Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »

February 27, 2010

A Look at the 2010 NFL Combine

With the NFL Combine bearing down on Indianapolis, the 2010 NFL Season has reached its "official" unofficial beginning. While late February marks the starting point for your prototypical barrage of mock drafts and player rankings, I wanted to take a fresh approach to the NFL's draft season by painting a more generic picture of the draft landscape.

Most mock drafts are predicated on two primary principals: relative player value and team need. In this article, both will be discussed, only not in the same direct sense you would see in most mock drafts. No, Seth Doria, this is not my way of skirting the "no mock draft guarantee" I boldly — and foolishly — threw on the table during last spring's First-Annual Sports Central Mock Draft Competition (which, I am compelled to report, I was systematically destroyed in). Rather than a straight up, team-by-team, player-by-player assessment, this article will offer more in the way of players on the bubble, overrated and underrated and potential team movement scenarios.

As the combine is set to get underway, several players enter the fray with something to say as they wait for their day (okay, this rhyming is getting gay; sorry, couldn't resist that last part ... I digress). While I could use this space to tell you that Ndamukong Suh won't be the first DT picked in the draft, but will be the most productive, that Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford will be a top-10 pick, but won't play a down in 2010, and that no true linebacker will be selected in the top 15 picks of this draft, none of that has anything to do with the results of the scouting combine this February 24 thru March 2. Of more note relative to the combine is the potential for a handful of name-brand wide receivers to make or break their signing bonuses and the jockeying that could take place amongst the defensive ends and defensive backs participating in workouts and drills.

Many pundits will rail about how unimportant this combine actually is. They'll tell you annually several key players don't work out and quite typically no standard-bearing QB risks his implied value by participating in the combine drills, so what value is there really to the event? Well, ask the laundry list of fringe prospects that shoot up the draft boards with strong combine performances (Amobe Okoye, Troy Williamson, Kyle Boller, Darrius Heyward-Bey) how important it can be, and ask those that were victimized by weak performances at the combine, ultimately costing them millions in bonus opportunities (Shonn Green, Andre Smith, Terry Bradshaw, Aaron Rodgers).

Further, the facts bear out the import of the combine. Consider these numbers: 96% of players selected in the first three rounds of the 2009 draft (included all 32 first round picks) attended the combine. In 2008, that number was 100%. Roughly 85% of all drafted players have been combine attendees in recent years, which is a clear indicator that it really does matter. Only about 30% of annual combine attendees go undrafted, which really is a remarkable number when you consider just over 325 kids are invited each year. It is true that in many cases drills and workouts aren't on the agenda for key potential draft picks (similar to the situations faced by QBs Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, and Colt McCoy this season), but it is still of equal importance that the mental tests be conducted and face-to-face interviews held between players and prospective suitors, all stuff that happens at the combine.

In 2010, there is no doubt that NFL Network will highlight the workouts of Florida's Tim Tebow. They will also be sure to introduce Central Michigan's do-everything QB Dan LeFevour to the audience as he sprints down the 40-yard race track and shows you how good he looks (metaphorically) in shorts and a t-shirt. But of much greater impact will be a handful of wide outs who are trying to separate themselves from the pack, because frankly, this combine will provide all the fodder needed for a team to determine if they are looking at the next Michael Crabtree (tons of potential, equal amounts of attitude), Heyward-Bey (fast as hell, hands of stone), or Louis Murphy (fourth-round pick who emerged as his team's most consistent pass catcher) as draft weekend descends on the NFL in late April.

Oklahoma State's Dez Bryant has the size teams covet and the pedigree of a proven commodity, but lingering maturity concerns mixed with mediocre speed credentials make him somewhat of a question mark. If his 40 times are better than expected, that may be enough to vault him up the draft board, perhaps even as far as a top-10 pick (Tampa, Washington, and Kansas City may all be looking hard in the direction of a WR). Even if he stays at or around the 4.5 range he has historically hit, he could make himself a palatable option should he dispel any character concerns during the interview process. If he fails at both of these opportunities, there is a very real likelihood that he may wind up a late first round or early second round selection, which I am sure is something he and his agent haven't considered in declaring for the draft early.

Like Bryant, Notre Dame's Golden Tate is jumping the college scene before his senior season. Tate is a solid citizen, a strong student, and, by all indications, a great teammate. His consistency shows time and time again on film and the only real question is his height. Many times, receivers measuring 5'10" and shorter play taller than that (think Chris Chambers), are lightning-quick (think Santana Moss), or are cagey and resilient (think Wes Welker). Tate is none of these things. He has a muscular build, slightly above average speed, standard wingspan, and is not a particularly sharp route-runner. For these reasons, it will be the tape measure that tells a large part of Golden's draft day story. If he measures up under 5'10", you can forget about an early round selection. But if the tale-of-the-tape remains closer to the listed 70-inches, than the "undersized" tag may be overlooked in light of his productivity and demeanor.

A pair of receivers, also underclassman, suffer more from not receiving marquee billing at their respective institutions of higher learning more than any particular physical shortcoming. USC's Damian Williams is one that has been lost in the glitz and glamour of being a Trojan player. So many stars, so little time to exert oneself as a difference-maker is a phrase that has rung true for this solid pass catcher. Williams has good size, decent speed, and an ability to find open space, but with the multitude of personalities in that program, his soft-spoken demeanor has left him a relative unknown. In Cincinnati, receiver Mardy Gilyard has been as critical to his team's success as any other player in the nation, but the Bearcats' lack of television exposure has left many wondering exactly who this kid is. Both players will need to put on a show to draw attention to themselves at some point during the combine, as each has clear first-round potential.

The last group of receivers that bear watching each play for big-time programs and have been there for most of the key plays their respective teams have made in recent years, but really remain question marks in terms of their true value as something other than "system" performers. Texas's Jordan Shipley is their top pass-catcher, their key return man and their holder on special teams. While his profile doesn't scream of someone who would be a surefire success on the next level, he has an opportunity to really set himself apart by posting a blazing 40 time and legitimizing himself as something other than a guy who had a great rapport with the QB of a pass-heavy college offense.

Likewise, Florida's Riley Cooper is big, smart, and far from slow, but as Tebow's roommate throughout college, many wonder if his production — particularly in critical moments — was more a result of his personal relationship with his talented signal-caller than of individual raw talent. Cooper needs to show up in a big way at the combine and say all the right things if he wants to vault himself from a day three afterthought to a legit day one or two option. Finally, LSU's Brandon Lafell put up an underwhelming 2009 campaign after showing signs of stardom in 2008. His size will buoy any potential free-fall (6'2", 210 lbs), but Lafell could do a lot towards restoring himself as a must-have asset if he shows good hands and strong effort at the combine.

While wide receivers stand to gain (or lose) the most during this week's combine activities, there are a bundle of defensive ends that will be jockeying for position as well throughout the weekend. Georgia Tech's Derrick Morgan, South Florida's Jason Pierre-Paul, Florida's Carlos Dunlap, TCU's Jerry Hughes, Clemson's Ricky Sapp, and Texas's Segrio Kindle are a half-dozen prospects that many teams have ranked nearly identically. Each of the six are swing types who could play either defensive end in a 4-3 set or rush linebacker in the more common 3-4 style of defense. All are roughly the same size and about the same speed. Kindle, Sapp, Hughes, and Morgan have been the more productive of the bunch, but Dunlap and Pierre-Paul clearly grade out better on paper relative to measurables.

This is a boon for teams picking in the 12-18 range, as each of those teams (Miami, San Francisco [two picks], Seattle, New York Giants, Tennessee, and Pittsburgh) all have clear needs at either rush end or rush linebacker. Each of the six also has the talent to be a top-10 pick, but realistically, only as many as three, maybe four, will hear their names called that early. This translates to a battle royal at the combine where each could set himself apart from his counterparts by nailing the drills, showing up big in the workout and captivating teams during the interviews. This will prove to be perhaps the most exciting position to watch during the NFL Network's coverage as this group, even those outside of the top six, is chalk-full of athletic ability and raw talent.

The third and final positional battle that I will be paying special interest to during the combine takes place in the defensive backfield. While the ranks are quite thin — surprisingly so, actually — at cornerback, their counterparts at the safety position feature a handful of really promising potential difference makers whose ultimate draft position may well shake up the entire draft board. Of the corners, Florida's Joe Haden and Florida State's Patrick Robinson probably grade out as the only true first-round talents, though Oklahoma's Dominique Franks could parlay his good size (6'0") into a late round one selection should he have a strong combine performance and Boise State's undersized-but-productive Kyle Wilson could also create value for himself if he is able to translate his toughness and consistency into the drills. The real show will be from those safeties.

Tennessee's Eric Berry is by far the most highly regarded guy heading in. Many mock drafts have Berry going as early as third or fourth overall (to Tampa or Washington, respectively) and his film performance will certainly back that status up. Berry is everywhere on tape, makes big plays, dishes out huge hits, covers incredibly well, and handles himself perfectly in run defense. He is rarely out of position and honestly doesn't need to perform well, if at all, at the combine to remain a top-10 pick. However, there are a pair of his contemporaries that could cement themselves as his equal, if not superior, should they really wow at the combine. Texas's Earl Thomas has shown that he is as good a coverage safety as there is in the game. If he is able to have a strong showing relative to the his strength, vertical jump, and 40-yard dash, Thomas (great last name, by the way) could leapfrog Berry as the top safety prospect.

An even greater wild card is USC's physical specimen, Taylor Mays. Mays was a premier prospect heading into the 2009 season, but spotty, inconsistent performances and a tendency to be out of position from time-to-time marred his value a bit as the season progressed. At 6'3", 230 lbs, there is no physical equal (relative to his position) anywhere in the draft, but Mays really has to be able to explain his spotty performance during the interviews if he wants to wind up in the top 10. Make no mistake, Miami will snatch him up at 12 if he makes it that far (assuming Thomas and/or Berry don't fall, as well), but Mays could and really should be a top-eight pick and this combine could save that standing for him should he perform brilliantly.

LSU's Chad Jones and South Florida's Nate Allen both also have a shot to move up to the middle of the first round as Houston, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh all may be looking to grab a difference-making safety in round one, but they would really have to separate themselves from the second tier of prospects if they want to solidify this standing. Should any safety fall past Houston at 20, expect a more precipitous fall as the 20-32 range will be where lots of receivers, running backs, and corners find themselves being chosen, leaving the leftover safeties as early-to-mid second round fodder.

Having encapsulated a few of the key positions to watch during the combine, this is a good time to take a cursory review of the teams looking to make a splash during the draft. While there is chatter each and every year, it appears that this is the first year in a while where all five of the top five teams picking in the draft actually do intend to trade back a bit should they find a proverbial dance partner. St. Louis, Detroit, Tampa, Washington, and KC all have no shortage of holes, and each seems comfortable at the position that would slot into their respective pick in assessing player value.

Only St. Louis, who will undoubtedly snag either Suh or Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy should they stand pat at No. 1, has a need at DT that outweighs needs at other positions, and even they are said to be infatuated with the potential of Sam Bradford. Everyone knows the trouble with picking a QB first overall, so don't be surprised to see the Rams take a questionable deal to slide down a couple of spots (with Tampa, perhaps) if they do indeed decide that Sam is their man.

Detroit needs help at DT, but has more pressing issues at defensive end and defensive back and could use the extra picks a trade down would net. Tampa has holes all over, but if they cannot score either Suh or McCoy, both of whom they covet, Tampa may not be comfortable taking the safety they prefer (if you ask today, that would be Tennessee's Berry) this high, so a trade down would be the only sound option.

Likewise with Washington, unless the safeties do stand out at the compound and in their pro days, the Redskins would be hard-pressed to justify such a lofty pick on traditionally undervalued position, so they too may look to slide down a bit with a team looking to land a Bradford or a Jimmy Clausen. Kansas City is the likeliest of them all to stand pat at No. 5, but in the unlikely event the draft board falls McCoy, (Oklahoma OT Russell) Okung, Berry, Bryant you would have to expect the Chiefs to get tons of calls from those who love Suh and with the three players they truly covet (Berry, Okung, Bryant) unavailable, they would almost certainly pull the trigger on a deal.

Recent player moves have also impacted the draft landscape. With LaDainian Tomlinson departing San Diego officially, you have to think the Chargers are looking hard at Clemson's C.J. Spillar in hopes that he slips to them in round one (28th pick). The real question will be how high they have USC's Joe McKnight — a very similar player to Spillar — who may be a more reasonable option in round two should they expect him to remain on the board that long. The other notable move came up in Buffalo with the retirement of starting OT Brad Butler. While it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to understand the Bills needed an offensive lineman in this year's draft, that need is now at critical level and it is most certain that Buffalo will go that route with their first pick (ninth overall), which will further avail some of the players I've mentioned above to the teams just outside of the top 10.

The final point of discussion also involved potential roster moves that are bound to create ripples in the draft day scene. On March 5th, several veterans of note are set to become free agents should their teams not tag them with the dreaded franchise denotation. Of those, Carolina's Julius Peppers, Buffalo's Terrell Owens, Oakland's Richard Seymour, Tampa's Antonio Bryant, Miami's Jason Taylor, Cincinnati's Roy Williams, and New Orlean's Darren Sharper are the most notable because of their implied worth and the positions they play.

If any of those players do in fact leave their current teams, they will open up a real need at their respective position in a draft year that is heavy with players who play those same positions. Likewise, teams who sign any of those mentioned will be indirectly indicating that they would not be drafting at those positions, at least not early on. Needless to say, the signings that are to come down over the coming weeks are certainly not to be ignored, and the potentially high number of impact veterans changing teams could well make for as unpredictable and entertaining an NFL draft as we've seen in recent years.

I, for one, cannot wait to post my very own mock draft! Sorry, Seth, bet or no bet, I just can't resist.

Posted by Matt Thomas at 1:43 PM | Comments (2)

Sports Q&A: Tiger's "State of the Eunuch" Address

Last week, Tiger Woods addressed the media in length about his recent marital and sexual transgressions, and offered apologies to many. Were Woods' words sincere, or were his actions simply the desperate machinations of a man eager to regain his dignity and good standing? Can Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, accept his apology? And will Woods make his return to tournament play at The Masters in April?

First thing's first. Contrary to popular opinion, and 135-1 odds in Las Vegas, the first words out of Woods' mouth weren't "I'm horny." And, to the surprise of no one, Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren was not by his side. Nor was Luther Campbell. And, despite tasty 9-1 odds, Woods didn't hit the stage to the intro music of Crystal Method's "Name of the Game (Calling All Freaks)." It was the probably the best decision he's made in months.

Woods was met onstage by the noise of hundreds of camera shutters, which sounded eerily like applause. But it didn't seem to phase Woods at all. And that's no surprise — he apparently feels comfortable being surrounded by "snappers."

All kidding aside, Woods' words sounded sincere, but sincerity, much like immorality, is a difficult-to-gauge attribute. Obviously, as a double-digit list of mistresses and an oblivious wife can attest, Woods is a master at sounding sincere. And, from what I hear, he loves "snow jobs." It's likely Woods sounded sincere just as when he texted one of his girlfriends to "go to the bathroom and take a picture." I'm sure he closed that message with the words "Sincerely, Tiger."

After having previously fooled everyone, it's difficult to trust Woods' intentions, and difficult to believe they're anything but self-serving. But isn't that the point of beginning the healing process? To be self-serving? Indeed, it's more important for Woods to believe he's forgiven than it is for people to actually forgive. Woods' apology to the fans and media, and their subsequent acceptance or rejection, means nothing. The only apology of consequence is that to Nordegren. And boy, does it take a pair of balls to apologize to your wife after such unfaithful behavior. And it must take an even bigger set to expect her forgiveness. And if Woods and Nordegren are to remain a couple, those balls will firmly be in the grasp of Nordegren. As they say, the 'balls' in her court. Woods no longer owns them, so why don't we call his speech his "State of the Eunuch Address."

Why on earth would Nordegren choose to stay with Woods? If she does, it can be for one reason only — Woods has somehow convinced her that his image is more important than their image. It seems senseless to even bother repairing what would be nothing more than a façade of a marriage anyway. Would people think less of Woods if he didn't at least attempt to make amends? Yes, and that's part of the reason he's doing it. Apparently, it was practically a sexless marriage in the first place; it almost certainly will be should Woods and Nordegren retain their married status. It's a common belief that he marriage was a ploy to strengthen Woods' marketing image. Amazingly, that may now be the same reason for staying married.

It's unclear whether Woods wrote the words to his speech himself, or if a high-priced speech writer did the honors. But he was all business. That's how he is when he takes his hat off. Woods without his hat, much like Nordegren with a golf club, means it's a serious situation. In any case, the delivery felt somewhat rehearsed and orchestrated, like a family photo spread for People magazine. If you somehow found the original copy of that speech, you'd probably see notes reminding Woods to "pause for four seconds," or "stammer over these words," or "come close to tears," or "stare at the floor," or "give that shameful look we talked about." Woods nailed them all.

And what with Woods' reference to Buddhism? Sure it sounded a bit out of place, but there's something to be said for the benefits of an Eastern-influenced recovery plan. I commend him. If you can't find the path to enlightenment through 'booty,' then the next logical step is finding it through Buddha. Buddha looks to be a jolly old fellow, and I'm sure his philosophies can lead Woods to a greater understanding of self and a renewed sense of devotion. Maybe a meditative regimen could cure Woods of his addictions, and convince him to discuss them. His endorsement deals may be gone, but Woods could devote his experiences to others, and then delve into the untapped potential of the infomercial market, hawking his new self-help book, "The Tao of Tang," or his instructional dating video, "Lying Tiger, Hidden Salami." Even rehab guru Dr. Drew Pinsky would agree — the road to recovery is paved with dollar bills.

Finally, at speech's end, when Woods embraced his mother, all of the women Woods has "sweet-talked" got the answer to the question they've longed to know — Woods does, in fact, kiss his mother with that same mouth. It was likely the most innocent exchange Woods has shared with a woman in years.

Considering what he's been through in the last three month, is it reasonable to expect Woods make his return to the game at The Masters? Augusta national and CBS certainly hope so. Will a Woods' return at the 2010 Masters make it the most watched golf tournament in history? Absolutely, especially with a Woods/Jesper Parnevik grouping. This could potentially be Woods' second disastrous pairing with a Swede.

At this point, though, the PGA would simply settle for a "watched" tournament, and not necessarily the "most watched" tournament. Golf without Tiger has been like Tiger without sex — it's "missing" something. It's boring, trite, and insipid. And let's face it, not everyone likes it "banal."

And it's totally appropriate that Woods make his triumphant return at the Masters; that's where he burst onto the scene in 1997 by winning his first major. Now, after three months away from the game, as well as a lengthy stint of abstinence, he's got to be ready to "burst" again. Heck, it's about time for a 'coming out' party; Woods has spent the last half-decade celebrating with practically non-stop 'going in' parties. A "grand entrance?" That used to be what Woods paid to bed a prostitute. The Masters is his chance to bury that idea and get back to doing what he does best, or second best.

Augusta National is known for its rich tradition and its reserved, polite galleries. Will the tournament be willing to handle the spectacle that Woods' return would entail? I'm almost positive Augusta is up for it, as is CBS. But does Woods want his return to be on such a grand stage? It will be a circus, and will likely be the first time John Daly's clothing goes unnoticed.

Can Woods handle the comments he's sure to hear from some wisecracking, rogue patron? Could a comment like "Get in the holes" crack Woods' steely demeanor, which he will need most to maintain his concentration? And what of the comments he can't hear? People will gossip, and Woods will know they're talking about him. There will be even more whispering at the Masters. Caddie Steve Williams better have his evil eye at the ready, because he'll be staring down quite a few spectators. The question is, will Williams be able to hold his tongue a bold spectator tells Williams that keeping sexual relations with multiple partners under wraps is akin to having an unlimited supply of head "covers."

And you know it will draw a chuckle when announcers mention Woods' position on the leaderboard, in which the words "strokes" and "behind" will be unavoidable.

After a nice wedge from the sand and par putt on the par five 8th hole, will CBS announcer Jim Nantz be able to refrain from commending Tiger for his ability to get "up and down?"

Augusta will do everything in its power to attract Woods, including extra security and a ten second broadcast delay, if needed. After weeks in sex rehabilitation and suffering from a lack of action, I'm sure Woods could easily be "Masters-baited." Besides, I doubt Woods remembers the last time he took a pass on a "threesome."

Will Woods strike the same level of fear and intimidation in his opponents as he did before his scandal? Before the divot hit the fan, Woods' ability to "stare down" an opponent equaled his flair for "going down" on a stripper. When Woods was "in the zone" on the golf course, it was as if he was in a catatonic state. Now his rivals know that should they see him like that on the course, chances are he's not thinking of his next shot, but of his next sexual conquest. Can you imagine Phil Mickelson whispering to Ernie Els, "Look Ernie, Tiger's in that 'pussy cat-atonic state.'" And Els replying "You're right, Phil. I believe he needs to think outside the box."

Now that his fellow golfers know his weakness, they'll use that knowledge to their advantage. The intimidation factor will be gone. Woods' stare isn't the only thing that's lost its penetrating ability. And what about distractions? It won't take much to take Woods out of his game. What's going to happen when Woods sees a pretty lady as he surveys his second shot on Augusta's par four 7th hole? Why, 'fairway wood,' of course.

And what happens if Woods actually wins The Masters? Will some shameless golf analyst praise the "courage" Woods displayed in overcoming such obstacles to win. The last thing Tiger deserves is to be lionized. Sadly, that will be an inevitable occurrence. It will be amazing to see how quickly Woods' flaws are sidestepped once he starts winning again. And he will. It may not be at The Masters, but he will soon regain form and dominate golf. And while his family values won't earn him any endorsements, his golfing will.

If Woods is made out to be the bad guy in professional golf, you can bet he'll embrace that role, and use it as major motivation. Like his apology showed, Woods doesn't care what we think, just what we see.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:37 AM | Comments (2)

February 25, 2010

Pac-10 Helmets, Logos, History, and Musings

I'm not sure why I haven't mentioned it before, but as someone who takes an interest in uniforms, helmets, design, and so on, I am a frequent visitor to The Helmet Project, which describes itself as an "atlas" of football helmets, both current and historical, of pretty much every level of college football in both the U.S. and Canada, as well as every level of pro football beyond the semipro level.

Often, it's the historical helmets that are the most interesting. I could wax on about any of the conference or leagues provided, and perhaps I will in future columns, but I will start with the Pac-10.

The current helmets are listed at the top of the page, with the historical helmets below.

ARIZONA — This is a team with a bit of an identity crisis, with no less than four logos still in current use, and a fifth one, ostensibly retired in 2002, still in use on the McKale center floor.

However, it's one not in use since the '70s that I like best. Check out that wavy, "Heyyyy Mannnn, peace out" logo they used on their helmets from 1973-76. Love it. Bring it back.

ARIZONA STATE — We are all very familiar with Sparky, the Sun Devils logo since 1980 (but check out how creepy his eyes were from 1980-84). Where Arizona changes identities frequently, ASU has seen very little variation in how they present themselves in the last 30 years. And yet, I would not call Sparky "iconic," like I might call the Dallas Cowboys' star iconic or the intertwined "NY" of the Yankees iconic. Why? I think it's because, in order to achieve icon status, you have to be consistently good.

CAL — Color me annoyed when a team says, "Hey! Let's boring up our look a little bit." Cal is guilty of that. I didn't know until I visited the Helmet Project that the cursive "Cal" was inside a fearsome bear claw until 1987. Why take that out? They suffer from UCLA disease (ironic since they are both a part of the UC system of universities) of having a fearsome animal and doing very little to nothing with it, logo-wise. They do get partial credit for having this on their basketball court.

OREGON — Can we just skip Oregon? When it comes to logos and uniforms, I'm not sure it's appropriate to throw around words like "hate," but I hate their logos and uniforms.

If you didn't know, Phil Knight, founder of Nike, is a UO alumnus, and in return for large endowments, Oregon's unis are Nike's playground. Their monstrosities are famous and I don't think I need to detail with them here, but I will note that they have used no less than seven helmet designs since 2006, and last year, wore a different uniform for every single game.

OREGON STATE — An exercise in class, moderation, and restraint compared to their in-state rivals. The logo on their 1973 helmet was actually their primary athletic logo until 1986, and I wonder if at some point they played the University of Minnesota in any sort of "happy fun logo" showdown. I like the 1997 design, sort of an orange-striped homage to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

USC — Theirs have been more or less changeless since 1973, except in 1992, when they said, "Let's make the trojan head on our helmet more awesome!" And so it was. And then others said, "I hate awesome! Let's make it like it always was when it wasn't awesome." And so it was.

I don't get it. Unlike ASU, USC is an icon-worthy program, but no one outside of Southern California thinks of this design as iconic, I daresay. Perhaps because it's not used as a logo by any of USC's other athletic teams I am aware of. So bring back the awesome!

UCLA — I have to say, the light blue and old gold uniforms UCLA sports are one of my favorites. And I'm glad that they have gone back to a more conventional number font over the more silly one they were sporting a few years back. But I do have a couple suggestions.

1. When forced to wear your white jerseys, take out the light blue entirely, like you used to, but stopped. The light blue doesn't work as well against the white, and it makes the blue unis that much greater when the other uniform is nothing like it.

2. Go back to the less bolded helmets of 1973-1995. I am not sure why I like this better, but I do.

STANFORD — Not much to say about Stanford, which has a pretty blah but not terrible design, and they've had it forever.

Since their mascot is a tree, however, I think there is room for more creativity. I have known some pretty foreboding trees in my time. Think of the sinister looking trees in the Wizard of Oz. Or put "scary tree" into Google Images and get back to me, Stanford.

WASHINGTON — Here's another school that could be so much better if they simply put their primary logo on their helmet.

Let's take a look at the Washington primary logos over the years. First, from 1975-2000 they used a husky dog that apparently ate some poison berries and suffered a swollen face as a result.

Then in 2001, they finally took him to the vet and he looks better, although a little too realistic for a logo, for my tastes. Then, starting in 2004, they came up with a sleek, awesome design. Put this on your helmet. Put this on your helmet. Put this on your helmet.

WASHINGTON STATE — The clever makeup of W, S, and U to make up a growling cat has always been a favorite of mine. I do have one quibble, however. Note the rose they added to the design for the 2003 Rose Bowl. Purdue, and probably others, have done the same thing. Bad idea. Do not trot out "special" helmets for bowl games. Instead, act like you have been there before, even if you haven't.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:57 AM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 2

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kevin Harvick — Harvick's quest to put a Richard Childress Racing car in victory lane hit a snag when an untimely caution put him behind Jimmie Johnson with 26 laps to go. Harvick chased down Johnson and was on the No. 48's bumper with three laps to go, but scraped the wall and never got close to Johnson again. Harvick's runner-up finish left him atop the point standings, 19 ahead of teammate Clint Bowyer.

