Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2011 | Main | March 2011 »

February 28, 2011

The NBA's Fame Monster

In Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut describes how beautiful the creation and dropping of bombs would be when played in reverse. The bombs sucked up fire and destruction and then were transported by a plane to a facility where scientists would deconstruct them and return their harmful elements to the ground, where they could never hurt anybody.

Now imagine how peaceful the last eight years of Carmelo Anthony's life would be if it were played in reverse. It would look as if Anthony would leave New York, where Amar'e Stoudemire was his only viably talented teammate and unrealistic expectations haunted him until the moment of his trade to Denver. In Denver, after a season where nobody knew what to expect from him, he would play for George Karl and progress in the playoffs, only to be thwarted by Kobe Bryant approaching his prime. Then, after a mostly successful run in Denver, Syracuse would jump at the opportunity to bring Anthony to one of the nation's top programs, where he would immediately win a national championship. And after a year at Syracuse, Anthony would be hailed as one of the country's top talents and head to Oak Hill Academy.

The new lifecycle of the NBA player is an exercise in trading happiness for fame. The exuberance of the breakout performance is quickly weighed down by the pressure to win a championship. Players grasp at the straws of playing in the biggest markets or with high-profile sidekicks, because staying in one place and never winning is a far worse fate. And pursuing fame often becomes a detour from pursuing championships. So it goes.

Today's NBA star is scored by the media. When Colin Cowherd says the San Antonio Spurs do not have a superstar because Tim Duncan is "boring," it speaks volumes about the values of today's league. If Michael Jordan loved winning because it confirmed his self-image and Isiah Thomas loved winning because it verified the love he had for his teammates, today's stars love winning because they lead "SportsCenter." Today's stars do not hate losing; they just hate being called a loser.

This is the generation that grew up valuing blocked shots not by whether they led to a score at the other end, but by how much the crowd reacted. They value relationships with AAU teammates and hangers on, because they know those bonds will last much longer than what they have with coaches and professional teammates.

Sadly, there's an empty pot at the end of the fame rainbow. Media and fans are fickle. They grow tired of individuals, successful or not, and demand new angles to stay interested. Stars who judge their growth in Twitter followers and Google news alerts should expect a wasteland of double standards and fleeting satisfaction.

As we will see in the coming years, stars that orchestrate their departures to their idealized destinations had better win. For starters, either the Heat or Knicks will not win the Eastern Conference. We know that at least one of those teams will go into each of the upcoming offseasons having to explain how they failed in spite of their collection of names. But what happens when the scapegoats are extinct?

Anthony is the latest in a line of stars haunted by the shadows of their own images. Just as Miami's presumably historic trio has been nothing more than a run-of-the-mill Eastern Conference contender, Anthony's New York experience is destined to mostly disappoint. The Knicks upgraded one roster spot at the expense of a handful of others. Are they better? Probably. But in reading most of the analysis, the Knicks won't finally be good until another big name, such as Chris Paul or Deron Williams, comes to the Big Apple. And then what?

So enjoy Anthony's honeymoon phase. Instead of seeing three guys combine to make 10-of-25 shots, Knick fans can enjoy one all-star counting for that production. But when the newness wears off and the wins do not pile as high as expected, let's not be surprised. Because in today's NBA, the dirtiest secret is that the stars' itineraries do not end at championship parades.

Winning is just a layover on the way to being famous.

Corrie Trouw is the founder of Pigskinology.com.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 12:30 PM | Comments (0)

Novak Djokovic's Future Looks Bright

In 2008, Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open. As the 20-year-old Serb defeated Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the final, you could almost see the burden being lifted off his shoulders. In the years leading up to his first major triumph, Djokovic had shown great promise, but then so many do. That promise has to be translated into major wins and if it isn't, then one is forced to face some pretty searching questions posed by the media, fans, and themselves. Just ask Andy Murray.

With a player's inaugural slam victory, comes talk of how they will progress from there. In the case of Djokovic, he was talked about in much the same way as any other young slam winner. There was talk of winning 6, 7, or maybe 8 majors and becoming world No. 1. Lofty heights even for a very talented player.

The problem with such talk is that it not only piles pressure (that they have earned, and must cope with to be great), but the people who utter these words expect more major titles to follow immediately. It wouldn't be until his 11th major after his initial triumph, at the U.S. Open in 2010, that he would reach another major final.

In the meantime, he had been a consistent performer, having only failed to make it to at least the quarterfinals on two occasions. It is also worth noting that a couple exits within that run were as a result of respiratory problems, something that has plagued Djokovic for much of his life.

Despite not winning any major titles, he did win three Masters 100 titles in that time, as well as reaching a further five Masters 100 finals. His efficiency on court had led to a very consistent set of results which saw him rise to world No. 2 in February 2010. However, 2010 turned out to be a poor year for a man with such high ambitions. He failed to reach the final of any Masters 1000 events, thus his only final appearance in any major competition was the U.S. Open.

2010 saw Djokovic finish the year at world No. 3 for the fourth consecutive year and 2011 got off to the best possible start when he finally silenced any murmurs of "one-slam wonder" when he lifted the Australian Open Trophy for a second time.

So now the question of how far he can go in the game arises once more, but this time I feel as though the question can be answered with more certainty. Roger Federer, who has stood in the way of many a player's quest for greatness, is on a downward spiral and he almost certainly won't be winning major after major anymore. Andy Murray is having to deal with pressures of showing so much promise, but not delivering when it matters — in a major final.

There are undoubtedly other threats out there, such as Tomas Berdych, Robin Soderling, and fully-fit Juan Martin del Potro. Yet, right now the only person that has the capability to stop Djokovic on a consistent basis in majors in Rafael Nadal. Though Djokovic has a losing record against Federer, he is 5-3 head-to-head with Murray and would fancy his chances against either of them in slams. In fact, he beat Federer in the semifinals on both occasions that he won the Australian Open and to, perhaps, further reiterate a changing of the guard Djokovic beat Federer on Saturday in Dubai.

Nadal, on the other hand, boasts a 16-7 record over the Serb, but more importantly Nadal leads their head-to-heads at slams 5-0. Nadal's superior quality and fitness always comes good.

Djokovic currently sits just over 100 points behind Federer in the rankings and given both player's current career trajectories it is only a matter of time before Djokovic secures the world No. 2 spot again. This time, however, it is likely that he would end the year in that position.

So, the question is whether or not Djokovic can topple Nadal and claim the No. 1 spot. Nadal had a stellar year in 2010 and will have to defend an awful lot of points over the summer when the schedule gets rather hectic, whilst Djokovic doesn't have as many points to defend and he should be able to gain ground. I think it's unlikely that Nadal will falter enough for Djokovic to go ahead of him, but expect the gap to have shrunk by the end of year as Djokovic finally delivers on all of his early promise.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 11:18 AM | Comments (5)

February 27, 2011

Top 10 Tips For Selecting an NFL Sleeper Team

What ... too early?

With the 2011-12 NFL season currently in limbo thanks to labor negotiations, a lot of football fans have been going about their daily lives as if their house pet had turned on them and set their house ablaze. Regardless of whether or not the prospects of a 2011-12 season look bleak or not, we owe it to ourselves and our daily lives to trudge onward and suck it up. To put it nice and succinctly, you need to stop walking around pouting like a little girl and focus on the finer things in life.

Thankfully for you, there are plenty of ways to put a positive spin on the current NFL labor talks and the best of all lies in pretending all will be well and going about your normal business. And by normal business, I mean attempting to predict the upcoming NFL season in February. Some may say this is entirely and almost disgustingly early, but once again, we must remain in a positive state of mind if we're going to get our friends and family to talk to us again.

What better way to do all of this than to pick a sleeper team? And what better way to turn your frown upside down than to mate a top 10 list with NFL sleeper team picking strategies? Completely genius, I know, but let's not waste any more time!

