Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« February 2010 | Main | April 2010 »

March 31, 2010

Breaking Down the Final Four

With one matchup between two five-seeds, and another between a one-seed and a team that deserved a one-seed, this year's Final Four has a little bit of everything. We know for certain that a five-seed will play either a one-seed or a two-seed in the Championship Game, but what else have we learned? The best way to answer this question is to breakdown the rest of the tournament team-by-team, and by matchup.

The Teams

Butler

The Bulldogs seem like a great underdog story, right? Wrong. They might not have been in the Final Four on the majority of the brackets, but they entered Selection Sunday ranked 8th by ESPN, and 11th in the AP poll. Butler isn't the same type of five-seed that Michigan State is. The problem here is that the Selection Committee did a very poor job seeding the Bulldogs, as well as many other teams.

Butler probably should have been a two- or three-seed, unless the aforementioned ranking and a 20-game win streak entering the tournament doesn't qualify a team for a seed like that. But even if you don't believe the Selection Committee made an egregious error when seeding them, the Bulldogs clearly shouldn't be underdogs now.

This team has beaten one of the favorites to win the tournament (Syracuse), so we know they've got talent, and playing within walking distance of your dorm room helps, too. Their performance so far has been impressive, but I don't think we've seen their ceiling yet.

Michigan State

This team deserved their fairly low seeding, mostly due to faltering since the tremendous start they had early in the season. Still, the Spartans found a way to emerge as the victors in the toughest region on this year's bracket, and did so as a five-seed, which would appear to be a great accomplishment.

I'd say it's been a good, but not great performance from the Spartans so far. It's good to be the regional champion in the toughest region, but it's not as impressive when you consider that the highest seed they've beaten was Maryland (a four-seed), or that they've won their four games by a combined 13 points.

Barely beating teams that, according to seed, they're better than, doesn't impress me, and the loss of Kalin Lucas will eventually be felt. We've seen the best this team has to offer without their best player, and it's not enough to get them to the championship game.

Duke

The Blue Devils got the most controversial draw (both in seed and strength of region) in recent memory, and so are predictably in the Final Four. They played a schedule that any of the one-seeds would've fared just as well against, and are here in large part due to a favor from the Selection Committee. But it's not like there's nothing to like about this team.

Duke has lost only a single game since January, and they've got talented athletes like Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler, and Nolan Smith, all of whom average more than 17 points per game. The best reason to like the Blue Devils is coach Mike Krzyzewski, who has led the team to the NCAA Championship Game seven times, and has won the national title three times.

Duke fans expect success this time of year, and given the team's disappointing seasons lately, they can only be satisfied with the team's performance if it can win two more games. They have yet to falter in this lofty goal, but they also haven't been particularly impressive.

West Virginia

Ever since a Da'Sean Butler buzzer-beater in the Big East championship, this team has looked unstoppable. A Big East team with 31 wins is impressive enough, and the most recent victory came against a team that will lose at least three or four players in the NBA draft. Some might attribute this win to the fact that Bob Huggins has clearly figured out how beat John Calipari, considering he is now 8-1 lifetime against the Kentucky coach, but this team has more going for them than just their latest win.

The Mountaineers' frontcourt is putting up gaudy numbers, with their top four forwards averaging over 50 points per game, which is unparalleled by any of the remaining teams. None of the other teams seem to have as much depth, either, considering West Virginia lost their starting point guard and still beat two very talented teams, mostly thanks to the electric Joe Mazzulla, who stepped in for the injured Darryl Bryant and scored 20 points in two games.

This Bob Huggins-led team has been impressive in all four tournament games so far, and appears to be on its way to a national title.

The Matchups

Michigan State vs. Butler

This probably isn't surprising given what I wrote about each team, but I'm feeling really confident in Brad Stevens' Bulldogs in this one. I think they're the better team, and they've been more impressive in the tournament so far, playing against better teams. Even if this game was in Detroit like last year, I'd probably pick Butler here. Taking into account that the game is in Indianapolis, I'd consider it a victory for the Spartans if they could keep this game close for most of the forty minutes. Butler should win with relative ease.

Duke vs. West Virginia

This is a great Final Four matchup that should come down to the wire. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see this game decided by the final shot, and in that eventuality, Da'Sean Butler and Jon Scheyer are my picks to be the difference-makers. Call it a gut-feeling, but I like the Mountaineers in a thrilling game.

Championship Game: West Virginia vs. Butler

I want to pick the Bulldogs here, but I just can't justify it. As impressive as Butler has been, I think West Virginia presents a matchup nightmare for them. The Mountaineers are too consistent and disciplined in their half-court game for Butler's stifling defense to be as effective as it has been over their last 24 games. Against almost any other team in the country, I'd pick Butler here, but I think West Virginia cuts down the nets in Lucas Oil Stadium.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 2:31 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 6

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished ninth at Martinsville, and though he was never in contention for the win, his fourth top-10 finish of the year netted him the lead in the Sprint Cup point standings. Johnson now sits 14 points ahead of previous leader Kevin Harvick, whose No. 29 Shell Chevy suffered a mechanical failure and finished 35th.

"It stopped raining on Monday," Johnson said, "but, as my four straight Cup titles, as well as my new lead in the points can attest, it hasn't stopped reigning."

"I can certainly relate to an unexpected four-tire pit stop and a bit of luck working in a driver's favor. In my case, though, I was able to milk two wins out of it, not just one, like Hamlin."

"As a former winner at Martinsville, I know how much that grandfather clock trophy means. I'm happy for Hamlin. He's a Virginian, so I'm sure this win meant a lot to him. And I'm sure he'll dedicate a little piece of that trophy to every other driver in the field. That would only be fitting, because I think Hamlin "clocked" every other car on his way to the Martinsville victory."

2. Matt Kenseth — Leading with two laps to go and dueling Jeff Gordon for position, Kenseth slid up the track, allowing Denny Hamlin to dip underneath the No. 17 Crown Royal Ford and Gordon for the lead. Hamlin drove to victory, while Kenseth fell all the way back to 18th. Kenseth is third in the point standings, 16 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"I know Gordon is probably not happy with me," Kenseth said, "as he indicated with a bump on the track, which I'll take over a shove on pit road any day."

"Now, my good friend and teammate Carl Edwards led the way for Roush Fenway Racing with an eighth-place finish. With two-straight top-10 finishes, it seems that NASCAR probation has scared him straight. Cousin Carl has been on his best behavior, as have his nemeses Brad Keselowski and Kevin Harvick. Give those two credit, as well; they've realized that society frowns upon having wrecks with a cousin."

3. Greg Biffle — Biffle posted his series-leading sixth top-10 finish of the year, overcoming contact with Marcos Ambrose and a pit road speeding penalty to post a 10th at Martinsville. Biffle moved up two spots in the point standings to second, and trails Jimmie Johnson by 14.

"Luckily, the incident with Ambrose wasn't major," Biffle said. "One thing's for sure, though — when the No. 16 U.S. Census Ford gets together with the No. 47 Little Debbie Toyota, there'll be a 'calorie count' taking place."

4. Kevin Harvick — Harvick led the first 44 laps at Martinsville, and was charging towards the lead on lap 105 when a brake problem sent him to the garage, ruining his race day. Harvick returned several laps down, and eventually finished 35th, 100 laps down. Harvick fell from first to fourth in the point standings, and trails Jimmie Johnson by 61.

"Mechanical malfunctions make me angry," Harvick said, "and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. In fact, you probably wouldn't like me when I'm 'Happy.'"

"Most people know me more for 'breaking bad' than for 'braking bad.' In both cases, however, something, or someone, gets 'jacked up' in the Kevin Harvick garage. If you need further explanation, just ask Carl Edwards."

5. Kurt Busch — Busch started strong at Martinsville, and was poised for a likely top-five finish until a loose wheel forced a green flag pit stop, which sent Busch and the No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge two laps down. Busch eventually finished 23rd, but maintained the sixth spot in the point standings, where he is 122 out of first.

"After Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s outburst at Bristol," Busch said, "people have been paying much more attention to what's being said between driver and crew chief. And, after my radio meltdown at Martinsville, its popularity is 'really bitchin.''

6. Jeff Gordon — Gordon inherited the lead in the Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500 with nine laps to go after race leader Denny Hamlin pitted for four tires. Gordon has the checkered flag in site, but a caution for Kyle Busch's spin just moments before the white flag flew denied Gordon the win, necessitating a green-white-checkered finish. With a lap to go, Matt Kenseth bumped Gordon, knocking the No. 24 DuPont Chevy from the lead, and Gordon retaliated by clipping Kenseth, thus allowing Denny Hamlin to grab the win.

"I guess it's true," Gordon said, "the new spoiler did its job, because I intended for the No. 17 Crown Royal Ford to go airborne. Unlike Crown Royal whiskey, revenge is best served cold. Often, it's not enough merely to look at someone sideways; sometimes, you have to make them go sideways."

"But isn't that what NASCAR had in mind when they asked drivers to 'police themselves' — civilized acts of defiance? Kenseth is the poster boy for receiving civilized acts of defiance. In fact, he attracts them. It's like other drivers are bulls, and he's holding the red cape. Call him the 'Matt-ador,' if you will."

7. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished 15th at Martinsville, driving the No. 88 National Guard/Amp Energy Sugar Free Lightning Chevy to its fourth top-15 finish of the year. Earnhardt is 10th in the Sprint Cup point standings, 159 out of first.

"That's the great thing about my partnership with Amp Energy," Earnhardt said. "They can introduce a new drink on my car, and it immediately sells to the masses, soon to adorn mantles and curio cabinets across the country. Hey, what do most people call a can of Amp Energy Sugar Free Lightning? A drink. What do my fans call it? A souvenir."

"Now, what do rival energy drinks taste like? Crap. And drinking them leaves a taste in your mouth that I'm quite familiar with — 'potty mouth.'"

"I kept the foul language to a minimum at Martinsville. But you shouldn't fault me for my coarse language, especially not when the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, employs the same language. Besides, 'veep' rhymes with 'beep.' What else do Biden and I have in common? Well, we'll never be quite as famous as the man who made us what we are. Biden will never equal Barrack Obama, the black man in the white house, while I'll never equal my father, the white man in black."

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin, with knee surgery looming, muscled his way to the front at Martinsville with a lap to go, passing Jeff Gordon and Matt Kenseth to take the Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500. Hamlin relinquished the lead during a caution on lap 493, opting to pit for four tires while only teammate Kyle Busch followed. Hamlin restated ninth, and benefitted from a caution on lap 499 that prevented a sure Jeff Gordon win.

"This win will certainly ease the pain of knee surgery," Hamlin said, "and hopefully will be the catalyst for more victories. Those wins, of course, will take place 'on mended knee.'"

"Now, I have to thank my teammate, Kyle Busch, for causing a timely caution, and I'll do so 'on bended knee.'"

9. Joey Logano — Logano posted his second top-five finish of the year with a second in the Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500, following Joe Gibbs Racing teammate Denny Hamlin across the line as Toyota scored its first win of the year.

"Hamlin was not to be denied," Logano said. "It's impressive that he did that on a damaged knee. I haven't seen a 'bum' rush like that since Public Enemy's first album. Usually, when a Toyota plows through traffic like that, there's a lawsuit on the horizon, not a checkered flag."

"Hamlin proved that speed isn't everything at Martinsville. It's more about desire and will. Besides, where speed and Toyotas are concerned, it's less about putting the pedal to the metal, and more about putting the pedal to the settle-ment."

10. Paul Menard — Menard, in the No. 98 Richard Petty Motorsports Ford, finished 14th in the Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500 at Martinsville. Menard has finished 18th or better in all six races this year, and is now 11th in the point standings, 163 out of first.

"I may be the best kept secret in NASCAR," Menard said. "And speaking of 'coming out of the closet,' Ricky Martin has announced that he is gay. That's quite unlike me in the top 12 of the points — no one saw that coming."

"But enough about a 'queen;' let's talk about a 'king,' King Richard Petty, my car owner. It's great to be driving for NASCAR royalty. Obviously, the King saw something in me he liked. Maybe it was talent, or maybe it was youthful exuberance. More than likely, though, he probably saw a set of sideburns as impressive as his own."

"But Martin's courage should serve as an inspiration to everyone to stay true to yourself and follow your dreams. It has to me. Before my racing career blossomed, my first love was music, and I've always wanted to form my own boy band, and call it 'Menard-o.'"

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

March 30, 2010

Don't Call Them Cinderella

During this weekend's Final Four, Butler will be regarded as the Cinderella team. After all, neither Butler's Horizon League nor its predecessor, the Midwestern Collegiate Conference, had ever produced a Final Four before this weekend.

The "Hoosiers" references will be made an infinite number of times as well, what with Hinkle Fieldhouse being the place that Hickory High won the Indiana state championship and where real-life counterparts Milan High School did the same.

Both of those characterizations should be thrown out the window.

As Butler showed on Thursday and Saturday, it can play with the best in the country. Before the West Regional, we knew Butler was an awfully good team. The Bulldogs were the only team in the nation to have an unblemished conference record, going 18-0 in the Horizon. They had won 22 games in a row (now 24), and last lost three days before Christmas in Birmingham to UAB.

Yet, you wouldn't have been blamed if you doubted Butler's ability to keep up with Syracuse's horses, especially after Wes Johnson's 31 and 14 in the second round against Gonzaga. The first few minutes on Thursday erased that doubt, when the Bulldogs ground Syracuse to a halt in the first eight minutes, and "popped their collars" (we love you, Gus Johnson) to a 13-3 lead and carried the same margin into the locker room.

Late in the second half, though, it looked for all the world like Syracuse had found just enough offense to start pull away, when they had a 54-50 lead with five minutes to go and maintained it until Ronald Nored's adrenaline shot of a three that took two high bounces off the rim before falling. Butler would score nine more unanswered points to put the game away.

Butler was able to go on the game-changing run because they continued to turn the Orange over and lulled them into taking outside shots early in the shot clock.

A similar pattern won the day against Kansas State, albeit with a more sluggish first 20 minutes. In that regional final, however, Butler turned the ball over a whopping 20 times during a 67-possession game. Traditionally, a team like Butler can't beat an ultra-athletic power-conference team like K-State if they turn it over on 30 percent of their possessions. Butler was able to do something they usually can't against the Kansas States of the world and that's outperforming them on the class. The Bulldogs rebounded a higher percentage of their own misses and the Wildcats' misses on Saturday.

There was a similar point in the Kansas State game in which it looked as though Butler might have let the game slip to the Wildcats, until Butler's best player, Gordon Hayward, stepped up with a step back three, a difficult driving layup and an extremely impressive offensive board in the last few minutes.

Butler's defensive gameplan was absolutely immense in the regional final, with Willie Veasley and Nored closely guarding Kansas State's frontcourt mates of Denis Clemente and Jacob Pullen. The Bulldogs dared the Wildcats' third option, Curtis Kelly, to beat them with his mid-range game. The three combined for 46 of K-State's 56 points. Clemente and Pullen combined needed 30 shots to get their 32, and made just over a third of those attempts. Kelly was a more efficient 6-for-10, and was available for more opportunities that that.

It's no secret that Butler's calling card is defense and an efficient, slow-to-moderate paced offense. But there's still room for Butler to improve on offense. From the second round on, Butler has failed to hit the one point-per-possession mark, a testament to the great defense they have played the last two weeks. Now, the Bulldogs will face a Michigan State team that has actually been more reliant on offense that defense in the tournament and through the season. This feels like a pretty good matchup for Butler, and if they can do better on offense, a national championship is within reach.

Conventional wisdom says that the loss of Kalin Lucas will eventually catch up to Michigan State, but Korie Lucious has stepped up in his absence, as have players like Darrell Summers and Draymond Green. Conventional wisdom has held little value in this tournament. Also, one cannot say enough about the coaching of Tom Izzo. It's impressive enough that Mike Krzyzewski is in his 11th Final Four, but Izzo being there six times over twelve seasons is absolutely out of this world.

In Hayward's awesome rap song he made with some friends from his hometown of Brownsburg, IN before the tournament started, he says, "Get a few dubs, we'll be in the Final Four, not stoppin' there, that's not in store, push it to the limit, we want more."

Thanks in part to his superb play, Butler now has the chance for the ultimate more: a national championship.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:17 AM | Comments (0)

The Wide-Open West

Barring an unforeseen collapse, the NHL Western Conference playoff teams are set; the only thing that remains is the final seeding for matchups. Who is a contender and who is a pretender? The problem is that there are no real clear favorites out West. In fact, every team has a significant weakness, making this year's Western Conference first round a wide-open field with the potential for upsets no matter who's playing who. Let's look at the Achilles' Heel for each team.

Chicago Blackhawks — Without Brian Campbell, the Blackhawks lose a puck-moving defenseman who's quietly had a steady year on both ends on the ice, at least by his standards. The big issue, though, is in net, as it has been all season. Cristobal Huet alternates between above-average and horrific, while Antti Niemi remains an unproven long-term commodity.

San Jose Sharks — Every year, the Sharks reload in preparation of answering their critics, and every year, they fail. Why will this season be any different? The Sharks have gone through a recent rough patch that exposed lazy habits, a weak defense, and — most importantly — uneven play by Evgeni Nabokov. Nabokov is particularly under the microscope, with an impending UFA status on the horizon and an ugly Olympic meltdown on the books.

Phoenix Coyotes — These miracle Coyotes might actually be the steadiest team in the Western Conference, especially with late-season offensive injections of Lee Stempniak and Wojtek Wolski. However, Ilya Bryzgalov has been known to go inexplicably cold for long stretches at a time. Also, the resurgent Coyote offense may finally cool off after a post-trade deadline surge, especially when defenses tighten up.

Vancouver Canucks — He may have won gold in the Olympics, but Roberto Luongo has his fair share of critics right now. Most of that is justified, as Luongo can look spectacular on one save while appearing totally pedestrian on a soft goal. During the playoffs, you hope your goalie stops the ones he's supposed to while team defense does the rest. Lately, though, Luongo's been doing the opposite, looking Vezina-worthy on one impossible save inducing a massive groan on the next shot.

Los Angeles Kings — These young Kings are finally maturing, and Los Angeles has some veteran leadership to help them navigate the brutal waters of the playoffs. That won't necessarily help young Jonathan Quick, as goaltending is such a solitary position with little margin for error. Rookie goalies often sink (Steve Mason) or swim (Cam Ward) during their first playoff outings. The problem here is that Quick is near the league lead in starts, and the burnout factor can be huge — just ask Columbus?

Nashville Predators — The Predators are working hard, playing good team defense, and getting strong goaltending. Like Phoenix, Nashville is scoring by committee, and when they surge as a group, they rack up consecutive wins. The problem is that the forward group lacks a true game-breaker. Teams have won playoff rounds with less, but it is a sticking point when debating Nashville's chances, despite one of the strongest blue lines in the league.

Detroit Red Wings — The Red Wings are the team that no one wants to face. How can you argue with their strong finish to the season, especially with most of their injured veterans returning to the fray? The question mark remains Jimmy Howard. Like Jonathan Quick, Howard will be going through a trial-by-fire, and you just never know how a rookie goalie will respond (though Howard is notably older than Quick).

Colorado Avalanche — Of all the teams in the Western Conference, the Avs are limping towards the finish line. Is it too much, too soon for this group of talented young players? Is Craig Anderson burned out, not just from his starts but from the number of shots he faces each night? The Avs have had more ups than downs this season, but their inexperience (and perhaps fatigue) have been exposed quite a bit. They may not be this inconsistent next year, but this year's a learning experience for Colorado.

Posted by Mike Chen at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2010

Red Sox vs. Yankees a Real Buzz Kill

Somewhere there is an alternate universe playing out with little regard for the real one. It's a place where Bambi's mother never gets shot, and Buddy Holly takes the bus to Minnesota. Like the passengers on Oceanic 815 who never get dragged down to the Lost island because Julia blows up the giant magnet, no city in this alternate universe has their aspirations dragged down by the realities of the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees.

Of course, the latter universe really does exist. It's called spring, a season of bliss ignorance. A time when the magnet is blown up.

A longtime reader from Baltimore recently e-mailed me his prognosis for the upcoming season. The message simply read, "O's 100-62." In all these years, he has identified himself only by the generic label, O's Fan, and that's fine. I figure it's the cyber equivalent of wearing a bag over his head at the ballpark, and understandably so. The O's have been an embarrassment beyond anything Date Mike Scott ever did in mixed company at a Scranton bar and grille. Despite sharing the AL East with both Boston and New York, O's Fan has since gone on to guarantee his team will not sink below .500 for the next 10 years. It's as if tree pollen has become pixie dust.

Yes, there's magic in the air, so the big question is, why have Major League Baseball and ESPN conspired to kill the buzz? They're doing exactly that on Opening Night.

Matching the Red Sox and Yankees in the 2010 season premier of Sunday Night Baseball — on the very day, no less, when hope is delivered to our doorsteps by an upright hare bearing cream-filled chocolates in bright wrappings — is akin to rubbing blue-collar America's nose in the games of aristocracy. We get to watch two of the four highest payrolls in baseball. One team that can get almost any player it wants takes on one that does get every player it wants. This season will kick off as a giant billboard serving notice that the AL pennant is out of reach even before anyone gets on the highway.

Why don't we tell little Johnny there's no Easter Bunny while we're at it?

Look across the MLB landscape. Half the teams don't possess an ace good enough to be a fourth starter in either Boston or the Bronx. Fewer yet can retain even a single player of the caliber the Yankees now field at virtually every position. And all it takes is a whole lot of money.

Last week, the Twins' extended Joe Mauer's contract, making him the highest paid catcher in the game. The Yankees are now down to only the highest paid first baseman, shortstop, and third baseman, not to mention No. 1 and No. 2 starters and closer. The extension came just short of being declared a Minnesota state holiday, but the elephant in new Target Stadium is that the shell-out for Mauer is a storm of the century, and that says a lot if you've ever spent a winter in Minnesota. What will be the encore for every other player not crouching behind the plate?

Last week also witnessed Padres CEO Jeff Moorad proclaiming a vision of Adrian Gonzalez in San Diego for the next two years. Then what? The Padres' entire payroll is well short of the Yankees' corner infield and they're losing money at that. Imagine a San Diegan's reward in seeing Gonzalez play in Fenway Park this October, then watching A-Rod pour champagne over Mark Teixeira the month after.

And it's not like Sunday Night Baseball is taking its foot off the pedal any time too soon. The first eight broadcasts will feature the Yankees three times in all and the cross-town rival Mets — who are second-highest in total player spending — a whopping four. In setting its schedule, ESPN, like all major sports programming networks, is exploiting a basic need of viewers: Americans love the haves. We want to root for them, to become a part of their inner circle. It's why we're riveted to Donald Trump, why guys high-five each other every time Tiger Woods walks into a Perkins Restaurant, why women cried at Princess Diana's funeral.

Sure, we tow the loyalty line and vigorously defend the home team for trading Curtis Granderson or failing to re-sign John Lackey, but while one wheel is in the ditch with them, another is on the fast track of glitter. We put on our best facade, then go home to our Kobe Bryant jerseys, maybe wrap ourselves in Cowboys snuggies. And flip on Red Sox-Yankees.

Even as we're fed one basic need, ESPN denies us another: the need to be lied to. Most of us look in the mirror and see some basic flaws — a zit, crow's feet, a wisp of gray. Like our pedestrian baseball team, we know the defect exists; we just don't want anyone else telling us so. We want to be told we look good. And we want to be told our team will contend all summer with the Yankees and Red Sox, the Phillies, and Mets; that anything can happen in October.

Then Easter Sunday comes along, the season opens, and we're reflexively bingeing on chocolate eggs in front of Sunday Night Baseball. We know the two large market goliaths battling on the field can purchase more talent over one winter than any farm system could develop in ten summers. Our team again begins to look like a wart on the nose of Cinderella's step-sister.

There are liars, and there are damned liars. Then, there is spring, when reality is masked by the joy of a season renewed. But that's okay. You need it, I need it, and heaven knows, O's Fan needs it. Why does a polygraph have to be strapped onto it so soon?

In the end, ESPN is the damnest of all for doing just that.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 1:46 PM | Comments (3)

March 27, 2010

Good For Mauer, Good For Twins, Good For Baseball

The irreplaceable Rob Neyer weighs in on the Joe Mauer extension. Your chronicler, meanwhile, received a rather aghast e-mail, a couple of days ago, from a longtime friend (and one-time colleague on a since-defunct sports opinion website), in which she asked if not demanded to know, "How do they expect the fans to come to the game when the catcher is being paid that much per year? There ... is no athlete worth that much to any team in any sport."

Some shock is understandable. The Twins' historical reputation for spending on their players compares to that of Jack Benny — the radio and television character, that is. (The actual man was actually as generous they came.) That reputation traces back to somewhere between the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. My reply to my friend, which I share here in slightly modified form, launched more or less from the standpoint of asking who says a catcher is unthinkable or untenable as a franchise player?

I can name you quite a few who could have been and may have been regarded as such. They only begin with Mickey Cochrane and Bill Dickey, who might have been thought that way if not for some other fellows on their teams. (Fellows named, among others, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Charlie Gehringer, and Joe DiMaggio.) Yogi Berra came into his own as Joe DiMaggio began his decline, and there were those who thought Yogi was the real heart of the Casey Stengel Yankees, even with the advent of Mickey Mantle. (And Mantle needed almost a decade's worth of maturity — as a player, anyway — to be thought of as the Yankee franchise.)

Roy Campanella might have been the soul of the Boys of Summer Dodgers in general perception if there wasn't a guy named Jackie Robinson on his team. On the other hand, Campanella is one of only two catchers in major league history to win three Most Valuable Player awards. (Who's the other? Hint: he squared off against Campanella in five World Series between 1949 and 1956, and he won two of his MVPs in seasons [1951, 1955] in which Campy took home the National League's prize.) Nobody questions Jackie Robinson's significance or his real greatness (he certainly would have been a Hall of Famer even if he'd been white), but do you realize or remember that Robinson won only one MVP to Campanella's three?

Johnny Bench was probably the real soul of the Big Red Machine, even if Pete Rose was its indelible image. Gary Carter — who might have been regarded in Bench's league, or at least as his heir apparent in the National League, if he'd had the blessing Bench had of so many incandescent teammates — was the soul of his generation of Montreal Expos. (Carter did have a couple of glittering teammates: Andre Dawson and Tim Raines.) Mike Piazza probably was the soul of the early-to-mid-1990s Dodgers; he was no questions asked the soul of the late-'90s/early-to-mid-2000s Mets.

There were those who questioned Joe Mauer's actual MVP qualification in 2009. I was one of them, I admit it. There was no question that his counting stats were overwhelming for his position. But his qualitative stats — I damn well do remember he wasn't the most run-productive Twin in the clutch down that thriller of a stretch while the Tigers were imploding slowly (Michael Cuddyer may have been the best clutch run producer on the club down that final stretch) — were just a little lacking, though not necessarily by much.

Right now, with or without the MVP case, Joe Mauer is the best all-around player on the Twins and may be one of the 10 best all-around players in the American League. Right now. Clearly enough is he the face of the Twins, its most popular player, which ought to scuttle any worries about whether fans are going to come to the games. As if the Twins' fans were going to keep coming if the team let Mauer walk after the 2010 season, with a few other teams not limited to the Yankees keeping a very close watch on his entrails.

And catchers are far more imperative to their teams than they're still credited with being. They used to call catching equipment "the tools of ignorance," a term that may have applied more to fans who didn't get it than to the job itself. Catchers basically have equal shares in the first and primary control of a game and sometimes superior shares.

There are reasons why Yogi Berra should be considered just ahead of Johnny Bench as the greatest catcher ever to strap it on. Bench has the image as the quintessential defensive catcher mostly because he's credited with "inventing" two techniques, the sweep tag and the one-handed catching style. Let's dispense with those right away: he may have perfected the techniques, but he didn't invent them. The sweep tag was a Negro Leagues staple long before Johnny Bench was old enough to be thought a major league prospect. And he wasn't the first major league catcher to go one-handed: Randy Hundley beat him to the league by a couple of seasons.

But Berra didn't have to be an actual or alleged pioneer. The reasons he should be considered ahead of Bench only begin with leading his league in defensive putouts (eight times), assists (five times), and double plays (six times) more often than Bench. (In order: twice, once, and once, believe it or not.) They only continue with Yogi's superior ability to stay out of the double play (146 lifetime groundings into double plays; Bench: 201), avoid the strikeout (by a whopping margin: he had 864 fewer lifetime strikeouts), produce runs (Berra: 1,430 RBI/1,174 runs; Bench: 1,376 RBI/1,091 runs), and reach base in the first place. (Berra, OBP: .348; Bench, OBP: .342 — I didn't think they were that closely matched, either.) Did I mention that Bench played only 38 more games lifetime than Berra?

Before you point to Yankee Stadium's yumminess for lefthanded hitting, by the way, inform or remind yourself that Yogi was the quintessential bad-ball hitter who usually hit the bad balls the other way at least as often as he hit them up the middle or managed to pull them; and Bench was damn good at going up the middle or the other way and wasn't a lockstep pull hitter.

But there is one more reason to put Berra ahead of Bench and everyone else, a reason few beyond a handful of statheads might suspect. This may shock you unless you have read Allen Barra's analysis. ("The Greatest Team Sports Player," from Brushbacks and Knockdowns: The Greatest Baseball Debates of Two Centuries). It finally convinced me, once and for all, about Berra behind the plate. No catcher in baseball history, before, in, or after his time, had a more positive impact on his pitching staffs than Yogi Berra had. One man aside (and we will return to him shortly), every Yankee pitcher who threw to Berra had better statistics when Yogi was behind the plate than he had when any other catcher, on the Yankees or elsewhere, was behind the plate.

That covers names you might remember: Allie Reynolds, Eddie Lopat, Vic Raschi, Tommy Byrne, Bob Turley, Don Larsen, Bob Grim, Ryne Duren, Art Ditmar, Bobby Shantz. That also covers names you might not remember, if you heard of them at all; or, at least, names you probably don't recall as having been Yankee names for any appreciable time: Jim Konstanty, Johnny Kucks, Tom Sturdivant, Tom Morgan, Harry Byrds, Duke Maas, Zach Monroe, and Jim McDonald. (Some extremely attentive Yankee fans might throw in the name Jim Coates, but lo! Coates's three best seasons, 1959-61, showed him with a 30-9 won-lost record, mostly in relief, but a 3.53 ERA, all at a time when Elston Howard was emerging to succeed Berra as the Yankees' regular catcher.)