"It's little consolation for losing the race to Johnson," said Harvick. "But that's just the highs and 'Lowe's' of auto racing. And, as you could tell by my comments about Jimmie Johnson and horseshoes, I'm a little bitter about the outcome. Johnson's run of good luck is as inexplicable as the reasoning behind my nickname of 'Happy.' I'm never happy."

"But what harm are a few mildly harsh words between drivers, as long as no one gets choked? Sure, Brad Keselowski can spin every week, but what good is it in regards to a feud if he doesn't hit Denny Hamlin? What this sport needs is a real feud, and a Harvick-Johnson dispute fits the bill. To coin a phrase often used in NCAA basketball, the state of feuding in NASCAR is a case of 'rivalry weak.'"

2. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer crossed the line eighth in the Auto Club 500 as all three Richard Childress Racing cars finished in the top eight, one week after all three finished in the top 11 at Daytona. Bowyer is now second in the Sprint Cup point standings, 19 behind Kevin Harvick.

"Take away Jimmie Johnson's lucky break," said Bowyer, "and we could have been looking at an RCR sweep. That's much-needed progress from last year. In 2009, in regards to RCR, you could have used the word 'sweep' only in a janitorial sense. Finally, it seems, that 'racing' is the operative word in 'RCR.'"

"Kevin got close to Jimmie, but after the No. 29 rubbed the wall, Johnson just pulled away. That's called 'putting the rabbit's foot on the pedal.' Of course, like Rock Hudson, luck goes both ways. Without that caution, I never would have got my lap back. If that irks Kevin, then he can just make like a cook preparing some Hamburger Helper and 'talk to the hand.'"

3. Jimmie Johnson — With 26 laps to go in the Auto Club 500, Johnson entered the pits for his final stop. Just moments later, Brad Keselowski's spin in turn four brought out a caution, and as the leaders pitted, Johnson No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet inherited the lead. The series of fortunate events gave the four-time defending Sprint Cup champion the boost he needed to forget his 35th at Daytona and capture his 48th career victory.

"Hey, I'd rather be lucky than good," said Johnson. "Luckily, no pun intended, I don't have to make that choice, because I'm both."

"So, Kevin Harvick says I have a golden horseshoe stuck up my ass? Is that some kind of backhanded way of calling me a shoe-in for my fifth Sprint Cup title? Kevin's wrong, you know. There's four up there, and apparently, there's room for more. Hey, who doesn't want more 'horse' power?"

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle steadily worked his way through the field after starting 35th, and was in contention for the win late in the race until he was caught in the pits for a green flag stop as the caution flew on the track. He was relegated to the tail end of the lead lap, and restarted in 20th win 20 laps to go. Biffle boldly snatched 10 positions before the checkered flew, and finished 10th.

"Rod Stewart once famously sang 'Some Guys Have All the Luck,'" said Biffle. "Obviously, he wasn't singing about me, which is fine, because, like most men, I'd prefer not to be the subject of a Rod Stewart song."

"In any case, for the next week, you'll hear me and many other drivers complaining that Jimmie Johnson has all the luck. Apparently for Jimmie, to enjoy the fruits of your labor, you have to deal with some sour grapes. And speaking of 'labor,' that kid of Carl Edwards' sure is taking its sweet time coming. They should name the child 'Matt Kenseth,' because that kid sure has no interest in seeing Edwards."

5. Mark Martin — Martin led five laps and came home fourth at California, following Hendrick teammate Jimmie Johnson and the RCR duo of Kevin Harvick and Jeff Burton across the line. Martin moved up five spots in the point standings to sixth, and trails Kevin Harvick by 34.

"The No. 5 Hendrick GoDaddy.com Chevrolet has been solid so far this year," said Martin. "Having the GoDaddy.com logo on my car has really brought me a lot of attention. But let's be real. Isn't having 'GoDaddy' on one's car pretty much the same as having 'Viagra' on it?"

"Ultimately, though, fans are quite disappointed when they peer into the car only to find a 51-year-old man, and not a 28-year-old beauty. When that happens, it's not uncommon for a Danica Patrick fan to reprimand me with the words 'GoGrandDaddy.com!' That young lady sure knows how to fill a fire suit. And she helps me do the same."

6. Matt Kenseth — In his first race with new crew chief Todd Parrott, who replaced Drew Blickensdorfer last week, Kenseth finished seventh in the Auto Club 500 in Fontana, another top-10 finish to match his eighth at Daytona. Kenseth is seventh in the point standings, 43 behind Kevin Harvick.

"Sure, there's a lot of mystery surrounding the crew chief change for the No. 17 Royal Crown Ford," said Kenseth. "Yes, it is odd that a change was made one race into the season after a solid finish at Daytona. But no, I don't think that Blickensdorfer was 'royally' screwed. Parrott's credentials are outstanding. He won a championship with Dale Jarrett in 1999. If this 'Parrott' is as talented as others, he'll be able to 'repeat' that success with us. Whether with a 'Parrott' or a 'Prince,' we're gonna party like it's 1999."

7. Jeff Burton — Burton led 46 laps in Fontana, second only to Jimmie Johnson's 101, and finished third in the Auto Club 500 on a day that validated Richard Childress Racing's return to prominence. Burton's No. 31 Caterpillar Chevy was capable of winning, but fell victim to the same untimely caution that afflicted many, yet aided others, including Johnson and Clint Bowyer.

"You never can predict the outcome when Lady Luck's involved," said Burton. "She can be a very fickle entity. Now, if you have my brother, Wadd Button, say the words 'fickle entity,' you're likely to see a similar, unpredictable outcome."

"Ironically, in a car sponsored by heavy machinery, being a little light-footed coming out of the pits may have cost me the win. If I had been just a single mph faster, then Johnson goes a lap down, and all the 'NASCAR favors Johnson' conspiracy theorists would have had no reason to rear their ugly, misguided heads."

8. Jamie McMurray — After a week spent basking in the glow of a Daytona 500 victory a week earlier, McMurray picked up where he left off by winning the pole position at California, with Earnhardt Ganassi teammate Juan Montoya joining him on the front row. Montoya blew his engine on lap 140 and finished 37th, while McMurray's up-and-down day ended with a 17th-place result.

"I believe I made more rounds on the talk show circuit than I turned laps at Daytona," said McMurray. "Now, if racing at California has taught me anything, it's that I miss being in front of an audience."

9. Joey Logano — Logano finished fifth in the Auto Club 500, as timely adjustments and quick work in the pits helped make the No. 20 Home Depot machine the only Toyota in the top 10. Logano is ninth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 263 out of first.

"With so many drivers and their wives expecting children," said Logano, "I think it's about time we stopped talking about 'progeny' and started talking about 'prodigy.' That would be me. Of course, my schedule doesn't allow me much time for relationships. But that's okay. If there's one thing I use more than my HANS device, it's my 'hands' device."

"Anyway, I think it's only logical that Daytona 500 winner Jamie McMurray start a family. That would make his the 'No. 1 seed.'"

10. Kurt Busch — Busch piloted the No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge to a sixth-place finish in the Auto Club 500, rebounding from a disappointing 23rd at Daytona. Busch is 11th in the point standings, 77 out of first.

"As you know," said Busch, "my brother Kyle's former crew chief, Steve Addington, is now my crew chief. Steve's a lot like our parents — he had enough of one of us, but still chose to have another."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2010

The Best Linebackers of All-Time

I know how you feel. You're going through football withdrawal. The Super Bowl was only two weeks ago, but it feels like two months. It was a pretty good game, but it left you wanting more. I've got more for you.

It's 2010 now, a time for reflection. People are considering all-decade teams and reflecting on the game's history. Most of this era's great linebackers are nearing the ends of their careers. Derrick Brooks and Zach Thomas didn't play last season. Junior Seau, defense's answer to Brett Favre, will stay retired eventually. Brian Urlacher, now 31, missed the whole season with an injury. Ray Lewis can't keep things up forever. Where do these players rank in history?

Here's my list of the 30 greatest linebackers of all time. I didn't distinguish between inside linebackers and outside linebackers, so you'll find both on the list below. There are fine players who didn't make my list: Maxie Baughan, Bill Bergey, Sam Mills, Les Richter, Dave Robinson, etc. There just wasn't room. Particularly tough to cut were several active players who could easily make this list a year or two from now: Lance Briggs, Keith Bulluck, James Farrior, London Fletcher, and DeMarcus Ware. You also won't find two-way players like George Connor or Bulldog Turner on this list. I didn't see them play, and it's very hard to judge their defensive contributions separately from what they did on offense. But let's get started: the best LBs in NFL history.

30. Sam Huff
1956-69, New York Giants, Washington Redskins

Sam Huff was the first superstar middle linebacker. He may have been the first middle linebacker, period, in Steve Owen's revolutionary 'Umbrella' defense, but there is no denying his stardom. He was the subject of a television special (The Violent World of Sam Huff) and appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. Playing in New York when the Giants were a great team, Huff was bound to attract some attention, but it was not undeserved. Huff intercepted 30 passes during his career, one of only six linebackers to do so.

29. Andre Tippett
1982-93, New England Patriots

Andre Tippett had the misfortune to play at the same time as Lawrence Taylor. Everything Tippett did well, Taylor did a little better. It wasn't just LT, either. When Tippett had 18.5 sacks in 1984, he didn't win Defensive Player of the Year because DB Kenny Easley had his best season. The next year, Tippett recorded 16.5 sacks, but Mike Singletary won DPOY for leading Chicago to a 15-1 record, and Singletary's Bears beat Tippett's Patriots in that year's Super Bowl . His star may never have shone as brightly as those of his more celebrated peers, but Tippett was one of the most feared pass rushers of his era and was chosen to the NFL's All-Decade Team of the 1980s. He made 5 Pro Bowls and retired with 100 sacks, and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2008.

28. Joe Fortunato
1956-66, Chicago Bears

Inside linebackers have always gotten more attention than outside linebackers. This was especially true when Fortunato played, and he played alongside two of the greatest middle linebackers in history, Bill George and Dick Butkus. Despite being overshadowed by his famous teammates, Fortunato earned the respect of opponents throughout the league. Fortunato is one of the few eligible players on this list not to have a bust in the Hall of Fame, but his résumé compares favorably to Huff's. Both made the All-Decade Team of the 1950s, and both appeared in five Pro Bowls, but Fortunato was first-team all-pro three times to Huff's twice. He retired as the all-time leading linebacker in fumble recoveries (22).

27. Rickey Jackson
1981-95, New Orleans Saints, San Francisco 49ers

What was the greatest OLB tandem in history? It could be Jack Ham and Andy Russell on the Steel Curtain, or Kevin Greene and Greg Lloyd for the '90s Steelers. Lawrence Taylor and Carl Banks in New York? Bobby Bell and Jim Lynch for the Chiefs? Maybe even Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest for the Bill Belichick Patriots. Put me down for Ham and Russell, but my second choice is Rickey Jackson and Pat Swilling with the Saints. Together, they made a combined 11 Pro Bowls, 243.5 sacks, and 76 forced fumbles. Jackson didn't share his contemporary Tippett's reputation, but he made more Pro Bowls and had more sacks. Unlike Tippett, Jackson also had some coverage responsibilities, intercepting 8 passes during his career. Among LBs, Jackson is the all-time leader in fumble recoveries (29) and second all-time in fumbles forced (40).

26. Harry Carson
1976-88, New York Giants

A converted defensive lineman, Carson brought an extremely physical style to the inside linebacker position. If I have a reservation about including him and Jackson on this list, it's that neither was ever a first-team all-pro on the Associated Press team. On the other hand, Carson did qualify for nine Pro Bowls. That exemplifies Carson's career, which was less about the spectacular and more about doing what needed to be done. He wasn't a big-play guy, with only 8 official sacks and 11 interceptions in his career. He wasn't the biggest defensive star on his own team, playing next to Lawrence Taylor. Carson was, however, a big-game player, and he always seemed to make a play when the Giants needed one.

25. Brian Urlacher
2000-09, Chicago Bears

The hardest selection on the list. It's always difficult to evaluate active players, and Urlacher has only played nine seasons in the NFL (not counting the '09 campaign, which he missed on injured reserve). Urlacher was madly overhyped early in his career, and in some ways, he doesn't really stand out from contemporaries like Farrior, Fletcher, and Keith Brooking. What ultimately sets Urlacher apart is the big play. He's extremely quick, and that speed facilitates impact plays. Among active ILBs, only Ray Lewis has more sacks than Urlacher, and only Lewis has more interceptions. Urlacher makes the plays that turn games, and he's been the centerpiece of Chicago's defense all decade.

24. Derrick Thomas
1989-99, Kansas City Chiefs

At his best, Derrick Thomas was unblockable. His speed coming off the edge was startling. Only four times since the sack became an official statistic has anyone recorded 6 sacks in a single game. Two of those four are credited to Thomas, including the record, 7 against the Seahawks in 1990. Thomas was a one-dimensional player, yes, but he was the most feared pass rusher of his era. During his career, he was Defensive Rookie of the Year, a nine-time Pro Bowler, and a member of the 1990s All-Decade Team.

23. Robert Brazile
1975-84, Houston Oilers

In his first season, Robert Brazile recovered 5 fumbles and was named Defensive Rookie of the Year. The next year, he made the first of seven consecutive Pro Bowls. Dr. Doom was a talented, versatile player, but more than anything, he excelled at rushing the passer. Sacks did not become an official statistic until 1982, when Brazile, a member of the 1970s All-Decade Team, was almost done with his career, but he was one of the first great pass-rushing linebackers. Derrick Thomas was almost a mirror image of Brazile. Thomas was a superior pass rusher, but Brazile was much better at pass coverage and at stopping the run. Both won DROY, they made about the same number of Pro Bowls and all-pro teams, and both were selected to All-Decade Teams.

22. Chris Hanburger
1965-78, Washington Redskins

There are 12 linebackers who have made 9 or more Pro Bowls: Maxie Baughan, Bobby Bell, Derrick Brooks, Harry Carson, Chris Hanburger, Jack Lambert, Ray Lewis, Joe Schmidt, Junior Seau, Mike Singletary, Lawrence Taylor, and Derrick Thomas. All except Baughan and Hanburger are in the Hall of Fame or not yet eligible. Hanburger's résumé compares favorably to those of his more celebrated contemporaries Dave Wilcox and Chuck Howley. Hanburger was small for a linebacker, a 218-pound shrimp drafted in the 18th round, but he was quick and very smart, George Allen's defensive captain for the Over-the-Hill Gang. Hanburger was also a threat with the ball in his hands, scoring 5 touchdowns and averaging 18.3 yards on INT returns.

21. Randy Gradishar
1974-83, Denver Broncos

A rare Hall of Fame snub who played inside linebacker, Gradishar was a seven-time Pro Bowler and the heart of Denver's Orange Crush Defense. A devastating hitter, he made the Pro Bowl both as a 4-3 middle linebacker and a 3-4 inside linebacker. Official tackle statistics were not kept during Gradishar's career, but he consistently ranked at or near the top of the league, and was the 1978 Defensive Player of the Year.

20. Kevin Greene
1985-99, Los Angeles Rams, Pittsburgh Steelers, Carolina Panthers, San Francisco 49ers

Derrick Thomas had high-impact games, and his premature death attracted a lot of sympathy, but there's no good reason he should have gone to Canton before Kevin Greene. Both were sack specialists, pass rushers almost exclusively. But Greene had more sacks (160.0) than Thomas (126.5). In fact, he is the all-time leader in LB sacks, by a wide margin. He had 10 seasons with double-digit sacks, and in 2004, Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z, named Greene the second-best pass-rushing LB in history, behind only Lawrence Taylor. Greene is the only LB to lead the NFL in sacks more than once. He recovered 26 fumbles and intercepted 5 passes during his career.

19. Ray Nitschke
1958-72, Green Bay Packers

Here's something odd: Ray Nitschke only made one Pro Bowl, by far the fewest on this list. No other LB listed here earned fewer than five. And yet, no one questions that Nitschke was an all-time great. He started for five championship-winning teams, made the 1960s All-Decade Team, and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer in 1978. He had all the qualities you want in a middle linebacker. He was tough, a ferocious hitter. He was quick to the ball, an instinctive tackler, and a superb pass defender. He was also a leader and a big-game player, the MVP of the 1962 NFL Championship Game. The man even looked like a linebacker.

18. Nick Buoniconti
1962-76, Boston Patriots, Miami Dolphins

The greatest middle linebacker in AFL history, Buoniconti made six AFL All-Star Games, five all-AFL teams, and the AFL All-Time Team. After the NFL-AFL merger, Buoniconti played in two Pro Bowls and three Super Bowls. He is the only player from Miami's famous No-Name Defense enshrined in Canton, the unquestioned standout player on a great defensive unit. During Buoniconti's time in Miami, the Dolphins ranked in the top 10 in points allowed every year except his final season, when he was 36 and only a part-time player. Buoniconti was an undersized linebacker (220 lbs.) who was especially effective in pass defense, with 32 career interceptions, third-most of any LB.

17. Chuck Howley
1958-72, Chicago Bears, Dallas Cowboys

The Cowboys have had several great linebackers over their 50-year history, including Lee Roy Jordan and DeMarcus Ware. For now, though, the best LB in franchise history is clearly Howley. He made six Pro Bowls and five consecutive all-pro teams. Twice, he had over 100 yards in interception returns, joining Willie Lanier as the only LBs ever to do so. Howley also joins Ray Lewis as the only LBs ever to win Super Bowl MVP.

16. Dave Wilcox
1964-74, San Francisco 49ers

Former Rams QB Roman Gabriel once said that Wilcox "plays outside linebacker like Dick Butkus plays middle linebacker." Wilcox's reputation is as the hardest LB in history to block. The man gave tight ends fits. In 1999, Dr. Z chose Wilcox as one of four OLBs for his all-century team. Wilcox played just 11 seasons, but he was elected to seven Pro Bowls and missed only one game during his career.

15. Zach Thomas
1996-2008, Miami Dolphins, Dallas Cowboys

For many years, it was a legitimate question whether Ray Lewis or Zach Thomas was a better linebacker. Following the 2006 season, both had been first-team all-pro five times, and Lewis had been to eight Pro Bowls, Thomas seven. Basically equal. Thomas was that rare player who never seemed to make mistakes. He was a sound tackler and an opportunistic defender, with 4 interception returns for touchdowns.

14. Chuck Bednarik
1949-62, Philadelphia Eagles

I know I said I wasn't including two-way players. I'm making an exception for Bednarik. An eight-time Pro Bowler, Bednarik was a devastatingly effective tackler, known for two of the most famous hits in NFL history. Both came in 1960, when a 35-year-old Bednarik was putting in a full day as a center on offense and a linebacker on defense. Near the end of a critical game against the Giants, Bednarik hit Frank Gifford so hard that teammates thought Bednarik had killed him. It was a clean hit, but Gifford missed the rest of the season and all of the next one. In the 1960 Championship Game, Bednarik made the game-saving tackle, stopping Hall of Famer Jim Taylor and securing a victory for the underdog Eagles.

13. Bill George
1952-66, Chicago Bears, Los Angeles Rams

Sometimes credited with inventing the position of middle linebacker, George was all-pro as both a middle guard (the equivalent of a nose tackle on a five-man line) and an MLB. He made eight Pro Bowls, eight all-pro teams, and the 1950s All-Decade Team. In his final all-pro season, George, Fortunato, and Doug Atkins led one of the great defenses in league history. The 1963 Bears led the NFL in points allowed (by a huge margin of 4.4 per game), yards allowed (31.4 ypg better than Vince Lombardi's Packers), rushing yards allowed, yards per carry allowed, passing yards allowed, interceptions, and opponent's passer rating. They ultimately won the NFL Championship Game, intercepting Hall of Famer Y.A. Tittle 5 times in a 14-10 victory.

12. Joe Schmidt
1953-65, Detroit Lions

Schmidt stood out in an era of great middle linebackers. Of the five LBs chosen to the 1950s All-Decade Team — the others were Bednarik, Fortunato, George, and Huff — Schmidt made the most Pro Bowls (nine) and the most all-pro teams (seven first-team, nine altogether). He played on two championship teams and had a particular knack for turnovers. Four times Schmidt had at least 4 turnovers in a season, including 8 fumble recoveries in 1955, a 12-game season record.

11. Willie Lanier
1967-77, Kansas City Chiefs

When professional football was re-integrated in the 1940s, it didn't take long to accept black running backs or DBs. Three positions took longer: quarterback, center, and middle linebacker. Lanier quickly showed that skin color didn't determine who could lead a defense. He was selected to eight straight all-star games, including the first six AFC/NFC Pro Bowls. Lanier is one of seven LBs in history with at least 400 interceptions return yards, and one of two inside linebackers on Dr. Z's All-Century Team.

It kills me not to have Schmidt and Lanier in the top 10. I swear there are 12 top-10 LBs.

10. Bobby Bell
1963-74, Kansas City Chiefs

Bell was a phenomenal athlete who probably could have played any position. He was an all-state quarterback in high school, an Outland Trophy-winning tackle in college, and a defensive end and long snapper with the Chiefs. In 1969, he returned an onside kick for a 53-yard touchdown. No one ever doubted the strength of this former lineman, but it was his speed that set Bell apart. He ran a 4.5-second 40-yard dash, which is still fast enough to play linebacker in today's game. In the '60s, it was fast enough to play wide receiver or defensive back. Bell ranks second all-time among LBs in interception return yards and tied for first in INT return TDs. He made nine Pro Bowls or AFL All-Star Games and was selected to both the AFL All-Time Team (1960s) and the NFL All-Decade Team of the 1970s. Bell leads all LBs in non-offensive TDs, with eight scores on INT or fumble returns.

9. Ted Hendricks
1969-83, Baltimore Colts, Green Bay Packers, Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders

Ted Hendricks was an unusual guy. His odd appearance (6'7", 220 lbs) earned the nickname "The Mad Stork", and his personality was no less uncommon. He showed up for practice wearing a helmet carved from a pumpkin or riding a horse, relaxed by solving complex math problems. Hendricks was also unusual in his capacity for making big plays. He intercepted 26 passes and compiled over 300 yards in INT returns. He recorded 4 safeties and 25 blocked kicks, both records. He made eight Pro Bowls and was first-team All-Decade in both the '70s and the '80s. Hendricks played on four Super Bowl-winning teams and ended his career on a streak of 215 consecutive games.

8. Jack Lambert
1974-84, Pittsburgh Steelers

An early Ray Lewis, Lambert was first and foremost a playmaker. At just 220 lbs, he was undersized for a linebacker, but also unusually quick. With the exception of 1984, when he suffered a career-ending injury halfway through the season, Lambert had at least one interception every year of his career, retiring with 28, top-10 all-time among LBs. Teammate Jack Ham said that what set Lambert apart was his ability to play the pass, but it is for his take-no-prisoners attitude and ruthless hitting that Lambert is best remembered. Over his career, Lambert was 1974 Defensive Rookie of the Year, 1976 Defensive Player of the Year, 1983 Defensive Player of the Year (Newspaper Enterprise Association), a nine-time Pro Bowler, and a member of the All-Decade Teams for both the 1970s and the 1980s.

7. Junior Seau
1990-2009, San Diego Chargers, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots

A star who could play both inside and outside linebacker, Seau holds the record for most Pro Bowls (12) of any LB in history. A legendary conditioning freak, Seau this year became the oldest linebacker in NFL history, with the season ending just before his 41st birthday. Strength and athleticism were Seau's trademarks, and fans should remember the unstoppable Seau who was all over the field in the '90s, not the aging star who's merely good enough to play. Seau was first-team all-pro six times and a starter on the 1990s All-Decade Team.

6. Derrick Brooks
1995-2008, Tampa Bay Buccaneers

I don't like rating recent players. There's a reason the Hall of Fame has a five-year waiting period, and a few years from now I might flip Brooks with Seau, Hendricks, and Bell. Here's what I do know: Brooks made 11 Pro Bowls and nine all-pro squads (five first-team). He was named to the All-Decade Team of the 2000s, and wouldn't have been a crazy choice for the '90s. His 2002 season is among the best ever: 5 interceptions for 218 yards — a record for linebackers — with 4 defensive touchdowns (also a record) and a team-leading 117 tackles (87 solo) for the Super Bowl champions. Brooks holds the career record for INT return yards by a linebacker, and is tied with Bobby Bell for INT TDs.

5. Jack Ham
1971-82, Pittsburgh Steelers

This list is full of smart players; I would venture to say there's not a stupid one among them. Picking out the smartest, though, I would immediately suggest Ham. His ability to diagnose plays was unparalleled, and he was probably the greatest pass defender of any LB in history. Ham secured his spot in Pittsburgh's starting lineup with three picks in the last preseason game of his rookie year. During his career, Ham accounted for an amazing 53 turnovers (32 INT, 21 FR), the most of any LB in history. Ham won four Super Bowl rings, was first-team all-pro for six straight seasons, and was chosen to eight Pro Bowls and the 1970s All-Decade Team.

4. Mike Singletary
1981-92, Chicago Bears

Few players at any position compiled more honors than Mike Singletary. He made 10 Pro Bowls and eight all-pro squads (seven first-team). He was a two-time DPOY (1985 and 1988) and the starting MLB for the 1980s All-Decade Team. Singletary was consistently among the leading tacklers in the league, and in 1985 he led arguably the greatest defense in history, earning the league's top defensive honor and contributing two fumble recoveries in Chicago's blowout Super Bowl XX victory.

3. Ray Lewis
1996-present, Baltimore Ravens

There is nothing Ray Lewis doesn't do well. He's a solid tackler, a threatening blitzer, quick sideline-to-sideline, and a wizard in coverage. More than anything it is Lewis' instincts as a pass defender that set him apart from peers like Zach Thomas and James Farrior. Lewis has a knack for being where the ball is; his ability to read offenses, combined with an instinctive sense for where the play is going and his remarkable quickness, make him the greatest playmaker at ILB at least since Lambert, maybe since Dick Butkus. Lewis is one of only four players since 1982 with at least 25 sacks and 25 interceptions. He ranks third all-time in INT return yards by a linebacker. Over his career, Lewis has racked up an obscene number of honors: 11 Pro Bowls, nine all-pro selections (seven first-team), two DPOY Awards (2000 and 2003), an all-decade selection, and the MVP of Super Bowl XXXV.

2. Dick Butkus
1965-73, Chicago Bears

Some people will think it's sacrilege not to have Butkus at the top. He was probably the most feared player in history, a one-man wrecking crew who had unprecedented impact even without good teammates to protect him. Butkus suffered a knee injury in 1970 and was out of football after only nine seasons. In those nine years, though, he qualified for eight Pro Bowls and two All-Decade Teams. He was named Defensive Player of the Year in back-to-back seasons before the knee injury. Butkus is remembered primarily for his devastating hits on opponents, but he was also a wizard in pass coverage, with a relentless drive for the ball. As a rookie, he created 11 turnovers (5 INT, 6 FR), retiring with a total of 47, then a record for LBs.