Every year, at least one team that sucked balls the year prior ends up turning it around and becomes a contender. Every year. Just as consistent is that the sleeper teams that most of the "experts" pick seem to almost take the term too literally and end up finishing the season as if they had been asleep during all of their practices. The trap most people fall into when picking their sleeper teams is that they aim too low — ultimately expecting a horrendous team to suddenly be absolutely fantastic through a couple of signings and the draft. While this could technically happen ... it's highly, highly unlikely.

Do you want to amaze and impress your friends and colleagues by successfully predicting the breakout team of 2011? Of course you do! Now, most likely your friends will laugh and make fun of you relentlessly for trying to bust out an NFL sleeper team in February, but forget them. You're going to be the one laughing come next January.

Without further ado, here is the top 10 things to take into account when picking your NFL sleeper team, assuming you have some type of reason to do so. If not, well, just pretend you do. Or make a blog. All the cool kids on the Internet block have a blog these days. Get with the program!

1. Absolutely positively do not put any stake into who ESPN picks as their sleeper team. Unless of course you actually enjoy looking like an ass who knows absolutely nothing about pro football.

2. Go back and read number one again.

No, seriously. Do it.

3. Do not shoot for the trees in the hopes of ending up on the moon. Or however that saying goes...

A la, don't pick Miami this year no matter how good you'll think they'll be. If they turn out to be a winner — great — but they'll likely barely tread water the entire season and remain firmly entrenched in the mid-levels of everyone's Power Rankings all year long.

4. Please, please, please do not put money on your sleeper team having a successful season. It just makes it that much worse when they lose. You officially go from that "idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about" to that "idiot who thinks he knows everything about pro football and most definitely has some type of gambling problem."

5. Aim for the teams who are on the precipice of actually becoming good. Think: the Detroit Lions (yes, seriously!), San Francisco 49ers, and so on and so forth ... and no, the Dallas Cowboys do not qualify as a sleeper team, regardless of legions of lemmings relentlessly picking them each and every year.

Ultimately, no team who will likely lose less than six games can be considered a sleeper prediction. Unless you're just a pompous ass.

6. If everyone else has them as a sleeper, they are no longer a sleeper team. They officially become a "snorer" team ... and yes, I just made that up. And also, yes, I realize it is very likely not funny in the slightest. At least I try!

7. Just because you're good with them in Madden doesn't mean that this will actually translate into real life. Your mad ill skills with the sticks only applies to the virtual world, where you can actually be good at something.

8. If all else fails, go with your gut. No, this is not mindless filler to flesh out the list, I'm serious! Ultimately, this would only hold true if your gut is usually right. If you're that guy who bets four team parlays on the Raiders, Rams, Chiefs, and inane NCAA division 1A teams — just completely disregard this whole entire number. Also, stop betting on four team parlays.

9. It is acceptable to cheat on your favorite team and buy jerseys and other pointless merchandise related to your sleeper team. Be forewarned however: Do not do this until a ways into the season and/or at least when you know for a fact you picked a winner.

Unless, of course, you don't mind random Alex Smith and Jacoby Jones jerseys collecting dust in your closet.

10. Do not take your prediction too seriously. Mainly because the odds are, you're going to be wrong and when all is said and done, the less people that know about it, the better!

So there you have it, rules to live by. If you have any others, and I know you will, feel free to leave them in the comments.

Posted by Josh Galligan at 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

February 25, 2011

Foul Territory With Jeffrey Boswell

* Celibate, good times, come on!: — Tiger Woods lost in the first round of the World Match Play championship after hitting his tee shot on the first extra hole into a desert bush. He eventually bogeyed the hole and lost to his good friend, Denmark's Thomas Bjorn, who whispered some private words to Woods on the green after Woods conceded. Reportedly, Bjorn repeated those unfortunate words Woods was forced to say not long ago: "stop sucking."

* Cam-Uppance — Cam Newton told Sports Illustrated's Peter King that he sees himself "not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon." The quotes stirred some current NFL players, such as Green Bay's A.J. Hawk, and many hinted that Newton would be a marked man. Not to be out-shined, Newton announced his newest endorsement deal, with Target.

Hüsker Dön't's — Connecticut basketball coach Jim Calhoun was suspended for three games in the 2011-2012 season for recruiting violations committed under his watch. The NCAA spared the Huskies a postseason ban, a ruling which, under the circumstances, is called a "no-look pass."

* Boy Wunder — 20-year-old rookie Trevor Bayne won the Daytona 500 on Sunday, becoming the youngest driver to win NASCAR's biggest race. Bayne is so young, he calls the Gillette Young Guns "Sir," and calls Mark Martin "Thou."

* Manhattan Transfer — The Nuggets traded Carmelo Anthony to the Knicks on Monday, finally completed a deal that had been discussed as far back as last summer. In the trade, the Knicks also received Chauncey Billups, Shelden Williams, Anthony Carter, Renaldo Balkman, inflated expectations, and the unwanted attention of Isiah Thomas.

* Sloan of Contention — All-star guard Deron Williams was traded from Utah to the Nets for Derrick Favors, Devin Harris, two first-round draft picks, and cash considerations. The addition of Williams gives the Nets something they lacked before: a player whom Jerry Sloan hates.

* Let Off (Big) Easy — The New Orleans Saints cut tight end Jeremy Shockey on Tuesday. Ironically, when leaving, Shockey demanded a rookie carry his bags.

* Half-White Men Can Jump — Blake Griffin jumped over a car for the winning dunk in Saturday's Slam Dunk Contest, catching a pass from teammate Baron Davis, who was stationed in the car's sunroof, while the Crenshaw Select Choir sang "I Believe I Can Fly." Upon hitting the ground, Griffin realized he had landed right smack dab in the middle of a Tyler Perry movie set. After accepting the winner's trophy, Griffin was penalized 45 yards and fined $25,000 by the NFL for using three too many props for his dunk.

* Mánage a Trente — Chicago White Sox general manager Ken Williams commented that $30 million for one player was "asinine" when asked about St. Louis slugger Albert Pujols becoming MLB's highest-paid player when he becomes a free agent after this season. It's odd that Williams would decline to engage in a bidding war for Pujols, because he's likely the one player who could put the White Sox "over the top."

* Charging and Blocking — The NCAA says Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl and former football coach Lane Kiffin committed recruiting violations and were non-compliant in the NCAA investigations. The university has until May 21 to respond, and/or change their names from "Volunteers."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2011

The Greatest College Sports Upsets

8. 1985 (Football): UTEP 23, BYU 16

The Cougars were ranked 7th in the country at the time, coming off a national championship, and had only lost one of their previous 30 games. UTEP went into the game winless.

So how did UTEP pull it off? By playing just two defensive linemen and nine defensive backs, shutting down BYU's vaunted passing attack. If your offense is so one-dimensional that you can't run all over a team playing just two men up front, you deserve to lose. It was UTEP's only victory of the season.

7. 2007 (Basketball): Gardner-Webb 84, Kentucky 68

This upset prompted a rule change, one I have bitched about every year since in this column, by the Coaches vs. Cancer tournament organizers.

In the 16-team early-season tournament, the first two rounds are played on four campus sites featuring one marquee team and three scrubs, with the winners of the four mini-tournaments going on to Madison Square Gardens for a round of semifinals and finals.

Well, one of those teams in 2007 was supposed to be Kentucky, but GWU upset the 'Cats and got the trip to the Garden instead. That hurt ticket sales, so they changed the tournament format so that the four premier teams make the trip to New York no matter how poorly they do in their home-court mini tournament. Hooray for greed! Gardner-Webb finished the season 16-16.

6. 1998 (Women's Basketball): Harvard 71, Stanford 67

Famously, a No. 16-seed has never defeated a No. 1-seed in the first round of the men's NCAA tournament. It's going to happen sooner or later though, as there is more parity in college basketball (and football) each year. More and more scouts say it's more difficult to differentiate the good players from the great ones, because so many high schools using the same training regimens that turn everyone into Adonises with speed.