Berra caught only one bona-fide Hall of Famer in his entire tenure as the Yankees' regular catcher. If you take that man's word for it it was Yogi who most made him the pitcher he became:

Everyone regarded me as a cocky kid when I came up, and that's the way they continued to see me throughout my career. I acted that way 'cause I figured it gave me an edge. I didn't throw as fast as some guys and I didn't have as big a curve as some, but I acted as if I was confident, and that's the way people regarded me, especially the hitters, the ones I really wanted to impress. Well, I wasn't confident, not really. It was Yogi who was confident, and Yogi that made me feel that way. With anyone else as my catcher, I wouldn't have been the same pitcher. — Whitey Ford

What about Ford's only two seasons winning 20 games or more, when Yogi's successor Elston Howard was his regular catcher? Well, only once in his career did Ford lead his league in walks/hits per inning pitched average ... when Yogi was his regular catcher. How about his earned run average? With Elston Howard as his regular catcher (1961-66): 2.78. With Yogi Berra (1950, 1953-60) as his regular catcher? 2.71. (Incidentally, Ford led his league in ERA twice in his career, in 1956 and 1958. Got the picture?)

Okay, so maybe there's a bare hair's breadth between Berra and Howard in terms of his ERA. How about that vaunted winning percentage? (Keep in mind, too, the legend of Casey Stengel holding Ford out for the actual or alleged "big games" for all those seasons, seasons in which Ford won 18 or better only thrice and never won more than 19.)

Based on a criteria of a thousand minimum innings pitched and a hundred minimum decisions, Ford is first among Hall of Famers and fourth on the all-time list. The top 25 include only four who became Hall of Famers as pitchers alone. (Babe Ruth is 11th on the all-time list, but you know damn well he isn't in Cooperstown on his arm.) In ascending order, they are: Sandy Koufax, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, and the Chairman of the Board. Which of Whitey's two regular catchers did the most to help him get there? Are you ready?

With Elston Howard as his regular catcher: .649

With Yogi Berra as his regular catcher: .704

You would expect a Hall of Famer to look good enough when a fellow Hall of Famer is throwing to him, but when a Hall of Famer's winning percentage is 55 points higher than when he's throwing to a not-quite Hall of Famer, that's a striking distinction. But do you really expect the rest of the pitchers coming through the organization to show the anomalies all those other Yankee pitchers show between Yogi Berra as their catcher and anyone else — on the Yankees or elsewhere — as their catcher?

Johnny Bench was a good game caller. But the pitchers who threw to him didn't have measurably superior statistics to when they threw to other Reds catchers. This isn't Bench's fault entirely: the Reds had a strange proclivity toward developing pitchers who came down, almost invariably, with arm or shoulder trouble. Most of those pitchers weren't quite as top of the line as their repertoires or their notices had them.

What about pitchers whom the Reds didn't develop but rather acquired? Pretty much the same story. Even Hall of Famer Tom Seaver had statistics when Bench was his catcher that were comparable to or a little less than what he had when he threw to other catchers in all those prime seasons with the Mets. When Seaver first became a Red (ask any Met fan about the Midnight Massacre of 1977), he finished a 21-6/2.53 ERA season overall by going 14-3/2.34 the rest of the way for the Reds. He had a slightly better total winning percentage as a Red than as a Met, which you can probably attribute at least as much to the Reds being a superior team while the Mets hit a ferocious downslide. (And he did pitch the only no-hitter of his career as a Red.) But his ERA as a Red was 61 points higher than his ERA as a Met.

Thus far, Joe Mauer's pitchers seem to show a little better statistical performance when they throw to him than when they throw to any other catcher. He isn't in Yogi Berra's dimension as a game commander quite yet; the statistical differences for Mauer's pitchers aren't anywhere near the differences for Berra's. But if you watch the complete game of the man you should have the idea that Mauer isn't earning his paychecks merely by using the outfield or the bleachers as his personal batting range. Barely into his prime, he could prove himself well enough the best catcher in the game. Right here, right now, he's the best catcher in the American League with Jorge Posada on the downslope, Jason Varitek waiting to meet him at the bottom, and Victor Martinez just behind Mauer.

But the emphasis is here and now. Last season was Mauer's coming-out party, at the plate especially; he never hit anywhere close to his 2009 levels in his five seasons prior. He may be a three-time batting champion (itself rather anomalous for a catcher), but keep in mind that batting average is one of the least indicative of counting stats. Mauer had always flashed plenty of potential as a run producer, but in 2009 he finally turned it into reality.

Time alone will tell whether 2009 was playing over his own head or pointing toward his true future, but 2009 is what landed him that fat contract extension. If the Twins were smart it was going to happen one way or another, with or without the Denard Span deal. The Span deal wasn't going to spur a Mauer deal in monetary terms; the Twins locked Span down for a song. Maybe even a short medley. (Span won't see his first million-dollar annual salary until year two of the deal, and if he just plays at his 2008-2009 level for the life of the deal, it's going to be considered one of the great bargain buys of this era.)

Locking Span down for five years probably meant the Twins were somewhere close enough to do-or-die mode to lock Mauer down to a multiyear deal and not even think of risking his departure as a free agent after the season about to begin. Span isn't exactly unproven; his first two major league seasons compare very favorably to those of his Boston Red Sox counterpart, Jacoby Ellsbury. He may not be anywhere within a county line or two of Joe Mauer's money for a good while, but the Twins had to be thinking they couldn't sign a now-hot center fielder and leadoff man to a multiyear deal without a thought about securing a well-proven catcher and run producer, even if you think Mauer played a little over his own head in 2009.

Any other thought and it might have backfired enough to see Mauer in another uniform (not necessarily Yankee pinstripes, either) and the Twins' leadership fitted for a necktie party. That is how valuable Mauer is to the Twins and how popular he is in Minnesota. These are not your father's Twins; they would have shown Mauer the money no matter what. Nobody ever went broke embracing the idea that, when you get that rare a hometown/homestate jewel, you mine it, shine it, and display it properly enough.

It's the kind of all-around commitment this deal, by this team, for this player, shows. That's good for Joe Mauer. That's better for the Twins. And — unless you think the rest of the game's actual or alleged have-nots are laughing it off, having been just been shown up as fools by one of the game's long reputed have-or-will-nots — that's great for baseball.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 7:46 PM | Comments (3)

March 25, 2010

Thumbs Down on the New Overtime Rules

Well, Brad Oremland foretold of it, and verily it has occurred, in just the format he said it would. There will be a new overtime format in the NFL next year for playoff games only.

There will be a coin toss and then a kickoff, as usual. And if the receiving team scores a touchdown, the game is over, just as it is today. But if they can only muster a field goal, then the other team will get the ball with a chance to win with a touchdown of their own, or force a second overtime with a field goal of their own.

Although I hate the new overtime format a great deal more than Brad, who is only nominally against it, our reasons are very much the same, so I apologize in advance whenever I parrot him.

First, the main complaint against sudden death as it exists today is, ostensibly, that it's not fair that one team can win the game without the other team even getting the ball.

First, as in Brad's column, the statistics don't bear that out too much, and although I'm seeing percentage breakdowns of how often the team that wins the coin toss wins the game, I would want more specifically to know how often the team that won the toss wins the game on their opening possession. Because if they end up winning on the third or fifth or seventh possession of overtime, it ceases to be statistically useful in analyzing the fairness of sudden death. Actually, it becomes an indicator for the fairness of sudden death.

Let's expand our scope even further, though, beyond overtime: how often to teams score on any drive that began with them receiving a kickoff? Even when you eliminate drives that are ended by the half, I have to think the number is a good deal less than 50%. It is hard to drive down the field. The odds favor a stop.

But even if more than half of all overtime games featured the coin-toss winner marching down the field and winning while the other team's offense never gets off the bench, I submit it's still fair. Get a takeaway. Force a punt. Otherwise, although the offense can grouse they didn't get a chance to win, the team as a whole can't make that claim. This is the NFL. There are no Youngstown State vs. Ohio State matchups, competitively so uneven as to be unfair. I don't think it's too much to ask even the worst defense in the NFL to try to stop the 2000 St. Louis Rams with the game on the line.

Instead (and Brad touched on this), with the new rules, the pendulum swings wildly the other way, favoring the team that does not get the ball first. If they stop the other team (and, again, statistically speaking they probably will), they can win the game a field goal. Hence, if they do get that statistically-likely stop, then they won't have to drive nearly as far as the first team did to win the game, they need only move into field goal range. In fact, I anticipate teams actually electing to kick off in OT should they win the toss. Just make one stop, even force the other team to settle for a figgie, and you are in a great, great position.

Brad doesn't like the college system, but at least there is some congruence to it: Will keep giving each team the ball in turns, and keep doing it until one team does more with their possession than the other team did.

In fact, college overtime rules are my preference. I can live with kickoffs and punts, which comprise probably only 10-15% of the plays in regulation, not being a part of the equation.

Brad points out that the college overtime rules (unduly, in his opinion), favors the team going second, because they know exactly what they need to do.

That's true, but a) not to the extent the new NFL playoff OT rule does, and b) there's one way the team going first can ameliorate the disadvantage and turn it into an advantage: score a touchdown.

Score that touchdown, and your defensive decisions just got that much simpler, especially on third and fourth down. If there's only one thing and one thing only the offense can do to extend the game, then the advantage lies with the defense. If you spot me seven points, I'll give you your "you know what you need" second possession every time.

And ironically, that's the one thing the NFL got right here, putting a premium on touchdowns. They just went too far with it, or rather, tried to sort of combine college and pro overtime rules into a hybrid.

Hybrid cars are a great thing. But this is more like a hybrid animal, one bred underground for some unscrupulous zoo, where the results live short, painful lives. Hopefully, the new NFL playoff rules will, too.

P.S. It would never happen (too bizarre and viewer-unfriendly), but how about this for an overtime solution that is original, congruent, and eliminates built-in advantages for either the team going on offense first (as sudden death is perceived to do) or second (as college overtime is perceived to do)?

Give both teams the ball at the opponent's 25-yard line and put five minutes on the clock. That team will stay on offense the entire five minutes. If they score, they line it up again on their own 25-yard line. Same if they turn it over. The defense cannot score, for a reason that will be apparent momentarily.

So we will see which offense can put up the most points in five minutes. But the "second" team won't know how many points they need, at least not conveniently, because they will be having their go on offense on the other side of the field ... at the same time.

Bring in the alternate officials! We have two games going on here!

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:14 PM | Comments (3)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 5

Note: The quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Charging late at Bristol, Johnson went from sixth to first in three laps and won at the "bull ring" for the first time ever. Matt Kenseth's poor restart held up several contenders, including Kurt Busch, and Johnson quickly capitalized, moving to second behind Tony Stewart. Johnson made quick work of Stewart and took the lead on lap 494.

"Although our surname's are slightly different," Johnson said, "Alaska native Levi Johnston and I share one thing in common: we've both marked 'Bristol' off our 'to-do' lists. Likewise, it was 'easy.'"

"I'm ridin' high, with my target in the crosshairs, which is a similar manner in which a certain former Alaska governor hunts for wolves."

"But enough about 'first's.' Let's talk about 'fifth's.' My fifth Sprint Cup title is in my sight. Many though I would be satisfied with four titles. The truth is, I'm so focused on number five that number four is a distant memory. So you could say the battle for the 2010 Sprint Cup is a 'four-gone conclusion.'"

"I guess NASCAR is not immune to 'March Madness,' because Kenseth and I ran the perfect 'pick and roll.' Apparently, a few people knew what they were saying when they made Matt their 'pick' to win."

"Now, if football's your game, you could call it a 'screen pass.' Hockey? An assisted 'goal.'"

2. Kurt Busch — Busch's No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge was clearly the class of the field in the Food City 500, leading 278 of 500 laps. But his path to victory was blocked on the final restart, when Matt Kenseth's Crown Royal Ford spun and held up Busch's line. Soon thereafter, Jimmie Johnson was long gone, and Busch settled for a disappointing third. Busch moved up four places in the point standings to sixth, and is 97 out of the lead.

"This certainly isn't the first time Matt Kenseth has been called a 'royal' pain," Busch said. "Apparently, the saying 'liquor before beer, never fear' doesn't apply to restarts in NASCAR races."

"It really pains me to see Johnson in victory lane. I should have been there. The Miller Lite car was the better car, and I had a better position on the restart. The loss tastes bitter, and it's less-fitting."

3. Matt Kenseth — With Sunday's fifth-place finish at Bristol, Kenseth drew to within one point of points leader Kevin Harvick. Kenseth played a large role in determining the winner, as a slow restart back up traffic and eventually allowed Jimmie Johnson to surge to the lead.

"I think Bob Dylan would appreciate that I'm 'Knock, Knock, Knockin' on Kevin's Door,'" Kenseth said. "Of course, many drivers, Kurt Busch included, would consider my restart 'Like a Rolling Stone.'"

"It's been an up-and-down last few weeks for Roush Fenway Racing. Mostly up, though. First, in Atlanta, Carl Edwards sent Brad Keselowski 'up.' On Sunday, Greg Biffle backed 'up' traffic, while I held 'up' traffic.

4. Kevin Harvick — Handicapped by a qualifying effort of 33rd, Harvick still managed to finish 11th at Bristol, his first finish outside the top 10 this year. Harvick is still on top of the Sprint Cup point standings, and leads Matt Kenseth by one point, and Jimmie Johnson by 14.

"I pride myself on my consistency," Harvick said. "And I'm sure Johnson does the same, because he's consistently lucky. I still firmly believe that Johnson has a horseshoe up his behind. Hopefully, in the spirit of NASCAR discontinuing the wing in favor of the spoiler, I can alter Jimmie's rear, as well, and transplant that horseshoe to mine."

"And speaking of shoe implants, I'd like to put a boot in the ass of Carl Edwards. I'm sure it just ate Edwards up to 'make nice' with Keselowski. But what choice did he have? Keselowski is just as hotheaded. If Edwards hadn't made amends, he likely would have found himself flying through the air, as well. So it was simply a matter of 'truce or consequences.'"

"One thing is clear, however: when Edwards confronts someone, chances are someone will end up 'on the hood,' whether that be Brad Keselowski or Edwards himself. Word to the wise, Edwards — I won't back down. If you remember correctly, the last time you got in my face, the only 'back down' that resulted was yours, on the hood of my car."

5. Greg Biffle — Biffle survived an accident to finish fourth in the Food City 500, his second top-five and fifth top-10 result of the year. On lap 343, Biffle moved up the track and into Mark Martin's No. 5 GodDaddy.com Chevrolet, forcing Martin into the outside wall. Martin's damaged ride created a bottleneck in turn three, collecting a number of cars, including Jeff Gordon, Kevin Harvick, Juan Montoya, and Joey Logano. Biffle took responsibility for the incident, but cited a faulty radio as the true culprit.

"Wow. Martin, Gordon, Harvick, Montoya, and Logano. I guess I have a lot of drivers to answer to, and one father. Funny thing is, Logano's the teenager, and I'm the one wearing braces. I guess at Bristol I defined the term 'brace for impact.'"

"Honestly, I couldn't hear my spotter warn me that the No. 5 wasn't clear. My radio had been going in and out all day. There are about 13 drivers who weren't too fond of that explanation. Let's just say it got bad 'reception.'"

6. Tony Stewart — Stewart claimed his first top-five finish of the year, finishing second at Bristol, buoyed by a two-tire pit stop that put him in position to win late. Stewart surged to the lead on the restart, but was easily reeled in by Jimmie Johnson, who took the lead for good on lap 494.

"Johnson's four tires made me a 'sitting duck,'" Stewart said. "And speaking of a 'sitting duck,' many people think Carl Edwards got off easy with probation, when a suspension for the driver of the Aflac-sponsored car would have truly made him a 'sitting duck.'"

"It seems as though NASCAR handles discipline with 'kid gloves,' which, ironically, is how Carl Edwards and Kevin Harvick engage in combat. Those guys are 'lobbing insults' when they should be 'throwing punches.' As they say, 'One of 'em's scared, the other one's glad of it.' I've heard of 'Punch and Judy,' but this is a case of 'punchless and judicious.' What's it going to take, short of Kurt Busch's head, for someone to get popped?"

7. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished sixth at Bristol, joining Roush Fenway teammates Matt Kenseth and Greg Biffle, who finished fourth and fifth, respectively, in the top 10. It was a redemptive effort for Edwards, coming on the heels of his incident with Brad Keselowski in Atlanta resulted in a 39th-place finish, a three-race probation, and loads of bad publicity.

"There's been no back flip," Edwards said, "but plenty of backlash."

"Sure, NASCAR was very lenient with only probation for such an egregious, albeit deserved, act against Keselowski. And I thank them. So, for their 'preferential treatment,' I'll have to show them deferential treatment."

"Brad and I, along with Jack Roush and Roger Penske, met with NASCAR last week to resolve our differences. I think reports of the meeting, as well as pictures of Brad and I leaving the hauler smiling, would indicate that we're 'on the same page.' In other words, our feud has been settled, at least 'on paper.'"

"But as the Keselowski feud fizzles, the Kevin Harvick feud simmers. I've called Harvick a 'bad person,' while he's called me 'fake.' Jimmie Johnson's reign as champion can be considered a dynasty, by Harvick and my exchanges sound like nothing more than the prelude to a cat fight on Dynasty."

8. Kyle Busch — Busch finished ninth at Bristol, his only top-10 finish of the year, as the No. 18 M&Ms car was the only Toyota in the top 10. All three Joe Gibbs Racing cars experienced tire issues, and Busch overcame a right front flat tire that sent him into the wall midway through the race. Quick work by Busch's crew kept him on the lead lap, and he Busch moved up five places in the point standings and is in 10th, 168 out of first.

"Tire issues are the last thing Toyota need right now," said Busch. "Tires notwithstanding, we could use a little more speed. Currently, Toyota's are feared less on the race track and more on the highway. Toyota engineers face a tricky dilemma: the racing community is urging them to 'make it go,' while the public is demanding they 'make it stop.'"

9. Jeff Burton — Burton led the Richard Childress Racing charge at Bristol, coming home tenth, one spot ahead of teammate and points leader Kevin Harvick, while Clint Bowyer wasn't in the mix, suffering engine failure on lap 58. Burton gambled during the final caution, opting for four tires and hoping to regain lost track position in the final laps. Restarting 12th, the No. 31 Caterpillar Chevrolet quickly pick off two positions, put heavy traffic negated further advance, and Burton settled for his second top-10 of the year.

"As you know," Burton said, "I make many of life's choices based on the 'WWJD' principles. With all due respect to Jesus, in this sport, it's all about 'What Would Jimmie Do.' With three wins already this year, it seems Jimmie, like Jesus, has plenty of 'followers' on Sundays."

10. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished a solid seventh in the Food City 500, his day nearly derailed by a speeding penalty entering the pits during a caution on lap 324. After much complaining to crew chief Lance McGrew of the No. 88 Amp Chevrolet's handling in the early stages, Earnhardt showered McGrew with a load of expletives after the speeding penalty. Sensing a letdown, McGrew shot back, telling Earnhardt not to "lay down on me," an admonishment which seemed to spark Earnhardt's recovery and subsequent top-10 result.

"It's not often you bitch that much about your car," Earnhardt said, "and still come out smiling. I think that's called a 'whine and cheese' result. Incidentally, wine and cheese goes great with Amp Energy Juice."

"If you heard my radio exchange with McGrew, then you're aware that my censors now outnumber my sponsors. I may have disappointed some of my fans, particularly viewers of Disney's Handy Manny, with my foul-mouthed outburst, but at least I know my dad's looking down proudly at me."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2010

Tiger, IMG, and PGA Tour: The Battle For Pro Golf in the U.S.

In this week's New York Times Magazine, Jonathan Mahler investigates what he calls the "Tiger Bubble" — the perceived phenomenon that the PGA Tour has put all of its eggs in the Tiger's basket, leaving them unprepared and incapable of sustaining the Tour in the event of his prolonged absence or retirement.

Mahler, who is not a golf reporter, but clearly an astute guy, looks at corporate sponsorship in the Tiger Era. His conclusion is that the Tour is not in a very good position to handle its portfolio in a world sans Tiger, but would not be crippled by his absence.

The truth is this: ratings are down, about 10 tournaments will need to secure a sponsor contract for '11 and beyond, and next year is a negotiation year with the Tour's TV partners, who have surely taken note of Woods' lengthy absences in two of the last three seasons. Not exactly an enviable position for Tim Finchem.

Most of Mahler's conclusions are draw from conversations with folks from around the world of golf. He also attended the Torrey Pines event and the new Wasted Open in Phoenix. The curious thing is that both of these events have been victims of the growing strength (read: oil money) behind the European Tour's Desert Swing. While everyone has grown accustomed to the Tiger & Phil Show at Torrey each year, Tiger's absence poked a hole in the mystique that the tournament is actually a strong field. Without Tiger, the tournament is perceived to be Phil and no one else. (He sure made that evident with his Ping Eye 2 wedges.) Without them both, well, imagine Innisbrook — still solid, but not exactly magnetic to the general public.

Mahler notes that Tour purses have increased dramatically during Woods' pro career, now in its 15th season. At the same time, the conclusion of the piece is that Woods has had little impact on the growth of the sport. True, too, Woods' impact on the growth of Tour purses may well be overstated. Take the Tour Championship, for example. Tom Watson won the inaugural and took away $360,000. In 1996, Woods' first season on Tour, Tom Lehman won and earned $540,000 — an increase of 50%. Provided the same return nine years later, the 2005 Tour Championship winner Bart Bryant should have taken away $810,000. He got $1.17 million, some $360,000 more than trending would have indicated. Inflation takes away a good chunk of that, so credit Tiger for some $200,000 more for first place — if you so choose.

Total Tour purses have skyrocketed since 1974, when the total money doled out was just above $8 million. For 1998, it was $96 million. In '09, that tally was $275 million. In 24 years, the total purse on the PGA Tour increased by a factor of 12. In the 12 years since, by a factor of almost three.

Back in 2001, Tim Finchem told media that he expected total prize money for the Tour to topple $300 million by 2005.

"I think it is not unreasonable to assume that our prize money the next four years would grow to somewhere upwards of $300 million U.S. by the end of that cycle," he said to the Associated Press.

That was unrealistic thinking blinded by the fruits of a television contract negotiated before the post 9/11 recession. Equally unrealistic is boiling down golf's economy to a single player. Mahler addresses this in his piece by noting that Tiger typically plays a schedule in the teens as opposed to a larger PGA Tour schedule of nearly 50 events — all appropriately title sponsored today. The concern lies, though, in that the combination of television revenues and corporate sponsorship drives the Tour today. Given the downturn, how the sponsorship half of that equation continues to function mystifies critics and observers.

The other half — television ratings — continues to be a sore subject for the Tour when Tiger is not around to attract curiosity seekers (which Woods still has 15 years into his career). In the same way that Tiger has had little influence on golf participation that is now basically flat with when Tiger began on Tour in 1996, the audience for golf on TV has shrunk, as well. People who play golf usually are the ones watching golf on TV. If less people play golf, then less people watch golf. This is true in the United States, where seemingly more courses are opening in former landfills than in undeveloped spaces, but it is not true abroad. The growth of the sport abroad has created a conundrum for the sport in the U.S.

That growth had been taking place on the Asian mainland for years now, but the rapid economic expansion in Indochina has created an untapped market of new status seeking golfers. The golf industry must take advantage of the opportunity. The PGA Tour and USGA — both American-based organizations — led the charge to get golf into the Olympics partially under the guise of growing the sport. The corporate community in Asia, as well as the Middle East, sees pro golf as a chance to showcase their gains and flex their new muscle. The result is that the European, Asian, and OneAsia Tours have stood to gain from the international corporate willingness to fling money at the game when combined with the tours' abandon for paying players to appear rather than win.

At the forefront of that marriage is IMG — the same people that represent Tiger Woods and many of the world's best golfers. A large chunk of their business comes from owning and operating golf tournaments around the globe. They arrange for sponsors, lure players (especially ones on their talent roster because of the double dip in fees), and promote the event. Since IMG does not have a large foothold on the men's prog golf in the US, the organization has opted to leverage its global resources at the cost of some stretches of the PGA Tour's schedule strength.

While IMG, a single organization with a limited stable of players, is not able to challenge the PGA Tour on a weekly basis, it has been successful at times. If a management agency can be a full service tournament operator and ensure success, surely the PGA Tour must find a way to respond. The problem for the Tour is that it does not have that capacity. Its relationship with Tour members is largely hands-off and the Tour deems players as "independent contractors." Though that is a ruse in many ways, the Tour does not have the dual business interest in representing players and tournaments. Instead, it manages tournaments and venues. But what good are either without players?

That's why the pro golf tour model faces problems, and not just in the United States. The expansion of the sport has created fleeting loyalty to pro golf tours and more loyalty to sponsors and handlers. Were IMG and Octagon — its major competitor — able to join forces, they could create a truly formidable and profitable global series. Armed with all aspects of tournament services, the battle would be fierce. While it does not appear that looms on the horizon, the PGA Tour and its counterparts may want to consider a halt to bickering with each other for control and facing the common enemy between them.

Golf does not face a Tiger Bubble. It is much more than that. Tiger may have been the first golfer in decades to transcend sport in this country, but representation agencies and global economics are now in position to transcend the PGA Tour without Woods' presence. The future business model of the sport depends on the ability for tours to deliver events with star-studded fields. All politics aside, the groups that are most likely to deliver on that promise in the years to come are private, for-profit groups. That is, unless the Tour (or tours plural) decides that it is time to become a complete golf property and fully represent its players in addition to its schedule.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 12:50 AM | Comments (2)

Back to the Future

First thing's first. I'm an idiot. I went along with the sentiment of momentum, the attraction of a tough schedule, and the consistency of a major conference to pick my champion for this year's tournament.

What? No. My bracket wasn't busted Saturday, when Kansas got upset by Northern Iowa. I didn't even last that long. I couldn't even make it past 10 PM (ET) Thursday night, when Georgetown got their doors blown off by Ohio.

That's the yin and yang ... the reason why picking the tournament is so aggravating ... the reason why the ambiance of March Madness is so enticing and intriguing. As we recover from this very chaotic stretch and prepare for the Regional Semifinals, here are my Sweet 16 thoughts on what's past and coming up.

1) It's Merely a Flesh Wound.

Is Northern Iowa defeating Kansas on Saturday a humungous upset? Nah. I can't take you down that route. Not when George Mason of 2006 is in the same century. Heck, to me, this wasn't even the biggest surprise of the tournament (I know, I know, sour grapes). It's significant, sure. But humungous? I wouldn't call a 30-4 Missouri Valley Conference champ one of the Davids. There have been too many MVC teams that have done well lately to put the Panthers in that category.

2) We've Gotten a Little Top-Heavy.

Now that the tourney's been whittled down to 16 teams, you can't really say there's a Cinderella story. Sure, many didn't expect Northern Iowa, Butler, Cornell, or Saint Mary's to make it through, but it shouldn't be surprising. Out of the Sweet 16, fourteen squads finished with (or tied for) the best or second-best record in their conference. The only ones that don't fit ... Washington and Tennessee. Both were in third by only one game.

3) The First Session of the Event Spoiled Me.

If you were asking me how the tournament should be played, I'd tell you to repeat Thursday's early afternoon games. A missed prayer, an answered prayer, an overtime thriller, and a double overtime slugfest? I thought I had died and gone to Bracket Heaven. Unfortunately, I knew that blowouts were just around the corner. But it was amazing that all the games in the same session (I count Vanderbilt/Murray State as session one in San Jose) were so close.

4) The Mountain West ... Good, But Needs Some Work.

During the regular season, this was one of the best conferences in the realm of the mid-majors. It showed when the committee invited a league-record four teams into the field. But I overestimated their worth. Honestly, I believed UNLV was going to have difficulties in their first-round skirmish with UNI. But we got to take baby steps with them. The last "elite" program from the conference was the Rick Majerus-coached Utah teams. Let's see what Steve Alford does with New Mexico.

5) The Atlantic 10 ... Good, But Underachieving.

I like the mid-majors. I think they play great basketball. This year, the A-10 was the best of the mids. The toughness of Temple and Xavier. The speedy guard-play of Richmond. The athleticism of Dayton. All that is well and good, but it hasn't translated into postseason success outside of Cincinnati. Musketeers head coach Chris Mack seems to have a chip on both shoulders, but what he said after his squad's first-round win was right. Xavier is now in the same category as Butler and Gonzaga. They're a quality program that's largely separated itself from the rest of its conference.

6) Must ... Resist ... Ridicule ... of ... Underachievers.

Every two to three years, one of the big boys seems to be less than stellar. This year's down cycle squarely resides in the Pac-10. However, along with this mediocre play comes a surprise. When a Big Ten, SEC, or Big 12 only gets three or four teams in the Dance, at least one comes through for a couple of wins. Both Cal and Washington proved that theory to be true with first-round stunners. The Huskies followed that up with a pasting of New Mexico. The lesson here, kids ... don't kick a dog (or bear) when it's down. It could come back to bite us.

7) Seven and Nine is Just Fine.

Usually, a 7-9 conference record puts a team on fringe status for the tourney ... and that's just in one of the power conferences. This time around, though, below .500 worked out a little better for a couple teams. The formula was surely beneficial to Georgia Tech, who made a run to the ACC championship, then backed it up with a win over Oklahoma State. Of course, everyone knows about Ohio. The Bobcats went from ninth-seed in the MAC tournament to overnight sensation with their upset over Georgetown. Let's not forget, Houston snuck in after a 7-9 campaign in Conference USA.

8) They've Been Right All Along.

From the start of the season, there's been a buzz that anywhere from 8-10 teams could win the national championship. Kentucky and Syracuse are (and should be) the favorites. But you can't sit there and tell me that any one of these teams is head and shoulders above the others. When I first picked out the Madness victors, I had all four number ones going to the Elite Eight. I also had the three strongest seeds (UK, 'Cuse, and KU) losing in that round. There's talent everywhere. There's good coaching everywhere. And, this year, there's a consistent winning attitude everywhere.

Okay. I've caught my breath. However, with the way the first four days went, it's not a reach to say more basketball goodness is on the way. So, who's got an upper hand to reach the Elite Eight?