1. Lawrence Taylor
1981-93, New York Giants

No linebacker in history has had so much impact. In his first season, Taylor was named Defensive Rookie of the Year, Rookie of the Year, Pro Bowler, first-team all-pro, and Defensive Player of the Year. He was chosen to 10 Pro Bowls and 10 all-pro teams, including a record eight first-team selections. He is the only player to win Defensive Player of the Year three times, he is one of only two defensive players to be named NFL MVP, and he was the only defensive player unanimously chosen to the 1980s All-Decade Team. Taylor was the first of his kind, maybe the only of his kind, a uniquely disruptive force on defense. He effectively created a new position — rush linebacker — and dictated formation and strategy to opponents. Because he was so devastating a pass rusher, Taylor was almost never used in pass coverage, but he was such an incredible athlete and playmaker that he still pulled in 9 career interceptions, including one that he returned 97 yards for a touchdown in 1982. Taylor holds the LB record with 7 consecutive seasons of double-digit sacks. He was the most devastating, the best linebacker ever to play.

* * *

It's horrible making a list like this and having to leave off so many great players. I couldn't do it. My top 100 modern-era LBs, in alphabetical order:

Jessie Armstead, Maxie Baughan, Chuck Bednarik, Bobby Bell, Cornelius Bennett, Bill Bergey, Matt Blair, Robert Brazile, Lance Briggs, Keith Brooking, Derrick Brooks, Chad Brown, Hardy Brown, Tedy Bruschi, Keith Bulluck, Nick Buoniconti, Dick Butkus, Fred Carr, Harry Carson, Monte Coleman, Dan Conners, Bryan Cox, Mike Curtis, Chuck Drazenovich, Donnie Edwards, James Farrior, London Fletcher, Bill Forester, Joe Fortunato, Bill George, Jason Gildon, Randy Gradishar, Larry Grantham, Kevin Greene, Jack Ham, Chris Hanburger, Ted Hendricks, Jim Houston, Chuck Howley, Sam Huff, Rickey Jackson, Tom Jackson, Vaughan Johnson, Lee Roy Jordan, Seth Joyner, Levon Kirkland, Jack Lambert, Willie Lanier, Mo Lewis, Ray Lewis, Greg Lloyd, Wilber Marshall, Rod Martin, Clay Matthews, Willie McGinest, Karl Mecklenburg, Mike Merriweather, Walt Michaels, Sam Mills, Steve Nelson, Hardy Nickerson, Ray Nitschke, Tommy Nobis, Ken Norton, John Offerdahl, Jack Pardee, Julian Peterson, Joey Porter, Jack Reynolds, Les Richter, Isiah Robertson, Dave Robinson, Andy Russell, Joe Schmidt, Junior Seau, Jeff Siemon, Mike Singletary, Chris Spielman, Takeo Spikes, Mike Stratton, Pat Swilling, Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, William Thomas, Zach Thomas, Andre Tippett, Lavern Torgeson, Jessie Tuggle, Brian Urlacher, Brad Van Pelt, Phil Villapiano, Mike Vrabel, Wayne Walker, DeMarcus Ware, George Webster, Stan White, Dave Wilcox, Reggie Williams, Al Wilson, Roger Zatkoff

There are only eight outside linebackers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. OLBs make up 9% of a starting lineup, and about 3% of all HOFers.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 9:35 PM | Comments (36)

It's NCAA Tournament Bracket Prep Time

With just a week left before the early days of Championship Week(s), and just a few more to the NCAA tournament, you should be well on your way to thinking about your bracket. Just like with fantasy baseball drafts, you don't wait until the week before to see what's going on. You get ahead of the game, start watching teams and conferences you normally don't, and start looking for weaknesses or strengths that may lead to bracket busters.

As an example, witness Kentucky's 58-56 win over Vanderbilt on Saturday night. The headline on ESPN read, "No. 2 Kentucky turns to D as Wall denies Vandy." But if not for some dismal last-second offense by Vandy, the headline could very well have read, "Kentucky free-throw woes cost Wildcats road win at Vandy."

With 11 seconds left and just a one-point lead, Eric Bledsoe missed two free throws that could have stretched the lead to three and ensure the Wildcats no worse than overtime. Then, after John Jenkins' horrible three attempt that was blocked by John Wall, Wall again had a chance to push the lead back to three, but missed the first of his two free throws, giving Vandy a very real shot to tie the game with an open A.J. Ogilvy shot with two seconds left.

The fact Vandy couldn't capitalize on their opportunities to steal the game at home shouldn't hide the fact the Wildcats will be a one seed in the tournament with a season average of just 67 percent from the free throw line. Ask John Calipari how much that can bite you in the rear when you need it the most.

(In fairness, that Memphis team did make it to the title game despite shooting only 61.4 percent from the free-throw line. But last year, teams with the better free throw shooting went 7-0 from the Elite Eight through the title game. So it's not like it doesn't matter.)

Of course, this doesn't mean you should pick against the Wildcats in the second round. Barring any crazy matchup issues, penciling in Kentucky into the Final Four will be one of the first things I do with my bracket. But when you're making big decisions in mid-March, these are the things you need to take into consideration.

Here are five others:

5. Let's start with an easy one: don't sleep on the Cornell Big Red. Everybody should have figured this out after they almost beat Kansas in Lawrence, but Cornell is for real. And it's not just Ryan Wittman, who is a great shooter, but by no means a one-man-show. Wittman has gone off for 27 and 23 in his last two games, but had not topped 20 in his previous 10 games. Cornell went 9-1 in those 10. Center Jeff Foote provides size and stability in the post, and point guard Louis Dale provides a steady hand running the show. All three are seniors.

Sound like a 12-5 upset in the making to anybody else?

4. Whoever comes out of the Pac-10, pick against them in the first round. There's not a single team in that conference that you can trust with your bracket on the line. It doesn't matter who it is, or who they're playing. Pick against them.

3. Find a way to watch the Atlantic 10 conference tournament. Right now, a whopping five A-10 teams have a shot of making it in to the dance: Temple, Xavier, Richmond, Dayton, and Rhode Island.

Of the five, I like Xavier the most. Not only are they the highest-scoring and best-shooting team in the conference, but their perimeter defense is holding opponents to just a 27.6 percent rate from three. They have the feel of a team that surprises into the Sweet 16 or even Elite Eight, then gets blown-out by a high seed who puts up 95 on them. In the meantime, expect a lot of "remember when Jordan Crawford dunked on LeBron?" comments.

2. The one team in the A-10 I can't wait to pick against is Richmond, who is getting out-boarded by nearly 5 rebounds per game this season. Sometimes stats just leap off the page. This is one of them. If you can't rebound in a close game in the tournament, you can't win.

1. Every year, there are a few players who put their teams on their back for a run. Two years ago, it was Stephen Curry carrying Davidson to the Elite Eight. Last year, Scottie Reynolds willed Villanova to the Final Four with his leadership and timely buckets.

So who will it be this year? Nobody knows for sure. Otherwise, they wouldn't be surprises.

Cornell's Wittman and Xavier's Crawford are two good guesses. Here are a few others: Evan Turner, Ohio State (leads Big Ten in scoring at 19.5 and viable candidate for POY); Denis Clemente, Kansas State (Jacob Pullen is the Wildcats' leading scorer, but K-State will need Clemente to get hot from deep to advance far); Jimmer Fredette, BYU (not such a funny name when he's dropping 49 on you like he did Arizona earlier this year, he's at his best in big games); James Anderson, Oklahoma State (averaging 22.8 points per game, including four for 30+ in his last eight games); and Randy Culpepper, UTEP (can be hot or cold, but when hot, nearly unstoppable; dropped 45 and 29 in his last two games against East Carolina and Tulsa, respectively).

Beat the NCAA basketball odds to finish out the season when you signup for the college basketball picks at BetFirms.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 6:35 PM | Comments (4)

February 23, 2010

Daryl Morey: The New Billy Beane

Remember back in 2003 when the book Moneyball came out about Billy Beane and how he was using statistical data to put together a team of baseball players at a fraction of the price of the "big market" teams and still remained competitive?

The book itself was really good (I'll read pretty much anything non-fiction and about sports), but there was always something that bothered me about Moneyball.

Billy Beane was basically portrayed as a new wave genius in the book. Sure, there were plenty of passages about his temper and I'm not saying Michael Lewis painted him out to be a saint, but I couldn't help but think that based on the book Lewis wanted us to think that Beane was some sort of revolutionary; a man who was going to revolutionize the way professional sports teams are put together.

The issue I took with the book at the time is the issue I still have with it today: what has Billy Beane won? Sure, he was approaching constructing a baseball team differently than anyone had ever done it before, and that in itself is worthy of making him the protagonist of a book. But wasn't it a little premature to praise his innovative way of thinking?

Nearly a decade later, the A's still haven't been to the promise land, or even close for that matter. In the Moneyball era, the A's have lost in the first round of the playoffs four times, been swept in the ALCS once, and missed the playoffs five times, including five of the past six seasons.

The point is, for as good of a story as Moneyball was, it was far from a story about a guy reinventing Major League Baseball. It was about a guy who tried something different, has a very small window of moderate at best success, and ultimately ended up being outdone by the very people that he was setting out to destroy (big market teams).

Fast forward to 2010, and I'm having the same feelings about the new whiz kid on the block in my favorite sport: Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey.

Take a poll of any causal basketball fan and ask them to name the best GM in the NBA, and at some point in the conversation Morey's name is sure to come up. Like Beane, he's developed a reputation of being a borderline "genius" for his use of mathematical formulas and advanced statistics to put together and NBA team.

And like Beane, when it comes to Morey, I have to ask: what has he won?

Now, let's make one thing clear: I'm not saying I don't like what Morey is doing. I'd be lying if I said that wasn't intrigued to see if his emphasis on stats can work when putting together an NBA roster.

But after the trade deadline last week Twitter was abuzz with things about how Morey has "done it again" and plenty of other things of that nature. But when I look at the track record of Morey, he absolutely reeks of the stench of Billy Beane.

Morey served as the Senior Vice President of Operations for the Celtics from 2004-2006, when he advised on the draft, free agency, trades, statistical analysis, and advanced scouting for the team. In his three seasons with the Celtics, the team went 114-132, and in typical Billy Beane fashion, lost in the first round of the playoffs twice, and finished in the lottery once.

He then took over as assistant GM for the Rockets before the 2006-07 season, and helped lead the Rockets to, you guessed it, a first-round loss in the playoffs.

The following season, Morey was named as the GM and his Rockets (wait for it...) lost in the first round of the playoffs. The next season, 2008-09, the Rockets finally got over the hump, took the basketball world by storm, and won the NBA title!

Okay. Not really. The Rockets lost to the Lakers in the second round of the playoffs, but still received a lot of national recognition, including Morey winning Yahoo! Executive of the Year for 2008-09.

The Rockets are currently in 10th place in the Western Conference.

Billy Beane gets a whole book dedicated to him for losing in the first round of the playoffs over and over, and Daryl Morey wins an award for losing in the second round of the playoffs.

It's time we take a step back when it comes to these number crunching gurus and tell it like it is: it's interesting, but it's not revolutionary. There is probably a lot of value in the information they provide, which is why plenty of elite level NBA teams now employee stat gurus, but it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. All the stats in the world can't replace a feel for the game.

Professional sports is not a liner equation, and that's what makes them great. The old cliché is "that's why they don't play the game on paper." Yes, you can give your team a slight advantage by amassing a ton of statistical data and theories and then applying them to setting your roster or lineup. But the second you start relying on too heavily on numbers, you can bet that you will be passed up by a team that still considers the intangibles when putting together a team.

Look no further than Daryl Morey and the Rockets for the perfect example. There isn't a statistic in the world that says that Derek Fisher should be the starting point guard in the NBA, let alone the starting point guard on the NBA champions. Yet it was Fisher's flagrant foul on Luis Scola that lit a fire under the previously "soft" Lakers that helped propel them past the Rockets in the second round of the 2009 playoffs.

Fisher averaged 8 points, 2.2 assists, and 2 rebounds per game in the playoffs last season. And there wasn't a single Laker fan that didn't want him on the floor in the NBA Finals. And of course, it paid off, with Fisher hitting two huge shots in Orlando that basically sealed the Lakers 15th NBA title.

There's not a chance in hell that Fisher would crack a Daryl Morey roster, because he doesn't have a great +/- or PER or whatever else you want to use to robotically evaluate good players, but Phil Jackson didn't hesitate for a second to start him at point guard when it mattered most last season.

The moral of the story: the next time you try to sell me on the fact that Daryl Morey is the next great NBA GM, I'm going to stop you mid-sentence and tell you to pass the salt.

Then, and only then, will I listen to what you have to say.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 12:32 PM | Comments (1)

NHL Playoff Push

As the world takes a break for the Winter Olympics, it gives us time to look at the NHL in its hiatus and examine the end of the season and the push to the playoffs.

As seems to be the case every season, with approximately 20 games left, the separation between being in and being out of the playoffs is miniscule.

In the East, the difference between 6th and 11th is a whole 5 points. In the West, the difference between 8th and 13th is 5 points, meaning that nearly any team who has a good run at the end of the season can play themselves into the playoffs and control their own destiny.

In fact, with the exception of Edmonton and Toronto, every team in the NHL has a legitimate chance to make a run at the playoffs.

Sadly, the majority of sports fans will be so enthralled by college basketball for the entire month of March that they will miss this race to remain alive in the NHL.

While hockey is largely ignored by the average sports fan, many were still captivated by the USA's victory over Canada in the Olympics and even if you didn't watch the game, you're probably going to watch the next game the USA plays. And if, by some chance, there is a rematch of the Miracle game from the 1980 Olympics at Lake Placid between the USA and Russia, you know you will be in front of that television.

So why is nobody going to enjoy the run to the playoffs in the NHL? Because there is no nostalgia there. There is no history of something you couldn't miss. There is no engrained memory of something absolutely amazing happening to your team in the run to the playoffs.

Perhaps in the playoffs there is such a moment, but the run to the playoffs doesn't hold enough sway, does it?

Everybody undoubtedly has some memory of a college basketball upset or last-second shot that seemed miraculous. If you're old enough, you undoubtedly remember the 1980 Miracle victory at Lake Placid.

So while you won't pay attention, I'll let you in on what you'll miss.

Washington and San Jose will fight for home ice advantage. Washington will have no problem. San Jose may, but they should pull through.

Boston and Philadelphia will try to stay in the top eight, doing their best to stay out of the eighth spot, where they would face Washington and certain first-round elimination.

The race between Montreal, Tampa Bay, the Rangers, and Atlanta is far too close to call for the final spot. I'd put my money on Atlanta today. The Rangers are too unreliable and injury prone, though if Marion Gaborik can return in full strength, watch out for the Rangers (but never count on Gaborik to be healthy).

In the West, Vancouver and Colorado will battle for the Northwest division crown and the third seed instead of potentially the fifth, sixth or seventh.

Calgary will try to hold on to its playoff spot after a serious free-fall in January in which they lost nine straight games, all of them close with the exception of a complete thrashing by San Jose of 1-9.

Detroit will make a push to make the playoffs once again. Can you remember the last time they didn't make the playoffs? It hasn't happened this millennium. Do you really think it will now? They aren't the team they used to be, but if anybody knows how to get into the playoffs and play in the playoffs, it's the Red Wings.

Dallas also looks to have a decent chance at the playoffs, while Anaheim, St. Louis and Minnesota are on the outside looking in.

Of note at this point is that if there is a tie at the end of the season, Minnesota will likely have the tie-breaker over everybody with only 4 overtime losses as compared to Dallas and Detroit's 12.

Put your money on Detroit for another year to make the playoffs, but this might be the last year to do so for some time.

All in all, I'm sure you'll enjoy March, my favorite sports month of the year, even if you completely ignore the excitement in the NHL, but think of the joy that will be added if you do pay even the slightest bit of attention, at least on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays when the college basketball tournament takes a break.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 4:56 AM | Comments (1)

February 22, 2010

Has Donte Stallworth Turned the Corner?

The Baltimore Ravens have always been thin at WR, but it has not been due to a lack of trying. They try to strengthen their WR pool year after year with little or no results. While they must continue to fill their holes at WR via the NFL draft, another more viable option would be to grab a WR via free agency.

The Ravens did just that as they signed Donte Stallworth to a one-year deal worth $900,000. While it may be true that Stallworth has had numerous legal problems and battles injuries year after year, you cannot deny his speed and great hands.

The New Orleans Saints drafted him in the first round (13th overall) of the 2002 NFL draft. Since his rookie season, Stallworth has played for the New Orleans Saints, Philadelphia Eagles, New England Patriots, and Cleveland Browns. To date, his best season came in 2005, where he had 70 receptions for 945 yards.

Let us look past the injuries and legal problems for a moment and determine why I think he has not reached his full potential.

During his time with the Saints, he had Aaron Brooks throwing him the ball, who could not succeed with Randy Moss and Wes Welker on the corners. During this span, the Saints were mediocre at best and only had one season above .500.

His lone season in Philadelphia saw him buried as the fourth option behind Brian Westbrook, L. J. Smith, and Reggie Brown, which limited his opportunities. Another factor that was not working in his favor was a change of QBs, which saw Jeff Garcia take over for an injured Donovan McNabb.

While Stallworth was with the Patriots, he was afterthought at best while sitting on the sideline watching Randy Moss and Wes Welker have career years. His only opportunities came as a situational WR, which does not bode well for any receiver in the NFL.

His last stint in the NFL before being suspended was with the hapless Browns, who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag in 2008. It did not help matters that the Browns had a continuous carousel of QBs consisting of Derek Anderson, Brady Quinn, Ken Dorsey, and Bruce Gradkowski.

In no way am I saying that Stallworth will be first on the depth chart in Baltimore, nor will he be the answer to the Ravens' WR woes. What I am saying is that this is the perfect opportunity for Stallworth to turn his career around. At this point, he has nothing to lose and can only go up at this point.

The worst-case scenario would be that the Ravens spent a measly $900,000 on a WR that has a high probability to be the Ravens' No. 3 WR and potential to knock Mark Clayton out of the No. 2 WR position. I am basing this on the assumption that Derrick Mason returns for the 2010 season.

Many NFL pundits would disagree with my assessment of Stallworth, but the Ravens deserve the benefit of the doubt on this signing. Stallworth has gone through a life-changing event in his life when he took the life of another person and deserves every opportunity to make things right.

The bottom line is that the Ravens signed a veteran receiver at a very cheap price and if everything works out, the Ravens will look brilliant in the end.

Posted by Roy Daniel at 11:35 AM | Comments (3)

February 19, 2010

Tony Kornheiser, "Come On" Yourself!

Tony Kornheiser is generally a curmudgeonly fellow, but he's got a degree of self-awareness that is rarely found among sports media folk. That's why I was shocked by what he had to say about Hannah Storm on his radio show earlier this week.

First, I was shocked Tony Kornheiser still had a radio show. I know ESPN upgraded massively to Colin Cowherd many a year ago, but I didn't know Kornheiser was still doing a show at an affiliate. I'm glad we still have shows hosted by people that grew up before radio was invented.

Second, I'm shocked he was hating on Hannah Storm. Here's what Kornheiser said:

"Hannah Storm in a horrifying, horrifying outfit today. She's got on red go-go boots and a Catholic school plaid skirt ... way too short for somebody in her 40s or maybe early-50s by now. She's got on her typically very, very tight shirt. She looks like she has sausage casing wrapping around her upper body ... I know she's very good, and I'm not supposed to be critical of ESPN people, so I won't ... but Hannah Storm ... come on now! Stop! What are you doing? ... She's what I would call a Holden Caulfield fantasy at this point."

Come on, Hannah? Forget that, come on, Tony! Hannah Storm is one of the true underdog stories in the history of the female body. Right now, she's painfully close to that Barry Bonds line. She's at the stage where I'm just amazed that someone her age can still put up outstanding numbers.

A quick glance at Wikipedia reveals that Hannah Storm is 87-years-old and was born on the ice planet Hoth. I'm pretty sure Hoth is a "Star Wars" reference, which is making me question the 87 years thing, but we can all agree that Hannah Storm is not young. Whether she's 87 or 47, she looks good for it (if it really is 87, she looks tremendous).

Whether or not she's been dabbling in performance enhancers is something we'll discover in the coming years (and like Bonds and Sammy Sosa and those guys, it will probably happen before Congress). For now, let's just enjoy what she's been able to pull off.

ESPN is the station with Erin Andrews. And for every Erin Andrews out there, there's 1000x Erin Andrews wannabes at colleges across the nation waiting for their call up to the big-leagues. Hannah Storm is in an incredibly difficult position. She's an aging vet in a ruthless industry that is powered by young hot chicks.

Tony shouldn't be chastising her, he should be saying one thing: "god bless her." If she can put her game together that well, at her advanced age, well, that's an inspiration for the rest of the world.

I used to work at a radio station on a morning show. The TVs in the studio had to be on mute so our TV schedule was based purely on the attractiveness of the hosts. We watched Rachel Ray for awhile until we realized her mouth was alarmingly large (she looks like she could deep-throat a six-foot submarine sandwich, and I say that because of her physically large mouth and because of her expanding waist size). We also used to watch "The View" at the end of the show because at least Elisabeth Hasselbeck is hot (much hotter when you don't have to hear what she's saying).

"SportsCenter" was a constant, as well and that's only because of Hannah Storm. She redefined the quality veteran genre (famous hot chicks over 40).

It's sort of similar to the career resurgence Sandra Bullock is experiencing. It's extremely rare when a 45-year-old actress can propel two separate movies to blockbuster status in the same year. Similarly, it's extremely rare that a 47-year-old TV anchor can pull off the plaid Catholic school-girl skirt and super tight top. More power to her.

The tightest clothing I'd ever want to see Tony Kornheiser wear is a circus tent. Tony just needs to focus on finding a store besides Goodwill to shop at and a different couch to sit on at the mall. Let Hannah Storm do her thing, and let Tony do his. What's Hannah Storm's thing? Dressing like she's 25. What's Kornheiser's? Whatever Wilford Brimley tells him to do.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 11:32 AM | Comments (2)

Floyd Little and the Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame recently announced its class of 2010: Russ Grimm, Rickey Jackson, Dick LeBeau, Floyd Little, John Randle, Jerry Rice, and Emmitt Smith. From that group, Senior nominees LeBeau and Little have attracted the most discussion. In LeBeau's case, it centers mainly on his being nominated as a cornerback rather than a coach or contributor. In Little's, there has been a chorus proclaiming him unworthy of the honor, a stain on Canton's reputation. This is an example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Little, a running back for the Broncos, ranks 62nd in career rushing yards, 82nd in rushing TDs, averaged 3.9 yards per carry, and only had one 1,000-yard rushing season. If this is all you know about Little, you probably do believe his election disgraces the Hall. There's more to the story.

Little played from 1967-1975. Here's everyone who never played a 16-game season and is ahead of Little on the career rushing list: Jim Brown, Joe Perry, Jim Taylor, Leroy Kelly, John Henry Johnson. All of them are Hall of Famers. Little played shorter seasons than modern RBs, and most teams used running back by committee in those days, so no one was getting 350 carries a season. In fact, Little was 28 years old before his first 200-carry season.

The other issue is that the late '60s and early '70s were dominated by defense, a terrible era for running backs to put up big numbers. By far the best RBs of that era were O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly, Larry Csonka, Larry Brown, and Floyd Little. There are other players from that era with statistics in the same ballpark — Mike Garrett, Calvin Hill, Ken Willard — but they were good players with long careers, never the best at their position. Sayers and Little and Brown were spectacular in short careers. No one ever argued that Garrett or Willard was the best running back in the league. Simpson and the others — including Little — might have been.

Among those six runners, Kelly, Sayers, and Simpson stand apart statistically, but Little's stats are very much in line with those of Csonka and Brown. Even that doesn't give Little full credit. Washington (33-24-3) and Miami (49-19-2) were good during these years; the Broncos (26-39-5) were not. During Little's prime, Denver never made the playoffs, and finished .500 only once. Little didn't have much help from his teammates; think of him as the Steven Jackson of the early '70s. On the other hand, the Dolphins of this era were perhaps the finest run-blocking team in history, making stars of Jim Kiick and Mercury Morris as well as Csonka. In fact, during his 11-year career, Csonka only led the Dolphins in rushing six times. During his three years in New York, he never led the Giants, with a high of 569 yards and 3.6 yds/att.

Let's be clear about something: the argument is not simply that Little played with sub-par linemen, though everyone agrees that he did. Rather, the case is that Little played well and put up good numbers despite inferior blocking. If his stats make him a borderline candidate, the environment in which they were produced puts him over the top.

How much difference did the quality of his team make? Little had probably his best statistical season in 1973, at age 31. No RB in history really played his best football past the age of 30, but the Broncos were getting better by that time (first winning record in franchise history). If Little, at 31, could outplay Brown, Csonka, Franco Harris, and John Riggins, all of whom were younger, how good must he have been at 27? It's tough to say, because the Broncos were always playing catch-up, and Little only got 146 carries. Is it more likely that in his mid-20s, Little was a great back limited by his circumstances, or that he had his best season at 31, just two years before he retired?

It was understood at the time that Little was doing heroic things behind a horrific line. Between AFL all-star games and Pro Bowls, he was a 5-time all-star. That's more than Brown or Sayers (4 each), equal to Csonka (5), and almost as many as Kelly and Simpson (6 each). Little fits in nicely with the other great RBs of his era. He was a well-rounded RB, good at everything. In addition to his rushing yardage, he had five seasons of at least 300 receiving yards and was one of the best kick returners of his era. Upon his retirement, Little ranked among the top 10 in career all-purpose yardage.

Part of the criticism surrounding Little's election has derived from misunderstandings. Little carried the Broncos through the darkest period in their history, and apart from John Elway, he is probably the most revered player in team history. Some have even speculated that Little helped keep the franchise afloat. This should only add to Little's credentials, but by itself it's not the sort of thing for which we'd want to send players to Canton. A few critics have seized on this line of reasoning and used it to argue that Little's candidacy was a farce, pretending that he has no other qualifications.

Others have looked skeptically at the idea that we should account for the quality of Little's teammates, suggesting that even the consideration of this factor de-legitimizes Little's enshrinement. But if we accept that good offensive linemen are an important component of a football team, we have to allow that poor linemen make it harder for a running back to post stats that reflect his level of play. We also know that bad teams don't run often, because they're passing to catch up, and that too limits an RB's stats.

In any case, Little's election was not based solely on his weak supporting cast. His statistics, taken at face value, are very much in line with those of the best RBs of his era. He was a five-time all-star, not a charity case. In 2002, Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z named Little one of the 30 best RBs he ever saw, calling him "an early Emmitt Smith."

