "coincidentally" erased just about every video that has anything to do with a cheap shot. You can find highlights of any NBA player you want at the click of a button and copyright laws don't apply. But the second you post a video featuring a dirty play, hell hath no fury like David Stern.)

Out of the Rotation: Jose Calderon's Free Throw Streak

On Friday night, the Toronto Raptors' Jose Caledron missed his first free throw of the season. He had made 87 consecutive free throws, good for the second longest streak in NBA history behind only Micheal Williams, who made 97 straight in 1993.

As I've already discussed at length, I'm a big fan of the history of the game, and I think that records are meant to be broken. Calderon finally missing a free throw puts an end to one of the only chances we had this NBA season to see someone make history.

Congratulations to Jose Calderon and his impressive streak, but let's hope someone starts doing something great again very soon so we can start tracking history again as soon as possible. We NBA junkies need to get our fix from somewhere before the playoffs start.

Be sure to check back at Sports Central every Monday to see who cracks Scott Shepherd's rotation as he breaks down what is going on around the NBA.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

Rafa Wins an Eventful Australian Open

The 2009 installment of an eventful Australian Open has come to a close. Over the last two weeks, fans have been treated to some memorable action. The standard of tennis throughout the Melbourne major has been of an extremely high quality, but the tournament wasn't without some controversy.

Several days before the main draws had even kicked off, events started to border on strange. After an unbeaten start to the season, Andy Murray was installed has the favorite to lift the Sir Norman Brookes Trophy. The Scotsman was the most in-form player as the tour ventured Down Under, but with that said, he has yet to prove that he is capable of winning a major.

The rather redundant question of who should be favorite took a slightly surreal turn down Djokovic Drive when the men's singles champion, Novak Djokovic, piped up. In response to a question posed by the media on the subject, Djokovic replied, "What's his ranking? And what's mine?" So by the Serb's reckoning, he wouldn't even end up victorious on the tournament's second Sunday. Djokovic had, in fact, spoiled the entire competition by telling us that Rafael Nadal would win.

Seeing as how this is the Australian Open, it was rather fitting that the first week was dominated by an Australian comeback. Jelena Dokic, once again representing Australia, quickly became the stand-out story of this year's Australian Open. The former world No. 4 made her way to the quarterfinals before being knocked out by Dinara Safina. While her navigation through a tough draw shocked a lot of people, it will be the fourth round match against Alisa Kleybanova. Having shared the first two sets, Dokic eventually emerged victorious, winning the third set 8-6 after a little over three hours on-court.

The aforementioned lack of Djokovic's media savvy once again came to the fore when he faced a barrage of questions on crowd violence. The violence had erupted outside the Rod Laver Arena in the aftermath of Djokovic's victory over Bosnian-born American, Amer Delic. Bosnian and Serbian fans clashed in scenes more accustomed to a soccer stadium. When asked to comment, Djokovic seemed to laugh it off and didn't appear to condemn the acts of violence at all, unlike Delic, who made a harrowing statement about how violence tends to take place everywhere these days.

The second week's action was tinged with an element of controversy as the tournament's extreme heat policy was utilized for the first time. Temperatures soared to a sweltering 43ºC during a quarterfinal match between Svetlana Kuznetsova and Serena Williams. Kuznetsova won the first set 7-5, then the drama unfolded as the roof was closed, much to Kuznetsova's dismay, to allow play to continue. After the match, she felt as though she had some reason for complaint, but her grievances were seriously misplaced. In the second set, Kuznetsova broke the Williams serve to close in on the semifinals. The fact of the matter is when you are 5-3 up and you are serving to win the match, it doesn't matter what is or isn't above your head. Kuznetsova should've closed out the match — it's as simple as that.

Perhaps the conditions of the match shouldn't be altered halfway through, but by the same token, the conditions are the same for both players. Consequently, you can't help but wonder why the roof wasn't closed the day before when a stricken Djokovic succumbed to the heat in his quarterfinal with Andy Roddick. In no way do I want to condone the fact that Djokovic retire from yet another Grand Slam tournament, but if the roof is there to be used, why not use it?

The fortnight's competition was packed full of classic encounters. Richard Gasquet squandered yet another two-set lead in a major, eventually falling in a titanic clash with Fernando Gonzalez. Nevertheless, despite losing to the big-hitting Chilean, Gasquet helped to silence his doubters. He is often lambasted for being a "bottler," but he fought to the end, producing some of his best tennis just prior to the finale.

It's near impossible to talk about epic matches at the 2009 Australian Open without mentioning Rafael Nadal vs. Fernando Verdasco. The all-Spanish semifinal produced some of the finest and most powerful strokes ever seen on a tennis court. Verdasco attacked from the first serve to the last, taking Nadal on at his own game. After hours of forehands, backhands, smashes, and lobs, it looked as though Verdasco would just about limp into a final with Roger Federer. However, Nadal showed his championship credentials by winning the Australian Open's longest ever match in five hours, 14 minutes. It was just a shame that the final point of the match was a double fault.

Serena Williams turned the women's final into a non-event as she claimed her fourth Australian Open title. She disposed of Dinara Safina in less than an hour. In the aftermath, all everyone could hope is that the men's final wouldn't follow in the same vein.

Thankfully, the two men in the final were two of the best players to ever grace a tennis court, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. The Swiss maestro was targeting a record equalling 14th Grand Slam, while Nadal was seeking some history of his own. Were the Spaniard to triumph over Federer for the 13th time, he would become only the fourth male player to win a major on all surfaces. He would join the illustrious group of Mats Wilander, Jimmy Connors, and Andre Agassi.

The opening exchanges of their first encounter since Wimbledon were extremely nervy, particularly on Federer's side of the net. As time went on, Federer found his feet and the quality of tennis from both players was nothing short of sublime. Nadal raised his game towards the end of the first set to claim it. Federer picked up his game to win the second set, in spite of only managing to get a measly 37% of first serves in.

With Federer trailing in sets 2-1 and the score at two-apiece in the fourth set, tennis fans were treated to arguably the greatest game of tennis ever played. The game ebbed and flowed one way and then the other. The rallies featured exquisite shot making by both, supposedly, mere mortals. In reality, this 11-minute battle was a microcosm of the war fought beneath the lights of the Rod Laver Arena between two of the finest sportsmen ever.

After going on to take the fourth set, Federer fell away in the fifth. Consequently, the final set was somewhat of an anti-climax as Federer's charge towards history began to dwindle. On Nadal's third championship point, a long forehand from Federer extinguished the Swiss' hopes and sealed the world number one's place in history. Nevertheless, events during the breath-taking final would subsequently pale in comparison to the events that transpired during the presentation ceremony.

After receiving the runners-up plate from his idol, Rod Laver, a defeated Federer approached the microphone. He was clearly lost for words as the crowd applauded in appreciation of his efforts. Eventually, after an awkward couple of minutes, Federer gave way for his emotions to be showcased as he broke into tears. One of the greatest players ever reduced to tears, but not before he managed to deliver the heart-breaking line, "God, it's killing me." Upon receiving the winner's trophy, Nadal wrapped his arm around the distraught Federer, showing the tremendous spirit between the two men. Needless to say, the image of Federer crying will no doubt be one of the enduring images in sports history.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 11:52 AM | Comments (4)