9) Kentucky vs. Cornell

I really like this matchup, but could ESPN's Jay Bilas actually be right? Can the senior experience of the Big Red trump the overall talent and athleticism of the Wildcats? Can Ryan Whitman's shooting offset John Wall's intangibles? Can Jeff Foote's size stack up to DeMarcus Cousins or Patrick Patterson? Probably not. However, most of the players on the floor should make some nice coin down the road (athletic or otherwise).

Kentucky: 75-64

10) West Virginia vs. Washington

This is a classic contrast of styles. West Virginia's staunch defense goes against Washington high-octane athletes. Just like against Missouri on Sunday, the Mountaineers will want to slow the Huskies down and play more of a half-court game. Can U-Dub speed up WVU where the Tigers couldn't? In my opinion, not enough. Defense will rule the night.

West Virginia: 64-57

11) Syracuse vs. Butler

The Bulldogs are supposed to be here. They've been a top-20 team for most of the season. They play tenacious team defense. Their team can score at five different positions. The team is on a 22-game winning streak. Trouble is ... the team is going to have to get hot against that long 2-3 zone. If we see the team that played in the second half of their win over UTEP, they will win. That's a tough level to maintain against the Orange.

Syracuse: 71-62

12) Kansas State vs. Xavier

Jacob Pullen and Denny Clemente went off in Oklahoma City. The two-guard force will be difficult to match up against. But if any twosome can challenge them, it's Terrell Holloway and Jordan Crawford. This game will come down to the frontcourt play. I like Jason Love to do some damage to the Wildcats' middle. And don't expect K-State to be the tougher, more physical team in this one. The Musketeers know how to play that game.

Xavier: 68-65

13) Ohio State vs. Tennessee

To be honest, I didn't have either the Buckeyes or Volunteers here. I thought San Diego State and Georgia Tech were going to be upset assassins. But, now that I'm put in this position, I have to acknowledge that OSU can be more than a one-man team. Jon Diebler's shooting has been lights-out so far. But I usually undervalue Tennessee and their athleticism. I'm not going to do that now. The Volunteers' experience against Kansas and Kentucky has prepped them for a game like this, and I believe Bruce Pearl will find a way to use that experience to his advantage.

Tennessee: 77-71

14) Michigan State vs. Northern Iowa

The Panthers are the new darlings of the country. As I said earlier, though, they're no Cinderella. The MVC champs are dangerous as is. Now, add in the fact that Spartan point guard Kalin Lucas will, at the very least, be severely hampered by his Achilles injury. I think this will equal an Elite Eight berth for an unlikely squad.

Northern Iowa: 72-64

15) Duke vs. Purdue

Along with predicting the overall bracket, I'm participating in of those game-by-game contests. To this point, I've pretty much followed my overall bracket, as much as it can allow. That ends now. I had Duke going to the Final Four, but that was winning against Siena in the regional semis and Richmond in the final. The three teams that are left can create problems for the Blue Devils.

As far as the Boilermakers are concerned, I'm actually extremely happy for them. With Robbie Hummel, this team was the fourth one-seed. But they're showing just how good they are, period. I've learned my lesson and won't pick against them this time. The feel-good train rolls on.

Purdue: 68-65

16) Baylor vs. Saint Mary's

The Bears are the most under-the-radar team left in this whole thing. Every other team has some kind of angle, whether it be dominant presence, underachiever turned hot, or smaller conference affiliation. Baylor's just a really good team for a big conference that's taken care of business. Tweety Carter, Lacedarius Dunn, and Ekpe Udoh are a formidable trio.

This was the area of the bracket, though, that I thought could be ravaged by a George Mason/Davidson/Gonzaga. Unfortunately for my bracket, I picked the wrong team. The Gaels have been fantastic for the last three years. Now, they're getting a chance to prove it. Mickey McConnell and Omar Samhan want to show that it's their time to shine, and I'm fully behind that statement.

Saint Mary's: 82-77

Will these picks match up to the results on Thursday and Friday? Who knows? And that's the way I like it. The only thing assured through this point is that the Madness has definitely lived up to its name in 2010.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 12:48 AM | Comments (0)

March 23, 2010

Dream.13 Recap and March 2010 UFC Rankings

Two of the biggest mixed martial arts organizations in the world held events on Sunday night: the UFC made its Versus debut with the cleverly named UFC on Versus, and Dream, the largest remaining Japanese MMA promotion (which more or less aims to pick up where PRIDE left off), held Dream.13 in Yokohama, Japan.

The UFC card was headlined by mega-hyped rising star Jonny "Bones" Jones and overexposed has-been Brandon Vera. It seems unnecessarily cruel to begin this column by skewering a man who lost half his face on Sunday night, so let's start with Jones. Believe the hype. Jon Jones burst onto the scene in January 2009, with his dominant unanimous decision victory over Stephan Bonnar at UFC 94, and became a full-fledged phenomenon when he destroyed Matt Hamill last December before being disqualified for illegal elbow strikes.

Jones dominated Bonnar in what many expected to be the beginning of The American Psycho's comeback following a series of injuries and suspensions. He outwrestled Hamill, an All-American who has been successful in the UFC. And on Sunday night, he broke Brandon Vera's face. Literally. Vera reportedly suffered three broken facial bones after an audible elbow strike from Jones. In fact, apparently his injuries were sufficiently severe that he was not permitted to board his flight home. And this was a legal elbow. I guess that either makes Hamill some kind of superhuman, or it's further evidence that the rules distinguishing legal and illegal elbows are ill-informed and arbitrary. Since the rule-makers are unfailingly conscientious and well-informed, my bet is on Hamill being half grizzly bear with a steel-reinforced skeleton.

I assume that this fight was the last time the UFC will pretend Vera is a contender. Every times he faces a legit opponent, he loses. He's dropped three of his last five, and his best win came more than three years ago. Vera's decision to stop fighting at heavyweight in 2008 was probably a good idea. With the rise of real 265-lb. heavies like Brock Lesnar and Shane Carwin, staying in the division simply was not wise. But Vera has looked decidedly mediocre since dropping to 205. He's 3-3, with his best wins a close decision over Krzysztof Soszynski and a TKO of Michael Patt via leg kicks. Vera hasn't knocked out or submitted an opponent since 2006.

Vera never should have been promoted as a serious contender at 205, and the fact that he's headlined two recent cards helps explain the UFC's inconsistent ratings. Vera is a pretty good fighter, but he can't hang with the elite of the heavyweight or light heavyweight division. His future is as a gatekeeper, not a contender. Even that, however, is on hold following his recent injuries. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. You never want to see someone get his face broken just because he's a little overhyped and has a stupid victory celebration.

In other action on the card, Junior Dos Santos continued his impressive rise with an out-of-nowhere knockout of Gabriel Gonzaga, and Cheick Kongo bounced back from a two-fight losing streak with a surprising ground-and-pound win over fellow striker Paul Buentello. Dos Santos is a serious contender in the UFC's suddenly-stacked heavyweight crowd, while Kongo probably needs another win before he can be considered a serious opponent for top heavyweights.

The rankings below are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Fëdor Emelianenko or Gegard Mousasi on these lists. It doesn't mean they aren't great fighters.

Heavyweight (206-265)

1. Brock Lesnar
2. Cain Velasquez
3. Frank Mir
4. Junior Dos Santos
5. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
6. Shane Carwin
7. Roy Nelson
8. Stefan Struve
9. Gabriel Gonzaga
10. Mirko Filipovic

Make it Happen: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

1. Lyoto Machida
2. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua
3. Rashad Evans
4. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson
5. Antonio Rogerio Nogueira
6. Jon Jones
7. Thiago Silva
8. Forrest Griffin
9. Luiz Cane
10. Ryan Bader

Make it Happen: Jones vs. winner of Griffin/Nogueira
Make it Happen: Randy Couture vs. Rich Franklin (But only if, please, it's not headlining a card. Give us something with title implications.)

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Chael Sonnen
3. Demian Maia
4. Nate Marquardt
5. Vitor Belfort
6. Yushin Okami
7. Yoshihiro Akiyama
8. Wanderlei Silva
9. Nate Quarry
10. Michael Bisping

Make It Happen: Marquardt vs. Belfort

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Jon Fitch
3. Thiago Alves
4. Dan Hardy
5. Paulo Thiago
6. Diego Sanchez
7. Josh Koscheck
8. Paul Daley
9. Matt Hughes
10. Mike Swick

Make It Happen: winner of Daley/Koscheck vs. winner of rumored Paulo Thiago/Martin Kampmann bout

Lightweight (146-155)

1. B.J. Penn
2. Kenny Florian
3. Frankie Edgar
4. Gray Maynard
5. George Sotiropoulos
6. Tyson Griffin
7. Sean Sherk
8. Joe Stevenson
9. Terry Etim
10. Clay Guida

Make It Happen: Sotiropoulos vs. Sherk

UFC 111 will be held this Saturday (March 27) in Newark, and it's a huge card. St-Pierre (-800) defends his welterweight title against brash British striker Dan Hardy (+500). GSP has run through all top contenders, including convincing wins over Fitch and Alves, who will rematch each other after clearing out everyone in the division who's not St-Pierre. The winner of that fight is pretty clearly the second-best welterweight on the planet, unless Hardy somehow upsets GSP. I'm leaning towards Fitch, though I could change my mind before Saturday.

The third really big fight is the Interim Heavyweight Title match between Mir (-160) and Carwin (+130). It's a big step up in competition for the 11-0 Carwin, who hasn't fought in more than a year. The fight will also tell us a lot about Mir and his quest for revenge on Brock Lesnar. Carwin, like Lesnar, is a huge heavyweight with a strong wrestling background. If Mir beats Carwin, he will have earned a rubber match with Brock.

The other fight I'm really interested in is the Spike TV not-quite-undercard bout between Ricardo Almeida (-155) and fast-rising Matt Brown (+125), who is on a three-fight win streak. Brown looked one-dimensional on The Ultimate Fighter, but he's 4-1 in the UFC, with all his wins by stoppage and the loss by split decision. If he tops Almeida, I think we need to start viewing Brown as a serious presence in the UFC Welterweight Division. I'll roll the dice and go with Brown, whom I've already underestimated too many times. At some point, a rematch between Amir Sadollah and Brown might be interesting.

Dream.13

Twelve random thoughts on Dream.13, which aired at 3:00 AM Eastern on Monday morning:

1. Way too much of the broadcast was devoted to time other than the actual matches. Why are you running commercials for your own event? I'm already watching.

2. Dream wisely employs Lenne Hardt, better known as Crazy PRIDE Lady, to handle its English introductions. Really, you could tune in just for her.

3. Frank Trigg talks too fast. Brother, I've been speaking English my whole life, and I can't understand you. Slow down.

4. The first half of the card was great. The second half was dull.

5. There's a certain charm in the freakshow fights that you often see in Japanese promotions. Quick, talented Ikuhisa Minowa beat big, powerful Jimmy Ambriz, who outweighs him by 100 pounds, with a toe-hold in the second round.

6. Ambriz exceeded expectations, and hurt Minowaman before the submission. Here's hoping Minowa doesn't follow in the steps of Kazushi Sakuraba by making a habit of taking damage before pulling off his subs.

7. The second round of Ryo Chonan vs. Andrews Nakahara was the best round of the night in either event. If you missed this card and only watch one fight, make it this one.

8. KJ Noons vs. Andre Amade was a disgrace. Both men came in overweight, and nothing happened in the fight because Amade kept backing away. I half expected to see Noons doing the Rockhammer in the last minute, when Amade refused to engage.

9. It was a less-than-triumphant return to MMA for Noons, who in November 2007 defeated Nick Diaz for the Elite XC lightweight title. The boring fight wasn't Noons' fault, but it told us much more about Amade than Noons. This fight didn't prove anything except that Amade is afraid to get hit.

10. I believe MMA promotions will eventually start including a contract clause that prevents guys like Amade from showing up and collecting a paycheck without actually doing any fighting (see also Houston Alexander vs. Kimbo Slice).

11. Josh Barnett unleashed what appears to have been the most lethal groin shot in recent MMA history. It was accidental, but the ensuing fight stoppage was so drawn out, it made the Noons/Amade fight seem interesting. Let's stick to a five-minute recovery rule in the future, please. At a certain point — hopefully five minutes — you should just call it a No Contest.

12. Unimpressive fights from both Bibiano Fernandes and Joachim Hansen. Fernandes is supposed to be a great grappler, but he couldn't hold Hansen down and never established dominant position or threatened with a submission. Hansen is supposed to be a great striker, but he never hurt Fernandes and didn't press the action standing. Here's hoping Bibi's presumed rematch with Hiroyuki Takaya has a little more fight to it.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:19 AM | Comments (1)

March 22, 2010

Recovering From a Busted Bracket

Of all the ways I've tried to sum up the experience of the first weekend of the 2010 NCAA tournament, perhaps these two simple words do it the most justice:

Bloody hell.

Needless to say, I was one of the millions of poor saps who put our trust in Bill Self, Sherron Collins, and Cole Aldrich to lead the top overall team in the country, the Kansas Jayhawks, to the promised land. Little did anybody expect that Northern Iowa, an under-seeded nine seed if ever there was one, would pull a monumental upset punctuated by the biggest "Don't shoot it! Don't shoot it! Don't shoot it! Yes!" shot in recent tournament history by Panthers guard Ali Farokhmanesh.

Others had their brackets broken by Saint Mary's deconstruction of Villanova, or Xavier's defeat of Pittsburgh, or Georgetown's loss to Ohio. Or, for a few especially unlucky few, all of the above combined.

Siena was supposed to wax short-handed Purdue. Didn't happen.

The enigmatic Pac-10 representatives, California and Washington, were supposed to fold. Cal beat Louisville before falling to Duke, while Washington beat Marquette and New Mexico to advance to their first Sweet 16 since 2005.

Tennessee was a popular pick to fall to San Diego State. Instead, they'll be taking on Ohio State in St. Louis Friday night in the slot that was supposed to be reserved for Georgetown.

And oh, those Cornell Big Red. It wasn't inconceivable that Cornell would be the Ivy League's first entry to the Sweet 16 in 31 years, but out-classing Temple and Wisconsin by a combined 31 points? Not even The Nard Dog would have put his money on that.

So what now? I'm sure some of you all saw this coming. You saw the 48 buzzer-beaters coming. You saw the potential Cornell/Washington Elite Eight coming. You knew Duke, the "over-rated" one seed, would look as good as anybody in college basketball right now.

But what about the rest of us? Our brackets are in tatters and it's still three weeks before April and baseball finally wipe clear the scars of this year's madness. What about us?

Here are five things to help you move on from your shattered bracket and get you back in the groove of things:

1. Give thanks. It took me the better part of Saturday afternoon (when I realized I was screwed) until mid-day Sunday to get over my grief and realize that though very little good had happened since I started the tournament 7-0, I had still been witness to an amazing weekend of basketball. The buzzer-beaters. The overtimes. The incredible performances by Jimmer Fredette, Jacob Pullen, Jordan Crawford, Omar Samhan and the Aussie Bunch, and Shelvin Mack. It really was an incredible weekend.

2. Look forward to more. I still have an outside shot at my bracket, and I absolutely have to have Kentucky reach the finals, but yet I find myself absolutely giddy at the prospect of a Cornell upset of the Wildcats on Thursday night in New York. Cornell/Kentucky is such an incredible clash of styles, it's almost like you took a modern-day AAU team back in time 60 years. If you can't get excited for that matchup, you just don't like basketball.

Watch out for the Xavier/Kansas State game, as well. It will play opposite Kentucky/Cornell, so it's a clear second billing that night, but both squads have looked great through the first two rounds. This could surprise as the game of the round.

3. Don't forget to look back on the good times. This especially goes for Kansas and Villanova fans who have said goodbye to Collins and Scottie Reynolds, respectively, for the last time. Collins has been nothing short of spectacular in his Jayhawks career, winning everything there was to win and going down as perhaps one of the 5-10 greatest KU players of all-time. Reynolds had a horrific 2010 tournament, but who can forget his heroics in taking Jay Wright's team to the Final Four in 2009? Things ended badly for both players this weekend, but that shouldn't at all diminish the great contributions they made to their schools and college basketball in general over the course of the careers.

There were too many great seniors who met the end of the line this weekend to list them all, but a few others who come to mind: Notre Dame's Luke Harangody, Vanderbilt's Jermaine Beal, Marquette's Lazar Hayward, Richmond's David Gonzalvez, Gonzaga's Matt Bouldin, Maryland's Greivis Vasquez, Wisconsin's Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon, Texas A&M's Donald Sloan, Louisville's Edgar Sosa, Houston's Aubrey "Nobody Remembers I Stomped on Chase Budinger's face" Coleman, and California's nucleus of Jerome Randle, Patrick Christopher, Theo Robertson, and Jamal Boykin. (For those I missed, feel free to recognize them in the comments section. No offense intended.)

The extra brutal part is that for Beal, Hayward, Vasquez, and Sloan, the end came on a buzzer beater by the other team. One second, you're a college star; the next, it's all over. That's got to just tear your guts out.

Odd note: Speaking of Reynolds, it may seem like forever ago that Kelvin Sampson slinked away from college hoops, but consider the ripple effects of his exits from Indiana and Oklahoma: Xavier's Crawford and Terrell Holloway, Ohio's Armon Bassett (32 in their upset of Georgetown) and West Virginia's Devin Ebanks should have been the foundation of this year's Hoosiers (sorry, IU fans), and Reynolds would be wrapping up his career with the Sooners right now if Sampson hadn't bolted Norman under a cloud. So while the memory of Sampson's controversial ending may have faded, recognize that this year's tournament still bears the far-ranging results of his malfeasance.

4. Look forward to next year. Fredette and the Cougars should be back. Depending on whether Crawford decides to take a shot at the NBA, Xavier could return virtually its entire team. Missouri will return a nice nucleus. Pittsburgh will be strong. Butler will be a force, especially if Gordon Hayward comes back for his junior season. Villanova will re-load.

And then there are the teams from outside this year's field of 65. You have to figure UCLA, North Carolina, Arizona, and Connecticut will find their way back into the madness. Memphis has a huge recruiting class coming in. And then there are all the guys like Northern Iowa's Farokhmanesh, who most of the country won't know right up until the point he's tearing up their brackets for them.

5. Get ready for baseball. I know I'm co-mingling the sports here, and there are a lot of basketball fans who couldn't give two hoots about baseball. But I love it, and I can't wait. The Cardinals are going to be stout. The Cubs are going to suck. And while the Red Sox and Yankees are fighting their annual battle to see who can be less likable, the Angels will remain the class of the AL West over Seattle and represent the AL in the World Series, losing to St. Louis in six.

Let's just hope that prediction goes a little bit better than my bracket.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

Why March Madness is Overrated

Every time I hear someone say that the first week of the NCAA tournament is the best week of the year in all of sports, I can't help but channel my inner Larry David: I squint my eyes at them, I try to get a read on them to see if they are lying to me, and eventually I just let out a long, exaggerated "ohh-kay" and end the conversation.

Not only do I not believe that everyone loves March Madness, I'm not sold on the fact that they even believe it.

Honestly, if you were to ask someone in May or September or any other month besides March what their favorite time of year sporting-wise is, how many people answer March Madness?

More than likely, if you ask someone at any other time of the year they'll say, "the start of football season" or "the MLB playoffs" or even "the NBA playoffs."

That's because March Madness has no lasting effect on sports fans. It's instant gratification. No one remembers the NCAA tournament once it's over.

Don't believe me? Name the four No. 1 seeds from the 2009 tourney. Surely, those of you the love March Madness so much will be able to rattle off the best teams from last season.

Can you name them? Don't worry, I couldn't do it, either. For the record, it was North Carolina, UConn, Louisville, and Pittsburgh.

But that's okay; it's not all about the hype entering the tourney. After all, sometimes the powers that be get the seeding wrong. The best teams heading into the tournament don't always have the best tournaments. I get that, so maybe that's why we don't remember the No. 1 seeds.

So I'll make it easy: name the Final Four teams from last year.

Come on, really? You love the NCAA tournament, remember? Surely, you remember the best of the best of your favorite sporting event.

No? Okay, it was North Carolina, Villanova, UConn, and Michigan State.

So maybe you were busy last year and didn't catch as much of the tournament as you would have liked. But you still love the NCAA, so you probably remember 2008 like it was yesterday. So here's an easy one, who won the national championship in 2008?

Come on. Memphis missed a bunch of free throws. Justin Timberlake made a bunch of jokes about it at the ESPYs. You know this one.

All right, fine. I'll give it to you. It was Kansas.

Catch my drift here? There's a reason we don't remember the NCAA tournament: the actual basketball is terrible. The reason we don't remember who won what is because they don't do anything memorable from a basketball standpoint.

Northern Iowa's win over top-seeded Kansas on Saturday proves my point perfectly. Late in the second half, Northern Iowa, with the game on the line, turned the ball over before crossing half-court on four consecutive possessions. And they won the game. Against the alleged "best" team in the country.

Okay, so here's where you make the argument that the upsets are the best part of the tournament.

(This is the part when I give you another prolonged Larry David stare.)

Really? The upsets are the best part? In what way?

Let's take a closer look at this side of the argument. What exactly is the best part of the upset victory?

In the past 10 years, double-digit seeds that advance to the Sweet 16 average losing in the round of 16 by 8 points per game.

You can argue that upsets are what makes the tournament great all you want, but the fact is more often than not, it has the reverse effect. It doesn't make the tournament great; it makes the sweet 16, the round when the action is supposed to pick up, less competitive.

For every George Mason that advances past the round of 16, there are several examples of teams that are completely outclassed and dominated in the Sweet 16. There's nothing exciting about a flash in the pan that can't catch lightning in a bottle two weekends in a row.

Then there's the less talked about, but more important pitfall of early round upsets: bracket busters. Try making the "everyone loves a good upset" argument to one of the 42.9% of people that lost out on a chance for a $500+ payday because Kansas lost a game that they would normally win 19 out of 20 times.

I'm not saying that the NCAA tournament isn't fun. I watched a good several hours of the tourney over the past four days, and enjoyed it for the most part. There were some good, competitive games. Some of the finishes were exciting as hell.

But like I said before, it was instant gratification. A year from now, six months from now, or even next week, I'm not going to remember who beat who. I'm not going to remember where I was the day Michigan State beat Maryland on a last-second three-pointer.

And chances are you won't, either.

The NCAA tournament is nothing more than a way to kill time on a weekday afternoon. It provides an excuse to make small talk at the water cooler for a day or two at work. It's a reason to gamble. But in the sports world, it is not historically relevant.

And because of that, for those of you that get overly excited about those "crazy" 5-12 games that you'll have forgotten by Memorial Day, I have one more piece of Larry David advice for you: curb your enthusiasm.

Save it for the sporting events that are about to happen that people actually remember.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:11 AM | Comments (5)

March 20, 2010

Top Contenders For the 2010 World Series

Unless you are in the sports betting industry, or are rooting for a particular team, the average person does not care who goes to or wins the World Series. However, I like to know who has the best shot at winning the World Series before the season starts. For some reason, it makes the season a bit more interesting.

One thing to keep in mind is that the teams that I predict to contend for the World Series may not be the teams that the odds makers in Vegas have chosen, in fact, I do not care who they picked. My predictions are based on a team's offseason moves, injuries, and lineups.

New York Yankees

The Good — The Yankees may have lost the aging Johnny Damon, injury-riddled Hideki Matsui, and underperforming Melky Cabrera, but they gained more than they lost. The Yankees acquired SP Javier Vazquez from the Braves, OF Curtis Granderson from the Tigers, and Nick Johnson from the Marlins.

Vazquez finished the 2009 season with a 15-10 record with a 2.87 ERA and 238 strikeouts. While a regression is possible as he moves to the tough AL East, he is a major improvement over Joba Chamberlain, who may not even make the rotation this season.

Curtis Granderson was with the Tigers last season, and while he had a solid season, his .249 average left something to be desired. However, in relation to Melky Cabrera, Granderson has the ability to hit more home runs and add a decent stolen base total.

Nick Johnson returns to the Yankees, where he played from 2001-2003. Like Hideki Matsui, Nick Johnson is an injury concern, but he will be a solid source of power at the designated hitter position.

The Bad — While there are not many negatives facing the Yankees this season, their most glaring weakness is at the fifth spot in their rotation. Currently, the battle for the final coveted starting spot is down to Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Alfredo Aceves.

While the stats may say otherwise, I do not like any of these pitching options this season. All three are bullpen pitchers, but if I had to pick one, which the Yankees will have to do, it would be Aceves. While he does not have a lot of experience in a rotation, he has the most upside.

The Bottom Line — The Yankees have a solid mix of talent consisting of both young and old players. While their lineup has changed, their style and talent level has not. Out of the other 28 MLB teams, the Yankees have the best shot at another title in 2010.

In closing, here is a final tidbit of information for all of you superstitious type people. In 2009, manager Joe Girardi wore the No. 27 and it just so happened that the Yankees won their 27th World Series championship. As a result, Girardi has decided to wear the No. 28 this season with the hope of winning their 28th World Series championship.

Philadelphia Phillies

The Good — In an eight-player trade with Toronto, the Phillies got Roy Halladay for Cliff Lee. Based on their 2009 stats, this was a fair trade based on the 2009 stats of both pitchers. However, Halladay comes in to Philadelphia with more upside. What you have to remember is that Halladay pitched for a weak Blue Jays team. Imagine what he can do now that he has a solid offensive supporting cast.

The Phillies have also upgraded at 3B when they released Pedro Feliz and signed Placido Polanco. While Polanco is not much of an upgrade on the offensive side, but he is a solid upgrade on the defensive side. During the 2009 season, Polanco boasted a .997 fielding percentage and committed only 2 errors, compared to Feliz, who had a .966 fielding percentage and committed 15 errors.

The Bad — The Phillies biggest concern is their closer, Brad Lidge who had a horrible 2009 season. While he finished the season with 31 saves, his other stats tell the real story. Lidge ended 2009 with a 7.21 ERA, 1.81 WHIP, and 11 blown saves. When he is healthy and on his game, he can be a dominant closer, but he has a lot to prove in 2010. If he cannot start the season off strong, Ryan Madson will be in the 'pen waiting for his opportunity.

The Bottom Line — The Phillies have won consecutive NL pennants and will start the 2010 season with a team that is slightly better than they were in 2009. If their lineup can meet or exceed last season's stat line, they have a chance at making a third trip to the World Series.

Boston Red Sox

The Good — Jason Bay was the only key player that the Red Sox lost during the offseason, but like the Yankees, they more than made up for it with key offseason acquisitions. The players that were signed during the offseason that will make an immediate impact defensively are John Lackey, Mike Cameron, Marco Scutaro, and Adrian Beltre.

While I will not go into detail about what each player brings to the team, they were able to upgrade at SS (Scutaro), 3B (Beltre), and pitching (Lackey). The Red Sox will see a slight downgrade in the OF with Cameron replacing Bay, but they should make up for it at other positions.

The Bad — Currently, Daisuke Matsuzaka is set to start the season on the DL and the ageless Tim Wakefield will fill the spot. When he is healthy, Matsuzaka can be a dominant pitcher. The key word here is "if," as he was injured for the better part of the 2009 season and he cannot seem to stay healthy during spring training. While Wakefield will be a decent option until Matsuzaka returns, Wakefield is not getting any younger and the Red Sox need a healthy Matsuzaka for their run to the World Series.

Another concern for the Red Sox going into the 2010 season is their potential lack of a 30 HR and 100 RBI bat in their lineup. In fact, it has been 11 years since a team has won the World Series without a 30/100 hitter, but the Red Sox have the ability to break that streak this season.

The Bottom Line — While the lack of a top hitter and uncertainty at the bottom of their rotation may be a concern, the Red Sox have improved overall as a team and if their rotation can meet their lofty expectations, they will be a force to be reckoned with this season, with a trip to the World Series a possibility.

Seattle Mariners

The Good — The Mariners finished with a decent win/loss record in 2009, but finished at the bottom of the AL in the following key categories, runs, hits, BB, OBP, and OPS. As a result, GM Jack Zduriencik made numerous key acquisitions (Chone Figgins, Milton Bradley, Casey Kotchman), which will allow the Mariners to improve their offensive stats. While they are not a power team, they now have the players in place that will allow them to increase their OBP, which will in turn increase their chances for runs.

Another key acquisition was the trade, which brought Cliff Lee to Seattle. Normally, teams will be fortunate enough to have one ace in their starting rotation. The Mariners, on the other hand, will start the season with two aces in their rotation, Cliff Lee (traded from Philadelphia) and Felix Hernandez.

Hernandez was the rotation last season, as he did not get much help from the other four pitchers. He was second in Cy Young voting and finished with a 19-5 record, 2.49 ERA, and 217 strikeouts. Lee's season was split between Cleveland and Philadelphia, which accounts for his subpar 14-14 season. Keep in mind that Lee is just one season removed from his 2008 Cy Young award and 22-3 record, so a rebound is in order.

The Bad — Last season, Felix Hernandez was the lifeline of the Mariners' rotation. While Hernandez finished with a 19-5 record, the rest of the rotation ended the season with a combined 23-15 record. Something is terribly wrong with this picture and if they are to have a chance at making it to the World Series, they will need to tighten up their rotation.

While Cliff Lee will certainly help, Ian Snell, Doug Fister, and Ryan Rowland-Smith will need to step up their game. On a more positive note, these three pitchers are in the rotation for a reason; they have proved to be serviceable SP options. We just need to see if for ourselves.

The Bottom Line — The Mariners have improved their offense by a big margin and with the addition of Cliff Lee, their rotation is looking better. However, in order to have postseason aspirations, the bottom third of their rotation must come ready to pitch.

So, what's next? Sit back, relax, and enjoy the long and arduous 162-game MLB season. Be sure and check back here in late October as I fully expect two of these teams to be playing in the Word Series ... just wait and see.

Posted by Roy Daniel at 11:50 AM | Comments (5)

Who's Hot and Cold in Big Ten Expansion Talk

Need a little help figuring out why Rutgers is the new "flavor of the month" in the Big Ten Expansion pool or why Texas suddenly "jumped the shark?" Why is the Association of American Universities suddenly hot? Is Notre Dame hot or cold this week? A look at who's hot and who's cold will help anyone trying to get through the chatter of what the Chicago Tribune has reported Big Ten Commissioner saying is now "a silent phase" of Big Ten expansion.