Little is undoubtedly in the bottom portion of HOF RBs, and it wouldn't be a tragedy if his nomination had fallen short. But is he the worst RB in Hall? No. A disgrace to Canton? Far from it.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2010

Baseball, Rawlings Bring New Meaning to Free Trade

In 2006, this reporter shed light on the seemingly unfair labor practices taking place in Costa Rica in a factory operated by the Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc., and now a subsidiary of the multi-national corporation, Jarden Corp. As we embark upon the 2010 MLB season, let us take another look back on this important issue regarding free trade and on that which has transpired since.

At that time, Rawlings was a subsidiary of K2, Inc., primarily a snowboard and in-line skate manufacturer. Then in 2007, Jarden absorbed all of K2's holdings and Rawlings became one of the many assets of Jarden's portfolio.

The Jarden Corp.'s holdings, prior to 2007, had primarily been in the consumer household goods industry, such as with Mr. Coffee®, Oster®, Holmes®, and CrockPot®. It became pro-active in the purchase of outdoor clothing and camping equipment companies such as ExOfficio and Coleman and then with the purchase of K2, which owned Rawlings, Jarden became a force in the professional sporting goods industry as well.

But much like the way corporate takeovers can surface rapidly and on a global scale, with what appears as little hands-on management, corporations' goods are then subject to manufacture in far-off lands with little oversight, too.

And unfortunately, this accomplished strategy, having culminated primarily over the past 25 years, has enjoyed the muscle and delight of the U.S. government and other state governing bodies of countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, global trade does little to improve the standard of living and human condition of the citizens living in such impoverished countries where many global giants relocate.

Since this last report, to wit, Costa Rica has become a member of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Costa Rica, the oldest democracy in Central America, held a voters' referendum in 2007, giving its citizens a voice as to whether they would like to join DR-CAFTA.

The United States Congress rushed through DR-CAFTA in record time, over several months in 2005, but never expected a country such as Costa Rica to actually fight its demands or to obstruct its rush-through process; for all six other CAFTA countries — El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic — were all on board by 2007. As it were, approval for DR-CAFTA was barely passed by Costa Rican voters, and it was not until January 1, 2009 that Costa Rica formally became another Free Trade Zone in Central America.

Few working for or playing in MLB, or for that matter most people living in the U.S., are aware that Free Trade Zones are but only a win for the U.S. government and multi-national corporations operating offshore. Such corporate entities are not required to pay taxes or tariffs, are allowed to import their supplies duty-free, and electricity and water usage are subsidized. Yet, they are not responsible or required to enforce labor and environmental policies that would be required had they remained doing business in the U.S.

The following contains parts of the 2006 article, that encapsulates the story of Rawlings Sporting Goods, Inc. and its subsidiary, Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A., and its manufacture of some 2.2 million baseballs each year made by hand. These laborers work for MLB's gain, its billionaire owners, and multi-millionaire players, who largely remain mum on this topic to date:

As America's National Pastime has continued to rake in record high revenues over the past several years — in the billions of dollars each season — MLB continues to remain deaf to its critics concerning the manufacture of its official baseball, apparel, and other accessories, with regard to unfair labor practices in the Third World.

In 2004, a 60-page report produced by the National Labor Committee (NLC), an international labor rights organization, entitled, "Foul Ball," initially exposed the poor working conditions of the Rawlings baseball factory in the remote city of Turrialba, Costa Rica.

MLB had a tepid response to such claims. Then, following the report, life-long consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote a letter to both MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, and then-Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) Executive Director, Donald Fehr, to address Rawlings' labor practices. Selig referred Nader's letter to his legal department and Donald Fehr said he was unaware of such claims. Neither man ever followed up.

In 2005, the United States government entered into the DR-CAFTA, allowing for further tax breaks, duty-free tariffs and Free Trade Zone status for U.S. corporations doing business in Central America, without providing for any policing of unfair labor practices in such offshore locales. Although the agreement contained language to that effect, there is no enforcement mechanism or political will to instill such.

And instead of it taking the lead in calling-out such a worldwide problem, MLB, through its silence, therefore remains complicit in such exploitation by multi-national corporations throughout the Third World, and especially those that are U.S.-based.

The facts are quite stunning as to what goes into the manufacture of a major league baseball and the sometimes physically-debilitating toll workers take in order to produce some 2.2 million balls utilized each MLB season, in addition to the minor leagues and the NCAA College World Series, with which the Jarden Corp., on behalf of Rawlings, also exclusively contracts.

Rawlings has been operating its baseball factory out of Costa Rica since 1988, as it gradually transitioned its factories from the country of Haiti during its period of government unrest in the late 1980s. Since 1990, Rawlings has produced all of MLB's baseballs in Costa Rica, with its non-professional baseballs manufactured in China.

Although Rawlings also contracts with the National Football League and the National Basketball Association in producing some of its balls and accessories, the baseball itself perhaps best symbolizes all-things-American and is therefore worthy of the attention it garners from critics of the Rawlings factory.

The approximate 600 workers at the baseball factory in Turrialba are either "sewers" who stitch the cowhide covers onto the baseball's sphere, or they are "assemblers" or "winders," responsible for assembling the core's parts, made of two kinds of rubber and cork, and the winding of the ball's four different grades of yarn. Those who stitch are required to complete 108 stitches into the cowhide leather of each ball by hand.

Each sewer must complete one ball every 15 minutes. They are required to reach a minimum quota of 156 balls per week, in a factory without air conditioning, in temperatures exceeding 100°, requiring permission to use bathrooms, and which prohibits workers from speaking to each other on the factory floor.

The hours that workers put in average 11-12 per day and they must always reserve their Saturdays for the factory, in the event an "emergency order" comes through. If not available on Saturday, they are subject to termination.

The gross wages per worker average $1.50 per hour. Workers can earn up to an additional $8.00 per week if they reach the threshold of completing 180 baseballs in one week. Baseball factory workers earn more than the country's minimum wage, but are subject to the Costa Rican Labor Ministry for any increases in the minimum wage.

Provided they reach the minimum weekly ball quota each week, workers are compensated an additional 25-30 cents per baseball by Rawlings. Should they not reach the minimum quota, they again risk being terminated.

The physical impact endured by the sewers has left about one-third of them with carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive stress injuries, including permanent disability, after just two or three years of stitching. And sadly, most MLB players have no knowledge that every baseball manufactured is done so solely by hand under such conditions. Should a worker miss any length of time greater than a couple of days of work, due to illness or injury, they can be easily replaced due to the desperate employment situation. And their healthcare, thereafter, is in doubt.

Costa Rica, always reliant upon its agriculture to sustain its people and to provide jobs, was dependent upon coffee and sugar cane as its main exports. Yet, in the past several years, as prices for coffee in particular rose, a good part its coffee exports, including its sugar cane industry, lost out to Nicaragua, as even cheaper labor costs prevail there. Some labor experts directly blame the impact of DR-CAFTA on the erosion of the agricultural industry in Costa Rica; the opposite of DR-CAFTA's supposed intent.

Because of the loss of agricultural jobs, the baseball factory now largely sustains the city of Turrialba and its population of 30,000. Rawlings has its workers over a barrel, as they know jobs are scarce, with many more willing to endure such a tough and pressurized work environment.

The NLC, as well as the International Labor Committee (ILO), have called upon Rawlings of Costa Rica, S.A. to modify some of its working conditions. Rawlings was asked to provide ergonomics training for workers in order to reduce repetitive stress injuries, to provide workers with a better wage, and to increase the amount of incentives based upon levels of production. Yet, Rawlings U.S. deferred to Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A. and the Costa Rican government.

And the NLC emphasizes the need to allow the workers the right to organize in order to regulate problematic issues, without fear of being fired or reprisal, such as forced overtime or forced layoffs after three months, before workers can earn any legal rights. Currently, the workers are well aware that any talk of labor unions will get them dismissed and fear that the factory will go the way of its agricultural industry and relocate to a country where labor is cheaper.

Unfortunately, as the result of doing business abroad, corporations are still subject to the labor laws of the respective country in which they do business. In the case of Costa Rica, there remains a lack of oversight, follow-up, or initially filed documents by the Labor Ministry for worker complaints, throughout all industries.

With respect to collective bargaining, it is permissible by law, but is discouraged in the workplace, with employers encouraging workers to join "solidarity associations" instead. These groups are allowed to assemble, but are prevented from collective bargaining and are partially financed by the employer.

Ralph Nader previously demanded that MLB and the MLBPA, "Adopt internationally recognized workers' rights standards and effective enforcement mechanisms, as a core condition governing all of its product sourcing and license agreements."

Yet, much like the U.S. government's claim it cannot fully enforce its Free Trade Agreements, MLB can make the same claim when it comes to its licensees or subcontractors. Thus, passing the buck becomes an accepted practice and it is chalked it up to the price of doing business in the U.S. and abroad.

Ralph Nader, at the time, went on to say that, "We cannot tell you that it comes as a shock to us that MLB properties do not have any workers' rights guidelines in their licensing agreements. Nor are we surprised by the irony of the Players Associations' Strike Fund being supported by royalties from products which might be made by Third World workers stripped of their own rights. The irony is bitter."

MLB stands pat in that, "Our agreements routinely include provisions that require our partners to comply with applicable laws including those related to employment and workplace safety. At the same time, I am sure you understand that we are not in a position to actively regulate the practices of each and every separate company with which we do business." No, but they could start with the ball — its centerpiece.

It is not too late for MLB and its superstars to take a stand on workers' rights, regardless of lax U.S. laws in the world of Free Trade and its Agreements' legal loopholes. And important to note — although it has only been one year since DR-CAFTA has been realized in Costa Rica — its exports to the U.S. fell 15%, imports from the U.S. to Costa Rica fell 30%, unemployment rose to 7.8% from 4.9% in 2008, and Foreign Direct Investment from other countries fell approximately 30%. Economists will conveniently blame the global recession on these bleak figures, but it represents many Costa Ricans' worst nightmares coming true.

The sweatshop culture in the U.S. ended with the enactment of labor laws and the rise of labor unions. However, one must ask that private industry as well as the U.S. government be held accountable. For not only are both culpable in the permanent export of U.S. jobs, but both stand by — eyes wide open — as workers in other countries, without many of the freedoms U.S. citizens enjoy, are blatantly exploited. For there is no "free trade," as someone ultimately pays.

Take a stand, MLB! Perhaps now is the time for Rawlings to go.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2010

Manning's Legacy Tarnished? Please

The most oft-discussed storylines from Super Bowl XLIV since the game ended two Sundays ago were that of the joy of the city of New Orleans winning its first pro sports championship and partying the night away, and that of Peyton Manning's legacy being tarnished. One of those cannot be questioned, the other raises both of my eyebrows.

I know that Peyton Manning is the most talented quarterback of his generation. He has numbers to rival Dan Marino and dwarf everyone else who ever played his position and, in theory, should have like a truckload of Super Bowl rings by now. I get that. Okay, so maybe I don't quite get it.

Dan Marino never did win the big one. Neither did Warren Moon (at least not in this country anyway) or Y.A. Tittle. Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, and Jim Kelly all make the list. Donovan McNabb's career seems headed that way, as well. There are countless examples of great Hall of Fame players of the highest caliber talent in their sport coming up tragically ringless. And who could blame them? The NFL's single-elimination can be cruel and unreasonable in its flukes and hunches. Often teams' entire seasons are at the mercy of one fortuitous bounce.

Over his career, Peyton Manning has had a laundry list of playoff games that can be considered debacles (this would have been another great column idea if it didn't already contradict the one I'm writing now). Many wondered if he would ever overcome those demons and finally finish.

Well, in case anyone forgot, he already did this three years ago.

Perhaps Manning didn't bust down the doors with his performance (one of the more questionable Super Bowl MVP decisions) in Super Bowl XLI and his defense seemed to carry him through the playoffs that year, but this was cancelled out by his epic victory over the Patriots that year in the AFC title game. That comeback and final victorious drive over rival Tom Brady to break the Patriots' spell over the Colts had Manning's fingerprints all over it.

Now, for all those aforementioned greats, some of whom never even got a sniff of the Super Bowl, why are we so hard on Peyton for winning only once? Wouldn't Marino have gone Ray Finkle/Lois Einhorn psycho on Peyton Manning if it meant getting what Peyton already has? If anything, Manning should still be praised for overcoming some bad luck and perhaps a mental block to still break through to win one Super Bowl. This year, after vanquishing two notoriously stingy defenses in the Ravens and the Jets in postseason, Manning returned to the promised land for a second time. There is no shame in that.

In this year's Super Bowl, it's hard to say he played poorly when you realize he completed 31 passes for 333 yards, both totals higher than in his MVP appearance in XLI. Certainly, there were stretches in which he carved up the Saints' secondary with his usual pinpoint precision, particularly throughout the first quarter, as well as one mesmerizing scramble in the third where he dropped a perfect pass to a double-covered Dallas Clark for 27 yards on a crucial 3rd-and-4. While he did not play poorly, he simply had stretches where he appeared mortal. Mortal is not good enough when you wear No. 18 in blue.

Manning was beaten by a quarterback in Drew Brees who has a chance to become his equal by the time all is said and done, and it took Brees' best to do so, going 32-of-39 and tying a record for completions in a Super Bowl. Sadly, Manning did not throw his first interception in this game until 3:12 left in the fourth quarter (to Tracy Porter, who took it 74 yards to the end zone, doing what you would expect his teammate Darren Sharper to do), yet because that one pick crushed the Colts' chances of winning, it was enough to let loose a flood of skeptics.

There is one man who has a right to criticize and be skeptical ... well, sort of. Eli Manning is not the quarterback Peyton is, nor will he ever be. However, now both brothers are in the odd position of having quarterbacked in a Super Bowl under the same ultimate conditions; needing a fourth-quarter drive in the final minutes to save your team from defeat. Eli succeeded in epic fashion against a great defense in the 2007 Patriots, Peyton fell short against the good-but-not-great defense of the Saints. It is unlikely that Peyton will ever find himself in such a rare situation again in his NFL career, so it seems safe to say that little brother will always have bragging rights over him on this matter.

Peyton could mention to Eli that Asante Samuel never should have allowed his drive to happen. If that doesn't work, he will just have to resort to hitting little brother over the head with a heavy book of stats. That should be enough to knock the poor kid out cold.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 11:55 AM | Comments (5)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jamie McMurray — After a last-lap pass of Greg Biffle, McMurray held off Biffle and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. down the stretch to capture the Daytona 500, a near seven-hour ordeal unofficially dubbed "The Late American Race." An emotional McMurray, who faced an uncertain future after his tenure with Roush Fenway Racing ended last year, wept in victory lane and thanked car owner Chip Ganassi for giving him another chance.

"I have to thank everyone who had faith in me," said McMurray. "And speaking of 'faith,' winning at Daytona is truly a religious experience. Not only is this track sacred ground, it's also 'hole-y' ground. I never considered myself a 'hole-y roller' until now. And I say that 'hole-heartedly. Now I feel important, like a big fish, a 'hole-y mackerel' if you will. And, in honor of team co-owner Felix Sabates' and teammate Juan Montoya's Hispanic heritage, you could say a win in the 500 is like taking the 'hole' enchilada."

"Victory? It tastes great. NASCAR's ability to repair a pothole in timely fashion? Less filling. FOX announcer Darrell Waltrip was profoundly prophetic when he yelled at the start of the race 'Boogity, boogity, boogity! Let's go paving, boys!'"

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt's late-race charge ended on Jamie McMurray's bumper and not in victory lane, giving him a disappointing finish to the Daytona 500, but a promising start to the 2010 season. Earnhardt led four laps on the day and earned a tidy $1,090,795 for his efforts.

"It was a hair-raising finish," said Earnhardt, "but after I completed my mad dash to the front, I could hear an audible sigh of relief from the entirety of Junior Nation. I think it registered a .28 on the Breathalyzer."

"Despite what happens on the track this year, it will be a great year in the marketing domain. As you know, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. merchandise is always a top seller, and with Danica Patrick all over the airwaves, merchandising intake for JR Motorsports could be through the roof as well. Already, we're in talks to market Danica's No. 7 GoDaddy.com Impala as a miniature collectible. Hotwheels has made an offer we can't refuse, as has Matchbox, but with hybrids being such a big deal these days, we've decided to market her car under the brand name HotBox®. Only Teresa Earnhardt could screw up such a marketing gold mine."

3. Greg Biffle — Biffle pushed Jamie McMurray into the lead on the Daytona 500's final restart, and Biffle briefly overtook McMurray for the lead as the field took the white flag. But McMurray quickly regained the top spot, and held off Biffle and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., who passed Biffle for second. Biffle's third in the race left him satisfied, but wondering if he should have waited to make a move on McMurray.

"Can you blame me if I said I was 'tired of waiting' when I made that move?" said Biffle. "This may be the only automobile race in history to be defined mostly by sitting still. Call it 'The Great American Idle Race.' If there would have been any more 'parking,' we'd have needed valets. You know it was a long race because there were two intermissions. But we've got to be grateful for the fans and viewers who stuck around for the finish. They'll be happy to hear that Van Halen's 'I'll Wait' has been named the official song of the 2010 Daytona 500."

4. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer led the charge for the resurgent Richard Childress Racing team, as all three RCR cars finished in the top 11. Bowyer led 37 laps, second only to teammate Kevin Harvick's 41, and Bowyer's Cheerios/Hamburger Helper Chevy was fast all day.

"I think I would have been the most appropriate winner in this year's Daytona 500," said Bowyer. "After all, a Cheerio has a hole in it. And, if I'm not mistaken, I think those potholes at Daytona were patched with Hamburger Helper."

"Harvick and I may have led the race for only a combined 78 of 208 laps, But in terms of time, I think we held the lead for at least four hours. Of course, most of that was spent parked on the track. Sadly, for the fans, they saw more of drivers making friends while parked than making enemies while driving. But, with 52 lead changes, you have to give the race a 'passing' grade. However, with so much time spent waiting for pothole repairs, you have to give NASCAR a 'moving' violation."

5. Kevin Harvick — Harvick held the lead with 38 laps to go, and looked to have the car to beat as the field sat idle while NASCAR officials repaired a pesky hole in the track that had already delayed the race once. But as is often the case at Daytona, the unpredictability of the draft in the closing laps cost Harvick the lead and a chance to win his second 500.

"Unfortunately," said Harvick, "I was unable to 'sit' on the lead. But I think it's good for the fans to sit and fight boredom for 1-2 hours. Now they can say they know what it's like to attend a drivers' meeting."

"As for the finish, circumstances, and not skill, are often the difference in winning and losing. I did choose the wrong line, but Carl Edwards didn't do me any favors by jamming up the middle. I've developed a habit for blaming Carl Edwards for everything, including these mysterious bruises on my neck. I'm not a big fan of Carl's driving on super-speedways. Heck, he thinks 31 degree banking is using an ATM in the winter."

6. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth, the defending 500 champion, failed to repeat his success of a year ago, but still finished eighth after surviving an unpredictable day at Daytona. Kenseth, in the No. 17 Crown Royal Ford, fought handling issues early, but steady adjustments throughout the day left him near the front in the end.

"Now I've seen it all," said Kenseth. "Last year, the race was shortened when the skies opened up. This year, it was lengthened when the ground opened up. And that hole kept getting bigger. Why? Because it had to be large enough to hold two hours of a wasted Sunday for thousands of people. I'm sure fans and drivers alike were saying the same thing there at the end: 'We need another green-white-checkered finish like we need another hole in the track."

7. (tie) David Reutimann/Martin Truex, Jr. — Reutimann joined Michael Waltrip Racing teammate Martin Truex, Jr. in the top 10 at Daytona, as the duo finished fifth and sixth, respectively, on a long and grueling day in chilly Florida.

"Sure it was a tough day," said Reutimann. "But these Toyotas are a breeze to drive at Daytona. All you have to do is floor it, take your foot off the gas pedal, and relax. Who says a stuck accelerator is grounds for a recall? Not me. Nowadays, Joe Gibbs Racing magnets aren't the only things that make a gas pedal stick to the floor."

8. Mark Martin — Martin started from the pole and rolled the No. 5 Hendrick GoDaddy.com Chevrolet to a solid 12th-place finish in an eventful yet time-consuming Daytona 500. It was an up-and-down day for Hendrick Motorsports, as Dale Earnhardt, Jr. finished second, while Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson came home 26th and 35th, respectively. Overall, it was a solid start in Martin's latest quest for a Sprint Cup championship.

"I'm waiting for my day in the limelight," says Martin. "At first glance, it would seem I'm referring to winning a title. But no, I'm talking about something with a much more realistic chance of occurring — my own racy, sexually-suggestive GoDaddy.com-inspired commercial. How does this set-up sound? In the commercial, I've got Danica over my knee giving her a spanking. Sounds good so far, right? Of course, it will be an ad for the website 'WhosYourGoDaddy.com?'"

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards lined up third on the final restart on lap 207 of the Daytona 500, but found no help as he slid to the middle groove and fell to ninth at the checkered flag. Roush Fenway teammates Greg Biffle and Matt Kenseth also finished in the top 10, while former Roush Fenway driver Jamie McMurray won the race.

"It would have been great to usher in fatherhood with a win at Daytona," said Edwards. "But, like me last year, or like Karl Malone in the 1997 NBA Finals, or your local postal carrier, there was no delivery on Sunday. When the child is born, I think we'll call him 'Victor,' or call her 'Victoria.' If this year's anything like last year, that may be as close as I get to 'victory.'"

"If you watched Sunday's broadcast on Fox, you probably noticed my Aflac commercials, and you probably noticed that there were entirely too many opportunities to show them. If you did, in fact, visit NoQuack.com, then you have way too much time on your hands. By that same token, if you watched all of Sunday's race, then you also have too much time on you hands."

"Now, if Aflac really does want people to visit that web site, it's always a good idea to inform potential visitors that the web content is unrated. That's GoDaddy.com's tricky way of driving people to their site, and then inevitably disappointing them. Anyway, for more Aflac-affiliated sites, visit their private investigation division at PeekingDuck.com, or file a sexual harassment claim at DuckDuckGoosed.com, or send a funny video to DuckTaped.com, or look for roofing work at DuckandCovered.com."

10. Juan Montoya — Montoya finished 10th at Daytona as Earnhardt Ganassi Racing teammate Jamie McMurray took the victory in dramatic fashion. Montoya, one of only three 2009 Chase qualifiers to crack the top 10 at Daytona, started eighth and led two laps.

"It was a race full of surprises. And all that was foreshadowed by the biggest surprise of all — Denny Hamlin and Brad Keselowski starting on the same row without incident. Now that's a surprise."

"Anyway, McMurray has made Chip Ganassi a very happy man. Finally, there's some balance to this team. Last year, I was the guy who carried this team with a chip on his shoulder. Now Jamie's the one being carried around on the shoulders of Chip."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:43 AM | Comments (3)

February 16, 2010

A Horse Race in the Heartland

Let's take a quick trip in the Way Back Machine. The year: 2009. You remember 2009, right? Conan O'Brien was still on speaking terms with NBC. New Orleans Saints fans were a sad sack group that actually had to wait until Mardi Gras to start partying. Eighteen conquests represented what Tiger Woods did on the golf course. And college basketball conference races were generally entertaining.

Strange days, I know.

That's why the five-wide horserace in the Big Ten is so stinking exciting. Look around the major conferences: Vanderbilt might "only" be a game behind Kentucky in SEC land, but I'll bet the Commodores' "2010 SEC Champs" t-shirts are probably not in production just yet. And thanks to Texas' spiral down the commode, Kansas had a three-game edge on Kansas State and Texas A&M as of Monday morning. Sure, Syracuse and Villanova are tight in the Big East, but somehow the top two spots of a 16-team conference were locked up in January. Outside of a Sweet-16-at-best Duke team, is there a single team in the ACC you'd guarantee gets out of the NIT's first round, let alone the big tourney? And no, just because four losses separate first and last in the Pac-10 doesn't make it a race. I might as well watch the World Series of Coin-Flipping.

But in the ultra-competitive heartland, there's a slugfest for the conference title. Entering this week, an improbable five Big Ten heavyweights still had a clear path to the title belt. Michigan State and Purdue entered the season as the favorites, and it's hard to argue their February 28th tilt in West Lafayette won't be the biggest clue left in solving the conference puzzle. But both squads still have to go through the good ship Buckeye, which somehow managed to stay afloat without the best player in the country, Evan Turner, for five weeks. Ohio State has been on a roll since Turner's return, with the development of his supporting cast a silver lining to his horrific back injury.

Just at their hindquarters lurk the two dark horses. Wisconsin, whose media guide every year might as well read, "Will outperform expectations by 25% this season," sit poised to take advantage of their remaining schedule. The Badgers will only face one of the other four contenders, a season-closer at Illinois. As for those Illini, Bruce Weber's team managed to surge from bubble status only a couple weeks ago to possible conference champs. They're probably the longest shot to take the crown, but it's hard to forget their handling of Wisconsin in Madison, a place ranked teams often find themselves about to be ranked lower.

It's a fascinating and, likely, rare scenario. While the rest of the country lives (Kentucky) and dies (North Carolina) with its freshmen, the Big Ten has managed to amass an impressive lineup of old-timers. Players like Turner, Kalin Lucas, Robbie Hummel, Jason Bohannon, and Mike Tisdale actually played in postseason games last decade (I know, I know; it's still last decade, work with me here). In fact, don't be surprised if these grizzled children of the '80s outperform expectations in March. As odd as it sounds, they have been in three and four times as many games as the first-year phenoms and their coaches have that much more experience working with these specific players. Sure, Kentucky looks like a juggernaut, but does John Calipari know how his young players will react when they face adversity in the tournament?

Certainly, in coming years as this group of veteran players matriculates through the conference, the Big Ten will look like its major conference peers. But in a sport dominated by the boom and bust of one-and-done recruiting, it's refreshing to see a good old-fashioned pennant race on the shores of the Great Lakes.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:44 AM | Comments (0)

Everything's Bigger in Texas

You know the old saying, "Everything's bigger in Texas."

NBA All-Star Weekend certainly proved that statement to be true over the weekend.

Unfortunately for the league that I love dearly, the one thing that was bigger than I could have hoped for this weekend: disappointment.

Right from the beginning, disappointment was in the air in Dallas. First, the city had a record snowstorm that blanketed the area with almost a foot of snow on the eve of All-Star Weekend.

A very ominous start if I've ever seen one.

In the week leading up to the game, we got even more disappointing news: Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Brandon Roy, and Allen Iverson would all miss the game due to injury.

Iverson had no business being there in the first place, but it's disappointing when one team loses three guards before the game even starts.

That was followed by the injury to Derrick Rose that took him out of the skills competition on Saturday night and limited his effectiveness during the actual game on Sunday.

And of course, there was the worst news imaginable that came from All-Star Weekend, news that most people have spent the past year or so choosing to ignore: a lockout is inevitable after this current CBA expires.