Women's sports are different. There are still great gaps between the great teams and the good teams, and the good teams and the poor teams. That's why UConn can set a new winning streak record, and why the same UConns, Tennessees, and Dukes are on top year after year.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that a No. 16-seed has beaten a No. 1- seed in the women's game ... and these early-round games are not played on neutral courts like the men, but at the home of the highest seeds. The Crimson accomplished their feat as a straight-up road team.

5. 1991 (Basketball): Richmond 73, Syracuse 69

Although no No. 16-seed has beaten a No. 1 seed in the men's game, a handful of No. 15 seeds have beaten No. 2s. But I have to give this spot to the first team to do it, the Spiders. (Why aren't more teams called the Spiders? How many great, menacing logos and mascots are possible with that name?)

Richmond never trailed in the game, and although it took a few years, Richmond has moved on up to the basketball-tough Atlantic 10 conference, where they will never be small potatoes again.

4. 2007 (Football): Stanford 24, USC 23

This was during the invincible (and illegal) years of USC football, although no team over that span was more prone to lay an egg against a middle-of-the-road Oregon State or UCLA team.

Still, Stanford was terrible! terrible! terrible! that year. It was a case of last place vs. first place, in Los Angeles, and the Cardinal was without their starting quarterback. Stanford was a 40-point underdog. Even UTEP above was only a 35-point 'dog.

But the backup quarterback who etched his name into college football lore that day, Tavita Pritchard, threw a TD pass on the last play of the game and Stanford amazingly won.

When betting on football, you can either bet against the point-spread, or straight-up on who will win the game. When you pick a heavy favorite to win, you naturally don't get much of a return on your investment. For example (I'm grossly oversimplifying here, but just to give you an idea), if you bet on an 100-1 favorite to win a game, you have to put up $100 to win a dollar.

So what high rollers will do is bet huge amounts on these favorites so that they still win a not-negligible amount of money. Say, $2 million to win $20,000.

But then, something like this game happens, and they lose their $2 million. That's why they have a word for these games that cost them their fortune: bridge-jumpers.

3. 2007 (Basketball): George Mason 86, Connecticut 84 (OT)

Every year, I make a point of noting the smaller-conference team that makes it the furthest in the NCAA tournament (dominant teams from otherwise-negligible conferences, like Gonzaga and Butler last year, don't count). Usually, that last one flames out in the Sweet 16. Rarely, one makes it to the Elite 8. More often, none make it past the second round. But only George Mason has made it all the way to the Final Four.

Although really it was a series of upsets that got GMU to the promised land (victories over defending champs North Carolina and higher-seeded Wichita State), I remember the glorious Elite 8 game against UConn like it was yesterday. I was heartbroken when the game went into overtime; this is where Cinderella so, so often cracks and turns back into a housemaid.

But not the Patriots. They out-muscled, out-hustled, and out-shot UConn. They gave the viewer a sense that they really belonged there, that they weren't underdogs at all. It was truly an inspirational performance, rife with significance for the mid- and low-majors.

2. 2010 (Football): Jacksonville State 49, Mississippi 48 (2OT)

This was the season opener for both teams, and Jacksonville State ended up being pretty good, while Ole Miss finished the year at 4-8. So in terms of sheer improbability, this game should not be ranked this high. JSU earns this ranking on style points alone.

I'm a connoisseur of upsets. If it's not one of my favorite teams playing, I almost always root for the underdog. Paying attention to upsets has taught me the form in which they typically take place. 95% of the time, the underdog starts fast and takes a surprising lead (that part happens all the time, even if the underdog ends up getting blown out). Then the favorite stops sleepwalking, gets their act together, and takes advantage of their superior talent to come back. But sometimes, realizing history is at stake, the underdog steels their nerve, makes few or no mistakes, and hangs on. That's how textbook upsets occur. More often the underdog either chokes or gets overwhelmed when the favorite starts taking the game seriously.

What never, ever, ever happens, is the underdog mounting a big comeback to beat the favorite. Except it did here. Ole Miss was up 31-13 going to the fourth quarter. Think about how rare it is for an evenly-matched team to come back from a score like that.

And yet, somehow, someway, Jacksonville State did. Again, I consider the way they pulled their upset to be unprecedented. They outscored the Rebels 21-3 in the final quarter, pulling even with 39 seconds left and converting the two-point attempt.

When they trailed by a touchdown in the second overtime, they scored their own ... on 4th and-15 from the Mississippi 30.

They went for two, and the win. It was a prayer of a shovel pass, blindly thrown into a sea of players. Somehow, a Jacksonville State player emerged with it. This game, simply put, needs to be more hyped and remembered.

1. 2007 (Football): Appalachian State 34, Michigan 32

I've been perusing other writers' "greatest upset" lists, and this seems to be the prevailing No. 1 for college football. I concur. Michigan was ranked No. 5 at the time of the game. Prior to this, a 1-AA team had never beaten a top 25 opponent.

It made Appalachian State, as much as a non-human entity can be, a star. Their game the following year against LSU was put on ESPN2 (LSU won in a blowout, snuffing out the ASU candle) ... and was a hyped event that football fans were excited about. It made Appalachian State quarterback Armanti Edwards a household name. 1-AA guys usually need to break records to land on the national radar, yet this was the season opener for both teams.

More tellingly, it sent the Wolverines into a tailspin from which they still haven't recovered. They ended the year ranked a disappointing No. 19, although they capped the season with a great win over Florida in the Capital One Bowl. This past year, they finally returned to a bowl, getting blown out by Mississippi State in the Gator Bowl.

In the interim? No bowls, lost to a MAC school (Toledo), and finished a combined 3-13 in Big Ten games. Needless to say, they haven't beaten Ohio State in that time, but Ohio State's dominance reaches back further than the Appalachian State game: The Buckeyes have won 7 in a row in the series, and 9 out of the last 10. These are halcyon days for Buckeye fans like me. Michigan football (and basketball for that matter) are gifts that keep on giving.

Honorable Mention: 1990 (Basketball): Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 (OT)

The most famous near-upset in college basketball was in 1989, when No. 16-seeded Princeton came oh-so-close to slaying mighty Georgetown, falling in the end 50-49. Given the historical cache that game has garnered, you'd probably think that it is the closest a No. 16 seed has come to defeating a No. 1 seed.

Not so. Just a year later, Michigan State was the No. 1 seed in the Southeast Regional, and needed overtime to get past No. 16 seed Murray State. WHY DOES NO ONE EVER TALK ABOUT THIS GAME? I don't understand it. We treat Princeton/Georgetown like it was the nearly the Miracle on Ice, and most people probably don't even know that another No. 1 seed needed to play 45 minutes to get out of the first round. It doesn't seem fair. The only (and somewhat ugly) theory I can muster is that people are more attracted to the Princeton/Georgetown narrative: scrappy nerds outsmarting, outthinking, and outplaying the tough "urban" team. Murray State is a state school in rural Kentucky that non-college sports fans are unfamiliar with.

Final Note

I do not consider a good team from a power conference beating a great team from a power conference to be anything more than a minor upset. That's why North Carolina State beating Houston in the 1983 championship game, and especially Villanova beating Georgetown in the 1985 championship game, do not qualify. Villanova almost beat Georgetown in both of their regular season matchups, for crying out loud. Yet in other "greatest upset" lists, this one is often No. 1.

In all the games I have listed above, there was a vast difference in talent, athleticism, and (with the possible exception of Stanford/USC) resources between the underdog and the favorite. That's what makes these upsets far, far more unlikely than Villanova beating Georgetown. And that is truly what an upset is all about.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 7:23 PM | Comments (2)

A One-of-a-Kind Character Witness

Some think Fred Wilpon, the beleaguered New York Mets owner who stands in danger of losing part or even most of his ownership thanks to the Bernie Madoff scandal's fallout, may be in need of a character witness or two. If that's the case, Wilpon won't have to search too far.

All he has to do is pick up the phone and call a friend since high school days. Or, better yet, see what happens when that friend pays his annual visit to the Mets' spring training complex, where he dispenses counsel and coaching to any Met pitchers who seek it.