Hot: William Blair Company — Why is an investment firm hot? The Chicago Tribune recently reported that this investment firm evaluated five schools: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Missouri, Syracuse, and Rutgers for the purpose of Big Ten expansion. Hiring an investment firm implies the Big Ten means business. It could also mean that later down the line if the Big Ten makes a mistake, it has someone to blame outside of its member schools. A scapegoat could really help the ACC explain how Boston College is a good fit for its conference right about now.

Hot: Conference Championship Game For Football — Two divisions of six and one December game generally means millions of dollars for member schools. It also means an expansion of the season so a conference can remain in the national spotlight longer. Reports indicate conference championship games often bring in $12 million of additional revenue, which for the Big Ten equates to roughly $1 million per school.

Cold: Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Berths — Without a conference championship game, the Big Ten has the most BCS berths at 21 and second most BCS wins with 10. The SEC has 19 (most wins with 14) and the Big 12 has 17 (7 wins). What does a football championship game give a conference? A second place team, no ties atop the standings, and for some a clearer path to the Capital One Bowl.

The official BCS website reports the Big Ten received $22.2 million from having two teams in the BCS. The likelihood of getting two teams in the BCS every year decreases with a conference championship game. Losing $11 million in BCS money for $12 million of conference championship money seems like a fair trade-off. Of course, with two BCS berths and a conference championship, the potential to have it all exists. Is the potential swap of a BCS berth for December spotlight worth the risk?

Hot: Rutgers — Maybe a better gauge of temperature is"'Scarlet Hot." The Scarlet Knights appear to be the alpha dog in this race today. The combination of their academic reputation and television markets of New York and Philadelphia may prove too much for the Big Ten to resist.

Everyone remembers that one time the Rutgers football team earned an 8.1 rating while on ESPN. That night made everyone forget about the years and years of football futility for the state university of New Jersey. So what if there is preponderance of evidence that New Yorkers don't care much for college football or Rutgers. Rutgers football earned an 8.1 rating and that means it could happen again. Just make sure when the Big Red R joins the Big Ten that it wins all of its games every year. An undefeated Rutgers will surely draw that 8.1 rating again and again and again.

Cold: $20 million — How is $20 million cold? This is the amount Big Ten teams reportedly take home right now. Big Ten schools want to make sure that their $20 million dollars is kept safe regardless of which team gets to play football and other sports with them. They want an increase in their take home pay, not a decrease. In other words, The Big Ten can give an institution $20 million reasons to want to join, but Big Ten schools can give $20 million reasons some schools aren't worthy. After all, nobody likes to take a pay-cut and self-perseverance can make any hot deal a cold one in a hurry.

Hot: $5 million — Sources are being quoted as saying there will be an entry fee to any school wanting to join the Big Ten, a hefty $5 million. The Associated Press reports Wisconsin Athletic director Barry Alvarez as saying: "I think someone has to buy their way into the league." After dividing the entry fee by the current 11 teams, there is roughly $454,000 per school. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to get a couple more teams bowl-eligible and split those payouts? Suddenly, scheduling Little Sisters of the Poor for those four non-conference football games isn't such a bad idea.

Cold: Texas — The Big 12 takes television revenue and splits it into two buckets. The first bucket is split between member teams equally. The second bucket is split by how many times each team is on television. The more you are on television, the more money you get. Suddenly, the Big Ten Network doesn't look that great for BCS runner-up Texas.

Hot: Missouri — The Big 12 television revenue split (see Texas) isn't so great for Missouri. What is good Big 12 business for Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska doesn't trickle down to Missouri, Baylor, or Iowa State. I guess Missouri quarterback Chase Daniels' departure and those national television appearances he took with him was a little more devastating than earlier reported.

Hot: Association of American Universities (AAU) — All Big Ten universities belong to this group which calls itself calls itself "an association of 62 leading research universities in the United States and Canada." Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Missouri are all members. Notre Dame isn't a member of the AAU. If membership to this group is paramount to a team joining the Big Ten, then suddenly AAU members Rice, McGill University, Tulane, and Vanderbilt are on the Big Ten's radar. Wait, maybe academics isn't as important as the Big Ten says.

Hot: University of Chicago — If academics are important to this expansion, then take a look at another academic group all Big Ten schools belong to: the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). The only member of this group not currently in the Big Ten is the University of Chicago. The CIC website explains the CIC this way: "for half a century, these 12 world-class research institutions have advanced their academic missions, generated unique opportunities for students and faculty, and served the common good by sharing expertise, leveraging campus resources, and collaborating on innovative programs."

The University of Chicago Maroons recently announced an expanded football schedule of ten games for the 2010 season. If academics are important to this merger, they may have to move their University Athletic Association games to the side, which means out goes Case Western Reserve and here comes Wisconsin! It will be a jump for the NCAA Division 3 Maroons, but finding a school that shares its passion for academics is important to the Big Ten, right? Well, maybe the University of Chicago isn't so "hot" after all.

Hot: Pittsburgh and its Rivalry With Penn State University (PSU) — Pittsburgh is supposedly a long-time rival of the Big Ten's Penn State. The red-hot football rivalry of Pitt vs. PSU hasn't been played since 2000. Each of these teams gets four non-conference games, right? Maybe this rivalry's whole future is dependent on Big Ten expansion. Can anyone imagine Notre Dame and the University of Southern California going dormant for the same amount of time?

Hot: Syracuse — As for Syracuse, they could certainly enhance the Big Ten with the Carrier Dome. After all, the University of Minnesota has left the Metrodome and the Big Ten will need a dome for one of its teams to call home.

Cold: Nebraska — The Big Ten Network doesn't see a whole lot of opportunity in Lincoln Nebraska. Of course, as Nebraska again ascends nationally in college football and becomes a household name once more, that whole "Lincoln is too small" thing may bite the Big Ten network in the old you know what.

Hot and Cold: Travel — The Big Ten has acknowledged travel as a consideration in this process. The Big Ten has said it is important to find a school where travel won't be an in issue, especially with regards to sports other than basketball and football. This makes travel "hot."

But since the Big Ten is apparently considering Syracuse and Rutgers, maybe travel is "cold." The Iowa to Syracuse trip or Wisconsin to Rutgers travel junket could prove to be daunting and expensive for the gymnastics and wrestling teams. If travel is a consideration to any of the teams outside of football or basketball, then shouldn't the Big Ten look at expanding to a Mid-American Conference school like Miami of Ohio?

Hot and Cold: Notre Dame — The only person who knows what Notre Dame will do is Touchdown Jesus and he isn't talking. With regards to geography, money, academics, and tradition Notre Dame seems like a natural fit. The school is in the heart of Big Ten country, is known nationally, would bring a lot of money to the conference, is sound academically, and has a long history. Notre Dame is the perfect fit for the Big Ten!

The flip side is obvious, of course. Notre Dame's geography is national and not limited to Big Ten country, as it can command a national contract from NBC. Notre Dame makes a lot of money on its own, is not a research institution like the Big Ten universities, and didn't establish its history by being a conference champion.

Notre Dame is both the long-shot and favorite in the Big Ten expansion pool and it appears as though they are loving every minute of it.

Hot: The BCS — The BCS rewards six conferences for being "power conferences." Big Ten expansion could lead to Pac Ten expansion, Big 12 expansion etc. etc. The six "power conferences" could quickly become the only six conferences. Oh no, the BCS is suddenly foreshadowing college expansion. Who knew the BCS would gently guide college sports into the future?

Cold: Expanding the Recruiting Base — Most of the Big Ten powerhouses are recruiting nationally now. Are there a lot of five-star recruits out there who don't know about Ohio State football or Michigan State basketball these days? By extension, these recruits must realize that letters of intent for these schools means trips to other Big Ten schools. Besides, aren't the most fertile recruiting states Florida, Texas, and California anyway? If expansion of the recruiting base is what the Big Ten wants, it should take a look at UCLA, the University of Florida, and the University of Texas. Wait, that Texas thing didn't work out as planned.

The bottom line is the Big Ten may or may not expand. Big Ten expansion is everything and nothing all at the same time. For a "silent phase," the volume of debate is at a fever pitch.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 10:15 AM | Comments (20)

March 19, 2010

Sports Q&A: Ochocinco: Alternate Reality Star

Cincinnati Benglas wide receiver Chad Ochocinco will be a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars" when the hit ABC shows hits the airwaves for season 10 on March 22nd. Is this another indication that Ochocinco's relevance is defined more by his media presence than by his football skills? And how would he fare on other famous reality shows?

Even on the football field, Ochocinco's relevance is defined more by his media reach that his abilities as an NFL wide receiver. So the last thing we should do is criticize Ochocinco for appearing on Dancing With the Stars. We should applaud him — for continuing to search for the talent that he was meant to do with his life. Because it doesn't seem to be football.

And what better way to enhance your growing media presence than to appear on a network television show available to practically every household with a working television. Ochocinco is no fool; in this era of television, free-from bulky antennas, and aluminum foil-accessorized rabbit ears, viewers will be able to see the enigmatic Ochocinco in crystal-clear, high definition.

At this point, the digital age can give viewers what Ochocinco can't give the Bengals — better reception.

But that's not to knock Ochocinco's dancing skills. We've seen his celebratory touchdown dances on a number of occasions, and his footwork has been impeccable. "Dancing With the Stars" gives him the opportunity to dance free from the prerequisite of having to score a touchdown beforehand, which has often limited Ochocinco's routines.

On DWTS, all you need is a fancy outfit and a neurotic addiction to publicity and you're all set. Heck, Ochocinco might get the chance to duplicate his most famous dance step from the field, "The Riverdance," on the dance floor. If that happens, viewers could be witness to an entertaining spectacle, when a flaming, aristocratic British judge tells Ochocinco that the "Irish jig is up."

This is surely just the beginning of Ochocinco's new obsession — reality shows. What would happen if Ochocinco appeared in some of TV's greatest reality shows, past and present?

Celebrity Apprentice — Can Ochocinco butt heads and kiss ass with the best of them? Just ask Cincy head coach Marvin Lewis. But Donald Trump won't be so accommodating. When Ochocinco, donning a sombrero and a poncho labeled "Hall of Fame," appears before Trump for a presentation on a new gold-plated bathroom basin called the "Ochosink-o," Trump sends him packing on the spot. Ochocinco seems indifferent, and later admits that hearing "You're fired!" matters as much to him as hearing "You're fined!"

Celebrity Rehab — Amongst a cast of celebrity washouts from the music, film, television, and obscure pageant industries, Dr. Drew Pinsky finally gets to treat a real star. Ochocinco, in for a Twitter addiction, initially resists Pinsky's methods, which include an absolute abstinence to Internet usage. Pinsky forces Ochocinco to communicate in writing, in cursive, in ink, and demands his communiqués contain at least 1,140 characters, well above Twitter's 140-character limit.

Motivated and cured, Ochocinco pens his autobiography in three weeks, but the 45-page manuscript is rejected by all major publishing houses.

Pros Versus Joes — Ochocinco and teammate Carson Palmer make an appearance on Spike TV's reality game show pitting real professional athletes against amateur counterparts. A confusing, yet hilarious chain of events follows, when Ochocinco and Palmer unexpectedly meet at the entrance to the "Joes" locker room, each expecting the other to be dressing there.

Survivor: Revis Island — Placed on an island and handcuffed to New York Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis, Ochocinco is charged with the task of freeing himself and leaving the island. He fails, and his fellow contestants vote him off the island, and vote Revis to the Pro Bowl.

The Dog Whisperer — Ochocinco finds himself at the mercy of canine task-master Cesar Millan, who unleashes a torrent of simple yet effective exercises aimed at controlling Ochocinco's urge to mark territory with mindless chatter and images. Pleased with Ochocinco's progress, Milan sends him on his way, telling the humbled Bengals star that he came here "a media hound," but he left "with his bark now no more than a whisper, dawg."

Operation Repo — Fulfilling a lifelong dream, Ochocinco's gets to ride along with Luis Pizarro and company on a series of staged and scripted repossessions in this TruTV show that completely takes the "real" out of "reality."

The good times go awry when Ochocinco's 2010 black Lexus is targeted for repossession. Before he knows what's happening, Ochocinco is scuffling with Repo's overall-wearing tough guy Matt, and starring in an episode of Punk'd.

The Osbourne's — Is it possible to add more dysfunction to the Osbourne household? You bet.

Ochocinco promises Ozzy that he'll change his name to "Mr. Crowley" if Ozzy completes a dare of snorting a line of ants and then biting the head off a dove. Ozzy easily completes the tasks, stunning Ochocinco, who refuses to change his name. Miffed, Ozzy's wife Sharon kicks Ochocinco out of the house, telling him "America may have talent, but you don't."

Before exiting, Ochocinco propositions the Prince of Darkness' daughter, Kelly, asking if she really wants to experience the real "dark side," to give him a call.

Celebratory Fit Club — In a new twist, Ochocinco plays host on this show, guiding a group of celebration-challenged footballers, including Andre Johnson of the Houston Texans and New England's Wes Welker, through a two-week course aimed at adding some attitude and swagger to their touchdown routines. Special guests Butch Johnson, Billy "White Shoes" Johnson, and Andre Rison provide personalized lessons and interesting anecdotes on the good old days, when celebration were unregulated.

Welker wins the contest with a Randy Moss/Michael Jackson-inspired routine called the "Moon Walk," one Joe Buck surprisingly labels as "inspiring and creative, and not at all disgusting, like when a black receiver does it."

I Love Attention — In this spinoff of VH1's I Love Money, it's Ochocinco versus Paris Hilton in a test of will, patience, and adaptability. The two switch places, with Hilton assuming the role of NFL football player, while Ochocinco takes on the daily life of a camera-hogging, quasi-celebrity/socialite/media whore, a role he embraces with aplomb.

The show takes a particularly entertaining turn in Episode 4, titled "Film Day," when Hilton watches game film in the dark, while Ochocinco enjoys footage of Hilton filmed in the dark.

However, Hilton is later kicked off the show when she arrives at practice in her bra and panties, totally misunderstanding the concept of a "seven-man drill."

Flavor of Marvin — This show never gets off the ground, as a casting call seeking people who have kissed Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis turns up only Ochocinco, and two women, one being Lewis' mother.

What Not to Wear — The premise for this show is simple, and rather boring, consisting solely of Ochocinco reading the NFL rulebook's chapter on uniform guidelines.

The O.C.: Ochocinco is stunned to realize that "O.C." doesn't stand for "Ochocinco." Instead of a reality show devoted only to him, he'll have to share the spotlight with a group of airheaded bimbos and their lame-brained suitors, a group Ochocinco likens to the participants in labor talks between the NFL Players Association and team owners.

Deadliest Catch — Ochocinco joins the crew of The Gift of Crab, an Alaska-based vessel roaming the Bering Sea in search of king crab. Then, amidst a brewing storm in the Bering Strait, Ochocinco and the other crew members engage in a round table discussion, drinking liquor while viewing and discussing the numerous bone-jarring hits Ochocinco has endured over the years from Ray Lewis on 6-to-10-yard crossing patterns.

Project Runway — Ochocinco hosts this Bravo show, in which eight aspiring fashion designers are given the difficult task of taking thousands of unsold "C. Johnson" Bengals jersey and making them marketable to the public. The winner's new design is praised for its simplicity, as the jersey are slightly altered to resemble those of the Tennessee Titans, and then sold as Chris Johnson jerseys.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:25 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2010

The Miracle on Ice, or the Miracle Game of Beer Pong

Everyone becomes a casual sports fan during the Olympics. The one thing that I heard more than anything from dumb people is that if the U.S. won the gold medal hockey game over Canada, it would've been just like the Miracle on Ice.

No. A thousand times over.

Of course, that being said, this country could use another Miracle on Ice. The 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team did more than win a medal. They inspired the entire country and also ended the Cold War. They pulled the country of our recession and helped decrease homelessness by 34 percent (according to Wikipedia, which is 100 percent accurate ... of course, I took that accuracy percentage from Wikipedia, also). So, while a U.S. win over Canada would not have done the trick, I agree with the general thinking that we need another Miracle on Ice.

Let's start with the recipe. We need to be the underdogs against an extremely talented team we're also in some sort of war with. The U.S. is currently in about a dozen wars, although most of them are on things like poverty and drugs, which can't field a hockey team. Although, that might work as an alternative. Watching our hockey team destroy a team of bumbling, drunk, homeless hockey players would surely raise our spirits considerably.

Realistically, the only foe that can come close to what we had with the Russians during that time would be the terrorists. So our Miracle on Ice will have to come at the hands of Al Qaeda. This presents a problem, because as far as I know, most of Al Qaeda lives in a spot of Planet Earth that doesn't have ice.

Al Qaeda claims to have sleeper cells throughout the country, but I can't imagine they would burn their cover just to perfect their power play. Just in case, keep an eye out at your local ice rinks for a bunch of people playing pickup hockey, wearing jerseys with "Terrorist" stitched on the back.

So, in order to get them up to speed, we're going to have to start a massive donation campaign to Al Qaeda. Now, I'm fairly certain this will pose a problem to any American who keeps an eye on the news once every decade or so. Yet, I'd like to hope we can work out some sort of gentlemanly agreement with Al Qaeda to ensure our donations go strictly to the production and maintenance of their new ice rinks and not to killing freedom-loving people.

I imagine it wouldn't be too long before Osama Bin-Laden would start releasing tapes where he's more concerned about hitting the post in a crucial game, not whining about infidels and stuff only he cares about.

"A quarter of an inch the other way, and it would've gone in," he'll say. Oh yeah, Osama? A quarter-inch the other way and it would've missed completely, asshole. Those who ignore the history of Gordon Bombay are doomed to repeat it.

Or, if we have to compromise, we can do that, too. I guess it doesn't have to be hockey. We can pick a sport the terrorists already play.

As far as I can discern, the closest thing they have to a sport is the one where they find women who read books and then stone them to death. However, on the off chance the President of the Olympics doesn't make that an official sport, we'll have to pick an existing sport that uses those same skills and get that qualified as an Olympic sport.

What's the one sport that combines throwing a small object and a distaste for women who read books? Beer pong! That's right, we will take on Al Qaeda in Olympic beer pong and after our inevitable victory, the terrorists will crumble away and the economy will heal itself like it's some sort of half-assed X-Men character. Then, after the war on terror is over and the economy is fixed, President Obama will spend the rest of his term(s) working on making beer pong America's newest past time.

We will have youth leagues and daily training of our most capable athletes. People everywhere will wear shirts that say "Never Forget" and have a ping-pong ball going into a single cup as a reminder of the day America saved its soul and its future at the same time, forcing our enemies to drink cups of contaminated Pabst Blue Ribbon and making freedom reign supreme for the next thousand years.

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2010

How "Winning Time" Stole My Heart

You may have noticed something on ESPN last Sunday night. Their "30 For 30" documentary series had returned for the first time in three months. This was a series that had once covered the devastating loss of Len Bias and the beginning of Muhammad Ali's debilitating disease setting in while Larry Holmes wailed away at him.

In other words, this space was generally reserved for very serious, heavy stuff. But within the first five minutes of the new episode, "Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. the New York Knicks," they were glorifying mere basketball games between the Knicks and Pacers, setting their highlights to pretentious choruses of sopranos.

And well they should be! Nothing in at least the past eight years in the NBA has made me feel as alive again as what was re-lived in that documentary.

Watching Dan Klores' brilliant and passionate documentary on Sunday night made me realize something I, a diehard Knicks fan like Mr. Klores himself, never thought possible. It made me type a line I never thought possible: I miss Reggie Miller.

Hang on for a second. Is that right? Have we gotten to that point of stagnation in today's NBA? Has the Knickerbockers franchise been drowning for that long now?

Well, yes and no. Don't get me wrong, there is as much talent and great, likable, fun-to-watch players in this league as there has ever been. I still love the playoffs every year. Yet is it wrong for me to say that there is not the fire and intensity and hostility over an 82-game schedule and playoffs as there once was?

Also, it's not so much that I miss Reggie per se. I miss the feel and landscape of the Knicks, as well as the game overall back in the mid-'90s when passions burned and fights between heated rivals were pretty much expected to happen in-game, every game. It seemed that in the '90s, every playoff series between the Knicks and Bulls, Knicks and Pacers, or Knicks and Heat came down to a final possession in a pivotal and often seventh game.

And while all three of those rivalries took on lives of their own, no one was more fun to hate than the grotesquely skinny shooting guard with the funny ears who deliberately kicked his leg out while shooting threes to draw cheap fouls. He was a mad scientist cheap shot artist who didn't fight fair. Not only that, he knew it and he loved every minute of it. Hollywood literally (remember Eddie?) couldn't create a better villain for the Knicks than Reggie.

That's not to say the '90s Knicks were choirboys. Most outside the region hated New York like we hated Reggie. They saw the Knicks as thugs who pounded their foes into submission through personal fouls of the unnecessary roughness type. Interestingly enough, Klores' piece shows just as much brawl footage of the Pacers as it did of the Knicks (and not necessarily against one another, either). Perhaps in the mid-'90s world of no-holds-barred defense, most teams simply had a good fight in them from time to time.

Conversely, I don't believe I will ever be so attached to the Knicks franchise as I did when they sported angry flattop Patrick Ewing, fireplug John Starks, and enforcer Charles Oakley, who never met a front row he didn't like. In later years, those around Ewing would be replaced by the silent sniper Allan Houston, a furious attacker of the hoop in Latrell Sprewell, a high-flyer in Marcus Camby, and a past-his-prime wily vet in Larry Johnson (whose Grandmama moniker now seemed appropriate). All these players had one thing in common: no championship rings. They always seemed to be on an epic quest to change that once and for all. And we were along for the ride.

In fairness, it warrants mentioning that the Pacers were also a team of very talented players also yearning maniacally for that one title ring that never came. Naturally, some brawls ensued and some head games were played, particularly at the two-guard position with Reggie and John.

The focus of Klores' piece was mostly on the first few games that made Reggie famous for tormenting the Knicks (why anyone hasn't made a Reggie-Torments-the-Knicks box-set of games for sale on DVD yet is anyone's guess; I can think of at least six games you could include), however, no significant moment from the 1993-95 Knicks/Pacers wars were missed. They did gloss over the epic Game 7 from the '94 Conference Finals awfully quickly, mostly because they made Reggie the main character of the piece rather than the foil. That Game 7 was Patrick Ewing's moment to shine, not Reggie's.

When they got to the '95 series, obviously they rehashed Miller's 8-in-8.9-seconds-heroics and the Knick breakdown of Game 1, en route to Indy going up 3-1 in the series. When they showed Ewing drain the game-winner in Game 5 of this series with their season on the line, I spontaneously pumped my fist twice even as I knew it would happen. It still meant that much to me.

What they did show perhaps too much of was the conclusion of Game 7 of the '95 series, in which Ewing's muffed finger roll at the horn was shown no less than five times (and that's being generous). Suddenly, I realized what a fool I was. I had been looking forward to this show all week. I had been mesmerized, captivated, and plugged in the whole time. Now I was trying to figure out what was wrong with my stomach, even though I knew all along that this play was coming, as well, and had seen clips of it countless times.

What disappointed me next was the fact that Klores covered the first trilogy of Knicks/Pacers so well and barely touched on the second trilogy from 1998-2000, from which many more adventures are to be told that belong there just as much. Quick review of those series:

1998

Indiana was clearly the better team, the Knicks were a seventh seed. Patrick Ewing was rehabbing from a season-long wrist injury, he returned in Game 2, but weakly. Indy won the first two at home and the Knicks prevailed in Ewing's triumphant first home game since the injury, setting up Game 4 as the Knicks aimed to tie the series. In the game's final seconds, the Knicks led by three, and yet a broken play off a missed layup led to, yes, a wide-open Miller for three in the corner. The silent Garden knew the dagger was good before Reggie even lined it up. The Pacers bludgeoned the Knicks in overtime to go up three games to one and would claim the series easily on their home floor in Game 5. Reggie had done it again.

1999

The eight-seed Knicks stunned the heavily-favored Pacers in a close Game 1 in Indiana. Game 2 saw the Pacers get a shaky foul call to get Reggie Miller the two winning free throws with 2 seconds left. Yet Ewing got a gorgeous length-of-the-court pass from Charlie Ward only to see his foul line jumper clank at the horn. Reggie ended his post-game press conference as he saw Ewing coming up to speak next. His final words were "As long as you make the last one, that's all that matters. Right, Pat?" Ewing would be out with a torn Achilles the rest of the series.

Game 3 was the famous (or infamous) Larry Johnson four-point play that defined the series and had Indy fans and players claiming bogus call and conspiracy (maybe they were right, ask Tim Donaghy). Reggie torched the Knicks for 30 in Game 4 to tie the series. L.J. answered in Game 5 with threes on back-to-back possessions to put another game in Indiana out of reach. In Game 6 at the Garden, Allan Houston personally crushed Miller with 32 points to land the improbable eighth-seeded Knicks into the NBA Finals. Reggie had his worst series to date against the Knicks.

2000

With both teams on nearly equal footing this year, home court held serve until Game 6. There Reggie had one last Garden thrill. Just as many thought he was over the hill and could no longer carry a team, Miller stunned the crowd with 34 points, putting the Knicks to bed and giving the Pacers their one and only Finals berth in franchise history. This was the high point of Reggie's career, and Ewing's final game in blue and orange.

And that's just the cliff's notes versions. When all was said and done in this rivalry, the Knicks had won three series and the Pacers had won three series. The Knicks had reached two NBA Finals at Indiana's expense, the Pacers had reached one at New York's expense, with neither team winning any. Perhaps one day I will have to pick up the story where Klores left off.

Knicks fans have been clinging to this hope for several years now that we will win the great LeBron James sweepstakes of 2010 and turn the franchise around over the next few years. Yet even that may not be enough. After the way the '90s turned out for this team, and the way the 2000s distanced themselves from those glory days, it's quite possible that not even King James could ever make me care about any future Knick teams, or basketball in general, the way I did back when Reggie was breaking our hearts.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 1:55 PM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2010

NFL or Bust

As a high school athlete, Joshua "T-Boom" Johnson played quarterback and kicked a school-record 52-yard field goal. In college, he walked away from organized sports to pursue other things. Now, at age 38, he's training to make an NFL roster as a placekicker. Elite kickers like George Blanda and Morten Andersen have played well into their 40s, so becoming a rookie at 38 isn't as crazy as it might be for some other positions, but it's an uphill climb for any athlete. Joshua is chronicling his journey at NFLorBust.com. I spoke with Joshua by phone about his training and the NFL or Bust campaign.

Thanks for making time to speak with me. What is NFL or Bust about to you?

It's really about my full potential as an athlete and as a man. I've started analyzing my life, and what are my true abilities. Athleticism has always been a gift, and kicking has always been on my mind. At this time in my life, I resolved that I was going to go for it, I had to know that I have what it takes to be an elite athlete in life.

What inspired you to try to become the oldest rookie in league history?

Age really wasn't a factor. When I was in college at San Diego State, I was red-shirting. I wasn't really getting a shot, they had me at backup punter. Now the timing just seems right. Everybody's rallying behind me, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I would be the oldest in NFL history, I recently found that out. Seeing Brett Favre out there, Adam Vinatieri, I think there's another kicker who's 42, I think I could have a seven-year career. That's longer than most running backs.

How did people react when you told them you wanted to try out for an NFL roster at age 38?

A lot of my friends are athletes that I've played with over the years, and a lot of them were like, "What took you so long?" They never really doubted my abilities. With the people that know me best it was all about timing and not ability. For the people who don't know me, it's about the story. I've gotten that whole gamut of reactions, the naysayers going, "This guy's crazy, he's 38, no way," but really I've only heard one negative comment and it makes me even more motivated. The majority of the people are really supportive. I get messages from strangers on my Facebook page and Twitter account supporting me.

You were a placekicker in high school. When did you stop kicking?

I was a quarterback, and kicker and punter all through high school. When I got to San Diego, I red-shirted and walked on and I wasn't getting a shot at placekicker because they had a guy who was on scholarship. I'm an okay punter, but placekicking is really where my skill is. I got frustrated and started burning out on sports. I was interested in music and I wanted to pursue music as a hobby and I took music as a minor. I was pursuing music in life and wanted to move on and try other things.

Ever regret it? Have you always watched games and thought, "That could be me," or has that been more of a recent thing?

I've never regretted it, my dad was actually more upset than I was when I told him I wasn't going to continue. He was pretty bummed about it because he thought that I had a shot at the NFL, and parents want their kids to excel and be better than them. Over the years, I see these kickers melting down and missing 30-yarders and I can't fathom that. That actually happened at San Diego State, we lost by two points on national television, and our kicker missed three field goals in that game.

Last year in the NFL, it just seemed like so many guys were blowing these short kicks, like Nate Kaeding for the Chargers, that probably cost them a playoff win. Over the years it's kind of added up, that I have to try this, at least know one way or the other. I really started focusing on the mental aspect of kicking. All of these kickers in the NFL are capable of kicking 50- and maybe 60-yard field goals, but it comes down to the everyday kicks, can you always make the 30-yarders?

So there hasn't been a regret, just more adding up and being a fan of the game and thinking that I can do what these guys aren't doing.

I know it's a difficult subject, but you've indicated that the passing of your father is part of why you're doing this. What role has that played?

It's a motivation for me. I think when you do things for other people it becomes bigger and more meaningful. For me to say I want to be in the NFL, that's part of it, but it makes an extra motivation for me. If I'm tired and not feeling it that day, I'll think about my dad and it keeps me going. He was an inspiring guy for a lot of people, he was an elementary school principal. We both loved Porsches, and when I asked him, "Do you want to go to Germany, we'll drive on the Autobahn," he said, "I just want to say goodbye my to my friends." So we had this big party instead, and I just want to try to inspire others as he's inspired people in his life.

How is training going? What's your greatest on-field accomplishment since you started kicking again?

I've had so many cameras around me lately, and I was wondering how I was going to react to that. I've been welcoming it because of the pressure, I'm really proud of myself for how I've actually kicked in front of the cameras. I've kicked a couple of 50-yarders, and the other day my friend Rick said, "Josh, you make four 40-yarders in a row, I'll give you a c-note." And I did it, hit four in a row in front of the cameras and capped it off with a 50-yarder.

There's been quite a few [accomplishments] really, I'm really excited about it, I've stripped everything down and I'm taking two steps instead of the three that I took in high school, to get to the ball faster.

If you had to guess, what's your extra-point percentage right now?