I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to elaborate on this later, but the long and short of it is this: the owners and players union are remarkably far apart in negotiations and the odds of both sides reaching an agreement in time to avoid a lockout are slim to none.

We're already past three strikes for the festivities, and we haven't even gotten to the action on the floor. That's where the real disappointment set in.

NBA All-Star Saturday is my favorite day of the year. I realize that it's filled with exhibitions, and that none of the stuff that happens really matters, but I don't care. I love it anyway.

That's because, for die hard NBA fans, All-Star Weekend is our Super Bowl. It's a combination of time and place that happens once a year that brings anyone who's ever been anyone in the history of the NBA together in one place. The people-watching is just as much fun as the actual events.

I love NBA All-Star Weekend so much that I wanted to write about how much I liked this season's event, I really did.

But after Saturday night's debacle from start to finish, I just couldn't think of anything positive to say.

It all started off with what I can imagine will be the last live game of H-O-R-S-E on TV in NBA history. I like to concept of the H-O-R-S-E game, but if they're going to keep doing it, it needs to be taped in advance, heavily edited, and shown that way.

The live broadcast had no flow to it whatsoever, and with all the commercials breaks, no one was able to get into a rhythm. It didn't get entertaining until TNT ran out of time and it turned into a shootout from the top of the key between Rajon Rondo and Kevin Durant (you can imagine who won).

From there, there was the 30-minute yawn-fest that is the Haier Shooting Stars Competition. To be honest, this was the one even from Saturday that didn't disappoint me. I knew going into the event that it was going to be a waste of time so I wasn't disappointed when that is exactly what it was: a waste of time.

No one cares about the WNBA, so stop trying to incorporate it into All-Star Weekend.

Now comes disappointment on a personal level. I hate Steve Nash. I hate the Phoenix Suns. I hate when anything good happens to them as an organization.

So to me, this is the epitome of disappointment.

Then comes disappointment personified, part two.

I've written already this season about how ridiculously cocky the Celtics got as a team once the front office assembled the "Big Three." That last thing I wanted to see this All-Star Weekend was for this fading fast group of guys given a reason to celebrate.

Yet there it was, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, doing a choreographed handshake on the floor after Pierce won the three-point shootout.

The only thing that could have made my night worse is if Nate Robinson, quite possibly my least favorite human being on the planet, won the dunk contest.

Dammit.

It's bad enough that Nate gets another 15 minutes of fame, but what makes it even worse is that this was by far the worst dunk contest in NBA history.

There couldn't have been any less energy in the crowd. You could hear a pin drop after every dunk. I spent two months hearing "Let Shannon [Brown] Dunk," and when he did, I felt bad for him. Really. That's got to be embarrassing. The entire Internet population is pulling for you, and you did that?

Robinson won the event by default, and unless the NBA can get some stars to participate next season, they need to scrap the whole thing entirely.

This year's version of the dunk contest featured no imagination, nothing new, and most of all, no likable personalities. The dunk contest is as much about rooting for the participants as it is rooting for a great dunk. Once Shannon Brown laid an egg with his first dunk, you knew right away that there was going to be nothing good that came of the event.

However, along the theme of "everything's bigger in Texas", there were a few positives that came out of the weekend. Namely, the 108,713 people that filled Cowboys Stadium to set the record for the most fans ever at a basketball game.

I have to hand it to Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones. They spent weeks promoting the fact that they were going to get six figures into the building, with Jerry Jones doing his "1-0-0" schtick about 50 times on television in the week leading up to the game.

I'll admit, I was skeptical that they'd be able to pull it off, but I was pleasantly surprised when the numbers were announced that not only did they set the attendance record, but they shattered the 100,000 people mark that I thought was out of reach.

In my mind, there was no way that you could convince people to come to a basketball game and sit upwards of 300 feet away from the action. Kudos to them for pulling that off and delivering on their promise.

And, kudos to the players, as well. As a fan, I was disappointed that some of the biggest names in the sport didn't participate due to injury. But that didn't stop the players that did participate from putting on a great show.

I posted a tweet late in the game that said, "Can't ask for much more than this from an ASG. Lots of exciting plays, and just a 4 point game with 6 minutes left #AS10".

It's the oldest All-Star Game cliché in the book, but the players usually crank it up in the fourth quarter. That's exactly what happened here. The West made a game out of it, the crowd got involved, and the game came down to the final play.

In an exhibition that more often than not ends in a blowout, it was nice to see players and coaches (the East kept scoring out of timeouts?!) giving it their all down the stretch.

It would have taken an All-Star Game for the ages to erase all the bad memories that Saturday night produced. It wasn't quite that, but it was a good enough game (especially considering there was no Kobe or CP3 down the stretch) that I didn't go to bed with a bad taste in my mouth from what was billed as the biggest All-Star Weekend in NBA history.

Like I said before, I'm a sucker for All-Star Weekend. As bad as things were on Saturday, a halfway decent game on Sunday has me hooked back for next season. Let's just hope they do something about Saturday night.

Staples Center in Los Angeles, you are officially on the clock for AS11.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2010

Coach-Player Duo Living the Dream

A little over six months ago, on August 31, 2009, one of the headlines on the ATP World Tour's official website read, "Ilhan Creates History For Turkey." There were two unusual words in that title: on one hand, Ilhan was not a well-known name, and on the other hand, Turkey was not a country associated with making headlines in the world of ATP.

However, the accuracy of the title was unquestionable. Marsel Ilhan, the 22-year-old ranked player from Turkey who enjoyed the highest ranking of his career last week at No. 137, has continued to make more history since the last day of August last year. He has not only become the first Turkish male player to participate in the main draw of not one, but two major tournaments — the 2009 U.S. Open and the 2010 Australian Open — but he has also avoided being a simple "fill-in" player by winning a round in each tournament, only losing in the second round to two players currently ranked in the top 25 of ATP rankings, John Isner and Fernando Gonzales, respectively.

Not bad for a player who was ranked outside the top 1,000 less than two years ago!

The fast-rising Ilhan, despite remaining largely under the radar in the tennis world, has fast become an icon in Turkey. The title on the ATP World's official website could have easily included one more unusual name. While his well-documented story is quite inspiring — born in Uzbekistan, moved since to Turkey with his mother five years ago, and became a Turkish citizen (he has Turkish roots)— the successful rapport between Ilhan and his coach, Can Uner, that has so far resulted in Ilhan's fruitful and still-developing career has been left mainly unexplored.

I have had a chance to catch-up with Uner and talk to him about his pupil's career and ask him about the success of the duo. Energetic, friendly, yet modest by nature, Uner was a respectable player himself in his younger days, competing at the highest level in his native country Turkey. Currently, he coaches Ilhan full-time and works as an assistant coach with the Davis Cup team of Turkey. I had the chance and the honor of knowing him for many years; thus, I began my conversation with a question on a subject that has occupied my curiosity for a long time.

Q: Marsel seems to be level-headed, calm, and composed on the court. He rarely gets over-emotional and, like the legendary Borg, manages to maintain the "ice" look regardless of the stage of the match. On the other hand, you are an emotional, gritty, and a high-energy individual. Do you believe that this balancing act has been a contributing factor to your success as coach-player duo?

Uner: You know, Marsel has a different background than most other players and me. He has lost his father at an early age; he has not had the most comfortable childhood, sometimes suffering from lack of opportunities. He has learned to be ambitious, sometimes to the point of being greedy for improvement, at an early age. But he also learned to not get emotional and use this ambition in a methodical manner, thus his composure.

Two years ago, when I first met Marsel, the timing and the circumstances were in the favor of a productive partnership. I have just finished my apprenticeship in coaching seminars and I was already teaching tennis. I was a newcomer to the coaching program of Tacspor Club in Istanbul, Turkey. Marsel was there at the time, himself having moved to Turkey less than three years ago. He was still developing, but ambitious. He was also the best player by a large margin at the club, so my arrival was perfect for him since he was not getting to play with players who could challenge him in practice.

So from the beginning, we got along very well. I found the right player to work with in order to utilize efficiently my fresh enthusiasm for coaching, and he found in me someone who would provide him with methodical framework for practice to fit his work ethics and someone in whom he could confide and trust. My personality has perhaps helped in earning his trust. Since then, we became like brothers. I have learned from him as much as he has learned from me. It has been a learning experience for both of us. I don't avoid consulting him in every decision that I take as his coach and he know that he can trust me. Even when scheduling, we arrive at decisions only after both of us have agreed on the next step. His mother, with whom he is very close, also trusts me, which helps even more.

Q: How do you see Marsel's chances in the upcoming months on clay courts? Would that be considered his "unexplored" surface? He has many ATP points to gain and not much to lose since his success has come largely in the last six months.

Uner: In my opinion, clay courts should fit his gritty playing style. He adopts a "warrior-style" approach to matches, which is the most important ingredient to be successful on clay courts. It is true that if he has a successful clay court campaign, he could gain enough points to enter directly in the main draws of Roland Garros and Wimbledon; that is a goal within reach now.

First, he has to learn to be a little more patient. Sometimes he feels that out-hitting your opponent is enough to win matches, but his recent experience at the highest level has shown to him that he needs to use his variety, construct the point, and sometimes fabricate winning combination of shots instead of simply hitting the ball hard and away from the opponent. He possesses that variety already. If he can put it to good use, he could jump another level. I believe the clay court season will teach him that, and in the long-run, will help improve his overall game.

Q: Considering the rise in Marsel's ranking, is he likely to play more ATP World tour events or are you still planning on playing a few challengers, too?

Uner: We will try to aim high as much as possible. We are planning on playing Dubai since Marsel performs well in high temperatures. The week following Davis Cup, he will play a challenger because he can enter main draw directly after the Davis Cup weekend. After Miami, our goal is to attack the clay court season with the ATP event in Houston, move on to Europe for the qualifiers of Monte Carlo Masters Series tournament. Depending on how much match play Marsel gets, he may also play a challenger on clay court prior to Roland Garros.

Q: Do you feel that you have received enough support in Turkey for what Marsel has been able to accomplish?

Uner: Quite frankly, the support has been more than I could imagine. Financially, we are sponsored by Turkcell, one of the biggest companies in Turkey, which helps our exposure. To have such a reputable company like Turkcell involved in the cause for tennis means a lot to us and to tennis in Turkey. Also, the Turkish Tennis Federation has been generously providing for our traveling expenses for almost three years and this has allowed us to focus on our task at hand and dedicate our effort to improving Marsel's results. But the moral support has been the biggest surprise of all. The tennis community, the media, have been on our side since the beginning of Marsel's success. We are definitely not going unnoticed even though in the past tennis has not necessarily been considered as a "selling" sport in Turkey.

Q: Does Marsel get along well with other players?

Uner: Yes, in general all is well. Marsel is not someone who has a variety of hobbies. He stays mainly focused on the task at hand, which is his tennis career. He neither gets sidetracked by distractions nor gets involved in too many social activities. But none of that keeps him from having friends on the tour. He stays balanced for the most part.

Q: Marsel seems to have fundamentally sound overall technique. He is what one could call "a solid all-around" player. Do you plan on developing a certain weapon in his game that may help him reach the next level?

Uner: We have been focusing on his serve lately. We are working to improve his first-serve percentage, especially on big points. He actually has a big serve that can be that weapon, just like he can produce big shots on his forehand side. So the lack of a big weapon is not the problem. Sometimes he uses his weapons at the wrong times, and when they don't work, they turn against him. Lately, we have discussed this aspect quite a lot. He needs to manage better his game plan at the mental level. He is by nature a conservative player when it comes to changing his game, sometimes he is even stubborn. So the first step is to get him to believe in using what he already possesses.

You know, he is still learning a lot. He is even learning to run more efficiently. For a long time, it was enough for him to stay back and hit big to win matches. Now he realizes that he has to move more, use the court better to construct points, perhaps make use of the angles. Along with that, he is learning to play the opponent better, too. This past year, facing players at the highest player, he has discovered a whole new concept of what it means to from a game plan. As he is winning matches, his confidence is growing along with his belief in his abilities.

***

As we finished the conversation, I made a promise to myself to attend personally at least a few tournaments to observe closely Marsel in action and to spend time with these two enthusiastic individuals who seem to form an emblematic collaboration in the domain of coach-player relationships. If Marsel's meteoric rise in his short career is any indication of his future success, I firmly believe that the duo will continue to raise the eyebrows in Turkey, along with a few more in the world of ATP tennis.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 11:34 AM | Comments (4)

February 12, 2010

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl XLIV Edition

How did the Saints win?

By making all the plays they had to when they needed. Yes, that's a simplistic explanation, but a valid one. Basically, the Saints made few, if any, mistakes. They didn't turn the ball over, surrendered hardly any big plays, and made three crucial plays that proved most critical in deciding the outcome: recovering the onside kick, converting a two-point conversion, and forcing Peyton Manning's lone mistake in what was otherwise a sterling performance.

Offensively, Drew Brees was unstoppable after a slow start. Much like Manning's performance against the Jets in the AFC title game, Brees analyzed the opposing defense for a few possessions, then set about attacking the weaknesses that inevitably were revealed. Although the Saints' early possessions yielded no points, they also resulted in no turnovers. Once Brees figured out the Colts' scheme, Indy could do very little to stop him with a fading pass rush and a zone defense that offered entirely too much cushion to the Saints receivers.

Defensively, the Saints never sacked Manning, but they did force him to move around in the pocket. Manning is superb at stepping forward in the pocket, but he was often made to move side to side and throw on the run. Despite an incredible throw to Dallas Clark while running to his right, Manning was, for the most part, uncomfortable having to move around in the pocket.

The Colts probably didn't even see the Saints' best defensive effort of the night. That came when Hall of Famer Len Dawson tried to deliver the Lombardi Trophy to the podium, and found his path blocked by an amorous group of Saints, each wanting to touch or kiss the trophy. In this case, "Xs and Os" meant "hugs and kisses," and not a play diagram.

Is the lengthy Super Bowl pre-game show a case of pure overkill?

Only the first three hours. Note to CBS: if you're going to air four hours of pre-game, you really have to dazzle me with fancy graphics and in-depth analysis, plus statistical data to support the opinions of your fine studio team. Or you could just have Bill Cowher and Shannon Sharpe face-off in a tongue-twister reciting contest. Gracious! I never thought I'd need subtitles for an English-language broadcast. I've heard better English in a Godzilla movie. God forbid Frank Caliendo ever moves to CBS. Cowher and Sharpe would be dead. But at least the FOX pre-game crew would finally see a much-needed requiem from Caliendo's dead-on ridicule.

What about the vocal artistry of Queen Latifah and Carrie Underwood, who sang "America the Beautiful" and "The Star-Spangled Banner," respectively, before the game?

That was "America the Beautiful?" I guess it's official now — the Queen can't rap or sing. But that's okay. Ever since Marvin Gaye sang the "Star Spangled Banner" at the 1993 NBA All-Star Game, I've found that I really don't mind when singers "funk up" patriotic anthems. Nothing says "respect for the flag" like being able to dirty dance to your country's anthems.

Anyway, one thing's for sure — if ever The Aretha Franklin Story movie is made, Latifah has the inside track to the lead role.

As for Underwood, her rendition of the National Anthem was tighter than her white pants suit. It was so good it evoked fireworks, something Tony Romo, apparently, never could do for her.

Whose fault was the Colts' fateful turnover — Peyton Manning's or Reggie Wayne's?

That's a play Manning and Wayne have executed successfully, in practice and games, thousands of times. This time, however, one or both of them erred.

My guess is that Manning should have thrown the ball just inches from the ground, where only Wayne could have caught it. Even with Tracy Porter reading the play to perfection, he wouldn't have been able to make the pick with the pass thrown that low. By no means was it the worst pass thrown in Super Bowl history (Neil O'Donnell's got the top three in that category); in fact, it wasn't a bad pass by Manning. Nor was there anything wrong with Wayne's route. Porter just made a better read on a quarterback known for almost always making the better read.

What was the turning point of the game?

It would be convenient to say the Saints recovery of an onside kick to start the second half was the pivotal point of the game. Sure, the Saints subsequently scored a touchdown to take a 13-10 lead, but the Colts responded on their next possession to retake the lead. If there was, in fact, a change of momentum with the onside kick, then the Colts changed in right back.

Sean Payton's challenge of a failed two-point conversion in the fourth quarter was the true turning point. Had the officials' call on the field stood, the Saints would have held only a five-point lead as opposed to a seven-point lead. With a seven-point cushion, the Saints defense had a little more leeway to gamble, with the mindset that even if the Colts scored to tie, New Orleans offense would have had plenty of time to score. Gregg Williams gambled with a blitz on 3rd-and-5, and Tracy Porter gambled by stepping in front of Manning's pass to Reggie Wayne.

Of course, it can be argued that the turning point occurred when the Colts, holding a 10-3 lead, stopped the Saints on fourth down late in the second quarter. Sure, had the Colts won, this goal line stand would have been praised as the turning point. However, as it turned out, this could have been the moment when the game shifted in New Orleans favor. After taking possession, the Colt chose to run three times and had to punt, the field position from which allowed the Saints to cash in a late field goal. Had the Colts tried to score, or at least tried to pick up a first down, the Saints likely would not have got the ball back at all. Yes, the Colts were backed up in their own territory, but their unwillingness to take a chance led to the Saints taking the ultimate gamble with the onside kick.

Is Drew Brees the most deserving Super Bowl MVP in history?

If Brees wasn't eligible for sainthood already, he certainly is now. He's not going to Disneyworld; he's going to heaven.

And it was downright precious to see Brees holding his infant son as the wild celebration took place around them. The child was mesmerized by the raining confetti and the general spectacle of it all. Of course, the kid will be disappointed as hell at his next birthday party — nothing will ever live up to the Super Bowl celebration. It was kind of cool that the baby was wearing giant headphones—it almost looked like a scene from The Hangover.

What were the best commercials?

Leave it to Super Bowl Sunday to treat viewers to ads featuring beer, men without pants, and an appeal from pro-life supporters. Luckily, those ads didn't appear in succession, otherwise a Minnesota Vikings cruise on Lake Minnetonka may have broken out.

Some highlights:

McDonalds ad featuring Lebron James and Dwight Howard in a slam dunk contest with the victor winning James' value meal. The dunks were spectacular, and clearly weren't performed by James and Howard without some computer wizardry (or Vince Carter serving as body double). In the end, Larry Bird steals the show, and the meal, proving that even now, as he did in his playing days, he can make black men look like chumps.

Bud Light's "Autotune" ad, in which four friends herald the presence of Bud Light by magically speaking in Autotuned voices. Autotune may have ruined radio, but it can't ruin beer ads. That is, unless Jamie Foxx becomes a spokesman for Bud Light. Anyway, rapper T-Pain closes the ad by saying "Pass the guacamole" in his familiar Autotune voice, which may even be his real voice now. Hey, you have to love Autotune — now, people who have lost their voice boxes to tobacco abuse can have legitimate hopes for a career in music.

CareerBuilder.com's "Casual Friday" commercial: an employee is stunned to see the lengths to which "Casual Friday" privileges are extended at his place of work. His fellow employees cavort about the office in nothing more than underwear, much to his chagrin and disgust. You want to know how reporter Lisa Olson felt in the Patriots locker room back in 1985? Watch this commercial, and picture the employees naked.

Skechers "Shape-ups" shoes ad: Skechers can afford a Super Bowl ad? That's a big surprise. An even bigger surprise: hearing the words, "Hi. I'm Joe Montana for Shape-Ups." Say it ain't so, Joe? Wow, you're the celebrity spokesman for Skechers? Peyton Manning should watch his back. Montana must be walking proud, and I bet he's doing so with the most sculpted calves of his lifetime.

Focus On The Family's pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam: I'm not one to take a political stance, especially concerning Super Bowl commercials, so I won't. But doesn't it seem odd that in a commercial about such serious subject matter, the climax of the ad is Tebow tackling his mother? Who conceived and conceptualized this commercial? Saturday Night Live? Hey Tim, way to hammer home your message with biblical precision, and humor. Guess what, Tebow, most NFL personnel directors are "pro-choice"; if the true professionals, they won't make you their choice in the draft.

On the bright side, "Tebow's mom" has now replaced "Stiffler's mom" in the lexicon of American Pie-ish terms for cougar-ish women. Pam, I'm proud that you birthed your boy Tim. But don't get all righteous about it. Olivia Manning's spit our more NFL quarterbacks than you ever will.

The Late Show ad: David Letterman and Jay Leno sandwich Oprah Winfrey on the couch at a Super Bowl party? Cue the 1970s porno music! Again, Conan O'Brien's left out of all the fun.

Hyundai ad with Brett Favre as 2020 NFL MVP: Probably the most unrealistic ad of the night — there's no way the MVP trophy will have a hologram a mere 10 years from now.

Snickers commercial featuring Betty White and Abe Vigoda: Probably the best ad of the night. All it lacked was Phyllis Diller. Snickers really satisfies, and if it can truly cause such a transformation in a football player, then maybe there is hope for the St. Louis Rams.

Monster.com's fiddling beaver: Hey Monster.com, just answer me one thing. Where'd you find this fiddling beaver? Wait, I know! A fiddling beaver hunt!

TruTV's "Punxsutawney Polamalu": a pint-sized Troy Polamalu is yanked from a hole and sees his shadow, indicating six more weeks of football in the form of TruTv's "NFL Full Contact." Little known fact: Polamalu also played the mini-Gene Simmons in the Dr. Pepper Snapple Kiss commercial. And I believe he injured his knee.

In this show, TruTV goes behind the scenes of NFL games to give viewers what they don't see on game broadcasts. Finally, fans find out where all that profanity comes from that is inadvertently aired during real games.

Best quotes: it's a tie. Mike Ditka saying "That's fresh" in the Boost Mobile shuffle, and Jim Nantz with "Change out of that skirt, Jason" to a henpecked boyfriend shopping with his lady in a FloTV ad.

How was the halftime show?

As halftime shows that I didn't watch go, it was pretty darn good. From what I hear, The Who really seemed to really give their all, and played like a band earning in 30 minutes what it would normally take three hours to make. And really, what says "American football" like a band from London jamming in Miami. That's like Jimmy Buffett playing halftime at the World Cup final.

Come on, NFL. Give us some entertainment we really want to see. How about some magic? You could easily get David Blaine, or another more likable magician, to perform tricks at halftime. Want to see Darrelle Revis pulled from a magician's hat, or better yet, Chad Ochocinco's jock strap? Want Brett Favre to disappear? Ta da! It's done. Want a new collective bargaining agreement to appear? Forget it. No magician is that good.

How will the Super Bowl loss affect Peyton Manning's legacy?

A win would have silenced his critics for good. Now, he'll have to answer to his not-so impressive playoff record. And he'll do so graciously. What's the worst thing about having only one Super Bowl ring? That's how many Eli has.

Manning will win at least one more Super Bowl, which will easily cement his status as the greatest quarterback of all-time.

Can the Colts and Saints repeat their 2009 success in 2010?

The Colts will easily return to the playoffs, and the Super Bowl loss will send Manning on a mission to become even better. He'll know defenses so well, he could play middle linebacker for most teams. With Anthony Gonzalez back, Indy will have an even more dynamic passing attack, and if Joseph Addai remains healthy, he'll have plenty of room to run against defenses geared to stop the pass.

Defensively, the Colts could use some meat in the middle of their defensive line. And a cornerback with single-coverage ability is also needed. The Colts probably can't afford a big-name free agent, but their personnel men will find suitable alternatives.

You heard it here first: the Colts win Super Bowl XLIV. Over the Cowboys. In Dallas.

Can the Saints repeat as world champions? Neaux dice. The NFC South always seems to be a volatile division, so it's no guarantee the Saints can even repeat as South champs. Even if the Saints make the playoffs next year, there's no guarantee that two opposing superstar quarterbacks will again throw timely interceptions, thus paving the way for another Saints title run.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:54 PM | Comments (2)

February 11, 2010

Dear LeBron, Stay in Cleveland

Dear LeBron,

Let me begin this letter the same way I am going to end it. Please stay in Cleveland.

I'm an Akron boy, like you. I spent part of my childhood at Crosby Elementary School.

Does that sound familiar? It's right across the street from St. V., where you went to high school.

So we are both familiar with the same sights, same sounds, same environs. You also know how much we love our Browns, Indians, and Cavs.

You know how long-suffering we are as fans. No championships since the mid-'60s. Close, close calls by all the Cleveland sports teams that came up famously short. Edgar Renteria, John Elway ... all the famous daggers.

But more than that, you know how long-suffering we are not just as fans, but as people. The unemployment rate in Northeast Ohio is through the roof. All the factories are long gone, and nothing has replaced it but strife, want, and half-cooked ideas.

People make fun of Akron, fun of Cleveland. No one names menu items, fashion accessories, or buildings after us.

But it's my home, and yours, as well.

Do you owe it to Cleveland to stay? Certainly not. I'm not some old curmudgeon preemptively accusing you of ungratefulness. On the contrary, I admire you.

I'm consistently amazed that, considering you have had such a bizarre life of stardom ever since that Sports Illustrated cover at age 13, you seem grounded. When interviewed, your answers are thoughtful and not just boilerplate. I get not the slightest whiff of undue arrogance in you, and that's quite amazing. Michael Jordan used his Hall of Fame speech to piss and moan about his detractors and enemies. You would not do that.

I also can understand a lot of reasons why you might want to leave. I doubt money is one of them. I think you know that whether you re-up with the Cavs for millions or sign with the Knicks for billions, you're going to be insanely rich either way, and most of that is going to be from Nike and your other endorsements anyway.

Then, there's the fact that you have only ever lived in Northeast Ohio. God knows I have benefitted from visiting and living in different states, and I was very happy to strike it out on my own over a hundred miles away for college. You haven't had that experience. And New York is indeed awesome, a great city.

But Cleveland and Akron need you. It's true. I repeat, you do not owe it to these cities to stay, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that you will leave a large hole behind that nobody can replace. I don't mean on the Cavs, although certainly that's true. I mean in our imaginations. Yeah, people may shit on Cleveland, on Akron, but we have the best basketball player, he's a good man to boot, and he's a local. He's one of us.

You kill a lot of the dreariness with your mythos. You give us a reason to brag. You let us feel good about something in a civic sense.

In New York you'll just be another link in the chain that stretches back to Babe Ruth. New York has all the championships, the history, the glory, and the admiration. And they want you. But they don't need you.

When players spend several years making it big with one club and then sign with another, it's always interesting to see how the fans react when they make that first return trip with the new team. Will it be cheers, or boos?

With you, I have no doubt, it will be cheers. Wild applause, through tears. It'll especially sting when you do that talcum powder toss representing the colors of another team. Jesus Christ, don't do that to us.

Please stay in Cleveland.