"I hate to see him be beat up this way," Sandy Koufax told reporters at the complex last weekend. "I don't know a kinder, more generous, more compassionate human being than Fred."

When the customarily reticent Koufax speaks, people listen. And this isn't the first time Koufax has singled Wilpon out for high public praise. A few years ago, at a dinner for the Baseball Assistance Team (the organization that arranges financial and other assistance for men who played the game in the reserve clause era), Koufax surprised the gathering by asking for a moment, then taking a microphone and intoning, "I'm not just saying this because he's been my friend for 50 years, but I was wondering why Fred Wilpon is the only owner at this dinner tonight."

Getting a character reference from Sandy Koufax is comparable to getting a rabbinical blessing. And Wilpon just might need that, to defend himself against the Madoff victims' trustee's claim, on the grounds that he had to have known what he claims not to have known, that Madoff was running a grand scam.

If a court believes the trustee, Wilpon could lose part or even all of what he loves most behind family and friends. There's been fortnight-long speculation that Wilpon may sell part or even most of the Mets, speculation Wilpon has rejected so far. That's a far path from the days when Madoff's schemes first unraveled and Wilpon, perhaps trying to save face, insisted his and the Mets' finances weren't as dire as feared in spite of it.

Koufax's defence may be one of the sweetest gifts Wilpon has received in the past fortnight. There may be no man in or around baseball with deeper integrity; no man in or around baseball less capable of being false.

You could have asked Buzzie Bavasi, Koufax's former boss. When Koufax decided it was time at last to announce his retirement, after an arthritic elbow's maintenance to keep pitching became too dangerous to bear any longer, he telephoned Bavasi the night before making the announcement.

Bavasi didn't kid himself. "You've got money in the bank, you're a young man, there's no sense in staying in baseball and jeopardizing your future," he is said to have told his star. All he asked, Bavasi continued, was that Koufax hold off on announcing until owner Walter O'Malley, traveling with the Dodgers on an exhibition tour in Japan, returned for the winter meetings.

Koufax already was doing that kind of favor for a friend. He was actually ready to announce his retirement on the Dodgers' flight back to the West Coast, after the Baltimore Orioles swept them out of the 1966 World Series. San Diego Union sportswriter Phil Collier talked him out of it right then and there: You'll screw up every AM paper in America. There's no hurry. Wait a couple of weeks.

That was as far as Koufax would agree to go. Now, Bavasi was asking him to hold out a little longer. The general manager feared losing trade leverage in any deal for another major league-qualified left-hander, even if only on the roster. ("The Dodgers," Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Bragan would crack come spring training, "start 1967 27 games back.") Koufax feared compromising his integrity.

"I don't think Sandy ever told a lie in his life," Bavasi would remember, about a decade ago, to Koufax's best and most incisive biographer, Jane Leavy.

But Koufax doesn't just stand up for his own integrity, he also stands up for his friends. When Al Campanis bumbled his way out of baseball — in an exhausted state, during an infamous Nightline television interview, he blurted out that blacks lacked "the necessaries" to become baseball executives, when he probably meant to say they lacked "the necessary experience"; it may not have been any the more pleasant to hear, but it was less likely to be taken as a racial epithet — Koufax was one of his defenders.

"Don't let one incident ruin your life," Koufax urged the man who once played on the Montreal Royals with and championed Jackie Robinson, and who discovered Koufax himself as a Brooklyn scout in 1955. "We know how you are. You know how you are."

Wilpon has something of a reputation for having to learn the hard way when his trust is misplaced. He once had to turn over $1.3 million after another business adviser through whom he invested turned out to be a criminal good for 22 years in the calaboose. He's known Madoff for years, invested with Madoff based on that friendship, urged others to consider investing with Madoff on the basis of that trust. No matter the final outcome, whether Wilpon is vindicated or convicted, it's difficult if not impossible to imagine him giving his trust too readily again.

Koufax isn't just offering a hand on a shoulder. He, too, took a financial beating in the Madoff mess. "I was part of that investment," said Koufax, who is not a litigation target in the mess. "And I think if Fred knew it was going to be a bad investment, he never would have told me to put money in it. I don't know who are the victims and who aren't the victims. If I lost any money, I didn't lose it to Madoff, I lost it to the IRS. You pay taxes on money that didn't exist. That's what happened, but I got some of that back."

That may be just enough to provoke the question of how many of Madoff's victims likewise lost how much by way of taxes on imaginary lucre. It may be a question that could help or hurt Wilpon, depending upon the breadth of the answers. "I have no problem with what's going on," Koufax said of efforts to reclaim the billions lost by Madoff's victims, one of whom may well be Wilpon. "I just feel bad for Fred."

Surely, though, Koufax would have much preferred to do what he loves most, pass the pitching art along. ("Mr. Koufax," said a newly minted Met pitcher, Chris Young, "I'm Chris Young and I'm honored to meet you.") But standing by and doing or saying nothing as an old and close friend suffers is, apparently, more intolerable to him than was the pain through which he once stood on a pitcher's mound before throwing those unhittable fastballs, those voluptuous curve balls.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

February 23, 2011

BracketBuzzkillers

Last weekend, for the ninth consecutive season, the BracketBusters event was held, pitting mid-majors against each other in non-conference matchups. Unsurprisingly, the marquee matchups featured teams from the Horizon League, CAA, Missouri Valley, WCC, and WAC.

The big winners were Utah State, who beat St. Mary's on the road, and the Colonial's potential three-bid triumvirate of VCU, Old Dominion, and George Mason. The predominant losers in the TV games were the MVC's Wichita State, Missouri State plus the aforementioned Gaels out of the WCC. All three would be well-advised to win their conference tournaments as a result if they want to play in the NCAA Tournament.

However, there were more losers that didn't come close to any airtime.

When BracketBusters began, it was a more limited endeavor than it is now, featuring just 18 teams in 2003. By 2006, that number was up to 100, and the vast majority of contests were non-televised featuring mid- to lower-level teams in various conferences. This year, that number was up to a record 114, or a full third of Division I.

In some cases, conferences lock all or most of their teams into playing BracketBuster games, regardless of projected preseason quality or how good the team is at the time the matchups are decided upon.

The most ridiculous example of this situation featured the game between the Big Sky's Sacramento State and the Ohio Valley's Southeast Missouri. Each school has an RPI in the 300s, and Southeast Missouri had to make a nearly 2,000 mile trip on about three weeks notice after the matchups were released. The Redhawks, in the most recent data released last season, spend less than $1 million on basketball expenses, ranking 261st in the country.

Such a BudgetBuster is not unique to 2011. A year ago, Youngstown State was shipped out to California-Riverside in a game similar in significance to the Sacramento State-Southeast Missouri clash of this year. This failure lies at the feet of ESPN, who coordinate the matchups with too much of an eye on RPI similarity.

One of the benefits of BracketBusters used to be that the road team of a game was guaranteed to host the team they were playing the next season. For schools that struggle to fill schedules, some of whom play an inordinate amount of time on the road and at neutral sites before New Year's, this was something that could offset the unexpected travel. After scheduling issues arose with that requirement, and with some schools failing to honor the regulation, the powers that be relaxed the rule to returning the game within the next two seasons.

The aim of BracketBusters is, of course, to give mid-majors television time near NCAA time and to provide them opportunities at quality wins that they may have limited opportunities for in their respective leagues.

The television time aspect was more relevant in a time when ESPN still had an NHL contract to uphold, before ESPNU was born and before the online platform of ESPN3 was available. Now, ESPNU shows mid-majors on several nights of the week, and ESPN2 often has games from non-power conferences on Saturdays. ESPN3 allows most people with broadband internet access from a major service provider to watch even more mid-major games. Internet streaming on other sites gives those who want more basketball further options.

The conferences that, year-in and year-out provide the most teams for the TV games of BracketBusters are from the conferences that do have a non-trivial amount of games on ESPNU and ESPN2 to begin with, like the CAA, Horizon, MVC, WCC, and WAC.