That's gotta be 100%. I don't know how you miss something like that, you just gotta get your foot on the ball. I've been thinking back and I don't think I even missed any in high school. I mean, 20 yards, I'm not even really practicing those, maybe as no-step warmups just to swing my leg.

Some NFL teams use a kickoff specialist in addition to their regular field goal kicker. Would you like to do kickoffs, or mostly stick to field goals?

Yeah, I do want to do kickoffs, as well. I'm trying to bring the whole package to an NFL team. Kickoffs, field goals, backup punting ... I was also a quarterback in high school, and my accuracy is pretty good, so I bring that option for a trick play. I feel like I bring a package to the NFL. I bring creativity, leadership, obviously the physical ability as a kicker, maturity. I'm not some kid out of college with a seven-figure contract, I'm way more mature, and I have those leadership abilities from my time as a quarterback in high school.

If you do make a team, you'll be nearly a generation older than your fellow rookies. Do you think you might have trouble relating to athletes fresh out of college, or would you expect the chemistry to come pretty easily?

I think it'd come very easily. I have friends who are a lot of different ages, and one of my strengths as a person is my ability to relate to others. If you're in the NFL, you're an elite athlete, and you always have that common ground with your teammates. Something people need to understand about kickers, we're athletes and we're part of the team. The Raiders just re-signed Sebastian Janikowski for $16 million and the punter, Shane Lechler, as well. Kicking, special teams in general, is really on the minds of the NFL nowadays, you can't disregard it. I think relating to players of any age will be easy for me.

Is there any aspect of your game that you're worried about or see as a weakness? What would you most like to improve on right now?

The weakness I see myself having is my flexibility. I'm not as flexible as I used to be, my joints are older. Strength-wise, I'm already there, I'm bigger and stronger than I was in high school. My trainer is training me as an athlete, not as a kicker. I've gotta have a strong core, a flexible range of motion so I have access to all my strength. It's frustrating sometimes not being able to do things I know I used to be able to do, but I'm working hard on overcoming physical and mental obstacles. I know that physically, I can already can do what most NFL kickers can do.

I'm sure it's hard to estimate, but what do you think your chances are of making a roster? Have any teams expressed interest in having you at training camp?

That's so hard to say. I'd be surprised if I didn't make it. [pauses] I think it's 100%. There's no Plan B for me, I'm completely and totally focused on my body and mind, and it's NFL or bust. I'm not interested in playing in the Canadian Football League or the Arena Football League, it's the biggest stage in sports or nothing. I'm actually starting to look at who needs a kicker, which teams might be looking for one.

Who is your favorite current NFL player? Did you have a favorite growing up?

I liked Roger Staubach a lot. I was a Cowboys fan growing up, and I went to their training camp and got to see those guys up close. He was a quarterback and that's what I ended up being. Now, Brett Favre. I can't even imagine his dedication, I mean he's older than I am and last year had what I think was his best year ever. He's been a huge inspiration, and if he can be at the top of his game as a quarterback at 40, there's no reason I can't improve in the coming years. He's been a huge inspiration. Kicking-wise, I'm more of a fan of the game. I just like to see good games and people performing well. Seeing Janikowski kick a 61-yarder was fun. I'm a Michael Vick fan, and even with some of the stupid decisions he's made, I want to see him realize his full potential as an athlete.

Thanks for your time, Joshua. Good luck.

Some portions of this interview have been lightly edited. You can follow Joshua's story at NFLorBust.com.

*****

Pro Football Hall of Famer Merlin Olsen passed away last week. Olsen was one of the greatest defensive tackles in history, and one of the game's true gentlemen. NFL Network did a great job of giving the man his due. If you're a fan of the game's history, or just appreciate the personal side of sports, check out these videos. They're not long, so if you have 10 minutes, you can watch Rosey Grier and Steve Sabol pay tribute to Olsen, plus check out a capsule on Olsen and his career.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:04 PM | Comments (7)

Musical Chairs

The NCAA basketball bracket has been filled, and that means a few things for the casual sports fan:

1. People are frantically scrambling to figure out what happened in a college basketball season that no one cares about (since anyone relevant — and then some — makes the tournament) so that they can pretend they have a clue how to fill out their bracket for the office pool.

2. All but the more die-hard of baseball fans are just becoming vaguely aware that spring training is well underway.

3. Said fans are trying to figure out when the hell Player A got traded to/signed by Team X, and how the hell that will translate into the realm of rapidly approaching fantasy baseball drafts.

And even good baseball fans have their moments. When did Cliff Lee morph into Roy Halladay? How did Vladimir Guerrero become a Ranger? Which team could become the 12th different team for which Matt Stairs has hit a home run? (That's not hyperbole.)

Well, today's your lucky day. I'm going to run off some of the biggest offseason developments. Obviously, I couldn't hit all of them, mainly because I lack the requisite work ethic and monetary compensation, and you probably lack the attention span. But this guide should at least prevent Jane in accounting from emasculating you by letting you know that Jason Bay is not, in fact, the in Boston anymore, thus proving to the world that you are a sports-ignorant jackass.

Cliff Lee goes 4-0 in the playoffs, Phillies say he's not good enough.

Lee posted a 3.22 ERA over 231.1 innings (fifth-most in MLB) during the season, and then posted a sparkling 1.56 ERA in the playoffs and winning every start, including two in the World Series. So, naturally, the Phillies shipped him to Seattle in a three-way deal.

Not to criticize any move that lands Roy Halladay, one of the most talented, dominant, and reliable pitchers in of the era. And Halladay, after patiently toiling in Canada to much less attention than he deserves, deserves his shot at the playoffs. But considering there is no age difference (Lee's 31, Halladay's 32), it has the feel of a thankless gesture to Lee, who literally couldn't have done any more to help the Phillies' repeat attempt.

Meanwhile, little else changes for the two-time defending NL champs; they're still pretty stacked. Cole Hamels figures to rebound, the lineup is still stacked. But if karma is real, dealing Lee and some prospects (like Kyle Drabek) for Halladay is the kind of greedy move the Mets would make, going for the star over adding depth and fixing real problems. Speaking of which...

The Mets grab Jason Bay, and are still pretty much screwed.

Bay is quietly one of the better hitters in the game. He finished 10th in the bigs in homers (36), fifth in RBIs, and 20th in OPS. And that wasn't really an exceptional year for him historically. He also steals once in a while, which is good because he's now playing in a hitters' graveyard, Citi Field, aka Petco East.

Of course, the Mets didn't do anything to address the complete lack of starting pitching after Johan Santana ... unless you consider signing walking scalpel target Kelvim Escobar (already considering retirement after a setback) and Josh Fogg (one start last year) addressing the problem. Oh, and the Mets will likely start the season without Carlos Beltran (offseason knee surgery) or Jose Reyes (thyroid — are they inventing injuries?). But hey, Oliver Perez (6.84 ERA in '09) will collect another cool $12 million.

The Red Sox will wish they'd signed Bay themselves.

Was he worth the money? Debatable. Did the Red Sox replace his production? Well, about 70 percent of it. Mike Cameron gives them 12 less homers, 49 fewer RBIs, and 126 fewer OPS points. But he's faster! (Never mind that he gives them two center fielders with Jacoby Ellsbury already there.) Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia better be ready to do some heavy lifting at the plate this year because the elite hitters end there.

Of course they might not need much, adding John Lackey to an already potent staff. The Angels will miss him. Among others. Continuing the "follow the bouncing ball" trend...

The Angels lose some stars, will probably win the West anyway.

Then again, star doesn't mean productive. Vlad's free agency departure to a better-than-you-think rival was not really even challenged by the team. If you see him in the sixth round and wonder why no one is drafting him in your fantasy league, be aware; his decline has been consistent and pronounced. The Angels still have a deep outfield with Juan Rivera, Torii "Black, Not Latino" Hunter and Bobby Abreu, and added Yankee castoff Hideki Matsui to DH. Throw in young talent on the mound and in the lineup, and you have a team that will be competitive in the start of this decade as the last.

Even so, the champs are still the best team in the league.

Replacing Johnny Damon with Curtis Granderson, bringing back Nick Johnson (and his career .400+ OBP), while letting aging Hideki Matsui go, and adding Javier Vazquez (quietly lights-out last year) to shore up pitching depth doesn't seem like a typical Yankee shakeup. But after posting the best record in baseball and snagging a ring, the Yankees should be no worse than last year. There's really not much debating that they are the best team on paper in the bigs. It's not close.

Elsewhere East, the O's brought back Miguel Tejada.

It seems no one in Baltimore noticed he had gone to Houston. Tejada has also not hit more than 18 homers in a season since 2006. Though he did hit .313 last year. So he's got that going for him. Which is good.

Giants add mediocre bats to dreadful lineup.

Mark DeRosa and Aubrey Huff aren't bad hitters. They just aren't exactly the type of guys to bring in to an offense that scores less than a World of Warcraft programmer. DeRosa, Aaron Rowand, and Benji Molina are the next best options at the plate after Pablo Sandoval. Yikes. Imagine if they didn't have one of the best pitching staffs in the majors.

Cardinals lose DeRosa, but keep Holliday, pride.

One of the two midseason additions St. Louis made to right its crippled offense remains in St. Louis, and it was the one that mattered. Matt Holliday signed a seven-year contract, guaranteeing that Pujols would not be left so alone in the lineup again for some time (assuming health). Good thing, considering his contract's up next year. Pujols' stated desire is to stay in St. Louis and stated criteria is indication that the team will bring in players that can win. To me, they weren't just trying to resign Holliday; they were trying to resign Pujols at the same time.

DeRosa was a nice addition for a while but didn't play well down the stretch. In any case, the full season of Holliday (who has always hit well in St. Louis, including a torrid second half last year) should automatically make the offense better than last year. Enough young hitters with upside add potential, but the strength of the team remains pitching. Replacing Joel Piniero (now in Anaheim) is Brad Penny. Penny would reek of successful Dave Duncan reclamation project if he hadn't already turned things around somewhat at the end of last year with a 4-1 record and 2.59 ERA in September. No way the veteran, who's learning to rely less on his power game and get groundball outs (Duncan's specialty) doesn't pitch well if healthy.

Cubs stuck in neutral; ownership issues keep team out of offseason market.

Nothing really new ... except Alfonso Soriano's slowing bat now has five years left on his Congressional-grade-wasteful contract instead of six. Oh, and Carlos Zambrano is still pretending he's the ace of the staff instead of Ted Lilly or Randy Wells. Not that it's a bad team. It's just not a great one.

Dodgers slightly better than Cubs; also they have a cheap owner.

Introducing your 2010 Dodgers: it's your 2009 Dodgers! (That is all. Yes, I stayed away from them "Manny's won't be there 'cause he said it's his last season in L.A." joke. We can't believe a word that comes out of his mouth anyway.)

Mariners have schizophrenic offseason.

They added Cliff Lee and Milton Bradley. Couldn't have gone two more opposite directions with those selections. Lee and King Felix make a nasty one-two punch. And the Ms just hope Milton doesn't punch more than one or two people this season.

So now you are somewhat up to speed. Now hurry; you need to get back to pretending you can learn enough about basketball in the next day and a half to win your pool through something other than a complete fluke.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2010

Your Date For the Big Dance

It's been a strange pre-NCAA basketball season. Names you could normally count on for relevance, such as North Carolina, UConn, and Arizona, entered Championship Week having to get their conference's auto-bid to sniff the field of 65. Fire up those NIT brackets!

The country's best player, Evan Turner, broke his back and missed five weeks mid-season, during which his Ohio State team went 1-3 in the Big Ten. Just two months later, he's the seemingly unanimous Player of the Year and his Buckeyes are outside candidates for a No. 1 seed.

The Pac-10 barely found two tournament teams and will get out-represented by the Atlantic 10 and Mountain West. The ACC stunk for most of the season. West Virginia won the Big East tourney for the first time. The bottom line: this year, nothing is sacred.

Is there a single team you'd want to stake your life on reaching the Final Four? Heck, even the Sweet 16? Syracuse, Kansas, and Kentucky are, in some order, the class of this college hoops season, a backhanded compliment if there ever was one. And then there's everyone else.

So when you fill out your brackets, pick those upsets with confidence. And, of course, pay attention to my analysis below.

Midwest

Best Round One Game: (8) UNLV/(9) Northern Iowa

Two tournament mainstays that, every year, seem to be in interesting first-round games. In fact, let's hope this will finally spawn what everyone's been begging for: the Mountain West/Missouri Valley Challenge. Who's with me?

Geographic X-Factor: Michigan State and Maryland to Spokane

I'm not sure why the NCAA feels compelled to pick a Pacific Northwest first weekend site every year. Seattle and Portland, sure. Spokane and (I'm pushing Pacific here) Boise, hmm. They're tough to get to for fans and teams, and unless Gonzaga or Washington is really good, a leftover four-seed will get banished there because it's the only site left. I'm sure those itineraries from College Park and East Lansing to Spokane will be ugly.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Ohio State/Georgetown

It seems pretty likely these two will find each other in the tournament for the third time in the last five years (they split the last two). Both sides have great size and athleticism on the wings. This will probably be the best Sweet 16 matchup. Unless...

Best Upset Potential: Georgia Tech to the Second Week

Always, always be afraid of those big conference teams that underachieved below their potential, especially if they get out of round one. I won't call the Yellow Jackets over Oklahoma State as a real upset, but Georgia Tech's front court could give Ohio State fits, especially if Dallas Lauderdale finds a couple of early fouls.

Blowout Time-Filler

This is where I'll give you a preview of how the announcers will fill time in an ugly game. And when the Hoyas hammer Ohio U, you'll hear for the 72nd time that Austin Freeman was diagnosed with Diabetes a few weeks ago. Best of luck to him, of course. And best of luck to the producers in finding something a little more timely.

My Elite Eight Pick: Kansas over Georgetown

The Jayhawks will get tested after the first round, but their average level of talent across all five positions is too much for anyone else in the region. The Hoyas could give them a game if they can keep the tempo slow, but Rock Chalk rolls to Indianapolis.

West

Best Round One Game: (5) Butler/(12) UTEP

Brutal, brutal plight for both. UTEP cruised through Conference USA, and it would have been interesting to see where they would have been seeded had they beaten Houston in the conference finals. Butler ran the table in the Horizon League, but they don't get a lot of easy points and could struggle with UTEP's athletic advantage.

Geographic X-Factor: Can BYU Get to Salt Lake?

It's a stretch, but if BYU can somehow get through to the Sweet 16, they'll have one of the great home court advantages we've seen in the tournament in some time. Throw in the altitude, and there will be a very, very cranky coach on the other side of the scorer's table.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Syracuse/Kansas State

Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, and Butler don't exactly bring out the best in anyone. Gonzaga and Syracuse could be fun in round two, maybe. Slim pickings here.

Best Upset Potential: UTEP over Butler

Good contract of styles; see above.

Blowout Time-Filler

The last time Syracuse and Vermont met in the tournament was 2005, and wouldn't you know it, the Catamounts shocked the Orange. Not this time. Expect lots of 2005 clips to cover the carnage.

My Elite Eight Pick: Syracuse over Kansas State

They'll need Arinze Onuaku along the way, but the Orange are the class of the region. If Pitt could overcome its nasty underachieving tournament habit, a Big East Elite Eight tilt could be competitive if not pretty. I'd be very surprised to see anyone else out of this quarter.

East

Best Round One Game: (5)Temple/(12)Cornell

More non-major conference intrigue! I think the Owls will win respectably, but I'm mostly intrigued to see the Big Red get a crack on the big stage. They've heard about the squeaker at Kansas for months now; has it been enough to make them believe?

Geographic X-Factor: Three Teams Laying in Wait For Marquette

Don't pity the poor Golden Eagles because they got sent out to San Jose; pity them because all three other teams in their pod probably had half the trip.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Kentucky/West Virginia

Not only would it open the way for 48 hours of banjo jokes, it would be a great game. I don't think we could see a better matchup outside of the Final Four. Kentucky's talent is well documented, but West Virginia has a stable of guys that seem like they've been there for a decade. It would be a fun youth vs. experience subplot.

Best Upset Potential: Washington over Marquette

Yes, the Pac-10 blows. But Marquette likes to fling it from deep and those teams can get picked off by anyone. And in this case, Washington really would be as bad as anyone. Besides, if it wasn't this one, I'd have to try to explain why Texas beating Wake Forest would somehow still be an upset even though they're seeded higher. Let's move on.

Blowout Time-Filler

Wofford's first trip to the tournament. To review, as of this week: Wofford, 1 tournament appearance; Northwestern, 0. I have a feeling we'll see a little too much "We're just happy to be here!" in this one. Badgers roll.

My Elite Eight Pick: Kentucky over West Virginia

I touched on it above, but this is probably the second best matchup (you'll have to get to the end of the column for the best) we could see in the whole tournament. Plus, you know Bob Huggins has no love saved up for UK after his Cincinnati days.

South

Best Round One Game: (4) Purdue- (13) Siena

Poor Boilermakers. They won at Ohio State a few weeks ago, looked poised to own the Big Ten title outright and possibly a No. 1 seed. Now they're just a few days removed from being disemboweled by Minnesota as they try to fill Robbie Hummel's shoes. On CBS' selection show Sunday, Seth Davis actually wondered aloud if Siena might be favored. Hey, a 13 over a 4 is still an upset, no matter how contrived it is.

Geographic X-Factor: Texas A&M or Baylor in Houston

Now here's a realistic Regional site factor. Either Big 12 team would get a big boost from being close to home for rounds three and four. A&M is within two hours drive, and Baylor is a little closer to four, but could you imagine...

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Duke/Baylor

This would be clearer-cut than the Empire versus the Jedi. Baylor, overcoming the aforementioned history, in their home state, taking on everyone's favorite heels. And, of course, Gus Johnson would have to be involved somehow.

Best Upset Potential: Siena

Poor, poor Purdue.

Blowout Time-Filler

Baylor's recovery. This is the story that will actually be worth the time. You remember the disaster at Baylor. Player shoots player, coach tries to cover up shooting, NCAA turns program into glass desert. They were banned from playing non-conference games for a year! Somehow they've risen out of the ashes. And most of all, do you really see Sam Houston State making it a game?

My Elite Eight Pick: Texas A&M over Baylor

It's been painfully obvious for five years that Duke lacks athleticism. Perhaps Coach K has made a concerted effort to not recruit one-and-done guys, but for whatever reason, the Blue Devils are at an athletic disadvantage to top teams. This is a very weak region (then again, they all are this year) and Duke is far and away the best team here, but I just can't get past the measurables. This Blue Devil team is more than the sum of its parts, but as in years past, those parts will get exposed. I like the Aggies to do that exposing and ride that wave past the Bears to a surprise Final Four berth, a reward for their ambitious out-of-conference work.

The Championship: Kentucky over Kansas

John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins have money to make and this is the stage to make it on. Now whether NCAA investigators will allow either program to acknowledge this happened in five years, that's a different story.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 9:35 PM

March 13, 2010

Five Ways NHL Can Capitalize on Olympics

The NHL gets zero out of the Olympics. Gary Bettman is right to consider dropping league support. The only way to keep the NHL in the Olympics is for the NHL to leverage the Olympics to its advantage like the Olympics leverages the NHL.

The arguments against league involvement have been discussed countless times. The league is shut down, and the risk for injury to its best players casts a shadow during the tournament. Additionally, the All-Star Game is canceled, which means one less marquee event for the league and lost revenue for a league city. For these reasons and others, it is easy to see Bettman's apprehension about committing to the 2014 Olympic games.

It is time to for the Olympics to benefit the NHL. Everyone is in agreement the NHL needs to find ways to use the Olympic momentum to its advantage. Advancing the game of hockey through the Olympics is nice, but advancing the NHL through the Olympics is better. After all, the NHL is in the business of advancing the league, the owners, and the players.

Here are five ways for the NHL to capitalize on the Olympics and to justify staying in the Olympics:

1) Buzz. What the Olympics lacked was discussion about the NHL. How many times did NBC tell viewers the Americans hadn't beat the Canadians since 1960? The only NHL buzz was if the league was going to allow its players in the 2014 games. The NHL needs to create attention-grabbing storylines about the league and opportunities for the press to talk about the NHL. Creating buzz can be done three ways:

A) Have a week-long winter meeting in the host Olympic city. The agenda topics will the include announcement of the flex NHL schedule (see No. 2), top prospects and the draft (see C), and the trading deadline, among other league business. The advantage is that many press outlets are concentrated in the Olympic city at this time making it easier for the NHL to get attention.

B) Move the trade deadline to two weeks after the Olympics. During the Olympics there will be talk about the future of the players in the tournament. This year's deadline was four days after the Olympic gold medal game. There needs to be more time to speculate on moves during the Olympics and after the Olympics. The longer the rumor mill can run the better.

C) Invite the top 100 NHL prospects in the world to a week-long combine and four-on-four tournament two weeks prior to the Olympics. Run prospects through drills and give them a chance to play each other. The press will talk about the future Olympians and future NHL stars the week before the games and throughout the games. Some of these prospects may actually be Olympians, which won't hurt either. Some of these prospects will be undrafted, creating more buzz for the NHL draft and those who are property of teams will be talked about as trade bait.

2) A post-Olympics flex schedule. The schedule after the Olympics will be decided at the Olympic winter league meeting and announced during the Olympics. The teams separated by 10 points, and fighting for the last two playoff spots before the Olympics start will have a weighted schedule. These teams will play each other more often during the last weeks of the season. Roughly 9 points separate seven teams fighting for the last two playoff spots in the West. Six teams are separated by 8 points in the East. Let these teams play each other during the last 20+ games of the season

As it stands now, Detroit plays eight of its last 21 games against the teams fighting for the last two playoff spots, while Anaheim plays only five games against these teams in their last 20 games. Teams battling for the last playoff spots should have a minimum of half their remaining games against each other.

3) A marketing campaign during the Olympics should send the message that the best players in the world wear the NHL shield. For the most part, the best players in the world are in the Olympics, and it should be emphasized that the best players in the Olympics are playing in the NHL.

4) A second Outdoor Classic with a twist. The second game should be hosted by a Canadian team at a small outdoor rink. This Field of Dreams type game would have limited tickets available and emphasize the Canadian origins of the game. The press relentlessly emphasized how Canada invented hockey during the Olympics. This Outdoor Classic would take fans back to its roots at a small outdoor venue. Ticket demand and the marketing possibilities would enhance the NHL. The home team would need to receive financial support for losing a home game, but it would be worth it.

5) Heavy television saturation after the Olympics. The Versus television network needs to air five consecutive nights of the flex schedule games. The weekend after the Olympics should have Versus or NBC air three consecutive flex games on Saturday and Sunday. NBC and Versus would essentially be airing playoff hockey immediately after the Olympics.

The above plan creates a lot of disruption to the league, its schedule, and the Olympics. As a result of the above plan, the NHL may become a slight distraction and cause some disruptions during the Olympics. But ultimately, it allows the NHL to take Olympic momentum and make it NHL momentum.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 11:40 AM | Comments (3)

NFL Offseason Winners and Losers

The Super Bowl ended just over a month ago, so how is your team doing in the offseason? Some major moves have been made in the past two weeks and those have already changed the outlook for a number of teams. But who are the winners and losers?

Winners

Chicago Bears

I think it is clear thus far that nobody has made as bold of moves, or as good of moves, as the Bears. They signed arguably the best free agent available in Julius Peppers, solidifying a defense that was plagued by injury in 2009. They also signed the underrated Chester Taylor from inside the division.

Of all the 30-plus running backs available, Taylor was, in my opinion, the best available, simply because he has not incurred the damage that Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson has over the years. Also, considering the Bears' hiring of the extremely pass-heavy Mike Martz as offensive coordinator, Taylor is a great fit with solid hands and great blocking ability. True, Westbrook would have been a better fit, but he would have cost at least twice as much and been less reliable.

While the Bears perhaps paid Peppers a bit too handsomely ($91.5 million for six years, $42 million guaranteed), they had to in order to sign up. They certainly paid a fair price for Taylor ($12.5 million for four years, $7 million guaranteed).

Baltimore Ravens

I think if there is an AFC team that is clearly better since the end of the season, it is the Ravens. Trading for Anquan Boldin gives Joe Flacco the best target he's had in his young career. Hopefully that will be a nice match.

Jacksonville Jaguars

Signing Aaron Kampman was a good move. I think they may have spent some money on the wrong side of the ball, but there is nothing wrong with signing a good player who has good years ahead of him. There is still a lot to be done before the Jags are back to playoff contenders, but they seem to be on the right track. Re-signing Troy Williamson, not such a good idea. If the Jags are going to get it right for 2010, they will make a move at wide receiver more significant than re-signing a complete bust.

Losers

Carolina Panthers

To be truthful, the Panthers started becoming 2010 losers in 2009 when they signed Jake Delhomme to that ridiculous deal. Releasing him meant losing $13 million dollars. The real reason the Panthers are losers thus far this offseason is because they failed to perform in 2009. An 8-8 record after a 12-4 record in 2008 sends the message that this team is headed in the wrong direction and fast. That's not the way to sign free agents and improve your team.

Arizona Cardinals

Losing Anquan Boldin wasn't good. Getting repaid with third- and fourth-round picks doesn't seem like ample re-payment. Sure, there is room for paying others money, but they've lost a quality player and didn't get enough for him. Throw in Kurt Warner's retirement and a large portion of Arizona's offense disappeared for 2010. They picked up Safety Kerry Rhodes and lost Safety Antrel Rolle; insignificant compared to the changes in the offense.

Green Bay Packers

I know, shocking, the Packers aren't spending money. They lost Kampman. I know he didn't fit the 3-4 scheme as well as the 4-3, but you hate to see good players go because your front office refuses to spend money. The Packers' offensive line improved throughout the season, but they still could use some help there. Re-signing Chad Clifton helps, but they could use more.

Pittsburgh Steelers

Regardless of what they're doing with transactions, distractions provided by Ben Roethlisberger cast doubts and uncertainties. That makes them losers. Period.

LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Westbrook, Jake Delhomme, and NFL Fans

In an era of sports where it is rare to see a player stay with the same team for his entire career because of their own ambition, 2010 is showing us a new trend has arrived. NFL teams are unwilling to stick with players who have performed well for years and are on the down-slopes of their careers. I think players will suffer for the next five years because of this trend, but soon a new trend will arise (or at least should arise) where players will realize their value may decrease after a certain age and will accept new roles as backup players simply to stay with the same organization.

Toss Up

Minnesota Vikings

I would say they will end up being in the winners' column before all is said and done, but there hasn't been enough happening to call them winners. They lost Chester Taylor, which hurts, especially considering he didn't travel far and makes Chicago a formidable force.

But one can't help but look at their approach to the Brett Favre situation and at Favre's refusal to leave the game and think he'll be back, which I think puts them in the winner's column. I don't expect Favre to perform at the same level as 2009, but I do expect him to perform better than Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels could perform.

The only other concern for the Vikings is if Pat Williams decides to retire. If that happens, the defense will need to fill that void well. I'd consider it top priority in the draft if Williams does retire.

San Diego Chargers

Perhaps you consider losing the best running back of the previous decade and the face of your team a bad thing, but from a purely economical standpoint, it was the right move. L.T. won't perform in San Diego well enough to be worth his paycheck. Perhaps a new setting will help. Perhaps nothing will and he is simply on the way downhill, much like 30-year-old running backs throughout the NFL.

But losing such an important part of the organization for fiscal reasons, I'm not such a fan of that. I understand L.T.'s need to be paid well and be the feature back, but there is a lot of me that wishes there would be more realism in the minds of NFL players, accepting their limitations that come with age and signing for less money than the previous year when it is clear their production is waning.

What's the right price for L.T.? Perhaps what Chester Taylor got paid? Perhaps a bit more? I wouldn't pay more than $4 million a year for him and I wouldn't sign him to more than three years. I think somebody will exceed both of those, but I truly don't know who. The top candidate at the moment I think should be Seattle, but it seems they're looking to spend money at receiver, perhaps pursuing Brandon Marshall.

Philadelphia Eagles

I think we'll see them in the losers' column very soon, but as with the L.T. deal for the Chargers, releasing Brian Westbrook was a financially-sound move. I think pairing that with the fact that most people seem to think Donavan McNabb will end up outside of Philadelphia means this team is going to need a new identity on offense. I think Thomas Jones would be a good fit in Philly, but there are no free agents on the market at quarterback who could come in and get the job done without serious doubts.

I can't imagine Eagles fans would be too happy seeing Jake Delhomme or Daunte Culpepper suit up. Nor are there any quarterbacks in the draft I would count on to perform in year one. Unless the Eagles want to go through some major rebuilding, they're going to have to make a trade for a quarterback or find a way to keep McNabb.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 11:29 AM | Comments (5)

March 12, 2010

Sports Q&A: Big Ben's "Pass" Judgment

Pittsburgh Steeler quarterback and two-time Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger is facing his second sexual assault allegation after an incident at a Georgia nightclub last Friday. Is this alarming pattern of behavior a function of Roethlisberger's immorality, or simply a product of gold-digging floozies preying on Big Ben's fame?

Uh oh. Did the two-time Super Bowl champion go and give somebody the 'ring finger' without their consent? Maybe, maybe not. But something, or someone, went down that night, and hopefully the court system will render justice. Details, like Roethlisberger's bar-going history and his accuser's believability, are sketchy. One thing is for sure — if the case goes to trial, Roethlisberger's legal fate lies in a word he seems to not fully understand: consent.

Roethlisberger allegedly sexually assaulted a 20-year-old college student at a nightclub in the party mecca of Milledgeville, Georgia. Did Roethlisberger take advantage of a star-struck, nubile college chick, a young lady who was eager to "go pro?" Or did she take advantage of him, using her charm and good looks to lure an easy mark into a compromising position, where the lines of consent can be easily misread and cashed in to pay off school loans? Or did a simple misunderstanding of the word "matriculate" transform an innocent encounter into an alcohol-fueled romp where "yes" and "no" had dual meanings? In other words, did Roethlisberger "Ben Her," or did she "call an audible" just a smidgen too late? Was his quarterback "sneak" turned back by a "goal line" stand?

Either way, they both got more than they bargained for. And as a second harassment claim would seemingly attest, Roethlisberger is developing a reputation as a "bargain hunter." On the football field, Roethlisberger is known for his quick decision-making. Sure, when he's being pursued by 300-pound defensive lineman, Big Ben's critical thinking skills are top notch. However, in a bar, with too much alcohol clouding his judgment and his libido, he handles "pocket pressure" in a completely different manner.