Sincerely,

Kevin Beane

Posted by Kevin Beane at 7:02 PM | Comments (1)

February 10, 2010

Chasing the Dragon: Recruiting Coverage

Happy signing day, everyone! Did you college football fans enjoy the equivalent of a coke addict desperately licking the inside of his empty plastic baggie last week?

College football recruiting is the most obsessive following of high school boys that isn't prosecutable by federal law. We want to know how big these kids are, how fast they can get 40 yards away from where they stand, and if they can get a high enough score on their SATs to matriculate (read: have the reading and math skills of an average 10-year-old).

But mostly, we want to know what school has had the most success hitting on 18-year-olds. I don't blame the college football addict completely. If you don't have a hockey or basketball team and your NFL team is out of the playoffs, January and February are meager times. We live on our computers and crave constant updates on the sports we care most about.

Yet it all reeks of kind of a pathetic desperation, largely because there is not as much of a direct correlation between top recruiting classes and results on the field as some seem to think. I don't have the time or resources for a relevant statistical analysis, so I will differ to this assemblage of data, stories and studies from the Wall Street Journal blog last week.

Basically, the data shows that there is a connection between recruit rankings and successful players. As the article notes, one in 15 five-star recruits becomes an All-American, compared to 1-in-54 and 1-in-147 for four- and three-star recruits. These are obviously substantial differences, but hardly definitive; there are plenty of examples that run counter and plenty of factors that are just as important, probably more so. This is the NFL draft, only even less of an exact science. Right, JaMarcus Russell?

To fully understand the relation between recruiting rankings and success, we have to look at the anatomy of judging these recruits. First, anyone who knows anything about high school football knows that these kids are competing on completely different levels. These kids are being given all-encompassing, two-digit prospect scores while one plays 5A ball and others play 2A. It's like judging a spelling aptitude by giving one kid "telekinesis" while the other gets "cheese."

Actually, they all kind of get one-syllable words because another complicating factor is that most D1 evaluation have the same weakness as those of college players heading to the pros: big fish in smaller pond syndrome. Most frequently, they are used to dominating much weaker talent, and haven't been exposed to a full season of practicing, playing, and competing with a bunch of kids that were also the best players in their school ... for the third spot on the depth chart. Who adjusts to that environment? Who has the mentality and the skills to rise to the challenge? Good luck figuring that out as they play on completely different levels in high school. That stop-watch and bench press bar isn't going to tell you, mister scout man.

For familiarity sake, let's look at my alma mater, USC. Chronically in the top 10 and usually in the top three, almost all of USC's recruits have four- and five- star ratings. (For simplicity, I'll stick to Rivals; the difference between sites is trivial at best.) Sure, Rey Maualuga and Reggie Bush, among others, were five-star recruits. So were Patrick Turner, Marc Tyler, Vidal Hazelton, and Jeff Schweiger. Meanwhile, Ryan Kalil was a three-star recruit. This year, USC has just one recruit rated that low. Kalil, of course, tore it up at USC and now starts at center for the Carolina Panthers.

Let's look at a fellow Pac-10 school. Oregon State is not in the top 25 in recruiting this year. In fact, it pretty much never is. Oregon State also was a win against Oregon away from winning the Pac-10, finished ahead of USC, and hasn't lost to the Trojans in Corvallis since 2004. They also just might be favored to win the Pac-10 this year. Somehow, they find talent without recruiting website approval.

So it's the system and not the talent, right? Try again. In the 2009 draft alone, Oregon State saw seven players drafted. Guard Andy Levite went in round two ... the number of stars he and teammates Keenan Lewis (DB, third round) and Al Afalava (DB, sixth round) were given by Rivals. They didn't even rate Victor Butler (recruited as DE, drafted fifth round as a LB).

Sure, no one would mistake Oregon State's decade with USC's. But there is a ton of talent outside of the four- and five-star recruits. NFL talent. And Oregon State has been nothing if not very competitive in a Pac-10 where they rarely finish in the top five in recruiting, even in the conference. Obviously, the talent gap indicated by the rankings isn't as sheer as is often suggested.

You could, in the meantime, compare Oregon State's recent seasons (very favorably) to teams like Florida State and Notre Dame. Notre Dame has recruited three top-10 classes and two more ranked in the top 21 in the last five years under Charlie Weis. Last year, they won six games, and in a year they played just one team that lost fewer than four. (Pittsburgh lost three.)

Of course, conventional wisdom states Charlie Weis knows as much about coaching as he does about Slim-Fast and exuding a vibrant personality. Florida State, meanwhile, just had its living legend of a coach retire. It hasn't finished outside the top-25 in the recruiting rankings as far back as Rivals' archives go (2002). Only twice were they outside the top 10, and in 2004-2006, they had three consecutive top-three classes. The harvest from those top classes? One top-25 finish since 2004, zero in the top 20.

Of course, I could go around cherry-picking anecdotal evidence all day. And I mean all day. And you could counter that dominant programs like USC, Texas, Florida, and more recently Alabama have coupled top-five recruiting classes with BCS bowl success. And no doubt, seeing projected talent slip does not help a dynasty, and recruiting analysis might have more to it than drawing a number out of a hat.

But looking closer at USC, the recruiting gold came after the initial successes under Carroll. The classes did not truly stand out before USC started to dominate (the latter two-thirds of 2002). And there was no drop-off in recruiting to derail them during a four-loss 2009. In fact, one could argue that such classes and perceived talent levels can lead to a sense of complacency counter to the natural driving, motivational forces resulting in players reaching a potential threshold.

Foundations for great success are surely laid in the recruiting process. No one doubts that there is some truth in that nor that talent wins. But you can't measure intangibles, aptitude to develop, or the size of chips on shoulders. And all of that doesn't even take into account coaching and training. So the next time you celebrate a 10-slot gap between your team's recruiting class rank and that of your rival, try to keep some perspective and remember that these rankings are barely more than a poorly-educated guess. And really, it's just a game of 20 questions on a long road trip to occupy the time during the long journey to the next college football season.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 11:34 AM | Comments (0)

February 9, 2010

Consistency Propels Jayhawks

Some things change, and some remain the same.

This year, for North Carolina's shocking collapse and Kentucky's triumphant rise back into the college basketball elite, there is the continued greatness of the Kansas Jayhawks.

Seriously, you have to hand it to Bill Self's club. Each year, they walk into games with a gigantic target on their backs. Sometimes, the target just slips easily off their backs and they cruise. Other times, they struggle. Once this year, they fell, suffering a loss at the hands of Tennessee. Most times, though, they persevere. They shake off the obstacles. And they win.

Just take a look at three of their last four games ... vintage KU.

Against an outstanding, fired-up Kansas State club in a raucous Bramlage Coliseum, Kansas withstood 15 turnovers, a revved up sea of purple, and an injured Sherron Collins and prevailed 81-79 in overtime. The hero? Collins himself, who fought cramps to come up with a dazzling three-point play to seal the deal for the Jayhawks.

KU then survived an overtime scare in Boulder. Despite one of the most abysmal nights at the free throw line (18-of-38) one can remember from a top-ranked team, the Jayhawks made the clutch plays when they needed to, and Colorado's hopes for a major upset were denied to the tune of 72-66.

And then tonight, the Jayhawks went to Austin for what was supposed to be a big time showdown with the Texas Longhorns. Yet, the moment after the opening tip-off, was there any feeling out there that said Kansas wouldn't win the game?

Kansas dominated the Longhorns. Their ball control completely overwhelmed Texas. Their passing was crisp, their defense sharp. KU owned the paint, and all Dexter Pittman could do was watch the show unfold in front of him. Pittman finished the night with 3 points, having been shutdown by Cole Aldrich in his own house. And what about Aldrich ... 6 blocks tonight in a fantastic defensive performance.

Final score: Kansas 80, Texas 68. The final score had no reflection on just how much better KU was.

Granted, Texas is in a pretty big slump, but the message sent tonight was clear. For one, Kansas is still the king of the Big 12. And second, for Texas to have any shot at the national title game, they need to hope for a miracle scenario in which they don't face the Jayhawks.

It's sheer consistency. It's brilliant, boring at times, but it's winning basketball. And Kansas has perfected the art.

You will always find at least three KU players in double-figures — four players average over 10 points a game. They'll almost always have double-digit marks in offensive rebounds, most often in steals. They lead the NCAA in opponents' field goal percentage, while ranking in the top five in scoring offense. Their assist to turnover ratio stands at a solid 1.4-to-1. They aren't the best shooting team, but they're definitely one of the scrappiest. Collins is a leader from the get-go. Brady Morningstar is becoming a serious outside threat. Aldrich owns the paint, and Marcus Morris is really picking up his game, becoming an added inside force for Kansas.

If the pace of the game is slow, half-court basketball, KU can win (ask Memphis). If the game is fast-paced, full-court hoops, KU can win (ask Missouri).

It's so regular, it takes the sudden falls of teams like North Carolina and UCLA to appreciate the continuous winning in Lawrence. Even with the rise of Texas and Kansas State in the Big 12, Kansas just keeps sitting at the top.

While it is certainly not clear as to how March will unfold, one has to remember Monday night as the night where Kansas once again asserted its dominance. Time and time again, the Jayhawks know how to find that winning formula. And it's that continued success when it counts that should have everyone thinking "Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk" when it's time to fill in those brackets.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 4:39 PM | Comments (0)

Fleeting Glories

It may be Adam Kennedy's last chance to make a major league stand, signing with Washington for $1.25 million in 2010 with a $2 million option for 2011. He's come a long, hard way from a 2002 American League Championship Series MVP to a fair-to-middling overall resume even if he has been mostly a solid defender.

Kennedy earned his prize thanks to a pennant-securing performance in Game 5 of that ALCS, when he abused Minnesota pitching — including a then-unknown Johan Santana — for 3 bombs in three straight at-bats, the last a no-out, 3-run shot that launched the then-Anaheim Angels to a 7-run bottom of the seventh and a 13-5 lead they never relinquished for game, set, and trip to the World Series they won in seven thrilling games.

It also launched Kennedy from a mere $375,000 in 2002 to seven figures over the next few years. By 2006, however, injuries and middling performance led to season-long trade speculation and, at last, departing via free agency. He returned to the St. Louis Cardinals (they'd sent him to the Angels in the Jim Edmonds deal), spent a few mediocre, injury-addled seasons there, found no way to become a regular, and signed a minor-league deal with Tampa Bay last spring, only to be traded to Oakland and put up a modestly useful season there.

Kennedy isn't even close to the only man who acquired a postseason halo that didn't stay illuminated in his coming career. They don't all go to the Hall of Fame after shining under the big sky. Some make fine careers; some return to the journeymen they already were when they caught the proverbial bite of the proverbial apple. For every Curt Schilling — a 1993 National League Championship Series MVP who goes on to share a World Series MVP (in 2001), helps lead the once star-crossed Boston Red Sox to a pair of World Series triumphs, and retires as a likely Hall of Famer in waiting — there are dozens of Bucky Dents (believe it or not, he was also the 1978 World Series MVP), Don Larsens, and Jeffrey Leonards.

Granted that they don't all become among the exclusive fraternity of three-bomb men in single postseason games. Kennedy at least can tell his grandchildren he did what only Babe Ruth, Bob Robertson, Reggie Jackson, and George Brett had done before him.

But here are how some other postseason MVPs have fared since they came up biggest when their teams needed them the most:

Johnny Podres — Let's start with the first man to win a World Series MVP. Podres pitched his way into Brooklyn lore forever when he beat the Yankees twice in 1955 to nail the only World Series championship the Brooklyn Dodgers ever won.

THE AFTERMATH — The military draft and a few arm problems took some of the steam out of Podres' career right after his Series triumph, but he ended up making an excellent career anyway — including winning all four of his 1950s World Series decisions and being part of the staggering Dodger sweep of the Yankees in 1963. He enjoyed a long career as a pitching coach; his proteges included future postseason heroes Frank Viola and Curt Schilling.

Larry Sherry — The 1959 World Series MVP for becoming the worst bullpen nightmare for the Go-Go White Sox. He saved Games 2 and 3; picked up a win in relief of Roger Craig in Game 4; took over for Johnny Podres in the fourth inning of Game 6 and went the rest of the route for the win.

THE AFTERMATH — A fine 1960 season (14-10, 3.79 ERA, seven saves, 142 innings pitched), a fading star by 1963, as Ron Perranoski became the Dodgers' prime reliever; three respectable seasons in Detroit before finishing up in Houston and Anaheim. Sherry became a respected pitching coach after his playing days were done.

Bobby Richardson — The 1960 World Series MVP, and the first to pick up the award despite playing for the Series loser — something often forgotten when that Series is spelled M-a-z-e-r-o-s-k-i. Played way above his own head, really, with a Series on-base percentage (.387) almost a hundred points above his career total and twelve runs batted in.

THE AFTERMATH — Finished second in the American League's 1962 MVP voting; remained a fine defender while earning an unwarranted reputation as a leadoff bellwether — most likely, his impossibility as a strikeout (lifetime: 28 strikeouts per 162 games) gave him that reputation. (Lifetime OBP: .299.) By far a better man than ballplayer, Richardson retired after 10 major league seasons, became a college baseball coach, and among other things led the South Carolina Gamecocks to their first College World Series berth and to a second-place finish. He continued his leadership in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and, according to one Yankee history (Pride of October) reached out to Mickey Mantle during the latter's battle with alcohol rehabilitation and liver cancer, leading Mantle to become a born-again Christian shortly before the Hall of Famer's death.

Ralph Terry — The 1962 World Series MVP (2-1/1.87 ERA), after posting his career year (23 wins/3.19 ERA) on the regular season. Richardson was big for Terry's effort — the former Series MVP snapped Willie McCovey's bullet-train liner in the ninth (stranding Willie Mays and Matty Alou, who would have scored on a base hit to win it for the Giants) to seal the Yankee deal.

THE AFTERMATH — Terry put up a fine 17-15/3.22 in 1963, but fell to 7-11/4.54 in 1964, compelling the Yankees to send him to Cleveland to finish the deal that made a Yankee stretch drive hero out of veteran Pedro Ramos. Terry pitched respectably if unspectacularly for the 1965 Indians, finished his career with the Kansas City Athletics (for whom he'd pitched between Yankee stints in the late 1950s, in one of those notorious Yankee-Athletics swaps) and the New York Mets, then became a professional golfer.

Mickey Lolich — The 1968 World Series MVP was a great if not quite Hall of Fame pitcher in his prime and won his prize doing what everyone expected Denny McLain (he of the 31 wins) to do — he beat the St. Louis Cardinals three times, including the clinching seventh game.

THE AFTERMATH — Lolich retired after putting up an 8-13 record for the 1976 New York Mets, openeding up a donut shop, and tried a two-season comeback with the San Diego Padres in the late 1970s. He retired to his donut shop permanently, eventually retiring from that business and becoming a part of Tigers fantasy camps.

Donn Clendenon — The Miracle Mets' Series MVP — who followed the famous Cleon Jones shoe-polish plunk with a shot off the left field scoreboard in Game 5 and posted a 1.509 Series OPS.

THE AFTERMATH — After a few fading seasons, Clendenon eventually retired to earn a J.D. and become an attorney. In due course, following his own battle with drug addiction, Clendenon became a drug rehabilitation counselor as well, before his death following a long battle with leukemia.

Marty Barrett — The 1986 American League Championship Series MVP probably would have shared the World Series MVP with pitcher Bruce Hurst but for the Mets following that extraterrestrial Game Six with a nearly-as-unlikely Game 7 overthrow of Hurst. Barrett was actually better in the World Series than he'd been in the ALCS.

THE AFTERMATH — A solid second baseman who hit decently enough and had a reputation as a tough bunter, Barrett also had a reputation as a standup man — then-Boston Globe writer Dan Shaughnessy, in The Curse of the Bambino, has written that Barrett and Hurst gave the Red Sox clubhouse crew money out of their own World Series shares, after the rest of the team voted to stiff them. Barrett's career was ruined by a 1989 knee injury, but there was a sort-of happy ending: Barrett eventually won a $1.7 million judgment against the doctor (who happened also to be a Red Sox part-owner at the time) whom he accused of botching several procedures on his knee. Became a minor league manager until deciding he preferred watching his children grow up, and retired to fatherhood and golf in Las Vegas's Summerlin suburb.

Ray Knight — The 1986 World Series MVP (and, concurrently, the National League's Comeback Player of the Year) went from glory to gone almost in an instant; the Mets let the veteran third baseman escape to Baltimore as a free agent, when they chose to go toward youth despite Knight's offer to take a pay cut in order to stay with the Mets.

THE AFTERMATH — The Mets may have been right about Knight as a player but wrong about the man; several members of the 1986 team have said his departure was one of the keys to the team's lack of spirit following that championship. He played two so-so seasons in Baltimore and Detroit and retired, becoming a coach and eventually the Cincinnati Reds' manager (succeeding his former Mets' skipper, Davey Johnson), where he became most famous for calling a bunt play with two out and fining himself $250. It wasn't enough to save his job. He coached for the Reds under Bob Boone, but is now in the broadcast booth for the Washington Nationals. His almost three-decade marriage to Hall of Fame golfer Nancy Lopez is rumored to be over.

Rob Dibble and Randy Myers — The co-National League Championship Series MVPs in 1990 and two-thirds of the vaunted Cincinnati "Nasty Boys" bullpen. Dibble appeared in five games, saving 1, striking out 10, and allowed only 1 baserunner — on a walk. Myers was almost as good: 7 punchouts, 3 passes, 2 hits for his 3 saves. Neither man surrendered a run.

THE AFTERMATH — After the Reds' unlikely sweep of Oakland in the World Series, they got the brilliant idea that Myers should be a starter. The result: 6-13 in 1991, before they let him escape to San Diego. He put up a solid relief career in San Diego, Chicago, Baltimore, and Toronto. Then, he earned a weird place in the wavier wire history book; The Blue Jays put him on the wire in 1998; the Padres — who didn't really want him back, but who didn't want the Atlanta Braves to take him off the waiver wire, either — put in a waiver claim the Jays were only too happy to let them have: Myers had shoulder miseries that kept him from pitching, and the Padres were stuck paying the rest of his $12 million salary after he injured his rotator cuff and the team's insurance denied their claim against his salary. Retired back to the Pacific Northwest.

Dibble, meanwhile, who was known for his temper as well as his fastballs and strikeouts (he was the fastest ever to reach 500 career punchouts), ran into the injury bug and retired by 1998 without looking much like the late-inning terror he once was. (He also didn't leave behind half the mess Myers inadvertently had.) But the Nastiest Boy (who swears that the third member of the triumvirate, Norm Charlton, was really the nastiest of the boys) had a slightly happier aftermath: he became a popular baseball analyst for ESPN and Fox Sports and is also on the Washington Nationals' broadcast team.

Steve Avery — The National League Championship Series MVP in 1991. Started two, won two, surrendered no runs, struck out 17. And that was after an 18-8/3.38 regular-season ERA. Everyone thought the Braves' rotation was going to be Tom Glavine, Steve Avery, and John Smoltz, right?

THE AFTERMATH — Maybe the saddest of all. He didn't look half as good in the World Series as he had in the NLCS, and he pitched likewise in 1992 — he was a .500 pitcher and didn't look half as good that postseason as he was in '91. He hung up a career year in 1993, but late in the season came the event that sealed his fate: an armpit muscle injury. Never again the pitcher he once promised to be, Avery struggled for two seasons in Boston, made an unlikely relief comeback with the 2003 Tigers (as in, the 119-loss Tigers), and retired permanently. He settled with his wife and family in Dearborn.

John Wetteland — The World Series MVP, 1996. Wetteland's prize masked a kind of transition: he was about to yield the Yankee closing job to a fellow named Rivera. He'd been a solid relief pitcher to that point overall, and in the 1996 Series, he was as solid as you could ask: he saved all four Yankee wins with 6 punchouts in four and a third and a 2.06 ERA.

THE AFTERMATH — Wetteland moved to the Texas Rangers, becoming the first Ranger to earn a save in an All-Star Game, and retiring with the most saves of any 1990s pitcher. He was once canned as the Washington Nationals' pitching coach when, reputedly, manager Frank Robinson thought he wasn't cracking down hard enough on bullpen pranks. Today, he's the pitching coach of the Seattle Mariners, though he made the news last November when his hospitalization over high blood pressure and his heart rate was misreported as a suicide attempt.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:50 AM | Comments (0)

February 8, 2010

Super Bowl XLIV Recap

Super Bowl XLIV

February 7, 2010
Miami, Florida
New Orleans Saints 31, Indianapolis Colts 17

In four short years, the Saints have completed a storybook turnaround. For years, this franchise was the laughingstock of the NFL, the 'Aints, the team whose fans showed up to games wearing bags over their heads. This team went 20 years without a winning record and, prior to this season, had won only two postseason games in its 42-year history. Even with that grim tradition, 2005 marked arguably the low point in franchise history.

Hurricane Katrina devastated the entire Gulf region, with the city of New Orleans particularly hard-hit. The Saints played their home games in San Antonio, Baton Rouge, and — insult to injury — New Jersey, for a "home" game against the Giants ... in Giants Stadium. The team went 3-13, and there were rumors that it would leave New Orleans permanently. Then everything changed.

The team brought in a new coach, Bill Parcells disciple Sean Payton, and a new quarterback, former Charger Drew Brees, plus an explosive rookie named Reggie Bush. It was an overhaul reminiscent of the 1999 Rams, who brought in a new offensive coordinator, a new QB, a talented veteran RB, and rookie wideout Torry Holt. Aided by a series of key injuries to other contenders, the Rams won the Super Bowl that season. It took New Orleans a few years longer, but the turnaround is finally complete.

What Happened and How the Saints Won

The short answer is that New Orleans won this game, like the NFC Championship against Minnesota, with turnovers. The long answer includes a motivated team, a superior quarterback, thousands of screaming fans, and bold, play-to-win coaching.

The game began with a statistical anomaly, as the NFC won its 13th consecutive Super Bowl coin toss. After that, it was quickly downhill for the NFC champs. Dwight Freeney was healthy enough to give Jermon Bushrod problems at left tackle, and the Colts played aggressive defense, shutting down the run and keeping tight coverage on the New Orleans receivers. The Saints' short passing attack wasn't stretching the field vertically, and Indianapolis looked very comfortable.

On offense, the Colts were clicking. Peyton Manning opened the game with a perfect pass to Dallas Clark. The Saints played most of the game with only three defensive linemen, in a 3-4 base or 3-3 nickel defense, and Indianapolis RB Joseph Addai took advantage, with 77 rushing yards, a 5.9 average, and a touchdown. Addai was also smart about finishing his runs, keeping both hands on the ball to avoid the kind of turnovers that sunk Adrian Peterson and the Vikings two weeks ago. The Colts' 96-yard second drive tied a Super Bowl record, and they finished the first quarter up 10-0.

Everyone is keying on the onside kick and the interception as turning points, and those where certainly the two most important plays in the game. If you're looking for the real turning point, though, I believe it was the second quarter. New Orleans put together a pair of six-minute scoring drives, Brees got into a rhythm, and Peyton Manning was sitting on the sidelines. That's how you beat the Colts. The end of the half provided a miniature portrait of the game, showcasing the Saints being aggressive (going for it on fourth down) and the Colts being conservative (Peyton Manning has the ball and you're trying to run the clock out?).

The onside kick to begin the second half was the kind of play that defines a game, even a coaching career. The Saints had a clear strategy of keeping Manning off the field, and they executed it well. When you have two offenses this good, an extra possession is a very big deal. The teams traded touchdowns, Garrett Hartley kicked his third field goal, and we entered the fourth quarter with Indianapolis ahead 17-16.

The Colts' next drive stalled with 4th-and-11 at the New Orleans 33. This is No Man's Land when your kicker is 42 years old. It's too close to punt, too far to go for it, and a 51-yard field goal is probably a 3:1 shot at best. There's no good choice there, but I would have gone for the first down. You have the best third down offense in the NFL (the best for five years running, in fact) and a quarterback who is very capable of picking up 11 yards on one play. The Saints will be hanging back to stop the first down, so even if you don't get it, there's a good chance to pick up eight yards and leave New Orleans around its own 20. The missed field goal gave the Saints possession at the 41.

From there, the Saints scored a touchdown and a two-point conversion, returned an interception for a touchdown, and the rest was basically a formality. The New Orleans defense came up with a nice goal-to-go stop at the end, but probably would have won without it.

Bring it all back to one thing, and it's still about turnovers. Including the onside kick, the interception, the missed field goal, and the turnover on downs at the end, the Saints were +4, and it made all the difference.

Why the Saints Won

Besides turnovers, you mean? Coaching. I love what the New Orleans coaching staff did in this game. Obviously you can't win without great players, and the Saints have them, but so did Indianapolis. What set the Saints apart on Sunday were Sean Payton and his staff.

They came out with the same offensive gameplan I would have, establishing the run early. The Colts, to their credit, were ready for that and played it effectively. New Orleans was quick to adapt, and really used different formations to their advantage. On offense, they went with a lot of multi-receiver sets, particularly with everyone in tight so they could run effectively and neutralize the Colts' speed. On defense, they used a 3-4 and lots of nickel, with consistent blitzing in the second half. On Tracy Porter's interception, it was evident that he knew what was coming. That's preparation before the game.

Payton was also unapologetically aggressive. It's been the team's M.O. all season, from their explosive offense to the gambling, turnover-hungry defense. They went for it on 4th-and-goal, they kicked onside, they blitzed. It was just a never-ending belief in the team and a total unwillingness to leave anything behind. And, for those of us who study these things, it was playing the odds, too.

Honors

I have no problem with Drew Brees winning Super Bowl MVP. He has been the team's best player all season, and he had a great game (288 yards, 118.3 rating) against an underrated defense. I voted, though, for Jonathan Vilma, who played well in pass coverage, made several critical stops, and always seemed to be around the ball. In their 16 meaningful games (the first 14 of the regular season, plus the AFC playoffs), the Colts were held to 17 points or fewer only twice: the season opener, and Week 11 against Baltimore. When you hold an explosive offense like this under 20, the defense deserves a lot of credit, and that starts with Vilma.

In addition to the MVP Award, the league announced before the game that Kansas City guard Brian Waters won this year's Walter Payton Man of the Year Award. This primarily honors off-field contributions, and it's a very high form of recognition. Also, long-time Indianapolis offensive line coach Howard Mudd is retiring, and while there's no specific award coming his way, Mudd deserves a send-off. He's been a huge part of the Colts' success this decade, and the league will miss him.

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.

* The Super Bowl pre-game show gets more useless every year.

* Is Pierre Garçon's name really pronounced gar-SONE, with a hard O? Because if it's not, someone should tell Jim Nance.

* My favorite Super Bowl ad: Google. Interesting, sweet, and told a story in a way that left you wanting to see what came next.

* Those commercials with the baby are really tired. They need to stop.