Teams in this year's event that won marquee matchups did get a profile boost, but it comes at the cost of playing a zero-sum game for mid-majors as a whole. The CAA's success at the hands of Wichita State, Missouri State, and Cleveland State likely confined the Missouri Valley to a one-bid league for the fourth straight season and probably did the same to Cleveland State's at-large candidacy. George Mason, who had just come off of a huge win at VCU last Tuesday to essentially sew up the CAA regular-season title, had nothing to gain by playing a Northern Iowa team that faded from the Valley title race earlier in the month. The Patriots won, and will almost surely be in the tournament.

In the time before BracketBusters, mid-majors still received at-large bids. In the eight years since BracketBusters began, the conferences most likely to participate in the event have collected 25 at-large bids at a rate of just over three per year. The same conferences totaled 31 at-larges in the previous eight years before BracketBusters, for nearly four per year. The event may have helped certain teams improve seeding or get into the field for a single year, but its presence has not made it likelier for mid-majors to get into the NCAA tournament.

Yet another problem lies in the fact that for many of the involved conferences, BracketBusters falls with only a week to go in those teams' regular seasons, at the business end of conference play. In the midst of teams competing for conference titles and vital conference tournament seeding, BracketBusters represents an unnecessary focus away from league play.

One of the biggest surprises of this year's event was Valparaiso's home win over Missouri State. Valpo put on an impressive offensive display, scoring a phenomenal 1.27 points per possession against a team that had allowed 0.99 a trip in Valley play. On Monday, with a share of the league title on the line were they to win out, the Crusaders bottled it on the road against a middling Wisconsin-Green Bay team. Did Valpo lose because it got to full of itself after the BracketBusters win? Only the great Homer Drew knows that. But the Crusaders did have to get out of the mindset of Horizon League league play they had been in so they could face the Bears, and lost 48 hours after playing the non-conference game.

If ESPN truly wanted to showcase the best possible mid-major games on a single weekend, they could somehow work with the conferences to make some type of flexible scheduling arrangement for the four conference games the week of and the week after the BracketBusters scheduling. Teams scheduled to play home games would be locked into playing home games in the event, so as not to disrupt the plans of season ticket holders. Using this framework would not only prevent teams from having to play non-conference games at the most important part of the conference season, it could allow ESPN to show the most important games mid-majors can play during the regular season: those that decide a conference title.

As it stands now, though, BracketBusters represents a diversion in the college basketball season that is unnecessary to the teams involved and claims objectives that are increasingly either irrelevant or downright false.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Trevor Bayne — Bayne, in the No. 21 Wood Brothers Motorcraft car, stunned the racing world, becoming the youngest Daytona 500 winner in history. With a momentous push from Bobby Labonte's No. 47 car, Bayne held off the hard-charging Carl Edwards, taking the victory in only his second Sprint Cup start. Afterwards, the deeply-spiritual Bayne thanked the Lord, who brushed off the comment, saying He was a Junior fan.

"That's called 'using the Lord's name in Bayne,'" Bayne said, "and then being told you're 'using the Lord's name in vain.' But I made history. Not only by becoming the youngest winner in history, but by becoming the first Daytona winner to be eliminated from Cup championship contention before the race. And I can't think of a better birthday present for my 20th birthday. Hopefully, this win will lead to a long NASCAR career, because I'll need plenty of time to live up to this. As for now, the team and I are trying to make this moment last, and sell as many 'Got Wood?' merchandise as possible."

2. Kurt Busch — Busch, with wins in the Bud Shootout and Gatorade Duels already under his belt, was in contention in his bid to complete the triple with a Daytona 500 win. But the driver of the No. 22 Shell/Pennzoil Dodge came up a bit short, unable to find a path to the lead, and settled for fourth. Busch lamented that he should have gone low on the back straightaway instead of selecting the middle line.

"I just couldn't find the right partner at the right time," Busch said. "And that's quite ironic in a race characterized by more coupling than a Tim Richmond key party, circa 1986. And one marked by just as many partner exchanges, as well."

3. Carl Edwards — As the green flag waved for the final green-white-checkered finish, Edwards was 10th, seemingly out of position to make a run for the win. But after linking up with David Gilliland's No. 34 Taco Bell car, Edwards and the No. 99 Aflac Ford surged forward and into second behind Trevor Bayne. Edwards tried a pass for the lead, unsuccessfully, and finished second.

"How about this new points system?" Edwards said. "I love it. You finish second, and you're in first. I'm sure Mark Martin could appreciate it as well.

"I really got a strong push from Gilliland. I must say, it's not the first time I've been backed up by Taco Bell. And it's quite unfortunate that my Roush Fenway teammate David Ragan was black-flagged for passing before the start-finish line on the penultimate restart. I know UPS prides itself on promptness, but this time, they were a bit too early. David learned the hard way that 'once you get 'black,' you can't go back,' to the front."

4. Kyle Busch — Busch finished 8th at Daytona, remaining in the hunt until the end after surviving several incidents, early and late in the race, before closing strong. The No. 18 M&Ms Toyota was spun by Michael Waltrip on lap 5, and a lap 198 melee clipped Busch and caused a tire rub that forced a late pit stop. He led 3 laps on the day and led the way in an otherwise disappointing day for Joe Gibbs Racing.

"It's unfortunate to be wrecked by another driver," Busch said. "It's even more unfortunate to be wrecked by another Toyota driver. Sure, these cars are Japanese, but I didn't order 'take out.'

"Then, Waltrip triggered another crash, the Big One, on lap 29, by doing the same thing to David Reutimann, another Toyota driver, and Waltrip's teammate. I think it's official: when Waltrip trails you, it's like being followed by the 'Grim Reaper.' When it happens again, it's akin to being stalked by the 'Grim Reappear.'"

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart started second on the final restart at Daytona, but the line led by race leader Trevor Bayne got the jump on the restart. Stewart attempted to slide in to the fast lane, but was shuffled back in the scramble, and ended up a disappointing 13th.

"Trevor Bayne ran a great race," Stewart said. "It's a life-changing experience that I hope he's ready for. He'll soon be deluged with an onslaught of 'yes men,' and, if he's lucky, even more 'yes women.'

"As you know, I won the Nationwide race on Saturday, while Michael Waltrip won the Camping World trucks race on Friday night. That means all three Daytona winners are not even eligible for the respective series championships. Brian France was right; the new scoring system is much simpler. There's a common leader among all three series, because, whether Camping World, Nationwide, or Sprint Cup series, 'confusion' reigns."

6. Juan Montoya — Montoya led 5 laps and finished sixth in an action-filled Daytona 500 after surviving two skirmishes that slightly damaged the No. 42 Target Dodge. Montoya teamed up early with teammate Jamie McMurray, but when McMurray lost a cylinder, Montoya was forced to look elsewhere for a draft partner.

"I thought Jamie did well considering he was driving on 7 cylinders," said Montoya. "He should be used to it. With the exception of Daytona, Indianapolis, and Charlotte, he drove that way in all of 2010."

7. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson's defense of his five consecutive Sprint Cup titles started auspiciously with a 27th-place finish, 19 laps off the pace. Johnson's No. 48 Lowe's Chevy was sucked into a lap 29 pileup started when Michael Waltrip sent David Reutimann spinning. Johnson nearly escaped danger, but was collected by the spinning No. 00 car.

"First," Johnson said, "the good news for all of the anti-Jimmie Johnson factions: I didn't win the Daytona 500. Now, the bad news: I didn't win the Daytona 500, in four of the last five years. And, as everyone is well aware, I've got enough Cups to outfit the starting five to any basketball team.

"Daytona boasted a record 74 lead changes. Just don't expect one at the end of the year."

8. Bobby Labonte — Labonte, the 46-year-old 2000 Winston Cup champion, pushed 20-year-old Trevor Bayne to a lead on the final restart the No. 21 Wood Brothers car would never relinquish. Labonte eventually finished fourth, his first top-five finish since Las Vegas in 2009, and places him third in the Sprint Cup point standings.