While it will be hard for authorities to ascertain fact from fiction is a case like this, this much we know is true: this is most talked-about incident of an unwanted sexual advance in Georgia since Ned Beatty was violated in Deliverance. Unlike Roethlisberger, Beatty never put himself in such a situation again. And, unlike Beatty, Roethlisberger doesn't have Burt Reynolds to get him out of his predicament.

It would be easy to paint a picture of Roethlisberger as guilty because this is the second such accusation against him. And I'm sure that's what his accuser's attorney will attempt to do, probably in civil court after criminal charges fail to stick. And it's certain the photo of a drunken Roethlisberger in a "Drink Like a Champ" t-shirt, posing with a young lady will, like Big Ben, be making a court appearance. Roethlisberger may be a "habitual idiot," but that doesn't make him a "habitual offender." Yet. Committing two legal acts does not constitute a habit. Committing two illegal acts? That's not quite a habit, but is dangerously close. Committing two illegal acts under nearly identical circumstances? You might as well assume it will happen again, which is the very definition of a habit.

That's assuming Roethlisberger did, or has done, anything illegal on the two occasions in which women have accused him of inappropriate behavior. Remember, Roethlisberger has probably experienced thousands of interactions with women, in bars or elsewhere, in which one or both parties where under the influence of alcohol. Of those, only two have led to legal situations. That would give him one heck of a quarterback rating, and maybe lead one to believe that he just happened to come in contact with two women, who, for whatever reason, saw a reason, or a chance, to cry foul.

Or, quite possibly, Roethlisberger, in these thousands of interactions, has mistreated or offended in some way more than two of the women, and only two have come forward to point out wrong-doing. Maybe Roethlisberger is a deviant, and fame, money, and recognition have distorted his morals to the point that he feels he has the right to treat these women as he pleases. Chivalry may be dead, but douchebaggery is alive and well.

Being guilty of sin is one thing; being guilty as sin is another.

Of course, Roethlisberger has yet to be convicted of anything, not in this case, nor in the 2008 assault case. I'm not sure if that statement in itself is more of an exoneration of Roethlisberger, or a condemnation. But guilty or not, it can't look good in a biography, and it can't look good for sales of Roethlisberger's No. 7 jersey. No. 7 doesn't seem to be a lucky number for NFL quarterbacks these days. Michael Vick went down for mistreating dogs. Now Roethlisberger may soon face the repercussions of treating women like dogs.

Now, the very fact that this young lady has hired her own attorney lends a considerable amount of doubt to her case. I'm no lawyer, but since when do you need an attorney to simply accuse someone of a crime? You don't, but it always helps to have professional guidance when navigating such an emotionally-draining, yet potentially fruitful court case. I'm guessing her counsel's expertise lies not in trial law, but in negotiating settlements.

Of course, Roethlisberger felt the need to hire high-powered attorney Ed Garland, who has also defended Baltimore Raven Ray Lewis against a murder charge in 2000. Garland also defended rapper T.I. against weapons charges in 2007. In the black community, that's called "representin.'" T.I. went to jail, so I'm guessing Roethlisberger hopes his defense can be like the prosecution in that case and beat the 'rap.' Whatever the case, Big Ben's got an attorney with rhyme and reason skills.

While hiring such a quality attorney is by no means an admission of guilt, it does seem to indicate that Roethlisberger feels he needs a top-notch barrister to extract him from this jam. And it's apparent this will be a case in which ruining the accuser's credibility will be the defense's main objective, should a trial ensue. Garland has already stated that Roethlisberger "did nothing wrong." That sounds like a veiled statement. Roethlisberger did "something." Whether it was wrong or not remains to be seen. Obviously, Garland's job is to convince a jury or judge that Roethlisberger felt the accuser's actions and words implied permission.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Roethlisberger's affinity for partying and club-hopping. It's only natural for a wealthy professional athlete to want to hang out with his less fortunate and eager-to-mooch acquaintances, who are no doubt there to ride the coattails of their famous friend. When Big Ben goes out with his buddies, the drinks are on him, and apparently, so is the burden of proof. It looks as though Roethlisberger continues to say "bottoms up" long after the drinks are finished.

While charges have yet to be filed in the case, police in Milledgeville are still gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses. According to sources, police will soon be taking a DNA sample from Roethlisberger. That can't be a good sign for Roethlisberger, which is ironic, because for years now he has been praised for his "fluid release."

Whether he's convicted or totally cleared of charges, Roethlisberger will be a "marked" man. Not on the football field, but in public, and especially in bars. Oh, he'll still have his admirers. Heck, dogs love Michael Vick now.

But can Roethlisberger wear the stigma as a possible sexual deviant as well as he wears his eye black? Someone should tell Big Ben he's not the chick magnet that he thinks he is, and let him know that magnets repel just as well as they attract. If he's not careful, he may find his exploits reported more often on TMZ than ESPN. If this type of behavior continues, Roethlisberger may soon see his fate in the hands of 12 jurors as opposed to 11 defenders. He may feel he has done nothing wrong, and they may quite possibly be true, but it still should serve as a warning to clean up his act. Or, at the very least, be more careful with his act.

Big Ben has struck "two" ... a third strike may very well spell the end for him.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:52 PM | Comments (3)

Willie Davis, RIP: Pressing

Buzzie Bavasi's reputation as a tricky-dicky kind of general manager was equal only to his not-so-often-discussed parallel reputation as one of baseball's most paternalistically generous executives in the pre-free agency era.

Bavasi was just as likely as his boss Walter O'Malley to slip a player an extra hundred to five hundred after a particularly outstanding game or for stepping up in a swift enough emergency. Dick Tracewski was a small-time supporting player when he was pressed into full-time service for the 1963 World Series. He barely hit his weight, but he played a credible enough second base, and Bavasi rewarded him with the roundtrip tickets to take his wife on a Hawaiian vacation.

But Bavasi learned the hard way that fleet center fielders who generally know the lay of the field and the play of the ball don't always turn out to be fleet off the field. When a washed-up Willie Davis was traded to the San Diego Padres from the St. Louis Cardinals after the 1975 season, the Padres' most compelling reason to keep the former Gold Glove center fielder was so Bavasi (who'd become the team president when the Padres came into the National League in 1969) could get some of his money back.

Bavasi had, according to John Helyar in The Lords of the Realm, loaned or advanced Davis "so much money at Los Angeles that he had to sign him at San Diego after becoming president there just so he could get repaid. The Padres paid Davis $70,000 in his last year, of which Bavasi garnished $35,000."

Davis's life seems not to have gotten too much simpler after he left baseball, which he did following a 43-game 1979 comeback with the California Angels, though his troubles hardly outweighed the fondness with which he has been remembered since his March 9th death in his Burbank apartment. "Everybody liked Willie," said former Dodger owner Peter O'Malley. "I can't imagine someone not liking him. He was memorable. I was fortunate to know him. Just a very likable guy."

Likable guys do unlikable and even shocking things, or so they are accused, as was Davis in 1996, when he stood charged with threatening his parents with a ninja sword and throwing stars unless they fronted him $5,000. Those charges were dropped, but Davis and money seem to have been a mix volatile at best, a mix O'Malley did his best to neutralize when he authorized the Dodgers, whom he still owned at the time, to do whatever they could to help their former center fielder.

Former Dodger pitcher Don Newcombe told reporters at the time that the team wasn't going to front him money unless the reason he needed it was sound, but pondered whether Davis needed medical or even psychological help.

It was too far removed from the Willie Davis whose defense — he might have won more than three Gold Gloves but for the presence of a still-peak Willie Mays and a successor Curt Flood — and batting (unfairly tagged as an underachiever, Davis may well have been a more productive hitter than his statistics suggest but for the hitting conditions of Dodger Stadium in those years, as Bill James has limned in a sterling analysis in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract) helped his Dodgers to three pennants and two World Series rings.

Some believed Davis, who succeeded Duke Snider in center field, had a streak of laziness. "One time I was asked to help with his bunting," catcher John Roseboro wrote in his memoir, Glory Days with the Dodgers, "and he told me he didn't need any help. 'How many bleeping bunts did you beat out this year?' he asked me. I never tried to help him after that. Willie wasn't willing to work."

Perhaps Davis believed too deeply in the ability he had already. Felipe Alou will tell you of a game in which Davis swatted a single over first and into right, where Alou ran it down and thought he'd finally accomplished what he believed the impossible, bagging Davis trying to stretch a hit.

"I saw the umpire call him out," Alou told the Los Angeles Times, "and I said, 'I finally got that guy trying to stretch a single into a double.' The next day I saw the newspaper and it said Willie Davis had a double. I said, 'I threw him out.' My teammate said: 'We tagged him out. He had passed second.' He was that fast."

And perhaps even a cool, swift center fielder has an occasional streak of over-anxiety to overcorrect. Davis flashed that streak even more fatefully in the fifth inning of Game 2 in the 1966 World Series, against the Baltimore Orioles. With an exhausted, probably ailing Sandy Koufax working more on mind than matter, his fastball tapering off and his curve ball imitating itself, but still matching shutout innings with a rookie named Jim Palmer.

One on (Boog Powell, a single), one out (Davey Johnson, a foul pop), and Paul Blair lofting a fly toward center field and right in the Dodger Stadium sun. Davis lost the ball in that sun and Blair helped himself to second on the miscue. Up stepped Andy Etchebarren, who'd been Koufax's only punch-out to this point (looking at a third strike fastball that made up in movement what it lacked in power), and he, too, lofted one to center field, a little more shallow than Blair's loft. This time, Davis had a bead on the ball ... and dropped it, shockingly, allowing Powell home, before his bid to hold Blair on third went sailing into the dugout, allowing Blair home and Etchebarren to third, from where Luis Aparicio would double him home a strikeout later.

Koufax retired the side on a fly to right from Curt Blefary and Willie Davis — who had driven home the winning run to help Koufax secure a stupefying World Series sweep of the Yankees — wanted to crawl into the nearest available mousehole. Except that Koufax wouldn't let him. The Hall of Famer scurried to the far end of the dugout where Davis planted himself and had to break the grips of a few miscomprehending teammates before slamming himself down next to Davis and throwing an arm around him protectively.

"Willie, forget it," urged the pitcher whose streak of 22 consecutive World Series shutout innings had just been vaporized. "Don't press. Don't let it get you down."

Taking that counsel in life as well as in the Dodger dugout might have made the rest of Davis' life just that much gentler.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2010

9 Reasons to Expand the NCAA Tournament

What if everyone had a shot at "one shining moment?" What if David played Goliath not in November or December when nothing was at stake, but in March and April when the National Championship was on the line?

It's time for the NCAA tournament to expand to 347. Aren't we headed there anyway? Let's stop worrying about bubbles and stop waiting for expansion every few years.

Give everyone a chance in a single-elimination 10-round tournament. As it stands, the current tournament is seven rounds. Remember, the play-in game is a round and if a play-in team ran the table, seven wins would take the tournament.

The nine reasons to expand the tournament:

1) The NCAA committee makes the BCS look fair. The NCAA committee sits behind closed doors and swears everyone to secrecy involved in the selection process as to how the at-large teams are selected and how teams are seeded. If the process were transparent, we would not need bracketologists. It would not matter who is on the bubble, who the last four in are and who the last first four out are. We would know who is going to make the tournament every year and each team's seeding.

2) The NCAA does not invite the best 65 teams. They invite conference champions and some others. Instead of inviting the 65 teams who the committee thinks would make the best tournament, how about letting the teams decide the championship on the floor? Isn't this the biggest complaint with the BCS?

3) Having 347 teams does not necessarily mean more games, it means a 10-game postseason tournament with a level playing field. Currently, many teams are eligible for 10-game postseasons anyway. Some conferences have champions that need to win 5 games in their conference tournament, and then if they make the NIT, they could get 5 more games or if they make the NCAA, they could play 7 (assuming they are in the play-in game). This amounts to the possibility of playing 10 to 12 postseason games. If the field were expanded to 347 teams, the maximum number of games needed to be played would be 10. If teams have the possibility of playing 10 to 12 postseason games anyway, why not have a winner-take-all tournament?

4) Mid-majors and small conferences could finally unravel the NCAA power conference monopoly. One of the big complaints in college basketball is mid-major teams like Butler can't find a team to play them because they are a little "too good" for the power conferences. Under the plan below, conferences will have to play other conferences and this will raise everyone's level of play and level the playing field.

5) The end of the "we were robbed" and "we did everything we could to get in the tourney" whining. Isn't everyone tired of this selection show bitterness that then must be turned around into"we want to win the NIT tourney to lay the ground work for next year" optimism? The whining and complaining of teams feeling left out would be eliminated.

6) Conference tournaments are not the opening rounds of the NCAA tournament. If they were, then only conference champions would be eligible to play in the tournament. Can the seventh-best team in the Big East that qualifies for the current tournament beat the second place team in the Ohio Valley conference 10 times out of 10? Are you ready to guarantee this?

7) People watch the tournament for Cinderella not Godzilla. We pull for George Mason and Gonzaga to upset teams, not for Kansas to run through teams or Duke to get a No. 1 seed and win six in a row. There is widespread hope of Cornell getting a high seed and having a chance to advance in the tournament. There doesn't appear to be outrage that North Carolina isn't going to qualify for the tournament or that the Pac-10 has only one or two teams that might make it. There is excitement because this means the Missouri Valley Conference could put more teams in the tournament.

8) A 10-round winner-take-all tournament means a serious amount of incremental revenue for television networks and the NCAA and tragically, that is what expansion and NCAA sports are all about anyway, isn't it? Why not find a way to make more money, and make it fair for everyone? There is a way to get more money and fairness in the NCAA? Clearly, this is an oxymoron whose time has come.

9) Power conference teams already play small conference teams in November and December. How about playing these teams with everything on the line in March and April? If the argument is that the teams from the lesser conferences are that much worse than the power conferences in March and April, then why are the lesser conference champions even invited to the tournament? If the thinking is the tournament should be reserved for "good teams," then setup a tournament for BCS conferences only and the rest can go home ... wait, that is the college football system.

How to Expand the Tournament

Seeding

Seed all 347 teams using three components: RPI, conference vs. conference, and conference championship. The RPI is worth 60% of a team's score, conference vs. conference 20%, and conference championship 20%. The team that has the No. 1 RPI is given 347 points and the weakest gets 1 point. This way the scores can be added together.

The three components:

1) The RPI would remain in its current form.

2) Conference vs. conference is a series of mini-tournaments. Currently, there are 32 conferences (including independents as a conference) in NCAA Division 1 basketball. Conferences would need to face four other conferences similar to the ACC vs. Big Ten Challenge. Conference matchups would be drawn like the lottery numbers are drawn: air-driven ping-pong balls. Each conference would randomly draw 7 teams from their conferences with the same ping-pong ball method (the smallest conferences has 8 teams).

The conference that wins 4 out of 7 games is the conference head-to-head winner. In their overall seeding score, each team from a winning conference is then awarded 20 points. Each conference is required to play four conferences, and if they play more than four, there is a possibility of getting more points. The chance for another 20 points per team increases the chances of conferences of playing each other.

3) The conference champion of each conference is awarded an extra 50 points. For independents, their "conference champion" is the team with the highest RPI.

Rounds Explained

After seeding all 347 teams, the tournament is setup the following way: rounds 9 and 10 are play-in games. Round 10 has team 346 vs. 347 play at the home site of team 346. Winner of 346 vs. 347 plays seed 257 at 257's home site. The rest of this round is the following: Team 258 vs. 345 at Team 258, Team 259 vs. Team 344 at team 259, etc.

The 45 teams to emerge from round 9 then advance to round 8 as teams 211 thru 256. These 45 teams get re-seeded with the highest seed to emerge from round 9 becoming 211, next highest seed 212, third highest seed 213, etc. Once round 8 begins, there are 256 teams left and seeds 1-128 get home games. Round 7 will again re-seed the teams the same way round 8 did and seeds 1-64 will again have home games. Round 7 will again re-seed teams using the same methods previously discussed, but at this point, the bracket and seeds get locked and the tournament functions the way it does now. Round 6 forward will have teams go into regional parts of the country, similar to today as higher-seeded home teams will be placed closer to home than lower-seeded teams.

It may be argued that teams 257 to 347 don't belong on the same court as teams 1-256, but remember more than half of these teams won't advance and teams 1-256 were given a bye anyway. If it is argued that teams 96 thru 256 don't belong on the court with teams 1-95, then let 1-95 prove it. From round 7 forward, all teams have to play 7 games to win. The current setup asks two teams to play 7 games to win it all. If a team has to play seven games to win a championship, why not make more teams play seven?

The real question on the table is not why the tournament should expand, but when will the tournament expand and give everyone a chance? The tournament started with 8 teams and is now looking at 96. Also, if Kansas wants to play Hofstra November 13, and Central Arkansas November 19th, with nothing on the line, why not have Kansas play these teams in March with everything on the line? Time to face your fears power conferences and let all of the Davids line up to play all of the Goliaths, not just the Davids who get hot in the first week of March and win their conference tournament.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 8:16 PM | Comments (3)

College Football Week 1 Preview

It's the least wonderful time of the year.

Football's over, and while I love me some March Madness, and soccer also gets me through, in my heart, I'm always pining for football. To paraphrase Kissing Suzy Kolber, to hell with your coworkers gleefully noting that pitchers and catchers are reporting this week (or last week, or whenever). It's even over three months until the only offseason acceptable football equivalent (I speak not of Arena football, but of the Canadian Football League) starts up.

So as I've done in this space before, I look teasingly ahead to Week 1 — and Week 1 only, not to look at Week 2 until Week 1 is complete — of the college football slate seven (gasp!) months away. Most of the games do not have television homes yet. Many will be moved to Thursday. But the matchups are mostly written in pen now, and collected at the wonderful Matt Sarz Sports.

Southern Miss @ South Carolina

This is one of the games already slated for Thursday Night, September 2nd. I think we can officially say it is a tradition that the college football season will kick-off with a South Carolina game; it's been at least three years running. Quite a step up to the spotlight, though, for Southern Miss, a middling Conference USA program and the beloved alma mater of, for my money, the best college football blogger on the web. It makes you wonder if someone backed out at the last second.

USC @ Hawaii

This game is also slated for Thursday, and is the first one to have a kickoff time scheduled: 11:30 Eastern. It's ESPN's way of saying, "Take a four day weekend (the following Monday is Labor Day)!"

Purdue @ Notre Dame

This is the first time since at least 2003 (I can't be bothered to look farther than that) that Notre Dame has opened against an every-year opponent. Look for Brian Kelly to have a great first season, be hailed as a savior, get Notre Dame back on the cover of Sports Illustrated, have a shakier second season, and have the bottom fall out in years three through dismissal. It's the Notre Dame way.

By the way, did you hear what Charlie Weis is doing now that he's been fired from perhaps the most prestigious coaching job in sports? He's moved on to the second most prestigious coaching job in sports — offensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs.

LSU vs. North Carolina in Atlanta

This is another burgeoning opening week tradition — a great ACC/SEC neutral site matchup in Atlanta. Alabama vs. Virginia Tech last year. Alabama and Clemson the year before. LSU this year. And North Carolina? Huh? Again I ask, did someone back out at the last second? I hear ya, Tar Heel fans, "Oh! We've been to the Meineke Car Care Bowl two years straight!"

Washington State @ Oklahoma State

The game itself isn't particularly notable, but I have a strange fasciation with the carrion that is Washington State football.

Did you know, in the very decade that just ended, they put together three consecutive 10-win seasons? Now, they are the reigning worst team in a BCS conference, and might've the year before, as well.

It just goes to reflect how crucial coaching and recruiting is in college football for programs like Ohio State and USC that don't have an immutable legacy. The campus, in Eastern Washington, is snowy, no big cities nearby, and without a lot of attractions for recruits who are not nature lovers nor interested in one of their specific academic programs. The larger area, which encompasses part of Idaho, is known as the Palouse (rhymes with moose).

Boise Stae @ Virginia Tech

This one will be on Monday (Labor Day) and the game (besides the games I have a natural rooting interest for) that excites me the most. Who doesn't like to see Boise win still another "statement" game and collect a BCS scalp? This one will be played in the Washington Redskins' home stadium.

Oregon State @ TCU

How unremarkable did this game look just a couple years ago, before TCU went on their BCS bowl berth run and Oregon State finished a game away from a Pac-10 championship and the Rose Bowl? My Dallasite girlfriend tells me that the local radio stations were abuzz with calls for TCU to be brought up to the Big 12 last year. I don't get behind that, but really, this game is on the same order of Boise State/VT.

Other games you may be interested in:

Navy vs. Maryland in Baltimore (the battle of Maryland)
Pittsburgh @ Utah
UConn @ Michigan
Washington @ BYU

The rivalry games that historically occur in Week 1 (and will continue to in 2010):

Colorado vs. Colorado State in Denver
Missouri vs. Illinois in St. Louis
Kentucky @ Louisville

Posted by Kevin Beane at 1:51 PM | Comments (1)

March 10, 2010

Has Recruiting Gone Too Far?

National Signing Day is certainly a unique occasion. Reporters flock all over the country to witness high school seniors sign their letters of intent. Teams of national reporters grade each class and each player down to what they like to eat for lunch. Schools with the top-ranked classes celebrate wildly, thinking national titles are inevitable.

All of this is associated with the love of college football. That, I can live with. However, as odd as it may seem to have college coaches, most of them millionaires, traveling to high schools to beg and persuade an 18-year-old kid to come play for them, how odd is it more that they have ... agents?

That's right, agents. There are now high school recruitment companies ... companies, whose purpose is to promote and help streamline the process for recruits. They offer a slew of flashy alternatives to promote a kid's ability on the field ... for a fee that is usually a few thousand dollars a year, and then they offer to help campaign the recruit to various programs.

Basically, these companies make money recruiting coaches. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? How long do you really think it'll take before these companies start getting some gifts from interested boosters, if they are completely neutral to all schools in the first place? Which, if one is a fan of college football, they're going to have at least a slight bias towards the alma mater.

Shoot, go back to when John Calipari left Memphis for Kentucky. Remember how most of his class followed him, and the discussion of someone that helped lean players towards the controversial coach? No matter what all went down, the seed was planted.

One such company in Arkansas, Pinnacle Preps, is already facing controversy. The company was sued recently by a local family who alleges the company did not deliver as advertised. Furthermore, the same company caused an uproar in the state when its founder was seen in a picture with recruits inside an Auburn University locker room.

Granted, it's his right to go to campuses if he pleases. However, it does raise suspicions, mostly because the founder's high school coach was Gus Malzahn, Auburn's offensive coordinator, hence the uproar from Arkansas fans.

See what I mean? I certainly don't know all the facts to the story, but even if it's just coincidence, the whole "high school recruiting company" just oozes of trouble. And let's face it, college football has enough debate and controversy as is.

What's more shocking is that the NCAA hasn't taken a serious sniff at this situation. With all the inquiries the organization has had with boosters paying players or giving out favors, wouldn't you think they'd try to either get some rules straight or nip some of this in the bud? Does it not seem a little suspicious that high school recruitment is becoming less and less between coach and player (and his family), and more and more towards coach, player, family, and promoter?

I'm sure they'll get around to it in 2018 ... I mean, they're making some speedy headway this year by talking to Reggie Bush about his USC days, right?

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 8:54 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 4

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson's two-race winning streak was snapped in Atlanta, as a pesky tire-rub issue that forced a four-tire pit stop late in the race negated any chance for the win. Still, Johnson brought the No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet across the finish in 12th, a solid finish and one that kept him well in sight of points leader Kevin Harvick.

"How's this for irony?" asked Johnson. "After a four-tire pit stop in Las Vegas won me the race, it was a four-tire stop in Atlanta that likely cost me the race. But that's the nature of this sport. One week, you're being handed your fifth Sprint Cup championship trophy; the next, you're a mere afterthought. That's going from 'iconic' to 'ironic' in the span of a week."

"But what better way to deflect the 'Jimmie Johnson domination is bad for the sport' talk than a mediocre finish coupled with a spectacular crash? My teammate Jeff Gordon recently spoke of the need for rivalries in NASCAR. Well, we've got a big one now. Unfortunately, it's between a driver who needs algebra to count his enemies, and another who hasn't won a race in two years. For Carl Edwards, it seems that 'V' is indeed for 'vendetta,' and not for 'victory,' while for Brad Keselowski, 'V' is for 'victim.'"

2. Kevin Harvick — A qualifying run of 35th forebode a difficult race day for Harvick, but persistence and astute pit calls by crew chief Gil Martin gave the No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil team a hard-earned ninth-place finish in the Kobalt Tools 500 in Atlanta. Harvick still leads the Sprint Cup point standings with a 26-point cushion over Matt Kenseth.

"Once again, Carl Edwards has let his temper get the best of him. One would think fatherhood would have mellowed him out, but it seems that his infernal instincts have overwhelmed his paternal instincts. When NASCAR's done with him, he may just get some paternity 'leave.'""

"There's only one person that calls him 'Daddy.' After NASCAR levies a fine that is sure to be in the thousands, there will be lots of people calling him 'grand' daddy. Last week, all the talk was of Carl's first born; now all the talk centers on Carl's first airborne."

3. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth scored his fourth top-10 finish of the year with a second in Atlanta, surviving a race marked by late crashes and 16 extra laps. Kenseth moved up two positions in the point standings to second, and trails Kevin Harvick by only 26 points.

"I think we're starting to reap the benefits of switching crew chiefs," Kenseth said. "Todd Parrott was the right choice, if for no other reason than his name is easily pronounced. Besides, Parrott's presence has spawned another unoriginal nickname for my pit crew. No longer known as the 'Killer B's,' these guys now prefer to be called the 'Parrott-heads.' Changes in latitude have resulted in changes in 'Matt-itude.' If Jimmy Buffett has a problem with any of our copyright infringements, we hope he'll at least let us enjoy it through the weekend. 'Come Monday,' if it's still a problem, we'll cease and desist."

"As for our esteemed Roush Fenway teammate Carl Edwards, my team loyalty, as well as my team owner, forbid me from criticizing Edwards. Besides, criticism at a time like this is counter-productive. There's only one thing Carl needs more than my support, and that's counseling. And I'm sure he'll get lots of it. Heck, he might even need counsel, in the form of a lawyer, when he faces council, in the form of NASCAR's disciplinary board."

"You know, they call him 'Cousin Carl.' After NASCAR parked him for aggressive driving, they're now calling him 'Cousin Carl, once removed.'"

4. Greg Biffle — After hitting the wall in Saturday's Happy Hour, Biffle resorted to a backup car and went to the back of the field for the start of Sunday's Kobalt Tools 500. Biffle steadily climbed up the leaderboard in the Census 2010 Ford, and was near the front for a number of late restarts. A further charge to the front was nullified when spinning tires ahead of him slowed his line, considerably holding up a train of cars.

"There's a name for those guys," Biffle said. "They're called tire 'scrubs.'"

"I'm just happy we finished well and didn't get caught up in any of the Carl Edwards-Brad Keselowski melees. Those two are akin to Aaron Fike and heroin — when they 'get together,' someone gets 'high.'"

"I think, in the coming days, Carl's going to be schooled in the difference between 'retaliatory' and 'conciliatory.' I think Carl immediately realized the severity of his actions and acted quickly to make amends. That's probably why he drove through pit lane in the wrong direction after being black-flagged. Obviously, Carl's version of the 'Polish Victory Lap' was a tribute to Keselowski's Polish heritage."

5. Kurt Busch — Busch led 129 laps at Atlanta, including the final nine after darting to the lead on a lap 332 restart, and won the Kobalt Tools 500, repeating his spring Atlanta victory of last year. With his first win under new crew chief Steve Addington, Busch jumped nine spots in the point standings to 10th, and trails first by 142 points.

"I know Steve feels vindicated now that he's got a win as my crew chief under his belt. Kyle Busch's No. 18 M&M's team took Steve's job; now. Steve gets to tell them to shove it."

"As for the Carl Edwards-Brad Keselowski incident, I'm sure NASCAR's new policy of allowing drivers to 'police themselves' will be put to the test. On one hand, you've got Edwards showing the 'personality' that NASCAR hoped for. On the other, you've got a car sailing through the air, endangering drivers and fans alike. I hate to say it, but NASCAR asked for this. Edwards may be a loose cannon, but the subjective interpretation of NASCAR's new edict makes their law a loose 'canon.'"

"In any case, the Edwards-Keselowski history is 'feud' for thought."

6. Mark Martin — Martin blew a left-rear tire on lap 115, sending him sliding through the infield grass, as the Hendrick Motorsports team struggled with tire issues all day in Atlanta. Martin recovered from his blown tire, but was collected in a lap 331 wreck started when Jamie McMurray got loose. Martin finished 33rd, 10 laps down, and fell four places in the point standings to seventh.

"One would think," Martin said, "after Goodyear's infamous history in Atlanta, they would have had this tire problem completely resolved by now. And one would think, having not driven the Viagra car for three years, I'd no longer be subject to jokes about 'inflation.'"

7. Clint Bowyer — After a quick, two-tire pit stop during a caution after Brad Keselowski's crash, Bowyer held the lead for the first try at a green-white-checkered finish. After taking the green, Bowyer's No. 33 BB&T Chevy was easily picked off by cars with four fresh tires, and soon after the No. 33 was collected in a crash initiated by Jamie McMurray. Bowyer remained on the lead lap, however, and finished a respectable 23rd. He dropped three places in the Sprint Cup standings to fifth.

"It was an up-and-down day for us in Atlanta," Bowyer said. "And speaking of 'up-and-down,' I had a front row seat for takeoff and landing of Brad Keselowski's No. 12 Dodge. If you ask any of his rivals, they'll tell you that's as close to heaven as Keselowski will ever get."

8. Kasey Kahne — Kahne led 144 of 341 laps in Atlanta, finishing fourth to lead a contingent of three Richard Petty Motorsports drivers in the top six. RPM teammates Paul Menard and A.J. Allmendinger came home fifth and sixth, respectively.

"Richard Petty was as happy as could be," Kahne said. "I believe King Richard was 'nighted' on Sunday, meaning he slept very well."

"Now, I would be remiss if I didn't offer my opinions on the Carl Edwards/Brad Keselowski shenanigans, or at the very least Twitter or Facebook my thoughts. Some may deem it odd that Edwards chose to explain himself on his Facebook page. I don't. I think it was wise. Where else could Carl go and be surrounded by 'friends?'