* Okay, Peyton Manning. Now I believe that you don't pay close attention to records. In an interview before the game, Peyton said that he was fourth on the all-time TD list, behind Brett Favre, Dan Marino, and John Elway. That's passing yards. He's third on the TD list, behind Favre and Marino, and just ahead of Fran Tarkenton.

* Next year, the Super Bowl should invite Florida or Alabama. Miami was packed with Saints fans on Sunday, but it doesn't seem like Indianapolis travels well.

Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame announced the Class of 2010 on Saturday: Russ Grimm, Rickey Jackson, Dick LeBeau, Floyd Little, John Randle, Jerry Rice, and Emmitt Smith. Rice and Smith were locks, no debate necessary. LeBeau and Little, the Senior nominees, were also expected to get in, though their candidacies did spark some debate.

For LeBeau, the issue is this: he was a very good cornerback and a very successful defensive coordinator. What he was really inducted for, unless it was blind worship of interception statistics, is inventing the zone blitz. Technically, he's now in the Hall as a cornerback, and that's misleading. I'm glad LeBeau got in, but I hope fans will recognize that he's in more for his strategic contributions than his play as a defensive back. Little was the best player on consistently bad Bronco teams in the late 1960s and early '70s. He didn't have a long career, but he had a few brilliant seasons in a bad situation. The Hall would be fine without Little, but it will be fine with him, too.

Randle was the best interior pass rusher of the last 30 years. Grimm was the best of the Hogs, and I'm thrilled that the most legendary offensive line in history is finally represented in Canton. After years of being overlooked, the 1980s Washington dynasty is finally getting its due, with Grimm joining Darrell Green and Art Monk as recent enshrinees. Jackson was a superior pass rusher on the first great Saints teams of the late 1980s.

Of those three, the one I'm least excited about is Jackson. He was a great player, and outside linebackers continue to be underrepresented in the Hall. I don't believe that Jackson was the best — or even second- or third-best — eligible OLB, though. My guys are Kevin Greene (160 sacks, 5 Pro Bowls), Chris Hanburger (9 Pro Bowls), and Chuck Howley (Super Bowl MVP, 5-time All-Pro). Hopefully Jackson's induction will clear the way for some of them.

There's a growing backlog of deserving players, and the biggest surprise now is usually who doesn't get in. Dermontti Dawson, by near consensus the greatest center of the 1990s, didn't make the cut. I'm optimistic that Grimm's selection will help him pick up a few more votes. Don Coryell, who was one of the most influential coaches in history, was a finalist but didn't get enough votes for induction. Most of all, though, we can't seem to get any receivers into the Hall.

Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Andre Reed, and Shannon Sharpe were all finalists this year. I think all but Reed should be in. Sometimes, when one position or group of positions gets bogged down like this, it holds everyone back because the votes get split. We've seen it recently with the offensive and defensive lines, and maybe outside linebacker, where there have been three straight selections (Andre Tippett, Derrick Thomas, and Jackson) after a long drought. Once someone gets in, it's like the floodgates have opened. I'm particularly partial to Sharpe, who paved the way for today's high-impact receiving TEs.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:12 PM | Comments (0)

February 6, 2010

Domes and Homefield Advantage

Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci is one of the best baseball writers around. In fact, he's probably my favorite. He respects the valuable research done by sabermetricians, but he also possesses the best characteristics of previous generations of baseball fans. His interest in and knowledge of the game are always evident, and he writes in an engaging style.

With the Super Bowl fast approaching, this week Verducci veered away from the diamond to cover North America's most popular sport. This in contrast to me, a football writer who this week wrote about tennis. Yeah, the biggest game in my favorite sport is a week away and I wrote about something else. Verducci, obviously, is a much smarter man than I am. Anyway, his article was about the huge home-field advantage enjoyed by football teams in domed stadiums.

In the piece, Verducci presented some statistics that, even if you know football pretty well, look very convincing:

* Four of the past six teams to reach the Super Bowl have been dome teams.

* The Colts and the Saints reached the Super Bowl with below-average defenses, ranked 18th and 25th, respectively.

* A dome team is 15 percent more likely to win at home than a non-dome team at home.

* In 2009, dome teams were .633 at home, while non-dome teams were just .551 at home.

* Peyton Manning has played much better in indoor playoff games than outdoor playoff games.

* Dome teams at home are 7-0 in the playoffs. Teams without a dome are 0-3 at home.

Taken together, that suggests pretty firm support for Verducci's case. For several reasons, though, you shouldn't take these numbers at face value. Let's address those points one at a time.

Four of the past six teams to reach the Super Bowl have been dome teams.

This actually isn't true. The Colts and Saints are both dome teams, and the Cardinals have a retractable roof, so we'll count them. The Steelers, Giants, and Patriots all play outdoors. That's three of the past six teams to reach the Super Bowl. In fact, only four of the last 16 teams to make the Super Bowl played their home games in a dome. The article cherry-picked a cutoff line that made the stats appear to support its thesis. This particular technique of distorting statistics is called multiple endpoints. In fact, I've just used it, too (four of the last 16). I stopped at 16 because one more year adds the 2001 Rams, weakening my point.

Let's go with a nice, round 20 teams: the last 10 NFL seasons. That brings us to five of the last 20 Super Bowl teams playing home games in a dome. This means 25% of Super Bowl teams were dome teams. That's almost exactly what we would expect: 22.6% of all NFL seasons this decade were played by teams with a domed stadium or a retractable roof. In the whole history of the game, only two dome teams (the '99 Rams and '06 Colts) have won the Super Bowl. Verducci is arguing trends, so make that two of the last 10 if you like. It's still 20%, which is about the expected rate, actually a little low. Next Sunday, it will become 27%: about the expected rate, just a little high.

The Colts and the Saints reached the Super Bowl with below-average defenses, ranked 18th and 25th, respectively.

I actually don't know what this is supposed to prove, but it's misleading. Teams with good offenses — especially good passing offenses — give up more yardage than teams with bad offenses, both because the pace of the game is faster and because the opponent passes more while it's trying to catch up. Pass plays gain more yardage than running plays do (averages are 6.2 yards and 4.2, respectively), so teams that are passed against more often yield more yards. The Colts and the Saints have the two best offenses in the NFL; we would expect them to give up a lot of yards.

The Saints forced 39 turnovers in the regular season, second-best in the NFL. They held opposing passers to a 68.6 passer rating, third-best. This was a gambling defense, willing to give up yards in order to make big plays. The New Orleans defense scored seven TDs this season. No other defense scored more than four (Eagles and Titans). New Orleans plays an aggressive defense that gives up yards, but creates opportunities. It ranked 25th in yards, but might have been one of the 10 best defenses in the NFL this season. Indianapolis ranked eighth in points allowed. These were both above-average defenses, not subpar as Verducci's article implies.

Peyton Manning has played much better in indoor playoff games than outdoor playoff games.

Manning indoors during the postseason: 6-3, 333 ypg, 20 TD, 8 INT.
Manning outdoors during the postseason: 3-5, 230 ypg, 7 TD, 10 INT.

Yes, obviously Manning has played better indoors during the postseason. THE COLTS PLAY THEIR HOME GAMES IN A DOME. All of those dome games were home games, and none of the outdoor games were. So there are two very good reasons for Manning to have better numbers in those indoor games:

1) Home-field advantage.

2) Playing an inferior opponent. In the playoffs, teams that were better during the regular season get home-field advantage. In those nine dome games, the Colts were playing teams that were, on average, 2.5 games worse than them in the regular season. When a team with 13 wins (12.9, actually) plays a team with 10 wins (10.4), at home, won't the team with 13 usually do pretty well? Wouldn't you expect the quarterback — especially if he is among the best QBs ever — to have good numbers? A .667 winning percentage, 333 yards, and 5:2 TD/INT ratio is not out of line for what you would expect from Manning in home games against competitive teams.

In contrast, all but one of those outdoor games (Super Bowl XLI, against one of the best defenses in recent memory) were at an opponent's home field. Playing against a team with home-field advantage, that six times out of eight had a better record, wouldn't you expect a player to struggle? Is .375, 230 yards, and a couple more INTs than TDs outrageous for Manning in road games against better teams? No. On the contrary, I think it's about what you would expect. Really, don't all quarterbacks do better at home and against weaker teams? Yes...

Tom Brady at home during the postseason: 9-1, 193 ypg, 15 TD, 8 INT.
Tom Brady on the road during the postseason: 3-2, 235 ypg, 6 TD, 6 INT.

Don't let the yards per game fool you: at home, Brady threw more TDs and fewer interceptions, and his team had a much better record. Are Manning's home/road splits a little larger than we might expect? Yes. Do they demonstrate any clear difference compared to other players in outdoor stadiums? No, they do not.

Verducci even compared Manning to Larry Walker, "a guy who hit .381 at Coors Field, but .282 everywhere else." He's basically saying that if the Colts had drafted Ryan Leaf and the Chargers taken Manning, Peyton would be Kerry Collins, the football equivalent of a .280 hitter. For years, Coors Field was the friendliest hitters' park in MLB and offered the biggest home-field advantage. That has never been the case for the Colts' home stadiums.

Coors, with its high altitude and huge outfield, improved statistics for all hitters. The unique park allowed the Rockies to establish an enormous home-field advantage on top of this. The Colts' domes (they moved into a new one in 2008) are not unique: they provide a normal home-field advantage. In the 192 regular-season games Manning has played for Indianapolis, the team is 70-26 at home and 61-35 away, an advantage of less than one game per season. Tom Brady, who plays home games outdoors, is 53-10 at home, 43-20 away. Let's get a chart going here, including the postseason:

		HOME			ROAD
		W-L		%		W-L		%		Diff.
Manning	76-29	.724		64-40	.615		18%
Brady	62-11	.849		49-23	.681		25%

So Brady and the Patriots, who play outside, have a larger home advantage than Manning and the Colts? Well, that would make Verducci's statistics totally disingenuous. It's like he was trying to use the mere fact of home-field advantage to convince readers that domes give an unfair advantage.

Yeah, pretty much.

A dome team is 15 percent more likely to win at home than a non-dome team at home. In 2009, dome teams were .633 at home, while non-dome teams were just .551 at home.

This is actually the same statistic, just expressed in different ways: .633 is 15% higher than .551. What we have to ask ourselves is whether 2009 just happened to be a good year for dome teams. The answer is yes. Dome teams had a winning record in road games this season, .528. Non-dome teams were .391 on the road. Verducci just as easily could have written this:

"A dome team is 15 percent more likely to win at home than a non-dome team at home, but 35 percent more likely to win on the road than a non-dome team on the road."

Dome teams were better than non-dome teams in 2009, period. The Colts, Saints, and Vikings weren't good because they play in domes. They're just great teams. Last year, the Titans, Giants, and Steelers weren't good because they played outside. They were just great teams. From these statistics, it appears that dome teams actually have less home-field advantage than outdoor teams. This is the most misleading statistic in the entire column, even worse, I think, than not being able to count to four. The exact opposite of what the column implies is true: dome teams had a smaller home-field advantage this season than outdoor teams.

Dome teams at home are 7-0 in the playoffs. Teams without a dome are 0-3 at home.

This is true. Even if you go back more than a year, dome teams tend to do better in home playoff games than outdoor teams do at home. Over the past decade, dome teams are 19-4 at home and 6-17 on the road in postseason play. Outdoor teams are 45-32 at home, 30-47 away.

			Home	Road
Dome		.826		.261
Outdoor		.517		.390

The differences are within the margin of error, but just barely. One of the simplest and most common ways of calculating margin of error, which yields about 95% certainty, is 1 divided by the square root of n. By that method, it is plausible that outdoor teams are better at home in the postseason than dome teams, and worse on the road. It is plausible, but it is not terribly likely.

Conclusion

Verducci used several statistics to support his argument that dome teams have an unfair advantage.

Four of the past six teams to reach the Super Bowl have been dome teams.

This isn't true. The author also used multiple endpoints to hide the fact that dome teams reach the Super Bowl at almost exactly the average rate.

The Colts and the Saints reached the Super Bowl with below-average defenses, ranked 18th and 25th, respectively.

Both teams gave up lots of yards, but neither truly had a below-average defense. I remain unclear on how this relates to his argument, anyway.

A dome team is 15 percent more likely to win at home than a non-dome team at home.

A dome team is also 35 percent more likely to win on the road than a non-dome team on the road.

In 2009, dome teams were .633 at home, while non-dome teams were just .551 at home.

This is the same stat as above. It's worth noting that those figures (15% and 35%) are only for the '09 season.

Peyton Manning has played much better in indoor playoff games than outdoor playoff games.

Of course he has, those were home games. Tom Brady's Patriots actually have a larger home-field advantage (outdoors) than Manning's Colts (in a dome).

Dome teams at home are 7-0 in the playoffs. Teams without a dome are 0-3 at home.

This is true. Over the past decade, dome teams do better at home, and worse on the road, than teams that play their home games outdoors.

The available evidence does not suggest that dome teams enjoy an unfair advantage compared to teams that play their home games outside. They have done a little better in the playoffs, but they don't reach or win Super Bowls at a higher rate than we would expect. In fact, they seem to have exactly the same home-field advantage as everyone else.

I hope it's clear that I continue to respect Verducci and enjoy his writing. He's writing about something outside his usual area of expertise, and I suspect the researchers helping him fed him some numbers they thought were helpful, not realizing how they undermined his argument. The numbers just don't support the assertion that domes offer any more home-field advantage than outdoor stadiums.

For years, domes were thought to offer less advantage than outdoor facilities. Cold-weather teams could win anywhere, the thinking went, while indoor and warm-weather teams fell apart in snow or wind. Older artificial turf models were associated with increased risk of injury. Now, with two dome teams making the Super Bowl in the same year, there are bound to be some people decreeing the opposite. Maybe it will become apparent over time that dome teams really do have some advantage over outdoor teams, but for now I think that notion is at least as baseless as the old idea that dome teams were at a disadvantage. The numbers just don't back it up.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:08 AM | Comments (2)

February 4, 2010

NCAA Tournament Expansion? No!

I have no idea who my Congressman is or whether or not I voted for him/her. I don't know if they have been involved in any sort of scandal (if they have, I hope it's awesome) or even if they kill small woodland creatures with their bare hands for sport. For all I care, my Congressman could eat a baby sandwich for lunch everyday and wash it down with a glass of the hopes and dreams of common Americans liquefied. I don't care how evil he likely is, because I need his help to save the NCAA tournament.

As with any Internet story, there are a hundred attributions so no one can get in trouble. In this case, the sports blog SPORTSbyBROOKS.com is reporting that someone "in the know" is reporting that the NCAA board people are in negotiations to expand the NCAA basketball tournament from the glorious 64 teams to a preposterous 96.

I try not to care about politics. The reality is that our government is controlled by big business and individual Congress people take enjoyment out of having metaphorical non-consensual anal intercourse with the American people in the process. I've conceded this as gospel for years so nothing that happens in this country really surprises me anymore.

You want to invade a country on made-up grounds? Go for it, just remember to pack a lunch. You want to change healthcare, but then not really change healthcare? Swell, sounds like a fun afternoon in the park with your best friends. Want to crash our financial system and then give some free money out to the people responsible? I couldn't care less.

But the NCAA tournament expanding to 96 teams under your watch and you do nothing? What the hell? There has to be a blood price paid to rectify this situation should it come to pass.

You may think it's childish of me not to care if the government is spying on me, but to get riled up when they let the NCAA tournament fall apart, but if you think that, then all I can say is you suck and your mom is ugly.

The NCAA tournament is one of the few absolute pearls the sports world has left. It is perfect. Sixty-four teams is easy enough to fit on a bracket. I'm not going to fill out a bracket that has teams in tiny print to fit them all in and I'm not taping two pieces of bracket together to fit all 96 teams in my viewing plane.

I don't know if this is enough to cause another revolution in this country, but it could be. The cowardly swine on the NCAA board of dickwads are dealing with the economical difficulties of this time by trying to milk every last penny from everywhere they can. Screw that.

I say rather than bastardize the one thing that still gives millions of sports fans unadulterated joy, they should immediately lay off half of their payrolls to alleviate pressure. I would rather people I don't know go hungry and die than to have my NCAA tournament messed with.

And why hasn't government intervened? They have all the time in the world to have hearings about garbage like steroids in baseball and threaten to change the BCS, but they can't fix the one thing that needs serious intervention to stay sanctified.

My only hope is that President Obama can somehow fix all of this nonsense. He's a basketball guy himself; surely he knows this country could potentially crumble if the field was expanded to 96.

Really, in my book, the government can run this country into the ground carte blanche, lining their pockets along the way, as long as I don't feel the effects of their mismanagement. And if my NCAA tournament gets fornicated non-consensually, then it really is time to move to Canada.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 11:13 PM | Comments (1)

NFL Weekly Predictions: Super Bowl XLIV

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

New Orleans vs. Indianapolis (-5½)

With the AFC taking the win in the ultimate, albeit meaningless, test of league superiority, the Pro Bowl, it now falls on the favored Colts to confirm the notion that the AFC is superior, while the Saints will try to debunk that claim. Much of the burden of each team's fortunes rests on the play of their superstar quarterbacks, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Manning and the Colts return to the site of their Super Bowl XLI conquest, Miami, while Brees and the Saints seek the franchise's first Super Bowl win.

"How about the Pro Bowl?" says Manning. "It's just like the 'Super Bowl halftime show —nobody watches. Correction. There are people 'watching' ... they're called Pro Bowl defenders. I've seen more compelling Lingerie Bowls, and in doing so, have experienced way more hand checks."

"Anyway, it's great to return to Miami. Miami may not play in the Super Bowl anymore, but they sure know how to play host to one. Sure, the name of the stadium is likely to change by game time, but otherwise, the city has everything in place. And so do we. We've been here and won the title before, so our confidence is high. Suffice it to say there is a pun intended when I say 'I repeat, confidence is high.'"

"Not since Sonny Crockett and Rico Tubbs patrolled the streets has anyone owned Miami like us. Everyone saw what I did to the Jets' No. 1-ranked pass defense in the AFC championship; what's stopping me from doing the same, or worse, to the Saints' 26th-rated unit? I'm aware of Drew Brees' philanthropic ways, but the New Orleans defense is also a charitable bunch. What's that logo on their helmet called? A fleur de lenient? I thought so. If Crockett and Tubbs happened upon the aftermath of my day against the Saints defense, they would undoubtedly call it 'Miami Vis-cera.'"

"Yes, I've heard that New Orleans defensive coordinator Gregg Williams plans to make sure his pass rushers drop me with some 'remember-me' shots, even when they don't get the sack. That's all very well and dandy, but I've got my own intentions, and that's to get rid of the ball quickly and avoid those cheap shots. I call those my 'forget you' passes. 'FU' for short."

"The key is being decisive. No one's ever characterized Brett Favre as such. That's why he played most of the NFC Championship Game from his back, but you've got to admire his courage and toughness. That man can take a hit, but that's to be expected from someone so hardheaded. Unlike Favre, though, I'll have my 'mind made up' well before the Saints rush nears me. Of that I'm positive. Favre may have cameo-ed in There's Something About Mary. I'll have the lead role in There's Something About Sure-ly."

"I don't fear hits by the Saints defense, mostly because there won't be any. I'll be strong in the pocket. Edward J. Olmos may be most well-known as Lieutenant Martin Castillo from Miami Vice, but his greatest role may have been as math teacher Jaime Escalante. And like Escalante, I plan to Stand and Deliver. As for my receivers, I'm hoping they won't play 'catch and release' with the football, as I'm sure those pesky Saints defensive backs will be trying their best to cause fumbles. Defense carried us in our Super Bowl XLI win. My performance was rather pedestrian. It will be different this time. As one would expect of the league MVP, I'll carry the load. I'll rise to the occasion. It will be a case of 'RSMVP.'"

The Saints earned their way to Miami with a lopsided 45-14 win over the Cardinals and a thrilling 31-28 overtime conquest of the Vikings in the NFC title game, a game marked by 5 Minnesota turnovers. As much as "When the Saints Go Marching In" has become New Orleans' unofficial battle cry, their morale also saw a boost from a few listens to the Vikings' unofficial tune.

"I believe that song was 'Give it Away' by the Red Hot Chili Peppers," says Drew Brees. "There were so many balls hitting the playing surface, I was almost certain a Timberwolves game had broken out. Of course, it's highly doubtful the T-Wolves could score 28 points."

"Sure, the Vikes may have been the more deserving team, but I won't apologize for being here. We can't expect the Colts to turn the ball over that often, or at all. Brett Favre has made a name for himself as a gunslinging risk-taker, but that pass to Sidney Rice, AKA 'Chris Rock With Cornrows," was ill-advised, and surely drove Brad Childress 'Bra-zerk. As they say, 'you live by the sword, you die by the sword.' And the swashbuckling Favre is the king of swordplay. I'm sure Sean Payton wouldn't have tolerated such a play from me. If I had thrown the interception that cost us the NFC title, it would have been a case of 'shooting the Brees.'"

"As for the Super Bowl, I realize a Colts victory will cement Manning's legacy as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. But I've got my own legacy to think about, one which heretofore has been characterized merely by numerous NFL Man of the Year awards and the best pre-game woofing a white man has to offer. I know the Manning pedigree will be a powerful force, what with Peyton's father and brother there to lend support. But Archie and Jughead's presence is irrelevant towards the outcome of the game. I know Peyton's not the type of guy to be satisfied with one Super Bowl ring, but I've a good feeling this is his year to finish second, a Peyton 'place' if you will."

"I don't think anyone is expecting a defensive struggle, and Dwight Freeney's injury would seem to support that feeling. Aside from Rex Ryan's middle finger and Joey Porter's mouth, Freeney's ankle is the most talked about body part in Miami. And Porter's is likely to do more 'running' than Freeney's. If Freeney plays, I don't foresee us needing double-teams to stop him. Usually, it takes only one offensive lineman to apply a chop block."

What's the secret to defending a quarterback like Manning who's as prepared and as smart as they come? Why, playing dumb, of course. If the Saints defenders can make Manning think he knows what's coming, then they may find success stopping him. However, it's doubtful Manning will be outsmarted. He's much too studious, and dedicated tape study will pay dividends. Rumor has it that not only has Manning viewed countless hours of Saints game tape, but he's even watched tape of the Saints watching tape. Archie's loyalty to the Saints organization only goes so far.

For the Saints, Brees, like Manning, will need to be one step ahead of the opposing defense. The New Orleans defense may be able to confuse Manning temporarily, but there's no way they'll be able to sustain it. Likewise, Brees will have to be patient, and take what the Colts defense gives until he's able to solve whatever riddle they may present. Conservatism may be the order early for both teams, but a trick play by the Saints will open the door to an offensive shootout.

After the Colts take a 20-17 lead, powered by two Manning scoring tosses, into the locker rooms, The Who take the stage at midfield, flanked by hundreds of adoring fans for hire, most of whom are eager to hear the theme to their favorite Crime Scene Investigation show. Not surprisingly, The Who's set is delayed momentarily when confusion between the 64-year-old show producer and 28-year-old director leads to a modern-day, Abbott and Costello 'Who's on first?' misunderstanding. When order is restored, The Who fittingly launch into "My Generation," and, as Pete Townshend windmills wildly while dreaming of forbidden Internet images, the British rock gods segue seamlessly into their NFL-themed version, "No Penetration," a commentary on the Jacksonville Jaguars' anemic pass rush.

Then, Buffalo's questionable hiring of Chan Gailey is lampooned with a stirring rendition of "Who Are You?" The medley continues with an imagined plea from Jay Cutler to his head coach to harness Cutler's enormous potential in a song called "Lovie, Reign O'er Me."

Next, the band tears into their 1971 tune, "Going Mobile," which on this day tells the tale of a depressed Vince Young dealing with a near nervous breakdown. Baseball great Pete Rose then hits the stage, handling backup vocals on "You Bettor, You Bet." The guest appearances continue, as the enigmatic Chad Ochocinco joins Roger Daltrey to belt out the timeless "I Can't Explain." Then momma's boy Donovan McNabb hits the stage for a version of classic "Mommy."

As their set draws to a close, The Who address the pain of the Minnesota Vikings' epic failure in the NFC championship with "Behind Blew Eyes."

Finally, Lady Gaga, dressed as a space-age leprechaun, joins the four Brits on stage, much to their surprise, for a stirring rendition of a Who favorite, "GaGa O'Riley." As the song ends, Townshend rips off GaGa's top, and shockingly, GaGa's tata's are covered with duct tape, which is adorned with the words "You can't FCC these."

The second half begins, as usual, with a kickoff, and the Colts take possession. They quickly move down the field, and with the Saints keying on Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garçon on the outside, Manning finds his favorite Mormon, Austin Collie, the "Slot Machine,' for a 15-yard score. The Colts never look back, and seal the game with an eight-minute drive in the fourth quarter that culminates in a Matt Stover field goal.

Finally, it's time for the Super Bowl predictions. Indianapolis wins, 41-31. Manning is named Super Bowl MVP, and shocks everyone by denouncing Disneyworld, and instead announces plans to go to Hollywood and star in visionary director Rob Zombie's first foray into football-themed horror, the visually stunning and gory "Dismember the Titans."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:42 AM | Comments (1)

February 3, 2010

Lurking in the Shadows

When it comes to marketing, the NBA is synonymous with branding stars to sell its sport. There's a face to every team in the Association, even if that team happens to be the 4-42 New Jersey Nets. The All-Star Game is a prime example of how the league promotes its premier product. From showcasing future All-NBA first-teamers to letting fans select their favorite ballers, celebrity is just as much a factor in the game as skill.

Along with the star-filled gala set for Dallas in a couple of weeks, the All-Star Game also makes the playoff picture tune itself a little bit more. While some teams will fall by the wayside over the next few weeks, there is still hope in several NBA markets as we enter the month of February. Problem is, the dregs of this month might have some fans tuning out for quite a while.

To that end, I have a solution for the marketing gurus that are David Stern and his team. The all-stars are well-known throughout their own communities, if not by the whole country. But to every Batman, there's usually a Robin pulling his share of the weight. A lot of these sidekicks are well-known after a period of time, but with younger, hungrier teams that haven't tasted postseason success, their super presence might not as noticeable. My suggestion: how about a slogan campaign to get the word out? Here are some examples I've cooked up.

Atlanta: The League's New Dynamo

The Hawks are moving from the upstart wunderkind stage to a force in the Eastern Conference. All of this seemed to start after the organization picked up Joe Johnson in 2005. From then on, he's been the leader of a squad with young burgeoning talent. This season, he leads the team in scoring (21.4 per game) and assists (4.8 per game).

Among the youngsters coming into their own is Al Horford. The former Florida center was selected to his first all-star team last week, rewarded for his near double-double average (13.3 points, 9.6 rebounds). But there were a few rumblings that despite the performance of these two, an omission was still made from the Eastern Conference's roster.