"Just call me 'The Cougar,'" Labonte said. "Because I pushed someone much younger than me into something for which he probably wasn't quite ready. Does that make me a 'statutory racer?' Not in Florida.

"Anyway, I'm proud to give JTG Daugherty Racing such a great finish. They have a great program with great leadership, as well as great ownership. I love working for Brad Daugherty. Among former NBA player/black hillbilly car owners, he's by far my favorite."

9. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — With several notable favorites, including Hendrick teammates Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, as well as the entirety of Richard Childress Racing, nursing battered cars, the stars were aligning for what would have been a historic and sentimental Earnhardt victory. But after surviving one green-white-checkered restart, the No. 88 Amp Energy car was collected in the second, and Earnhardt finished 24th, six laps down.

"That's when 'Junior Nation' becomes 'Junior Damn! Nation,'" Earnhardt said. "And that's the nature of superspeedway racing. Some drivers take the attitude of 'going for broke' a bit too literally."

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer led 31 laps at Daytona, second only to Ryan Newman's 37, and was charging with 4 laps to go before being victimized in the final pileup of the day. Bowyer, despite extensive damage, stayed on the lead lap and finished 17th.

"It was an up-and-down day for Richard Childress Racing," Bowyer said. "While Paul Menard scored a top-10 finish, Kevin Harvick and Jeff Burton suffered engine failures. In his first Cup race with the 'King of Beers' on the hood, Harvick's No. 29 car said 'This Bud is Through.' Burton's Caterpillar Chevy wasn't much better, and became 'heavy equipment' only for a tow truck when the No. 31's engine expired on lap 92."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2011

The Best Kick Returners in NFL History

All stats current through the end of the 2010 NFL season.

I recently watched the NFL Films feature "Top Ten Return Aces." I love NFL Films. I believe both Ed Sabol and Steve Sabol should be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Their contributions to the game are titanic, impossible to overstate. The "Return Aces" piece, like all NFL Films features, is engaging and fun, though I would have liked to see more uncut returns. The list, however, surprised me. Gale Sayers only seventh? Really? A couple of the selections might have even caused me to sort of, you know, yell at the television. Well, maybe not yell. Speak forcefully to.

I'm always thinking about NFL history, so I had in my head an idea of the top ten return men in history. In fact, I'll give it to you now:

1) Sayers
2) Brian Mitchell
3) Mel Gray
4) Devin Hester
5) Dante Hall
6) Desmond Howard
7) Billy "White Shoes" Johnson
8) Travis Williams
9) Rick Upchurch
10) Josh Cribbs

The NFL Films list looked a little bit like that, but not a lot. I'm an open-minded guy, so I thought to myself, "Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I've been over/under-rating people all this time." So I decided to do some serious research. Who was right, me or NFL Films? Or a little of both, or neither? What you're about to read represents the results of personal observation, contemporary accounts, and intense statistical research.

There are three qualities I look for in a great return man: explosiveness (big plays), consistency (helping the team even when the big play isn't there), and longevity (productivity, sustaining greatness). It's worth mentioning that the final category basically eliminates everyone who played before 1950. Steve Van Buren was a fantastic returner — he averaged 26.7 yards per kickoff return and 13.9 per punt return, with a combined 5 TDs — and I've expressed my admiration for him a number of times , but he only had 110 total returns. I chose only four players with under 200 returns, none with fewer than Van Buren.

In my mind, a returner needs all three qualities (explosiveness, consistency, and longevity) to be great. A guy who averages 24 yards on KRs for a decade but never scores a touchdown isn't a great returner. A guy who finds the endzone a bunch of times, but regularly goes backwards and doesn't consistently give his team field position, is not a great returner. Someone who's amazing for a year or two? Those were the hardest to cut. But returning is so subject to one big play skewing the averages, and so many returners have one great year and then disappear, that I've tried to stay away from flashes of greatness. Also, the returners listed here all played in the NFL, so you won't find CFL legend Gizmo Williams on here. I did consider AAFC and AFL returners, but none of them made the cut. Buddy Young and Speedy Duncan were close.

These are, as best I can tell, the 20 finest kick returners in NFL history, along with a few others who deserve special mention. To put the stats below in context, kickoff return averages historically are 21.50 yards, with punt returns at 8.85 yards.

20. Leon Washington

2006-10, New York Jets, Seattle Seahawks
174 KR, 4,447 yards, 25.56 average, 7 TD
86 PR, 848 yards, 9.86 average, 0 TD

Washington gets overlooked in this Cribbs-Hester Era, but he has already established himself as one of the greatest kickoff returners in history. In fact, only Cribbs has more KR TDs. That's right, Washington has more KR TDs than Sayers, Gray, Hester, everyone but Cribbs. His 25.6 average is impressive, as well. Washington has the potential to rise on this list very quickly. He's still young, and just had maybe his best return season (3 KR TD, career-high PR avg). Unlike many great returners, it doesn't appear that he will lose return opportunities because of increased playing time on offense.

19. Dave Meggett

1989-98, New York Giants, New England Patriots, New York Jets
252 KR, 5,566 yards, 22.09 average, 1 TD
349 PR, 3,708 yards, 10.62 average, 7 TD

Most career punt return yards: 1. Brian Mitchell, 2. Dave Meggett.

This is the second version of this article. I had it half-finished, then I re-evaluated my interpretation of the statistics and substantially re-wrote the thing. In that first version, Meggett ranked 9th. His averages are good — especially for the era in which he played — and not too many people have 8 combined kick return TDs. But what really distinguishes Meggett is his consistency. He scored a return TD in each of his first six seasons. In the seventh, he set a career high for KR average, and the eighth, another TD.

That consistency, however, is the same reason Meggett dropped 10 spots in my revision. If you compare him to an average returner, Meggett's stats are terrific, because he returned 600 kicks and was consistently above average. But when we talk about the best ever, do we really want a guy who was "consistently above average," or someone who lit the world on fire, even if he was a little more up and down, or didn't play quite as long?

Meggett's career-high KR average was 25.4 yards. That's lower than Washington's career average. Meggett, in his best season, didn't do what Leon Washington does every year. That's not entirely fair, because Meggett was actually a better punt returner than kickoff returner. But even there, his averages are more "good" than "great," and he has all the little things going against him. He fumbled a lot, and he fair caught a lot. Fair catches make your average look better, because they don't count toward the average. So instead of a five-yard return, which helps the team but hurts your average, there's no return at all, which hurts the team but helps your average. Meggett fair-caught about a third of the punts that came his way.

Having written all that, I'm trying to explain why Meggett isn't in the top 10, but I wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that he was anything other than a gifted returner. During Meggett's first five seasons in the league, kickoff return averages never topped 19.5, and only 0.4% (1 out of 231) went for touchdowns. Meggett was not just an okay kickoff returner, he was among the best of his era. Not great, but certainly good. He was, however, an exceptional punt returner. Meggett just terrorized the NFC East in the early '90s.

18. Vai Sikahema

1986-93, St. Louis/Phoenix Cardinals, Green Bay Packers, Philadelphia Eagles
235 KR, 4,933 yards, 20.99 average, 0 TD
292 PR, 3,169 yards, 10.85 average, 4 TD

The hardest era in modern history for kickoff returners was 1979-93. Historically, kickoff return averages are usually about 21.5 yards, and about six kickoffs out of every 1,000 are returned for touchdowns. During that 15-year depression, league-wide KR averages never reached 21 even once, and less than 0.4% of kickoff returns resulted in TDs. This trend finally reversed itself in 1994, when the league moved kickoffs from the 35-yard line to the 30. Sikahema retired before the season.

Sikahema has the fewest return TDs of anyone on the list, and his averages don't appear exceptional at first glance. The reality is that Sikahema is one of the most consistently productive returners in history. He played in a tough era for returners, but never had a bad season. From 1986-93, the league averaged 19.4 yards on kickoff returns and 8.8 on punt returns. Sikahema actually averaged a yard and half over the league on KRs, and two over on PRs, adding a total of 945 yards above average for his teams.