"I think it's interesting that the opportunity for drivers to 'police themselves' arose one week after Danica Patrick left. It seems that for the first three races of the year, drivers were less interested in the chance to 'police themselves,' and more interested in an occasion to 'cop' a feel."

9. Tony Stewart — Starting from the back after an engine change, Stewart quickly worked his way to the front in Atlanta, only to be shuffled back after a loose wheel forced an unscheduled pit stop on lap 307. The No. 14 Office Depot emerged in 30th, but Stewart recovered to finish 13th, thanks to a few wrecks that eliminated much of the field, and thanks as well to Stewart's ability to avoid those wrecks. Up three spots in the point standings, Stewart is now eighth, 134 out of first.

"It's been a somewhat uneventful year for me so far," Stewart said. "You know it's been a quiet year for Tony Stewart when there's an Atlanta race with tire problems and you still don't hear much from me. A top-10 finish in Bristol, or a Rolling Stone article, will make some noise."

10. Juan Montoya — Montoya was a force all day in Atlanta, qualifying third and finishing third to rebound from a tough day in Las Vegas last week. It was Montoya's first top-five and second top-10 finish of the year.

"What a difference a week makes," Montoya said. "Last week in Las Vegas, Jamie McMurray wrecked his teammate. This week, he wrecked everybody but his teammate."

"I may drive the Target-sponsored car, but the No. 42 clearly wasn't the most 'Target'-ed car on the track. That belonged to Brad Keselowski's No. 12 Dodge. I think the people at Aflac chose a good race to keep their logo from prominent display on the No. 99. Carl Edwards may usually be sponsored by a duck, but, at least on Sunday, he was crazy as a loon."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

March 9, 2010

Lovie's Last Stand

Lovie Smith's head coaching career with the Bears got off to a sterling start. Following a 5-11 rebuilding season in his rookie year of 2004, the Bears won the NFC North on the strength of Smith's defensive unit, and Lovie was named Coach of the Year. In 2006, the Bears went 13-3 and made it to the Super Bowl. Smith was on top of the world.

Since then, the Bears are 23-25 with no playoff appearances. They haven't been terrible, but there have been plenty of low moments, and many fans see little reason for optimism. Smith is on the hot seat, and it's time for drastic action if he and GM Jerry Angelo are going to keep their jobs. No one can say the Bears aren't giving him the resources he needs; drastic action is exactly what the team is taking.

No club has been more active this offseason. They've hired Mike Martz as offensive coordinator, signed coveted free agent Julius Peppers, and grabbed Chester Taylor from the division rival Minnesota Vikings. They're even getting Brian Urlacher back from a wrist injury. None of those moves are sure things, but all of them have the potential to make this team a lot better.

Martz, who was Smith's boss in St. Louis, where Lovie was defensive coordinator, will try to recapture the magic that has eluded him since 2003. Martz's mentor Norv Turner has been a head coach for three different teams, but has always excelled as an offensive coach. Martz did great things when he had Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Orlando Pace from 1999-2001, but his erratic decision-making, combined with inconsistent success and a health problem, eventually cost Martz his job. He then oversaw mediocre offenses in Detroit, clashed with Mike Singletary in San Francisco, and didn't coach at all last year.

During his 38-year coaching career, Martz has actually held 18 different positions, meaning he switches jobs an average of once every two seasons. A few of those position changes were promotions, but Martz is hardly a steadying influence for a team dealing with turmoil. They don't call this guy "Mad Mike" for nothing.

Peppers is one of the great defensive players of this generation. He has double-digit sacks in five of the last six seasons and ranks first or second among active defensive ends in INTs (6), INT yards (177), INT TDs (2), and passes defended (46). He's a physical marvel and phenomenal athlete who probably still has room to improve. The questions about Peppers are his motivation and motor; he sometimes seems not to go 100%. He's also 30 years old and moving to a new defense. Will his productivity be the same?

Taylor, I think, is the one no-lose proposition. He rushed for 1,200 yards three years ago and has remained an effective third-down back and substitute for Adrian Peterson. In a perfect world, the Bears would like him to play a similar role with their team, but if Matt Forte struggles the way he did in 2009, Taylor should get an opportunity to be the primary ball-carrier. At the very least, Minnesota has to replace him, and the Bears get someone who's been inside the enemy's locker room.

It's not unusual for linebackers to be effective into their 30s, but Urlacher is a 10-year vet coming off an injury and a year away from the game. The supporting cast that once kept blockers away is a shadow of what he had in 2005, when Urlacher was named Defensive Player of the Year. Will a rejuvenated Urlacher recapture the form he had during Chicago's '06 Super Bowl run, or will he look old and beaten up, a timeworn warrior who refuses to admit that the team can't build around him any more?

Obviously, the Bears have more questions than answers right now. Will Martz help Jay Cutler justify the team's investment in him? Is Brandon Manumaleuna a perfect complement for Martz's offense, or does his acquisition translate to limited playing time for Greg Olsen? Will the team's young receiving corps continue to develop, or will the lack of a star wideout doom the air attack? Can Peppers help Mark Anderson and Tommie Harris recover their 2006 form? Does the team have two good options at RB, or a pair of guys who should be backups?

I have limited faith in Martz, who hasn't put together a really good offense in nearly a decade, and I don't think Cutler has ever been as good as the hype. Peppers is a powerful acquisition for any team, but I think the Bears need to concentrate more on the weakest link, solidifying their interior line and defensive backfield, than on superstars opponents can game-plan around. Offensive line remains an area of concern and should probably be the team's top priority in April's draft. Taylor and Manumaleuna are positive additions, but they aren't impact players.

We won't know until next season how this all plays out, but the team is obviously working hard to build a winner. Coach Smith knows that if the team doesn't show progress this year, he'll be looking for a new job next season, and if this is Lovie's last stand, he's going down fighting.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:09 PM | Comments (1)

Tennis, Economic, or Player Recession?

It's really late here in New Jersey, or really early depending on your perspective of what 1:37 AM means. I'm glad I'm still up, though, as three minutes ago, I received an e-mail from Andrew Walker, Vice President of Global Marketing and Communications for the Sony Ericsson Women's Tennis Association Tour.

The press release announced that Sony Ericsson was extending its global sponsorship of women's professional tennis through 2012. In the extension, Sony Ericsson will still be the primary sponsor and have the most prominent signage, but they are giving up the tour title sponsorship and also giving up title sponsorship of the year-ending tour championships.

So in a short time, the full name of the tour will revert to just the Women's Tennis Association Tour, or WTA Tour and the year-ending championships will not have any title sponsor. I've discussed the current world economic situation and its effect on the professional tennis industry here many times, and this is just another indication that while tennis remains a viable advertising and marketing medium, the sponsors are having to tighten their belts.

It was announced just last week that after the final tally, the Australian Open had its greatest ticket sales and attendance ever, and that the ticket sales were able to balance out the loss of sponsor and advertising revenues at this year's tournament. That is good news, but does show the revenue shift back to consumer sales, not B2B sales. This may not seem significant, but for both the ATP and WTA tours, it is critical.

If profitability is going to rest now on the attendance and ticket sales of the tournaments in a much greater proportion, then the tours,especially the WTA, need to recognize that the major players must absolutely keep their commitments, and also that the WTA Tour needs to build new stars and re-invigorate the old rivalries almost immediately. This shouldn't be a problem, given that Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters have returned with a bang, and it seems that the Williams sisters will be consistent contenders. Go any deeper, though, and there are problems.

A great example is the Monterrey Open that just concluded in Monterrey, Mexico. In the tier three WTA tournament, the relatively unknown Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (RUS) defeated once-top-tier player Daniela Hantuchova (SVK) easily, 1-6, 6-1, 6-0. Hantuchova was a former top-five player and was once thought to have a shot at one of the major tournament titles. But she is still a dangerous player, and her 22nd ranking is deceptive. Her play and results, however, no longer make her an interesting story. Ditto for Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic, even though Jankovic currently is still in the top 10.

It may be unfortunate, but what sells the WTA tour is not only the tennis talent, but its off-court marketability. Hantuchova, Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, and Maria Kirilenko are all model quality and winning on the court directly leads to their marketability off-court. Their marketability off-court directly feeds into the consumer base for the WTA tour. It's a hard balance, especially given that the most revenue generating players aren't going deep enough into most of the tournaments.

Anna Kournikova never won the big ones, and never made it to the final of a big one. But she did win, went deep into most tournaments she played, and was around often for the TV coverage. I remember going to the old A&P tournament in Mahwah when she played it and on her match days, the place was packed. This is part of what makes the WTA tour as watchable as it is.

The BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells is a perfect example. Neither Venus nor Serena Williams are here, sticking to their pledge to never return after the controversial comments and sneers made here a few years ago. The draw is nearly half empty, with most of the top seeds getting first-round byes in what is normally a full 128-player draw. Of the seeded players, Svetlana Kuznetsova is seeded first and the recognizable names are few and far between. Maria Sharapova is in the draw, as well as Kim Clijsters, but then it drops off quickly. Yes, the young, new faces of the tour are here, led by Agnieszka Radawanska and Victoria Azarenka, but they aren't draws yet.

In a week or so, we will know how the tournament fared and who the winner will be. Based on the draw, Kim Clijsters should come away with another Premier Mandatory Tour title. And based on the draw, I guess we have a new meaning for the word mandatory...

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

March 8, 2010

The Third Annual NBA Oscars

Two hosts? No "thank you's." Ten Best Picture nominees?

Academy Awards, we hardly know ye.

My favorite gimmick since I starting writing for Sports Central over three years ago was to combine my two favorite things, movies (and along those lines, awards shows, due to all of the unintentional comedy and all-around smugness in the building) and NBA basketball, into one column, which I cleverly called "NBA Oscars."

The Oscars have thrown me a curveball with all the subtle changes this year.

Still, the show must go on.

Being able to make adjustments on the fly is an important trait that all NBA champions must possess to be successful in the playoffs. And, luckily, it's a trait that I possess as well.

At first, I hated the idea of the academy expanding the Best Picture nominees to 10. Everyone knows that there are only two or three movies that even have a chance to win to begin with, so why double the field?

However, when I realized how much easier 10 Best Picture nominees made writing the annual NBA Oscars column, I was all for it.

I've decided to embrace the 10 Best Picture nominees and scrap the old format. Because, unlike the Oscars, where there are only a select few movies that have a chance to win, the NBA seems wide open right now.

Sure, there are some favorites (L.A. and Cleveland), but there are several other teams that can take home the most coveted prize in the game — the Larry O'Brien Trophy.

In today's third annual NBA Oscars column, we take a look at the parallels between the 10 Best Picture nominees and the 10 teams competing for an NBA title.

"Avatar" — Los Angeles Lakers

The Lakers are the "Avatar" of the NBA right now. Everyone knows about them. Everyone has seen them. Every one either loves them or hates them. Their coach/director can probably be best described as a pompous genius.

Winning the title last season for the Lakers and Kobe Bryant is the equivalent of Avatar setting all sorts of box office records. It's great, but it wasn't everything. For as much as Kobe wanted that first ring on his own to step out of Shaq's shadow, he knows that nothing short of a dynasty will put him in the same breath as Michael Jordan.

Just like how making billions of dollars was great for "Avatar," James Cameron knows that history will only remember "Avatar" as little more than a summer blockbuster if it doesn't take home significant hardware Oscar weekend.

"The Hurt Locker" — Cleveland Cavaliers

Much like "The Hurt Locker," the Cavs are the trendy favorite heading into this week. Everyone seems to love them, and everyone wants to make a case for them over the Lakers.

But, just like "The Hurt Locker," I don't think the Cavs are as good as the hype. Yes, they are possibly the best team in the league right now. Yes, they are going to have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs. And yes, they are going to get big Z back for one last big push late in the season.

Still, I can't help but feel like I've heard this story before. I liked "The Hurt Locker," but I feel like I've seen that movie before. I get it, war is intense, and it changes the young men and women who fight in it. I was hoping for a little more from it.

Same with the Cavs. I get it. You can win a ton of games in the Eastern Conference. You can beat good teams in the regular season. Show me something new. Show me that when you play an elite level team in a seven game series that you can overcome that.

Until that happens, the Cleveland Cavaliers are just another good NBA team, the same way "The Hurt Locker" was just another good war movie.

"The Blind Side" — Denver Nuggets

The Nuggets relate more to "The Blind Side" than any other team relates to any movie on this list.

How can you not root for the Nuggets right now? Their biggest star, Carmelo Anthony, seems to have turned the corner and matured into the great, well-rounded pro that we knew he would be, a la Sandra Bullock.

Their driving force, Chauncey Billups, is as likable as any star in the league. It's hard not to root a consummate professional like Chauncey.

And, oh yeah, they have also cornered the "feel-good story" market with George Karl. First of all, he seems like the most likable and personable NBA head coach I've ever seen. He's the kind of guy you like to root for anyway.

But when you throw in the fact that he's one of the winningest coaches to never win an NBA title and he's battling cancer for a second time, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to want to root for a guy like that.

"District 9" — Utah Jazz

The Jazz are "District 9" because, well, I haven't seen "District 9," and I don't really know what it's about. Aliens living in South Africa, maybe?

That's how I feel about the Jazz: I don't really know what they're about. It's the same core of players that has maxed out as "good, but not quite legit contender" over the past three seasons or so, only they are playing better than ever before.

Have they finally turned the corner and reached their max potential, or, like the "District 9," do they just fall into the category of nominated teams because there's 10 now, and we gotta nominate someone?

We'll find out in April.

"An Education" — Oklahoma City Thunder

OKC is "An Education" because that's exactly what they're going to get this postseason. I've written it before, but it's worth revisiting right now, I don't think that a team can have any success in the postseason without having first suffered some pretty heartbreaking series defeats and learning from them.

Take a look back at all the champions of the past 20 years or so. With minimal exceptions, each team that has won the title has been beaten in the playoffs in heartbreaking fashion, only to learn from it and come back stronger than ever.

"Inglorious Basterds" — Atlanta Hawks

The Hawks look like they might have the best team chemistry of all the Eastern Conference contenders. They play well as a team, have no egos, and have had a lot of recent success — just like the Basterds.

Unfortunately, Brad Pitt and Ryan from "The Office" get captured at the end of the movie by the Jew Hunter. The moral of the story, no matter how good you are at what you do, there's always someone out there that is just as good, if not better.

The Cleveland Cavilers are to the Atlanta Hawks what the Jew Hunter was to the Basterds (I promise that's not nearly as racist as it sounds if you've seen the movie).

I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say that doesn't exactly mean that the Hawks are headed for an early exit.

"Precious" — Boston Celtics

Has there ever been a group of people that took themselves more serious than the cast and crew of "Precious" did last night?

From Mo'nique and the screenwriters' over-the-top acceptance speeches to the best actress chick crying when Oprah introduced her as a best actress nominee, the whole thing reeked of smugness. Honestly, you guys made a movie, you didn't alter the course of history or rid the world of hunger and disease. Get over yourself.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about the 2009-10 Celtics.

"A Serious Man" — Orlando Magic

The Orlando Magic are "A Serious Man," because that seems to be the consensus on what it's going to take for Dwight Howard to become and NBA champion: he needs to get serious.

I don't buy it. Yeah, Howard is a fun-loving goofball, but it doesn't translate onto the floor, at least not all the time.

Take yesterday's game against the Lakers. He may have flashed the million-dollar smile a few times more than Kobe, but don't try and tell me that Dwight Howard wasn't just as intense. Teams feed off their leaders. They emulate them in tough situations.

Dwight Howard is the leader of the Orlando Magic, and if yesterday was any indication, he will have no trouble getting this team mentally ready to go to battle during the playoffs.

The Magic might not win it all, but it they do come up short, it won't be because Dwight Howard isn't serious enough.

"Up" — Dallas Mavericks

Dallas wins the distinction of "Up," because that's what happened to their chances of winning the West at the trade deadline — they went way up.

There are some negative things that you can say about Mark Cuban, but you can never question how much he wants to win. He has a reputation of doing whatever it takes, at any cost, to help the Mavericks win an NBA title.

He delivered on that reputation again at the trade deadline, acquiring Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood from the Wizards.

The move doesn't necessarily put the Mavericks over the top, but it makes them better right now than they were at the start of the season, which is the whole point of making moves at the trade deadline.

In my opinion, Dallas is still in a class below the Lakers and Nuggets, but they still have a fighting chance to surprise those teams and take the West, which is higher praise than anyone had for "Up's" chances of taking home the Best Picture.

"Up in the Air" — San Antonio Spurs

If we are comparing teams to movies, then we should be able to compare actors to players, too. And if we're doing that, isn't Tim Duncan George Clooney?

Think about it, for at least the last decade, both men have been as consistent as it gets at their craft. Duncan goes about his business, quietly makes the first or second team All-NBA, and you can never count him out in the postseason. The Spurs don't always hit home runs, but they are always a threat.

Clooney makes a lot of movies, 22 since 2000, and more often than not, he is good. He's made comedies, dramas, romantic comedies, animated films, and vampire movies, and he's been good in just about all of them. He's made blockbusters, independent films, and everything in between. And when the Oscar nominations come out, you can expect that he's going to be on the list. He's been nominated for five Oscars in the last five years.

When I saw the previews for "Up in the Air" that said it was going to be released on Christmas Day, and I saw that it was starring George Clooney, I immediately thought that it had Oscar written all over it.

When the Spurs acquired Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess, then stole DeJuan Blair in the second round this offseason, I immediately thought this season had NBA Finals written all over it.

Well, unfortunately for "Up in the Air," it didn't have Oscar written all over it. It came up short in all six of its Oscar nominations. But the point is, mostly because of Clooney, it took until the final 30 seconds of Oscar night until we found out that "Up in the Air" came up short.

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

I Wish I Was a Little Bit Smaller

In all my years of following college basketball, I've been mostly whole. Ever since I started recognizing the NCAA and its sporting community, I've lived in a place where big-time collegiate athletics was close-by. It took a couple of miles across a state line to focus my energy on one favorite school — and one favorite rival.

Once every year, the basketball world known as the Big Eight used to converge on my hometown to decide their automatic bid for the NCAA tournament. For many years since 1996, the same location has sent the Big 12's first representative into that season's Big Dance. This coming week will provide yet another opportunity for a large state-run school to gain momentum heading onto the national stage.

Saturday, the Kansas/Missouri showdown continued for all fans around my hometown. Even as I live almost 450 miles away, I still pined to watch the game and rooted on my beloved Tigers (to no avail). But inside all of the hoopla, there's another school that lives in the shadows. It has no bowl game tradition. It's never been to a College World Series. And its mascot ... is a marsupial.

That school would be the University of Missouri at Kansas City (and its Kangaroos). The university is located in the heart of the city, but basically goes unnoticed when it comes to athletics. The 'Roos have only been a Division I basketball program since 1987, a member of the Mid-Continent Conference (now the Summit League) since 1994, and haven't reached the game's penultimate goal. (Unfortunately, the fans of UMKC have little more to root for this year. The Kangaroos got eliminated in the Summit League quarterfinals.)

But even though my allegiances are tied to places named Columbia and Ames, I have had those moments where I said, "Oh, cool. UMKC's playing. Let's go, guys."

My favorite time of the year will occur in less than two weeks. To me, there's nothing like the chaos of the first two days of the main draw. However, I've got to say that I'm a bit conflicted. I'm guilty of my fondness for the super-conferences of the college landscape. I'm disconnected to the close-knit nature of those "non-major" communities. I'm jealous of the passion that fans of a lot of these smaller schools hold, not over two days, but possibly over two weeks.

This is something that kids and alums of Winthrop, East Tennessee State, and Murray State can flaunt today after their teams earned Saturday's golden tickets to the Madness.

While many fans of the big programs are more focused on seeding and winning a big game to get in position for the tournament, followers of Big Sky, Southland, and MEAC schools know one thing: you have to win a trophy to get a trophy. (Definition: Unless you win a league title, you have no shot at a national title.)

I'm fortunate in the fact that Missouri had no chance to win the Big 12 regular season title, and a small shot at repeating as tourney champs, yet, they will more than likely be playing a week from Thursday or Friday. You can't say that about UMKC, or Southeast Missouri State, or Arkansas-Pine Bluff, etc. Those squads are in a more desperate position.

Sometimes, though, desperation can lead to elation. Syracuse is expected to win. People will see campaigns at Kentucky and Kansas as failures without a Final Four berth. Any big school should get to the Sweet 16. And Heaven forbid for the ones that didn't even make the field.

To the ants getting squished under the feet of the giants, they've made it. They've won. Any progress in the Dance is a mound of sugar cubes. And, trust me, any big school alum has seen their team's dreams get carried away like a block of C&H disappearing down the anthill.

We don't remember that Indiana beat Kent State in the 2002 South Regional final. We know that the Golden Flashes got there. The fact that Connecticut defeated Gonzaga in the 1999 West Regional final is a mere footnote to Casey Calvary's buzzer-beater and the main story of the Bulldogs' Cinderella run. And while few can say that Rhode Island beat Valparaiso in the 1998 Sweet 16, most remember Bryce Drew's improbable three to upset Ole Miss two rounds before.

These are just some of the teams that have made their mark in the mainstream. And the commonality — they all grinded through and won their one shot at Madness life, the conference tourney. They took the baton and provided pride for their respective conferences. They made a statement that quality basketball could be played outside programs that catered to seven-figure coaches and eight-figure budgets.

For the next few days, everyone will once again get to witness the corners of this basketball-crazed country, where fans actually can reach the rafters and regular season wins might actually equal a true advantage. And while a big chunk of us viewers can commiserate (or celebrate) from afar, the majority of us won't feel the frenzy that makes your do-or-die situation so special.

Here's to the fans of Siena, Quinnipiac, UC-Santa Barbara, and Jackson State. Your teams can be the 2010 upstarts of March. And watch out for those upset-filled potholes. One thing's certain ... I wish I was there.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 6, 2010

Retractions and Predictions

With two months of college basketball since I made five predictions about this season, it's time to look back at what was said and make the final revisions before the madness begins.

1. The national championship game will feature at least one Big 12 team.

I'll admit that this was based on a now apparently mistaken belief that the Texas Longhorns were a legitimate contender. The only reason this prediction still has a chance to hold true is that Kansas is still looking as strong as ever. I'll stand by this prediction and say that Kansas wins at least five tournament games.

Kansas is only half of the picture here, however, and without predicting the other team that will be playing in Lucas Oil Stadium on April 5th, I'm kind of taking the easy way out. When it comes to picking that team, I've got a pick that's not too farfetched to seem reasonable, but won't make me any friends in Lexington.

Kansas won't be playing Kentucky for the national championship, and Syracuse won't be there either. The runner-up of this year's tournament will be the Ohio State Buckeyes.

Why, you might ask? There are many reasons, ranging from the best perimeter shooter in the nation, Jon Diebler, to the electrifying William Bufford. But for the most convincing reason why, read the next prediction.

2. John Wall won't win National Player of the Year, and neither will Sherron Collins.

I did have a specific player in mind when I wrote this, and now that he's lived up to his potential, I've got no problem saying that Evan Turner is clearly the best player in college basketball. John Wall and Sherron Collins are both great players, but Turner stands head-and-shoulders above them both.

At this point, it's mainly become a two-horse race, with Turner and Wall pulling away from Collins and the field. Early in the season, it looked like Wall might prove this prediction wrong, and it's not even that he's gotten worse since that time, it's just that Evan Turner is playing at a level that is simply astounding.

A quick statistical comparison between the two shows that Turner beats Wall by 3 points and 5 rebounds per game, while Wall averages just under 1 assist more per game. These numbers on their own don't mean Turner is better than Wall, but they do seem to say that at the very least, Turner is as good as Wall.

The real proof is found in what Turner means to his team. Without him, they dropped out of the top 25, and since his return, they've climbed close to the top five. John Wall helps Kentucky, but with players like Eric Bledsoe, DeMarcus Cousins, and Patrick Patterson on the same team, he's not quite as critical to his team's success.

I don't buy some of the recent hype about Turner getting drafted before Wall, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have Turner as my go-to-guy.

3. The Kentucky Wildcats will win 30 games this year.

It seemed fairly obvious then, and it seems like a lock now. Barring one of the worst collapses in history, the Wildcats will have 30 wins by the end of the season, and they'll probably reach that mark before Selection Sunday.

Not really much to add to this one, although my new prediction for the Wildcats' win total might prove to be more risky than the last one. I'll revise the old prediction by adding that the Wildcats won't reach 35 wins.

4. The UNLV Runnin' Rebels will play in the Elite Eight.

This prediction was based on the amazing play of UNLV's guards, who, since that time, have been considerably less impressive. Only one of those guards, Tre'Von Willis, is averaging 10 or more points per game right now.

There is a glimmer of hope here for the Runnin' Rebels, and for this prediction, and that is the athletic play of this team. Even in most of their losses, UNLV showed the ability to make a run at different points in the game, and teams that can consistently do that generally have sustained success in March.

This team has the ability to top 100 points if all of their players show up to play, and that's just enough for me to stick to my guns on this one.

5. The Gonzaga Bulldogs won't finish first in the WCC.

I'm honestly not sure what possessed me to make this prediction. The Bulldogs will win the WCC, and probably one or two games in the tournament as well.

This is a lesson in not buying into early season struggles, and the only prediction I'll retract completely.

We can't be certain about any of this, but we do know one thing for sure.

March Madness is here, and not a moment too soon.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 1:01 PM | Comments (7)

March 5, 2010

What Now, NHL?

Twenty-six million Americans tuned in to see Sidney Crosby score an overtime goal that clinched the gold medal for Team Canada over Team USA. The buzz over the game was everywhere, from Twitter trends hyping up Ryan Miller to David Letterman making jokes about hockey. Even Sports Illustrated — a publication long known for generally ignoring hockey except when the Stanley Cup is awarded — put Sidney Crosby on its cover.

That's right; for one perhaps-brief moment, hockey was the most popular sport in the United States. Of course, back in 2002, Team Canada and Team USA played for the gold medal to strong ratings and some buzz, and there wasn't much sustained momentum for the NHL to tap into. So can this be different?

Yes. And no. In some ways, technology has advanced the way we communicate, research, and socialize, and all of that has made it easier to grab on to new trends. And when your new hot trends are Sidney Crosby and Ryan Miller, then that's only going to benefit hockey as a whole. General awareness of those guys, along with Zach Parise to a lesser extent, is through the roof. One mainstream commentator even mused that the instant Crosby put the puck in net, he became the most talked-about person in North America. That's quite a feat for a hockey player.

It helps that the actual game was competitive, fast-paced, and hard hitting — much different, in fact, from the 2002 game, which saw the Americans open the scoring before Team Canada took over. For much of that game, the Canadians pushed the Americans to the outside and you never really got a sense that Team USA could come back. In the 2010 version, the Americans not only pushed back, they fought hard to battle the more-talented Team Canada squad to the brink. It was exciting and ferocious — exactly the type of tilt that's needed to sell hockey.

And of course, it was broadcast in brilliantly-clear HD. Think about how many people actually had HD back in 2002 compared to now. Also, consider the difference HD makes for the casual sports fan in following hockey. When you add that to the pace of the 2010 gold medal game, it's bound to leave an impression on the Joe Football in the Mid-West.

The flip side to all of this is that today's audiences are more fickle than ever, with short-term memories and shorter attention spans. While more people may know who Sidney Crosby is, will they tune in? Early post-Olympic Versus ratings show some bump, but the true test will be the Stanley Cup playoffs.

It's difficult to sustain the level of momentum the NHL experienced from the Vancouver games. Just about everything went right (minus the Team Russia implosion, but that's a story for another time) to create the ultimate marketing situation. More people were exposed to hockey at its best, and it was presented with the latest technology that could showcase the both the sport (HD) and the stories (online coverage through Twitter, blogs, and video).

The NHL may not see a tangible bump in terms of TV ratings over the long term, and some will pencil that as a disappointment. However, the difference is that the Olympics created awareness, not just for the sport but for the ever-marketable brand of Sidney Crosby. With awareness comes potential, and if the casual sports fan can come to know who Crosby is, then maybe a strong playoff run from Alexander Ovechkin can stir the same thing. Maybe a thrilling seven-game Stanley Cup final will capture the eyeballs of some of those sports fans, and perhaps that can build. No single event can generate instant long-term fans, but it can create a foundation.

The future, then, is a combination of luck and smart marketing. A boring Cup final with smaller-market teams won't necessarily hurt the league, but it may not get the most out of that new potential. If, say, the Washington Capitals make it to the Cup final against a high-profile team like the Chicago Blackhawks, there's a good chance the league can sustain some of its momentum from Vancouver.

There are no guarantees, but these Olympics have shown us that hockey can be a major player in the American sports landscape. Now it's just up to the league, teams, and players to realize that potential.

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

March 4, 2010

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 3

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — With a crafty four-tire pit stop during the race's final caution, Johnson and the No. 48 Lowe's team outsmarted the competition once again. Johnson's full set of fresh tires allowed him to catch and pass teammate Jeff Gordon, who opted for two tires. Johnson's win in the Shelby American 427 moved him up seven spots to fifth in the points, and also made him NASCAR's all-time wins leader at 1.5-mile tracks.

"How often can you say you 'had no luck' in Vegas," Johnson said, "and still came out a winner? I called everyone's two tires and raised them two more."

"Now, I realize that my winning ways have made me somewhat of the bad guy to drivers and fans alike. If that's the price for being the sport's elite, then so be it. Besides, I don't mind 'wearing black' in an ivory tower. Anyway, this is Las Vegas, so, at least for race day, they were calling it 'Sin-ister City.'"

"The Lowe's team goes into every race with the intention of winning. We always anticipate victory. So my wife isn't the only one 'expecting' on this team."

2. Kevin Harvick — For the second week in a row, Harvick finished runner-up to Jimmie Johnson, this time in Las Vegas in a race in which luck played no part in Johnson's win. Although winless for the year, Harvick and the No. 29 Chevrolet team served notice to Johnson that they'll be on Johnson's tail all year.

"Everybody knows Kevin Harvick pulls no punches," Harvick said. "Literally and figuratively. I like to speak as frankly as John Mayer tweets. On that note, in regards to Johnson, if you take the 'lucky' away from 'lucky S.O.B,' you still get 'S.O.B.'"

"But the chatter is all in good fun. What's wrong with taking a few shots at the champ. I'm like Muhammad Ali — I've got a good 'jab.'"

3. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer opted to stay on the track while the leaders pitted during the final caution on lap 230 of the Shelby American 427. Crew chief Shane Wilson's gamble paid off. Bowyer led three laps after the restart, and the track position helped secure an eighth-place finish, Bowyer's third top-10 result of the year. He trails Richard Childress teammate Kevin Harvick by 47 in the point standings.

"The No. 33 Cheerios/Hamburger Helper Chevy was again strong," Bowyer said. "Prior to the race, Las Vegas bookies gave pretty good odds for us to win the race. You could say we were 'handicapped,' much like a four-fingered mascot."

"And speaking of the Hamburger Helper mascot, I've got to 'hand' it to Shane for making such a gutsy call. He knows when to gamble; I know when to drive. Like Lady GaGa, he showed his 'Poker Face,' like Burt Reynolds, I drove like 'Stroker Ace.'"

4. Mark Martin — After spending much of the day hovering around the top 15, Martin made a late charge to the front, finishing fourth at Las Vegas to put a decisive Hendrick Motorsports stamp on the Shelby American 427. Teammates Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon finished first and third, respectively, and collectively led 237 of 267 laps. Martin jumped three spots in the point standings to third, and trails Kevin Harvick by 49.

"There was some concern about mechanical issues prior to the race," Martin said, "mostly due to the wheel issues experienced by Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. earlier in the year. Like Guns N' Roses, we feared we might face some 'Axl' problems. But they never a-Rose."

"Once we analyzed the track conditions and remedied the handling, the No. 5 GoDaddy.com Chevrolet was awesome towards the end. I'm proud of our consistency. Nationwide series fans may not be used to seeing it, but this GoDaddy.com car can finish in one piece."

"But Danica Patrick is still learning, so we shouldn't hold it against her. Just as importantly, we must resist the urge to hold her against it. We all knew Danica would have to learn on the fly when she signed to race in the Nationwide series. I think if you asked any red-blooded American male before the season, he would have told you he'd have no problem bearing witness to Danica's lady 'lumps.'"

5. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth recovered from an early tire-vibration issues that forced an extra pit stop to finish fifth at Las Vegas, his third top-10 finish of the year. Kenseth and the No. 17 Royal Crown Ford benefitted from a late caution that allowed the car to remain on the lead lap. Kenseth is now fourth in the points, 58 behind Kevin Harvick.

"Last year, Las Vegas was the beginning of the end for this team," Kenseth said. "After two wins to start 2009, things went downhill starting in Vegas. Luckily, I wasn't under Crown Royal sponsorship then. Otherwise, the season would have been known as a royal 'flush.'"

"Congratulations to Carl Edwards on the birth of his daughter. He's now got good reason to smoke a victory cigar."

"And congratulations to Dale Earnhardt, Jr. He's got yet another product, Amp Energy Juice, to bolster his endorsement empire. You can question his driving skill, but you can't doubt his marketing acumen. Hey, you know what you get when you mix vodka and Amp Energy Juice? A shrewd driver."

6. Greg Biffle — Always strong on Las Vegas' 1.5-mile oval, Biffle again showed prowess with a solid 10th-place result that could have been much better if not for an unfortunate pit incident. On lap 109, Biffle, running fourth, entered his pit box, but was blocked in when he tried to exit by A.J. Allmendinger's No. 43 car. Biffle restarted in 25th, and spent the balance of the race making up ground, and handling issues prevented a top-5 run. Biffle fell three spots in the Sprint Cup point standings to sixth, and is 63 out of first.

"Not since Cale Yarborough and Donnie Allison wrestled at Daytona in 1979," Biffle said, "have I seen anyone so intent on going for the 'pin.' NASCAR wants to take our wings? This is one time when I could really have used them."

7. Carl Edwards — After welcoming a baby daughter, Anne, on Wednesday, Edwards hoped to ride the euphoria of fatherhood into victory lane at Las Vegas. But after a loose No. 99 Aflac Ford Fusion put him a lap down early, focus shifted from winning the race to regaining that lost lap. Edwards returned to the lead lap on lap 230, and battled his way to a 12th-place finish.

"In light of the fact that I'm winless in Cup races since 2009," Edwards said, "I think it's totally appropriate to call me 'Daddy-0. This role as a father will be something entirely new for me. Midnight feedings. Diaper changes. Bedtime stories. And giving Anne her pacifier for the first time will truly be a memorable moment, for me and for Matt Kenseth. Finally, Matt will have good reason to call me a 'pacifist.'"

"Now, as you can tell by the number of Aflac commercials aired during race broadcasts, I often feel less like a driver and more like a vessel for duck-related advertisements. I've hustled more insurance than the Geico cavemen. But relief is on the way. Insiders tell me that Aflac's new ad campaign will feature Australian rockers AC/DC and the duck-billed platypus, in which Angus Young and his mates will sing 'For Those About to Quack, We Salute You.'

8. Jeff Burton — Burton fought back from a lap down to finish 11th at Las Vegas, just missing out on a top-10 result to match those of his Richard Childress racing teammates Kevin Harvick and Clint Bowyer. Burton now sits seventh in the point standings, 76 behind Harvick.

"RCR keeps piling up the top finishes, but we've yet to cash in with a victory. I predict that will change in Atlanta, where I will shock the world with an earth-moving win, appropriately in the No. 31 Caterpillar Chevy."

"I was intrigued by the grand marshal pairing of Carroll Shelby and Kim Kardashian. I'm not sure who's experienced more work under the hood, Shelby or Kardashian. I understand that before Kardashian met Shelby, she thought she was to be sharing grand marshal duties with a woman. Consequently, Shelby thought he was going to meet someone famous. In any case, engines were started all around."

9. Joey Logano — Logano showed the patience and poise of a veteran with a sixth in the Shelby American 427, his second consecutive top-10 finish after his fifth last week in Fontana. The 19-year-old prodigy again outraced his teammates, as fellow Joe Gibbs Racing drivers Kyle Busch and Denny Hamlin finished 15th and 19th, respectively. Logano is now eighth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 93 out of first.

"The early consensus was that the veterans, Hamlin and Busch, would lead this team," Logano said, "and I, the young guy, would follow. Now, everyone's wondering when the members of this team are going to start 'acting their age.' Hamlin and Busch should be better than that. If I'm 'Sliced Bread,' then those two are loafing."

"But I don't doubt that Busch and Hamlin will find their way into the thick of things soon. Just like angry rivals, drama has a way of finding those two. For now though, this 19-year-old kid is the best bet for Gibbs to win another 'Cup of Joe,' while Busch and Hamlin will have to swallow their pride while playing second fiddle to me. If Gibbs Racing was a soap opera, it would be called 'The Young and The Rest.'"

10. Jeff Gordon — Gordon, in the No. 24 Pepsi Max Chevrolet, dominated from the start in the Shelby American 427, leading the first 52 laps after qualifying second. He lost that edge, however, on the race's final pit stop, when crew chief Steve Letarte elected for two tires while Hendrick teammate Jimmie Johnson took four. Johnson easily tracked down the No. 24, leaving Gordon with a third-place finish and a load of disappointment.

"That's one decision we'd like to have back," Gordon said. "But we'll build on the positives and forget that mistake. As they say, 'What mis-happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

"Sure, we should have gone with four tires. And sure, hearing of Johnson's greatness is grate-ing, and tiresome. But give the man credit. He won in Las Vegas, earning a championship belt for his effort. And, until someone knocks the four-time champ off his pedestal, he, like a tire, will remain 'still-belted.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

March 3, 2010

The Best Way to Fix Overtime

An NFL spokesman announced this weekend that the league could change its overtime format for playoff games, starting next year. Under the new proposal, a field goal on the opening possession of overtime would not trigger sudden death. "Both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team with the ball scores a touchdown. If the first team with the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again."

Basically:

* A team that scores a touchdown on the opening possession of overtime wins.

* A team that scores a field goal on the opening possession of overtime might not. The other team gets a chance to extend overtime (with a field goal of its own) or win outright (with a touchdown).

This is not the worst overtime proposal the owners have entertained. College overtime rules, for instance, eliminate punts and kickoffs and grant a hugely unfair advantage to the team that starts on defense. However, this is also not the best overtime proposal.

One idea, appealing because of its simplicity, is to move up the kickoff. Until 1994, when kickoffs were moved from the 35-yard line to the 30, the team that lost the coin toss actually had a better record in overtime than the team that won the toss. Why not have overtime kickoffs from the 35-yard line? That's such a small change that most people wouldn't even notice it.

Of course, that doesn't really address the issue. The problem is that sudden death overtime feels unfair when a team wins on the first possession, even if it isn't really unfair. Even now, winning the coin toss is a pretty small advantage. In the 2009 season, the team that won the toss won 7/13 overtime games, compared to 6/13 for the coin toss loser. Throw in playoffs, and it's 8/15 vs. 7/15. Does that sound like a serious imbalance to you? The problem is really just five games: those that ended with the coin toss winner scoring on its first possession. It doesn't feel right, doesn't seem fair.

Moving up the kickoff might level the playing field, but it still wouldn't feel right to most people when the game ends on that first possession. It still seems lucky, even if it isn't. So why bother with sudden death at all? Why not play a set overtime period? Put 8:00 or 10:00 on the clock and see what happens. That would lead to more ties than the current system, and ties are sometimes unsatisfying. But if the choices are (1) unfair results, (2) bizarre overhaul of rules that applies only to overtime, or (3) ties, gives me the third one every time. Ties also make playoff tiebreakers more interesting and easier to figure out. Anything that prevents us from having to calculate "strength of victory" is a good thing.

Here's what I do like about the league's overtime proposal: it encourages touchdowns. This season, only two of the 13 regular-season overtime games ended on a touchdown, with almost every game decided by a field goal. Few things are more frustrating than seeing a team driving the ball, really putting together good offensive plays, then kicking a 35-yard field goal on third down.

What I don't like about the new proposal is this: it's a bizarre and counterintuitive way to decide games, it only applies sometimes, it tweaks the problem rather than solving it, and it could create a disadvantage for the team that gets the ball first. One at a time:

It's a bizarre and counterintuitive way to decide games.

The new overtime rules would be sudden death some of the time, but not always. The solution to this problem is not a bizarre "sudden death +1" scheme in which it's not sudden death if the coin-flip winner scores a field goal on the first possession. That's a confusing, and kind of arbitrary, rule.

It tweaks the problem rather than solving it.

The issue here is not fairness so much as appearances. Under the new rules, a team could still win on the first possession of overtime if it scores a touchdown. Do you think fans won't complain that their team didn't get a chance just because they gave up a TD instead of a field goal? What about teams with a really good offense but a bad defense? If your favorite team lost to the Houston Texans on the first possession of overtime, wouldn't you complain that you didn't get a chance against their defense? If you were a Houston fan, wouldn't you complain that your team's terrific offense didn't have an opportunity to tie? I just don't think this solves the problem. It makes it better, but not fixed.

It only applies sometimes.

The new rules would only apply to playoff games. I understand that playoffs can't end in ties, but beyond that, having different rules for the regular season and the postseason is stupid. If it's a good idea in some games, it's a good idea in all of them.

It could create a disadvantage for the team that gets the ball first.

I don't know how this would actually play out. The team that wins the coin toss still gets a chance to win the game with an opening-drive TD. But if it doesn't, the advantage quickly flips in the other direction. If the coin toss winner scores a field goal, the other team knows what it needs. It can win with a touchdown, and it absolutely can't punt. Knowing what you need to do is a much greater advantage than getting the ball first.

How do we keep the good part of the league's proposal (TDs instead of field goals) without the potential drawbacks? Win by six, of course. Other sports, like volleyball and tennis, play win by two. NFL overtime could be win by six. It's easy to understand and doesn't require changing the rules. The problem is what to do if a team is up by three or four at the end of the 15-minute time overtime period. Does the team that's ahead win? Is it a tie? Do you keep going until someone's up by six? This also shares the problem of tweaking, rather than solving, the complaints. A team could still score an opening-drive TD and win by six without the opponent going on offense.

Again, the league proposal, which I expect will pass, is not a terrible idea. I'm not sure it's any better than the current system — in fact, it's probably worse — but it's not apparent to me that this will silence critics or make overtime fair. Instead of radical rules changes, partial sudden death, or confusing overtime-only policies, the league should do something simple: move kickoffs to the 35, or play a 10-minute overtime. There are simple solutions to this issue.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:07 PM | Comments (4)

Always Be Yourself, Just Like Rickie Fowler

Be aggressive. Go for it. Hit it as hard as you can, find it, and hit it again. They're all the cliches that a lot of golf fans want in their tour trotting heroes. It was the bravado of Sam Snead and Arnold Palmer and, today, of Phil Mickelson that intrigues fans. In the face of so many challenges on a golf course that make most amateurs reach for their Uroclub, these pros pee instead into the wind and go for broke.

Rickie Fowler is a player who has shown as much aggression as these players in his brief professional career. Though the sample size is very small, Fowler has clearly demonstrated bravado's modern cousin, swagger. That is until Sunday at the Waste Management Phoenix Open.

Fowler put his tee ball on the par 5 15th hole into the fairway. Faced with around a 230-yard carry over a pond guarding short and far left of the green, Fowler chose to test his wedge game. He laid up. Fans shudder at the notion. The wunderkin was playing to his strengths, though. Getting a number between 75 and 100 yards to the hole, Fowler is 24th on the Tour in proximity to the pin. Between 225 and 250 yards? 157th.

Odds are that Fowler didn't categorically know where he stood in those categories, but years of experience clearly told him that going for it was not the prudent play. That's not what the golf fan wants to hear. It's the perfect kind of fodder for golf writers and commentators to question. Particularly since Fowler went on to lose the tournament by a shot to Hunter Mahan, the question becomes even juicier: how come the guy dressed like a safety cone on Sunday stopped himself in the crosswalk?

The answer is the same reason that he would be aggressive any other time. It's because Fowler felt most comfortable playing to his strengths. Mickelson is a risk taker because his short game can often bail him out of jail. Palmer and Snead, too, believed in the power of their short games to get them out of trouble. Fowler believed on 15 that his short game was the better option that the long game.

So he turned out to be wrong? What about an of the other shots he struck throughout the week? How come he didn't eagle 17 like Lee Janzen? What a goof.

Rickie Fowler is (a) too good and (b) too young to have his methods questioned at 21-years-old.

Surely golf fans were pestered by Tiger Woods' opening 40 in the 1997 Masters. Then he got his act together, smashed Augusta National's second nine in 30, and ruined the Vegas odds for the Masters until at least 2020. That's not to say that Fowler and the Phoenix Open are anything like Woods and the Masters. They're completely different situations, but had Woods questioned himself after the ninth on that Thursday, Woods probably never would have broken through on the back nine, intimidated Colin Montgomerie into an awful third round, and cruised to victory.

Rickie Fowler might not pan out to be Tiger Woods, but he at least deserves the respect to not question a single decision out of 266 over the course of a week. Save that kind of second guessing for when Fowler stands on the 18th at Winged Foot with a driver in his hand. Quite frankly, the safe play would have served Mickelson a lot better that day. He could have taken a page from Fowler, played that hole like a par five, and would not be Snakebitten, Jr. in USGA lore.

Phil was himself, though. People are still questioning that move. It can't help that Mickelson has not won a major since, though he did further cement himself as Lil Snead at Bethpage last summer.

Fowler was himself on a much smaller stage. It proved not to result in a title, but it gave him more experience at the doorstep. The experience of being there — again, at age 21 — is invaluable. Also, it is inevitable that Fowler will not only win on the PGA Tour soon, but he may well also assail the claims of any pro in his cohort that would like for you to believe that they are the future of the sport.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)

March 2, 2010

NCAA Selection Misconceptions

At this time of the college basketball season, you will see a plethora of "Who's In/Who's Out" segments on the ESPN networks, CBS, and probably any other major outlet that shows college hoops. Without fail, those segments will show three things about a bubble team or team that the experts are trying to seed: the team's overall record, the team's RPI, and the team's record against the RPI Top 50. Strength of schedule and a few quality wins or bad losses may also be shown in those graphics. Yet, any number of those metrics may hold minimal sway with the 10 people on the selection committee.

The fundamental problem with an individual team's RPI is that the formula is three-quarters out of that particular team's control. Just to refresh: the RPI is one-quarter of the team's winning percentage, one-half opponents' winning percentage (i.e., strength of schedule), and one-quarter opponents' opponents' winning percentage. The team's winning percentage component is adjusted to where road wins and home losses equal 1.4 games and road losses and home wins count as 0.6 games.

This season, there looks to be two curious cases where a team's RPI is lesser than the sum of its parts as shown on the court.

As of Sunday, Illinois' RPI lies at 64, traditionally not an ideal place to be with two weeks left until Selection Sunday. However, the Illini have four Top 50 wins, including road wins at Clemson and Wisconsin, two very tough places to play. The other two Top 50 wins are also of substance, home wins against potential top four seeds Michigan State and Vanderbilt. Working against the Illini are losses against middling teams like Georgia, Bradley, and Utah. Illinois' record against the Top 100 now sits at 6-9.

Notre Dame, if you value RPI, would be in even worse position that Illinois at the moment, as they lie at number 72. After the past week, the Irish are probably in a better position after beating Pitt and then following it up with a road win at Georgetown. They can also hang their hat on a January win at West Virginia. The recent success is even more remarkable without Luke Harangody being in the lineup the last couple of weeks. Just like Illinois, Notre Dame does have two bad losses against Rutgers and Loyola Marymount. Wins versus three of the top five teams in the best conference in the nation should cancel out those bad losses.

If the committee is consistent about wanting to see teams who played and beat quality teams in the Field of 65, both Notre Dame and Illinois should be in barring collapse in the final two weeks.

VCU, Marshall, William & Mary, Texas Tech, and Kent State are all ahead of both Illinois and Notre Dame in the RPI, and all have no chance of getting an at-large bid. A few of those above teams are quality teams, but all either lack the quality victories of the Irish or the Illini or were not consistent enough once conference play was in high gear. Ahead of Notre Dame in the RPI are New Mexico State, Weber State, Oakland, Nevada and Tulsa. Weber State, and Oakland are each having tremendous years in mid-major conferences, but can't hope for anything but an automatic NIT bid if they don't take the league tournament title. The other three also need to win the conference tourney, but haven't been their league's best in the regular season.

One of the best things the selection committee has done over the past few years is the creation of the mock selection committee, where they invite media members to emulate the selection process. The motivation when the program started was obviously to show the media the ins and outs of the process and to keep them from quoting tired numbers like Team RPI and overall win total as reasons why a team should be in or out after Selection Sunday.

I have yet to read a single writer's account of the mock selection process where the writer did not say something along the lines of, "You know, a team's RPI just wasn't that important in our process." And I doubt that the NCAA would or even could be subversive about something like that, especially when there's a lot of evidence that an RPI in the 50s or 60s is not a disqualifier. Of course, the paradox remains that your opponents' RPI rankings are how quality wins are judged. So it would be more accurate for ESPN and CBS to put up a team's record against the Top 50 and Top 100 in lieu of a team's RPI.

The 2007 version of Selection Sunday was, to me at least, one of the most surprising in recent memory. Two norms for selection to the tournament were broken that day when Syracuse and Kansas State were left out of the Big Dance with over 20 wins plus 10 wins in a major conference. It shouldn't have been that surprising.

Before the 2006-07 season, the NCAA lifted the rule that a team could only play in two exempt non-conference tournaments (multi-team events) that only counted one game towards the NCAA regular season maximum of 28. The rule was changed such that every team in America could play in an exempt multi-team event if they so choose, so long as they didn't play in the same event two times in a four-year period. As a result, it's now common place to see a team play 30 games or more by the end of their conference tournament. Now 20 wins, while still a solid achievement, doesn't carry the meaning it once did.

The last decade also changed the significance of the amount of conference wins a team piled up by Selection Sunday. As a result of expansion in the ACC and Big East during the last several years, the Pac-10 is the only BCS conference which plays a double round-robin format in conference. So it matters to the committee not how many wins there are overall or in conference, but who you beat in all games. In that same 2007 tournament, the committee picked Arkansas, who went 7-9 in the SEC.

You don't have to be a slave to numbers of decaying importance like overall wins, conference wins, and team RPI. The Basketball State website has replicas of the selection sheets that the committee will look at to make its judgments (subscription required to view more than three in a day, but here is Illinois' sheet. A good, but inauthentic alternative can be found at the team pages on Warren Nolan's site). One caveat with those sheets is that the NCAA has said that "Last 12 Games" is no longer a factor in selection. It only makes sense that a sheet that you would find in the selection room in Indianapolis this year would not have that bottom set of boxes.

Selection Sunday is one of the best days on the yearly sports calendar. The tension, angst, and anticipation that it provides for has to be the best non-game event that any sport has. However, in the build-up to that middle Sunday in March, the focus is on things that ultimately hinder the understanding of the selection itself.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 3:05 PM | Comments (0)

America Touched By a Different Midas

Being a contrarian can suck at times. It doesn't come with all those Look-At-Me perks it's cracked up to have, and it gets lonely zigging while the world zags.

I should know. My name is Bob, and I'm a contrarian.

It's an affliction I've had from the womb, but unlike jaundice or colic this one didn't go away in the first few months of life. My proclivities have always cut against the grain. As a child, I sided with Goofus over Gallant. Snidely Whiplash soon became my favorite Rocky and Bullwinkle character, and I always maintained that Mary Ann was hotter than Ginger. Then came the unthinkable: in 1980, I pulled for Finland against the U.S. ice hockey team at the Lake Placid Winter Olympics.

For me, contrarianism knows no logic, no rhyme, and — in that one moment in time — no sense of patriotism.

I had fully grasped — no, embraced — the significance of beating the Soviets two nights earlier. For me as for others, it was the period punctuating a Cold War sentence started by the Kremlin. They may invade Afghanistan and any other forsaken Eurasian sovereignty too weak to defend itself, but their world dominance was stopped cold on the ice of Olympic Fieldhouse at Lake Placid, and not another word would follow.

But two days later against Finland — a country sharing a border with that of my ancestors — it no longer sounded like the death knell of communism. I never really regarded hockey as a litmus test of national pride anyway, so as long as the Soviets were done, I was indifferent. What was evidently lost on me was that gold was still within their red clutches going into that final day of competition.

Things were different in 1980. There was no single-elimination process to decide gold in ice hockey. The medal round was a continuation of the preliminaries, except you dropped any points earned against teams that didn't make it. There was no predetermined gold medal game. The Miracle On Ice victory had given Team USA two points in the standings — elevating them to three overall — but that was it. Both the Soviets and Swedes had two and would face off later that afternoon. If the Soviets won — as they ultimately did — only a two-point effort by the U.S. against the Fins would have staved them off.

By that Sunday, the Miracle win was luring neophytes faster than the melodies of the Pied Piper lured rats. Most newbies didn't know which colors the U.S. skaters wore and needed to be given directions to find the new attack zone after each intermission. Pink skates have always been like pink hats: both are welcome at the party, but just go sit in the back and be quiet.

Not a chance. I watched the game in a large community television room with buddies Mike and Steve and a dozen or so pink skates. Every shot taken was as if a goal had been scored, every check an egregious no-call foul. I gripped my armrest and fought back the fire, but their shrills were the spilling of innocent blood that fanned the flames of the Johnny Blaze within me. By the start of the third period, with the U.S. down, 2-1, I wanted the pinks to burn.

For 30 years, I've carried that guilt and have shied away from any Olympic hockey discussion. People will ask, "Where were you?" and I will answer, but what I don't tell them is that, when Mike Eruzione invited a nation to join him on that gold medal platform, I was not there. Nor was I positioned for redemption in 2002, when I watched with detached interest as Team USA settled for silver against the Canadians.

But in these games of the XXI Winter Olympics, America — the land that that has matched me to a beautiful wife, set me up with a good career, and provided the resources to raise four great kids — was now giving me a third chance.

We are indeed a nation of freedom and choice, but on Sunday afternoon, I offered neither to my sons. Maybe I wanted to shelter them from the mistake I made 30 years ago, and maybe I wanted them to appreciate the blessings they have by watching their country on ice; either way, they were occupied with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare just before face-off and I needed the television, so off went the Xbox. We all tuned into ice hockey.

The game, of course, was incredible. Even as Team USA put out almost 68 minutes of energy on the ice, we matched it on the sofa. I imagine that to be a task easier done back in 1980 because, let's face it: as villains go, Canada is no Soviet Union. There's not much to hate. This is just a colder version of America, only with better health care. Sure, they've been known to boo our national anthem, but weren't many of us figuratively guilty of the same ourselves in the 1960s?

With Team USA trailing, 2-1, to start the third period, it was déjà vu. I found myself again in a community television room with a chance to do it over. Only now, I've seen too much to be dissuaded by prevailing sentiment, notwithstanding the contrarian within.

I've seen evening commutes come to a standstill as occupants leave their vehicles to wave flags and hold candles of tribute rather than hurrying home. I've watched scores of young men and women from neighboring towns go off to protect a people half a globe away that cannot defend themselves. I've been inspired by peers within my own company who pledge thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to support Haitian relief, and I anticipate still others doing the same now for Chile.

And when Zach Parise beat Canadian goalie Roberto Luongo for the equalizer with 24.4 seconds left, I thought I'd seen it all. I felt 30 years younger.

As games go, Parise's tally ultimately proved for naught and the Canadians prevailed, but I've seen too much of this land to know its true mettle is not manifest in an ornament draped around its neck. Ours is a nation touched by gold no Sidney Crosby goal can ever deny.

My name is Bob, and I'm an American. It just took me 30 years to fully realize what that means.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 2:23 PM | Comments (2)

March 1, 2010

Big Problem With Big "Z"

Every other day, it seems that someone writes another "how to fix the NBA" column. Everyone has all of these wonderful ideas about how to fix a game that isn't broken to begin with.

I hate those columns. I love the NBA just the way it is. Please don't take today's column and lump it in with the hundreds of "how to fix the NBA" columns circulating around the Internet.

That being said, there is something in the NBA that does need to be fixed. The practice of trading players who are immediately cut by their new team and almost as quickly re-signed by the team that just traded them is unacceptable. It happens every year.

And if I come off as picking on the Cleveland Cavilers in this column, then so be it. They deserve it.

The reason that I'm going to come off as a Cavs hater is because, as most of you already know, Zydrunas Ilgauskas is going to re-sign with the team on March 22nd, the first day he is eligible to.

Under the current NBA rules, a player that is traded to a new team and then waived must wait at least 30 days before he can re-sign with the team that traded him in the first place. Every season there are examples of players getting traded, waived, and re-signing with their original team.

It needs to stop.

It's a "rich get richer" system that rewards the top teams in the league by allowing them to give up almost nothing to improve their team at the trade deadline.

In the trade that brought two-time all-star and career 20 points per game scorer Antawn Jamison to Cleveland, the Cavs gave up their 2010 first round pick, the rights to the incomparable Emir Preldzic, and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.

That alone amounts to a steal for the Cavs. Throw in the fact that everyone in the world knew that the Wizards were going to waive Z and that he was going to end up right back in Cleveland, and you have one of the most one-sided trades in recent NBA history.

Something needs to be done. There needs to be a rule in place that prevents this from happening.

I'm not bitter that the Cavs got better. I'm not upset at Z for wanting to go back and play for a title for a team that he's been with his entire career. I'm not mad at the Wizards for waiving Z, a player that they have no use for, and allowing him a chance to play for a contender.

I'm mad at the NBA for allowing that team to be the Cleveland Cavaliers.

The essence of a "trade" is that both teams are giving something up, and both teams are getting something. In this case, the Cavs didn't give up anything. They didn't pay a price at all to get Jamison.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas is a great teammate, a glue guy, and a fan favorite. Those things are all important to a team that wants to win a title. If there was a chance that the Cavs weren't going to re-sign Z in 30 days, maybe this deal doesn't go through. He's that important to this team.

But when you know all along that one of the pieces that you're "giving up" in the trade is going to come right back to you a month later, it makes it a lot easier to pull the trigger on the trade.

Sure, the Cavs will say that there was no collusion going on, and that there was no handshake agreement with the Wizards that they would waive Ilgauskas, but come on. Everyone with any common sense knows that the Wizards have no use for a player like Ilgauskas, and there was a 0% chance that he'd ever suit up for Washington.

Even if the Cavs and Wizards never discussed a potential buyout of Z's contract (which I don't believe for a second), Danny Ferry knew it was coming. The NBA knew it was coming. The other 28 teams in the league knew it was coming.

And yet the league is still going to allow Ilgauskas to re-sign with the Cavs on March 22nd.

A lot of different people have weighed in on this topic and offered up a lot of different opinions, but the school of thought that seems to prevail most when discussing this is that Ilgauskas should not be allowed to return to the Cavs.

The counter-argument to that is, "What if Cleveland is the only team interested in signing Z? You can't prevent someone from working by telling him he can't play for the only team interested in him."

That's a valid point, so here's what I propose. Scrap the 30-day waiting period entirely. If a player gets waived by his new team after a trade, he can sign with any team he so chooses the second he gets waived — with a catch.

If a player opts to re-sign with the team that just traded him, that team cannot put said player on their playoff roster. That would make these "wink, wink" deals a whole lot more interesting. Now teams would actually have to give something up if they wanted to get better at the deadline.

I know I'm not the first person to come up with this idea, and I'm not trying to sell it as my revolutionary idea to prevent one-sided trades. I'm just saying that of all the alternatives out there, preventing a player from being on the active playoff roster is the best way to prevent these types of deals from happening.

How fun would it be to see if any team had the balls to sign a guy for the rest of the season knowing that they can't use him when it matters most? And all this talk of loyalty? We'd see how loyal a guy like Z really is if a rule like this were in place. Is there any chance a player would sign with a team knowing that he couldn't play in the playoffs?

I'd say no way, but it'd be fun to find out.

Unfortunately, we don't get to find out. Instead, we have a 35-year-old center not only getting ready to re-sign with the team that just traded him, but getting a month off right before the stretch run allowing him to be fresh for the playoffs.

It's a big win for the Cavs and a huge setback for the NBA.

I don't blame the Cavs or the Wizards or Big Z for what is about to happen. No one broke any rules.

I blame the NBA for not having a rule in place to begin with. That is something that the NBA needs to address, and one of the few things that truly does need to be "fixed" in what is otherwise the greatest game in the world.

Posted by Scott Shepherd at 11:41 AM | Comments (1)