In my opinion, the most dynamic player for Atlanta comes in the package of power forward Josh Smith. The sixth-year member may not lead the team in the big two categories, but his presence has been more versatile than as a scorer (15.0 per game) or boarder (8.4 per game). Smith is also in the league's top 20 for steals (1.50) and only behind Orlando's Dwight Howard in rejections (2.22), making him an all-around catch that most teams would covet.

Charlotte: We Have a Wall-Ace Up Our Sleeves

The Bobcats were oh-so-close last season to making their first playoff appearance. Now, the team is poised to break down that door in 2010. The main spark could be attributed to Stephen Jackson, whom the franchise traded for early in the campaign. The shooting guard has made an instant impact with his sixth NBA squad, leading the team in scoring since his arrival from Golden State.

All that said, the fans might have already had their hearts stolen by a more entrenched member. Gerald Wallace has been in the Queen City since the Bobcats were initiated into the Association six years ago. And he's been grateful for the opportunity. From day one, Wallace has been the main cog at small forward, blossoming from a bench player in Sacramento.

Now, I must admit, Wallace seems to finally be getting his due, becoming the Bobcats' first all-star selection. He's become a double-double fiend this season (19.2 points, 11.0 boards). But even with a new face being more familiar nationwide, the whole of NBA nation might be taking a closer look at someone Charlotte fans knew had the goods for quite a while.

Chicago: Hey, Could You Leave Some Room on the Boat?

Derrick Rose is beyond a superstar in the Windy City. Hometown kid comes back to Chi-town, leading his childhood team to the playoffs (as a rookie, no less). The Bulls have had a young nucleus for a few years now, but with Ben Gordon bolting for Detroit, the onus has been put on Rose even more in '09-'10.

The sophomore hasn't disappointed, leading the team in tallies (19.7) and dimes (5.9). That's pushed him to be the first Bull chosen to be an all-star since some Jordan guy was selected back in 1998. (I don't. Must not have been that great of a player.)

But Rose hasn't lifted Chicago out of their early season funk on his own. Luol Deng, John Salmons, Kirk Hinrich, and Tyrus Thomas have certainly contributed their share. But it very well may be that a Frenchman is making his case for most versatile role player in the league.

The last time some of us remember Joakim Noah having much influence on the court, he was "dancing" his way to a second straight collegiate championship with Horford at Florida. (Seriously. He was being tasered at the time, wasn't he?) However, it finally looks like Noah's become comfortable with his professional status in his third season. The hustle and tenacity that served him well in Gainesville seems to be coming out once again, with stats to back it up (11.4 points, 12.2 rebounds, 1.75 blocks). If he keeps it up, the ark could land on the dry ground of another playoff berth.

Memphis: Things Are Looking Up in the Year of 20-10

It wasn't terribly long ago that the Grizzlies were a playoff team with a young stud named Pau Gasol patrolling the court. But the oft-ridiculed franchise fell back onto hard times and decided to let go of their all-star forward. This left them very young and very lottery-pick heavy. Currently, only three players have more than three full years of pro ball experience.

So, on a team that's so young, you would figure that one of the young studs would step up and take the reins. Rudy Gay was the promise of excitement and athleticism. Mike Conley had the steely resolve of an experienced college point guard. O.J. Mayo gave the organization a prodigy that could score several ways. But it didn't all come together until now. The reason: the most veteran player on the squad. That would be Zach Randolph.

That's right. I said it. Zach Randolph and veteran leader in the same sentence.

To be honest, Randolph's numbers have stayed steady since the start of the '03-'04 season (four with Portland, one-plus with the New York, and most of one with the Clippers). This is Randolph's fourth year sporting the "20-10 guy" moniker, and he's only one of two men with that status through Monday (Chris Bosh is the other).

But something that seems to be dropping off is the knucklehead behavior that's been associated with him for most of his NBA career. (Gilbert Arenas could just be going through his Zach Randolph phase.) He hasn't been brought up in any off-the-court business. Most importantly, the Grizzlies have become his team. He's the man that makes them go. Here's to him keeping that (now) all-star presence up.

Oklahoma City: Continue to Go West, Young Men

The praise is becoming warranted. Kevin Durant took the hype from his one year at Texas and turned it into reality. It's only taken two-plus seasons for him to be counted among the NBA's scoring elite. At the moment, he only trails Carmelo Anthony for the title of most prolific scorer in the Association. His evolution to this point is a key reason why the Thunder are in a good position to make their first playoff run since the organization left the Emerald City.

But there's more to OKC than Durant and his creamsicle shoes. This young team has another key component that has put the Thunder in this prime position. I'm not talking about Durant's draftmate Jeff Green. Even though the former Georgetown swingman is averaging 14.2 points and 6.2 rebounds a contest, he isn't the cog that makes everything go.

This distinction belongs to second-year point guard Russell Westbrook. The dynamic presence that emerged during his two seasons at UCLA is showing through early in his NBA career. Westbrook is following up an All-Rookie campaign with a solid sophomore run. His 15.9 points, 7.4 assists, and 4.8 boards are an exquisite compliment to Durant's scoring prowess.

Although I still disagree with how the organization ended up in the Southern Plains, I did think that this squad had a very good youth movement in their favor a couple of years ago. This includes Westbrook, which gave them a more versatile point man than they had with Luke Ridnour and Earl Watson. It seems that the stars over Oklahoma are shining brighter every night, and Westbrook is the one igniting the light.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 4:57 PM | Comments (0)

Was it Down Under, or Upside Down?

A very well-informed tennis fan who frequents my office stopped by on Monday to chat about the Australian Open. We talked about the different aspects of the first and second weeks, and he was quite impressed with the showing of Li Na and Jie Zheng. I am, too. The Chinese women both made it to the semifinals of this major tournament, and the first time two Chinese players have made it that far in the singles in a major ever. That alone was a good story.

Meanwhile, Rafael Nadal injured himself, and so far, it doesn't look too good. My friend has discussed many times how Nadal's game stresses even his young body to excess, and last year he started to show these signs of wear with tendinitis. This time, it was a small tear to the back of his knee that forced him to resign in his match with finalist Andy Murray. The current word is four weeks of recovery. That sounds ambitious to me. Hopefully, this is not the start of a career plagued by these maladies. He is so young and has a ton of potential left.

One question my friend asked was quite poignant. He asked why is it now the elder players, both men and women, seem to be dominating the game? Very good question. It was not too long ago that if you made it to 27 or 28, you were near the end of your career. With rare exception, Jimmy Connors or Martina Navratilova, for example, major titles and tour domination was going to the younger every year. It started with Chris Evert, who at 16 blew the women's game away, then followed by a plethora of stars until Jennifer Capriati came on at 14. Then the rules changed to prevent very young players from being on the tour. Capriati, at 14, was better them most of the women twice her age.

But it is very different the past year or so. Roger Federer has dominated, and at 28, seems to have plenty of dominance left in him. Serena and Venus are still there, too, with Serena also capturing her fifth Aussie Open at the ripe old age of 28. Venus has slipped a notch, but at 29, is still head and shoulders above most of the tour.

Then there are Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin. While there is already a precedent of women taking a leave from the professional game to return to tennis, with the very rare exception, most return, but never regain their prominence. In her first major tournament back in competition, Kim Clijsters stunned the world by winning her second U.S. Open. And now Justine Henin, after spending time away from the game, has picked up exactly where she left off by making it to the Aussie final and nearly winning it — in only her first big tournament back! Kim and Justine are both 26, but even that seems old by professional women's tennis standards.

So it is a very interesting question to ponder. Why is it that older players now dominate where younger players seemed to control the game? In my mind, the answer is simple. All things being equal, the player with more experience will always win over the players with less experience. And in the men's and women's games, there is so much parity that all things are equal. When you look at both tours, even the style of play is the same. Just about every player pounds groundstrokes from the baseline, rarely approaches the net, they all have about the same serve and for the most part, all train and practice the same.

You've heard it from me before, Nick Bollettieri ruined tennis. If you think about it, Elena Dementieva doesn't even have a serve to speak of, yet is in the top five and won a tournament leading to the Aussie Open. Had she not run into Henin in the second round, she probably would have made it deep into the tournament.

So, since everyone plays the same, has literally the same strokes and strategy, the more experienced player should come out on top. Robin Soderling had a career year last year at the age of 25 because of that. He was never a factor before, but managed to beat Nadal in the French and go to the French final, he made the fourth round at Wimbledon, but fell to Federer, made the quarters of the U.S. Open, but lost to Fed again, and ended the year with a semifinal berth at the ATP year-end Tour Championships. When you look at his draws, most of the players he played had a similar game, and he was just older and had more time on tour.

Is that it? I am confident in my answer, but you can never be sure. It is clear, though, that this year will be dominated by the tour elders. Welcome back, Justine, keep it coming, Kim, rock on, Roger, go A-RoD. Here's to the older, wiser players. It gives me hope...

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 11:00 AM | Comments (1)

February 2, 2010

Super Bowl XLIV Proposition Bets

1. Winner: Indianapolis/New Orleans
2. Versus spread: Indianapolis (–5)/New Orleans (+5)
3. Total points (game): over/under 57½
4. Total points (1st quarter): over/under 13½
5. Total points (2nd quarter): over/under 13½
6. Total points (3rd quarter): over/under 13½
7. Total points (4th quarter): over/under 13½
8. Winner of coin toss: Colts/Saints
9. Coin toss called: heads/tails
10. Coin toss result: heads/tails
11. Colts to: kick/receive
12. Number of team captains (both teams) at midfield for coin toss: over/under 8½
13. First possession begins a yard line: over/under 26½
14. Peyton Manning passing yards: over/under 312½
15. Manning rushing yards: over/under ½
16. Drew Brees passing yards: over/under 278½
17. First play from scrimmage: run/pass
18. Yards gained on first play from scrimmage: over/under 6½
19. Reggie Wayne receptions: over/under 7½
20. Wayne receiving yards: over/under 97½
21. First penalty called on: offense/defense
22. Length of first penalty: over/under 5½
23. Referee’ jersey number: over/under 82½
24. Joseph Addai rushing attempts: over/under 14½
25. Reggie Bush punt return yardage: over/under 38½
26. Manning turnovers: over/under ½
27. Brees interceptions: over/under ½
28. Largest lead (either team) at any point in game: over/under 7½
29. Total touchdowns (both teams): over/under 8½
30. Pierre Garcon touchdowns: over/under ½
31. Jeremy Shockey receptions: over/under 2½
32. Marques Colston receiving yards: over/under 64½
33. Dwight Freeney sacks: over/under ½
34. Jonathan Vilma tackles: over/under 6½
35. Brees completions: over/under 27½
36. Matt Stover point-after-touchdown conversions: over/under 4½
37. Darren Sharper interceptions: over/under ½
38. Manning completion %: over/under 64½
39. Gary Brackett tackles + assists: over/under 8½
40. Dallas Clark receiving yards: over/under 52½
41. First team to score: Colts/Saints
42. Yardage length of first Indianapolis score: over/under 11½
43. Yardage length of first New Orleans score: over/under 9½
44. Jersey number of first Colt to score a touchdown: over/under 44½
45. Jersey number of first Saint to score a touchdown: over/under 19½
46. Coaches challenges: over/under 1½
47. Punts (both teams): over/under 6½
48. Pierre Thomas rushing yards plus receiving yards: over/under 84½
49. Two-point conversion attempts (both teams): over/under ½
50. Halftime versus spread: Indianapolis (-3½)/New Orleans (+3½)
51. Add total points at halftime; is sum: odd/even
52. Time remaining on game clock at two-minute warning of 1st half: over/under 1:57½
53. Matt Stover made field goals: over/under 2½
54. Garrett Hartley missed field goals: over/under ½
55. Indianapolis first downs: over/under 26½
56. New Orleans first downs: over/under 25½
57. Reggie Wayne yards per catch: over/under 8½
58. Total yards (both teams): over/under 699½
59. Indianapolis red zone efficiency: over/under 57.33%
60. New Orleans red zone efficiency: over/under 51.89%
61. First commercial following kickoff; advertisement for: beer/other
62. Fumbles lost (both teams): over/under 2½
63. Indianapolis penalty yards: over/under 34½
64. New Orleans penalty yards: over/under 61½
65. Tie score at any point in fourth quarter: yes/no
66. Time remaining on game clock at two-minute warning: over/under 1:58½
67. Points scored in final two minutes of game: over/under 3½
68. Jersey number of Super Bowl MVP: over/under 18½
69. Letters in last name of Super Bowl MVP: over/under 5½
70. Indianapolis time of possession: over/under 28:37½
71. New Orleans time of possession: over/under 30:59½
72. Duration of game: over/under 3:34½
73. Announced attendance: over/under 74,986½

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 3:49 PM | Comments (0)

Tennis is More Competitive Than Ever

This weekend, Serena Williams and Roger Federer won singles titles at the Australian Open. Together, they combine for 28 Grand Slam singles titles: 12 for Williams, and a men's record 16 for Federer. They have won nearly half of all such titles since the 2002 French Open. Would you believe that tennis is more competitive than ever?

Serena and Federer have combined to win 28 of the last 64 Grand Slams, yes, but the remaining 36 were split among 20 different players. At no other period in history have we seen so many different winners, so many players capable of stringing together two weeks of wins. For the entire decade of the 1980s, only 19 players won the singles title in a Slam.

My colleague Mert Ertunga has already addressed the topic of tennis through the decades, and Mert has probably forgotten more about tennis than I will ever know, so I'm going to look at this topic a little differently than he did.

In her Grand Slam singles victories, Serena defeated seven different opponents: Lindsay Davenport, Justine Henin, Martina Hingis, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, Maria Sharapova, and Venus Williams. Those players have won a combined 25 Slam titles in singles. All of them have held the world No. 1 ranking. Davenport, Henin, Hingis, and Venus, at the least, are all-time greats. Sharapova has won three Slams and is just 22. Safina is just hitting her prime, and it's too early to tell how her career will turn out. Even Jankovic has been a consistently good player, finishing each of the last three years in the top 10. She doesn't appear to have Safina's upside, but Jankovic is only 24 and could still have a bright future.

Martina Navrátilová, in her 18 Slams over 13 years, also beat seven different opponents. Of those seven, Chris Evert and Steffi Graf are all-time greats. Hana Mandlíková was a very good player with multiple Slams. None of the other four (Zina Garrison, Andrea Jaeger, Kathy Jordan, Helena Sukova) ever won a Slam or held the No. 1 ranking. The challenge of beating opponents like Evert and Graf should not be understated, but they made so many finals partially because there was little real competition. Navrátilová is probably the best female player in history, but she made the Wimbledon final as late as age 37. That indicates a lack of competition as much as Navrátilová's greatness.

There are more great players now. From 1982-87, Evert and Navratilova won 20 out of 23 slams. From 1988-93, Graf and Monica Seles won 21 of 24. Prior to this decade, there were only two or three women at a time who were capable of beating the best players in the world with any consistency. Altogether, from 1982-93, the only winners were Martina (15 times), Graf (14), Seles (8), Chrissy (6), Mandlíková (2), Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (1), and Gabriela Sabatini (1).

Evert and Navrátilová faced each other 80 times from 1973-85. They rarely lost to anyone but each other, simply because there weren't a lot of top-caliber women in the game at that time. The same was true to a lesser extent for Graf and Seles. Martina Hingis once appeared poised to pick up where Graf left off, but then came the rise of the power hitters. Venus and Serena Williams are the dominant players of this era, combining for 19 Grand Slam singles titles and 22 doubles titles. That's very impressive, but it's also the first time in the history of the women's game that there were more than two or three players competitive at the highest level.

If someone asked you to predict this year's US Open winner, who would you pick? Serena is the obvious choice, I suppose, but she's only won the U.S. Open once in the last seven years. Venus hasn't won it in a decade. Henin and Sharapova would be reasonable picks, as would 2009 winner Kim Clijsters. Svetlana Kuznetsova and Safina might be good choices. The thing is wide open.

There are two ways to interpret that. One would be that there's a talent gap at the top of the women's game: we don't have anyone of Navrátilová's caliber. The other would be that we have a glut of talent: whereas 20 years ago, the best players were alone at the top, today's game has more depth, and it's harder for great players to dominate. Count me firmly in the second camp.

Roger and Serena aren't dominant because there's no competition. They're dominant because they are among the all-time greats. Federer is very probably the greatest player the sport has ever seen, and Serena now must be regarded among the very best women ever to play. She's dominant despite a deep and talented women's pool. The game's growing popularity, and access for women — especially in Central and Eastern Europe — is responsible for a broader field of talent, and that makes the kind of dominance we saw from Navrátilová and Margaret Court unrealistic. It's the difference between playing in a 10-team league and a 30-team league. An equally good team will win more titles in the smaller league.

Henin and the Williams sisters could be underrated because the high level of competition makes them seem less accomplished than they are. Federer could be underrated for the opposite reason: he has been so dominant that we could dismiss his dominance as lack of competition. Other than Rafael Nadal on clay, who has really challenged him?

Well, his 16 Slam titles have come against Nadal, Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Mark Philippoussis, and Robin Soderling. Are there a couple guys on that list who aren't exactly Rod Laver? Sure. Win 16 Slams, and there are bound to be some duds in there. Sampras won his '97 Wimbledon title against Cedric Pioline.

Men's tennis probably hit its zenith in the 1980s. That decade saw Boris Becker, Björn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Mats Wilander all at or near the top of their respective games. The '90s were basically Agassi and Pete Sampras, and the early 2000s were just absent of real men's stars, with no man winning multiple Slams in a calendar year until Federer took all but the French in 2004.

His continued dominance has at least partially masked the rise of several other great players. Nadal has won every Slam except the U.S. Open, and is probably the best clay court player in history. Djokovic and Murray (both 22) have both established themselves as top players, legitimate challengers in a way that the Cedric Piolines of the world are not. And poor Roddick might have won half a dozen majors had his career not coincided with Roger's. The tennis world's answer to A-Rod has played in five Grand Slam finals. He won the 2003 U.S. Open, and lost each of the other four to Federer. Altogether Federer has knocked A-Rod out of eight Grand Slams. Roddick has won at least one tournament for 10 consecutive years and has been ranked in the top 12 continuously since 2002.

This is what Federer has done. He's turned a fine player like Roddick into an afterthought, a one-and-done champion. At Wimbledon alone, Federer has denied Roddick and Nadal a combined 5 titles. Nearly as scary, from 2006-08, Nadal defeated Federer in the Roland Garros final every year. Had he not been faced with the greatest clay courter in history, might Roger have four or more titles at every Grand Slam?

I would never want to diminish the greatness of Sampras or Agassi. Both were exceptional players who earned their success. But look at the guys they were going up against. Would Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Rafter have become legends if only they hadn't been forced to contend with Sampras and Agassi? Were Thomas Muster and Yevgeny Kafelnikov denied stardom by Andre and Pete? None of those players dominated their peers the way Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have the past few years. For that matter, none of them were Roddick.

Federer is 28 now, and his decline has begun. He's still a magnificent player, but realistically, he's five years past his prime. How much fun are the next couple of years going to be, with Federer still a trememendous force and the next generation ready to assert itself? Looking at the men's and women's games, the sport has never been more competitive.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 8:47 AM | Comments (6)

February 1, 2010

Beantown Letdown

"Your reign at the top was shorter than leprechauns." — Notorious B.I.G.

That's one of my favorite Biggie lines of all-time. And, as you know, any time I get the opportunity to quote Biggie or Jay-Z in a column, I'm going to take it.

And no Biggie quote sums up how I feel about the Celtics better than that one. And when you consider the fact that we're talking about a team that actually employs someone to dress like a leprechaun, well, leading with that quote becomes a no brainer.

That's because, as of right now, the Boston Celtics are a good team. But they are no longer a great team.

As proof, look no further than their loss to the Lakers yesterday on ABC.

There is no way, against any team, that a great team loses that game.

The Lakers are a great team, the defending champs, and the best team in the Western Conference. There should be no shame in losing to a team of that caliber.

That's how I view yesterday's loss when I look at it through the eyes of a good team.

But to look at it from the perspective of a great team, well, there's no way you can view it like that. There's no way a great team would ever blow a double-digit fourth quarter lead at home on national TV against a fierce rival.

When I look at the game yesterday, I didn't see two great teams battling it out. I saw one championship caliber team trying desperately not to lose to an inferior opponent.

And that's exactly what happened. Greatness triumphed over goodness.

Right from the get-go, the Lakers proved that they were the only great team in the building yesterday. They "lack toughness," yet came out and picked a fight before the opening jumpball. They "lack toughness," but they overcame an 11-point, fourth quarter deficit on the road against a team that embarrassed them in the same building to win a title two seasons ago. They "lack toughness," but were able to win despite their best player playing one of his worst games of the season.

The reason the Lakers won: they are a great team. The reason the Celtics lost: they are not.

Great teams go for the jugular right off the bat and never let the other team get into a rhythm. The Lakers were up 30-19 after the first quarter.

Great teams finish games. The Lakers outscored the Celtics 24-16 in the final quarter, including limiting the Celtics to just four made baskets in the fourth quarter, and none in the final 3:54 of the game.

It was in the second and third quarters where Boston showed that they are still a good team. They outscored the Lakers 54-36 in the middle quarters of the game, making it about impossible for the Lakers to get anything going offensively, which is no easy task.

But anyone who knows basketball will tell you, great teams are not made in the second and third quarters.

The inability to close out games has been a real problem for the Celtics this season, especially lately. Since Christmas Day, the Celtics are just 6-11. In those 17 games, they have been outscored in the fourth quarter 13 times, and tied twice.

Forgive me for saying it, but great teams don't outscore their opponents in the fourth quarter 12% of the time. They just don't.

And that's why the Celtics are a level below the elite teams in the NBA right now.

I'm not saying that they can't get back to elite status. For all we know, this five week stretch could just be a blip on the radar, an aberration. Maybe they really are a championship caliber team and they are beset by the same problem that seems to plague every great team since the Jordan-era: Boredom.

But intensity was the calling card of the great Celtic team that won the title in 2008. Their inability to ever get complacent, even for a second, is what made them great.

As a fan, I hated it, and even dedicated a scathing column to this topic and had a name for it and everything. I called it Kevin Garnett Syndrome. It basically says that a team or player will go out of their way, usually in a classless fashion, to embarrass their opponent.

So far this season, the only thing embarrassing about the Celtics is their inability to close out games.

For a team that boasts three first-ballot hall of famers and an all-star point guard, how is it possible that they cannot find ways to close out games? Literally every single one of their rotation players has a ring. That is the biggest indicator of all-time that they have a roster full of guys that knows what it takes to win.

Yet, here we are, more than halfway into the season, and the Celtics have a fourth quarter closing percentage that would make even an up-and-coming team like the Thunder embarrassed.

Maybe it is boredom. Maybe when the bright lights come on we'll see the Ray Allen that we saw against the Bulls last postseason. Maybe we'll see Finals MVP Paul Pierce, the guy who outplayed the best player on the planet in a seven game series for the NBA title. Maybe we'll see the K.G. that used to be able to dunk. Maybe we'll see the Rasheed Wallace that plays inside the three-point line.

Or maybe, just maybe, we've seen the last of all those players.

Remember when this "big three" team was assembled in the summer of 2007? There was no team in NBA history that was set up with a "win now" roster more than that team.

Well, they delivered. They did "win now." But it's not "now" anymore. It's two and a half years later. If you would have asked me heading into the 2007-08 season, "Is this Celtics team going to be great three years from now?" I would have said, "Probably not."

Here we are, a few months away from the three-year anniversary of the assembling of the "big three," and I ask you, "Can this Celtics team ever be great again?"

Unless you're from Boston, I have a feeling your answer now is the same as mine from three years ago.

Probably not.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 3:57 PM | Comments (0)

How Long Can Phoenix Rise?

Around this time one year ago, the Phoenix Coyotes looked to be on the verge of returning to the playoffs. Under head coach Wayne Gretzky, the Coyotes had stellar goaltending in Russian Ilya Bryzgalov, contributions from stellar young players, and a hard forecheck system that finally seemed to be sticking. Then things changed at the All-Star Break, when the Coyotes lost their fifth seed and a porous defensive effort caused Phoenix to free-fall to the Western Conference basement.

Today, the Coyotes sit in a similar situation, but things are markedly different. Yes, they're on the verge of returning to the playoffs, and yes, they're competing for a potential home-ice spot. The similarities stop there, though; instead of Wayne Gretzky, veteran coach Dave Tippett stands behind the bench. Instead of playing young guys like Kyle Turris and Viktor Tikhonov, veterans Scottie Upshall and Matthew Lombardi provide a workmanlike effort to victory. Instead of a forecheck-based style, Phoenix employs a strict defensive style based on discipline and creating turnovers.

And unlike last season, it seems extremely unlikely that the Coyotes will bottom-out again.

Keep in mind that at this time last year, hockey pundits were even talking about Wayne Gretzky for a potential Jack Adams candidate; a few months later, they were calling for his head. Part of the reason for this was due to the fact that Gretzky's system lacked structure — a noticeable symptom of his lack of experience. Under Tippett, the whole thing is about structure, both offensively and defensively. The big difference here is that while the Gretzky Coyotes may have emphasized skating, it only worked when things were going well. When Phoenix's defensive game started to go sour, there was no structure to plug in the holes.

Under Dave Tippett, the team's focus is defense first — and that's a good thing, because it took a while for the Coyotes to actually start scoring some goals. By instilling the team's attention to defensive detail, Tippett has allowed his veterans to think structure first, creativity second. That's not necessarily a way to create the most entertaining of games, but it gets the job done as long as everyone buys into the team concept (and it helps that Ilya Bryzgalov has been fantastic this season). We've seen this formula work before, such as in 1996 with Florida and 1999 with Buffalo.

However, teams built under the premise of structured discipline from grizzled veterans tend to burn out after a season or two. This is a natural process, as these styles require extreme attention to discipline, and that usually burns guys out after a year or two. It's that old sports cliche — at some point, players start tuning a coach out.

So what's the trick for the Coyotes? GM Don Maloney has said that the 2008-09 season was done in because too much responsibility was placed on rookies and sophomores. This swung the other direction in 2009-10, as many of those young players have been on the AHL shuttle, seeing occasional NHL time. However, the pure talent of these prospects (Turris, KHL-playing Tikhonov, Mikkel Boedker, Kevin Porter) is obvious. The goal, then, is for Tippett to start integrating these players into effective NHLers starting next season.

It's a tricky balancing act for Tippett. A playoff round or two is all a bonus this season; the real challenge is trying to build a foundation of winning in the Phoenix franchise. A defensive-based (or trap-based, if you will) system will only work for so long, and at some point, the young offensive talent must take control of the team. Tippett's job for next season and beyond is to develop these young players in a way that doesn't stifle their offensive instincts while learning defensive responsibility. Otherwise, the Coyotes will only see sparks of success over the next few years until Tippett loses the locker room.

Posted by Mike Chen at 12:25 PM | Comments (0)