17. Desmond Howard

1992-2002, Washington Redskins, Jacksonville Jaguars, Green Bay Packers, Oakland Raiders, Detroit Lions
359 KR, 7,959 yards, 22.17 average, 0 TD
244 PR, 2,895 yards, 11.86 average, 8 TD

The most famous play of Desmond Howard's career was a 99-yard kickoff return for a touchdown in Super Bowl XXXI. That was the only KR TD of Howard's career. In fact, Howard is basically on this list for one season: 1996. During that year, Howard:

* Led the NFL in punt returns, PR yardage, PR average, and PR TDs.
* Set a single-season record for punt return yardage.
* In the playoffs, returned a punt 71 yards for a touchdown.
* Set a Super Bowl record for punt return yardage.
* Tied a Super Bowl record for all-purpose yardage.
* Returned a kickoff for a touchdown in the Super Bowl.
* Became the first pure special teamer named Super Bowl MVP.

That's phenomenal, one of the great seasons by any returner in history. But apart from that one year, Howard was only a slightly above-average return man. His best seasons, as I see them, were '96, 2000, 2001, 1992, and 1998. Those seasons were good, but other than '00, when he made his only Pro Bowl, not really special. Howard excelled on the biggest stage, but he was only an average kickoff returner, and he didn't produce consistently.

Honorable Mention: Eric Metcalf

1989-2002, Cleveland Browns, Atlanta Falcons, San Diego Chargers, Arizona Cardinals, Carolina Panthers, Washington Redskins, Green Bay Packers
280 KR, 5,813 yards, 20.76 average, 2 TD
351 PR, 3,453 yards, 9.84 average, 10 TD

Desmond Howard (1992-2002) and Eric Metcalf were contemporaries. You won't find Metcalf on the top-20 list; scroll down as far as you like, he's not in here. Eric Metcalf was a very good returner, but I don't see him among the very best all-time. Compared to Metcalf, Howard had a better kickoff return average, a better punt return average, and more return yards. Metcalf had more touchdowns, 13 to 10 (including postseason); he was more explosive than Howard. Their returning careers were about the same length, both between 600-650 returns. But Metcalf wasn't consistent. The primary job of a returner is to give his team good field position. Even the best returners don't score a lot of touchdowns, so the best way to help your team is to consistently gain yardage, and Metcalf didn't do that.

Eric Metcalf is 258th all-time in kickoff return average. He's 79th in punt return average. During Metcalf's career:

* NFL teams averaged 21.4 yards per kickoff return. Metcalf averaged 20.76.
* Teams averaged 9.6 yards per punt return. Metcalf was at 9.84.
* 0.64% of kickoff returns went back for touchdowns. Metcalf scored 2 KR TDs in 280 tries, 0.71%.
* 1.34% of punt returns went back for touchdowns. Metcalf scored 10 PR TDs in 351 tries, 2.80%.

Eric Metcalf was a pretty average kickoff returner and a very good punt returner. He didn't fair catch a lot, and his average would be higher if he had, but his numbers are big mostly because he had so many returns and he was always looking for the big play. There's nothing wrong with that, but sometimes you just have to take what's there. I know he had all those touchdowns, but I don't see how a guy who's not in the top 75 in KR or PR average is one of the top 20 returners in history.

16. Jack Christiansen

1951-58, Detroit Lions
59 KR, 1,329 yards, 22.53 average, 0 TD
85 PR, 1,084 yards, 12.75 average, 8 TD

Jack Christiansen is probably the greatest punt returner who ever lived. As a rookie, he averaged 19.1 yards per punt return, with 4 TDs — a single-season record (since tied). The next season, Christiansen averaged 21.5 yards per punt return (no typo — punt returns) with another 2 TDs. After that, PR averages plummeted, and opponents kicked away from him, but Christiansen remained one of the league's most effective returners.

I mentioned earlier that Vai Sikahema played at a time when league-wide KR averages were historically low. The same is true for Christiansen and punt returns. Normally, the average is about 8.85. From 1953-58, it was just 5.9. Christiansen's average during those years was 8.1, and he twice tied for the league lead in PR TDs.

The 12 greatest punt return seasons of all time, in chronological order:

15. Michael Bates

1993-2003, Seattle Seahawks, Cleveland Browns, Carolina Panthers, Washington Redskins, New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys
373 KR, 9,110 yards, 24.42 average, 5 TD
10 PR, 44 yards, 4.40 average, 0 TD

Solely as a KR man, I would probably rank Bates sixth all-time, but this list is for combined returning, so he sinks to this position. From 1996-99, he had one of the best four-year runs in history. During those seasons, the league averaged 21.9 yards per KR, with 0.7% of kickoffs returned for TDs. Bates averaged 26.4 per KR, with a 2.1% TD rate. Over a period of four years, 191 returns, he gave his team an extra 4.5 yards of field position per return, including three times as many KR TDs as an average returner. Compared to an average returner, that's an extra 900 yards and 3 touchdowns. He made the Pro Bowl all four seasons.

Unlike most returners, Bates sustained success over a decade-long career.

14. Terrence McGee

2003-2010, Buffalo Bills
207 KR, 5,450 yards, 26.33 average, 5 TD
0 PR

McGee is the only player on this list who has never returned a punt in the NFL. Since 1970, there are five players with at least 100 kickoff returns and a 26.0 average: Ellis Hobbs, Stefan Logan, Danieal Manning, McGee, and Justin Miller.

Although he has become a very good cornerback and no longer sees much action on special teams, McGee is the only one who really sustained his success.

13. Bobby Mitchell

1958-68, Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins
102 KR, 2,690 yards, 26.37 average, 5 TD
69 PR, 699 yards, 10.13 average, 3 TD

Bobby Mitchell was exceptional at everything. As a running back, he averaged 5.3 yards per carry. As a wide receiver, he twice led the NFL in receiving yards. He's in the Hall of Fame. Mitchell did not do a great deal of returning — he was just too valuable on offense — but he still scored 8 return TDs and posted superb averages. His KR average is fantastic, and that punt return average — good but not great — is misleading.

1953-60 was the worst era in history for punt returns. Mitchell only returned 6 punts after 1963, so let's look at 1958-63. During those years, the average punt return was just 7.6 yards, and less than 1.1% of all PRs went for touchdowns. Mitchell averaged 10.1 yards, 33% higher than the league average, and reached the end zone on 4.35% of the punts he fielded, almost four times the league average. As a rookie, Mitchell returned 14 punts for 165 yards (11.8 avg) and a touchdown. Those are good numbers in any era, but in 1958, league-wide PR average was just 5.7 yards, and there was only one other PR TD all year.

Devin Hester as a rookie in 2006: 47 PR, 600 yds, 12.8 avg, 3 TDs. Relative to the league average, Hester's line in 1958 is 47 PR, 394 yds, 8.39 avg, 1 TD. Alternatively, if we translate Mitchell's averages compared to the league, putting him in 2006 and giving him as many returns as Hester, here's what his season looks like: 47 PR, 844 yds, 18.0 avg, 10 TDs. Do I really believe Bobby Mitchell, as a rookie in 2006, would have averaged 18 yards per return and scored 10 PR TDs? Of course not. And Mitchell didn't return 47 punts, he returned 14. Still, that's a hell of a season. These comparisons are not entirely fair, but they're staggering all the same. And Mitchell was as good a kickoff returner as a punt returner. His low return total is the only thing keeping him out of the top 10. I'd be more inclined to move him up the list than down.

Best of the Rest: Hall of Famers

Many of the best returners prove so valuable on offense or defense that they don't remain returners. Darrell Green, who in his prime was the undisputed fastest man in the NFL, broke a rib on his punt return TD in the '87 playoffs, and only returned 12 more kicks in the final 15 years of his career. Thirteen current HOFers not in the top 20 scored multiple regular-season return TDs in their careers:

* The criminally underrated Steve Van Buren averaged 26.7 yards per KR and 13.9 per punt return, with a combined 5 TDs.

* Emlen Tunnell, the first African-American enshrined in Canton, is also often credited as the first purely defensive player in the Hall of Fame. It's true that Tunnell didn't play offense, but he was a major contributor on special teams, averaging 26.4 yards per KR and returning 5 punts for touchdowns.

* George McAfee has the highest PR average (12.78) of anyone with at least 75 returns. He also averaged 27.1 yards on kickoffs, and scored a combined 4 KR/PR TDs.

* Bullet Bill Dudley retired with a 12.2 PR average, scoring 4 KR/PR TDs. Both Dudley and McAfee had their careers interrupted by service in World War II.

* Pittsburgh Steeler great Rod Woodson scored a combined 4 KR/PR TDs, all in black and gold.

* Bob Hayes, the world's fastest man, averaged 25.3 yards per KR and 11.1 per punt return, with 3 PR TDs.

* Lem Barney averaged 25.5 yards per KR, with 3 KR/PR TDs.

* Jim Brown's successor in Cleveland, Leroy Kelly played mostly on special teams until Brown's retirement, with good averages on both KRs (23.5) and PRs (10.5), and 3 PR TDs.

* Mel Renfro averaged 26.4 yards per KR, with 3 KR/PR TDs.

* Do-everything Cardinal Charlie Trippi averaged an unreal 13.71 yards on punt returns, with 2 PR TDs in only 63 tries.

* 2010 inductee Floyd Little averaged 24.3 yards per KR and 11.0 per punt return, with 2 PR TDs.

* Packer legend Herb Adderley was a standout kickoff returner (25.7 avg, 2 TDs).

* Crazy Legs Hirsch returned both a kickoff and a punt for TDs in the AAFC.

12. Deion Sanders

1989-2005, Atlanta Falcons, San Francisco 49ers, Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, Baltimore Ravens
155 KR, 3,523 yards, 22.73 average, 3 TD
212 PR, 2,199 yards, 10.37 average, 6 TD

Deion Sanders is a polarizing figure, so I'd like to explain to his detractors why he rates as high as he does, and to his advocates why he's not in the top 10. Detractors first. Comparing Deion to someone like Desmond Howard, it's hard to understand when you look at their numbers why Sanders should rate ahead. Here are those numbers —

Howard: 359 KR, 7,959 yards, 22.17 average, 0 TD; 244 PR, 2,895 yards, 11.86 average, 8 TD
Sanders: 155 KR, 3,523 yards, 22.73 average, 3 TD; 212 PR, 2,199 yards, 10.37 average, 6 TD

It looks like Sanders was a slightly better kickoff guy, and Howard was a much better punt return man. Neither is true; in fact, Sanders was a much better kickoff returner, and Howard was a slightly better punt returner. Sanders did almost all of his kickoff returning from 1989-92, when the league average was 19.2 yards. Sanders was far above that mark (18.3%). Beginning in 1994, KR averages topped 21, and haven't been below since. Sanders did most of his kickoff returning when the league average was 19 yards; Howard did most of his when the average was 22.

Punt return averages were lower from 89-91, too — that's the period when Sanders was in the NFL and Howard was at Michigan — but the hidden yardage is really in fair catches. Howard fair caught almost twice as many punts as Deion. A fair catch doesn't count against your return average, but it gets no yardage for your team. A 3-yard return helps your team, but it hurts your average. Deion always tried to make a play when it was there. Howard fair caught anything he couldn't take back.

So why doesn't Sanders rank even higher? Well, partly just because he doesn't have a ton of returns; 367 is nothing to sneeze at, but Brian Mitchell had 1,070, with higher averages and more touchdowns. Okay, being below Brian Mitchell is nothing to be ashamed of, but great as he was, Deion is more "significantly above average" than "out of the ballpark," and most of the guys in the top 10 have ridiculous averages and crazy TD rates. The NFL Films piece ranked Sanders fourth. That's absurd. If he weren't an NFL Network employee with a great defensive résumé and top-notch name recognition, he wouldn't have been anywhere near that part of the list. Dave Meggett did nearly the same things as a returner, and he didn't make the top 10.

11. Ollie Matson

1952-66, Chicago Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, Detroit Lions, Philadelphia Eagles
143 KR, 3,746 yards, 26.20 average, 6 TD
65 PR, 595 yards, 9.15 average, 3 TD

Comparable to Bobby Mitchell, Matson was an explosive running back with good receiving skills, and a sensational kick returner. Like Mitchell, he played at a time when punt return averages were incredibly depressed, but still scored multiple TDs. And like Mitchell, he would probably be top-10 on this list if he'd been used a returner consistently.

An Olympic gold medalist in track (4 x 400 relay), Matson led the NFL in either KR TDs or PR TDs a total of five times. He had four seasons with multiple return TDs (1952, '54, '55, '58), which is tied for the best total ever (along with Eric Metcalf and Brian Mitchell). Matson and Gale Sayers are the only players in NFL history to return at least two kicks for touchdowns in each of their first three seasons. Matson missed the 1953 campaign to serve in Korea.

He died this Saturday, at age 80.

10. Travis Williams

1967-71, Green Bay Packers, Los Angeles Rams
102 KR, 2,801 yards, 27.46 average, 6 TD
13 PR, 213 yards, 16.38 average, 1 TD

In 1967, Travis Williams had the greatest season ever by a kickoff returner: 18 KR, 739 yards, 41.1 average, 4 TDs. Those are single-season records for average and touchdowns. Williams never replicated that level of success — no one has — but it wasn't a fluke. He scored three more return TDs in the next four seasons, and in '71 again led the league in KR average. A knee injury ended his career after that season.

An aura has grown around the Vince Lombardi Packers, and rightfully so. The championship-winning teams of 1961-62 and 1965-66 were exceptional. In 1967, though, the Packers went 9-4-1, only the third-best record in the 16-team NFL. Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor were gone. Bart Starr, 33, threw twice as many interceptions as touchdowns. Travis Williams was the second-leading touchdown scorer on that team, a key component of the Packers' final championship run.

The 12 greatest kickoff return seasons of all time, in chronological order:

9. Dante Hall

2000-08, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams
426 KR, 10,136 yards, 23.79 average, 6 TD
216 PR, 2,261 yards, 10.47 average, 6 TD

Hall was unusual, a player equally gifted on kickoff and punt returns. Actually, he was a little better on kickoffs, but he was a very good punt returner, as well. Think of the most famous return men in history. Gale Sayers, a kickoff guy, only returned 27 punts in his whole career. Hall returned that many in a season five times. Almost any great returner you name was distinctly better at one or the other. Mel Gray? Kickoffs. Eric Metcalf? Punts. Travis Williams? Kickoffs. Billy Johnson? Punts. The two best returners of this era? Josh Cribbs is better on kickoffs, Devin Hester on punts.

Hall from 2002-04 was otherworldly as a returner. In '02, he scored three return TDs and made the Pro Bowl. In '03, he led the NFL in everything. He had the longest kickoff return (100 yards), the longest punt return (93), the most KR TDs (2), the most PR TDs (2), the best PR average (16.3), and he led the league in all-purpose yards (2,446). That earned him both a trip to Hawaii and all-pro honors. But people forget that Hall wasn't a one-year wonder. In '04, he led the NFL in kickoff return yardage and scored 2 more KR TDs, giving him three straight years with multiple return TDs. Hall is fourth all-time in career KR yardage, and his 12 combined return TDs are tied for third all-time.

Best of the Rest: The American Football League

Top five AFL kick returners:

1. Chargers star Speedy Duncan, who also played with Washington after the merger, was the greatest return man in AFL history, returning four punts for TDs. He averaged 25.2 yards on KRs and three times led his league in PR average.

2. Dick Christy was off the charts in 1961 and '62. In '61, he led the AFL in PR yards (383), average (21.3), and TDs (2). The following season, he led in all of the same categories, with another 2 PR TDs, plus he led the AFL in KR yardage (824).

3. Hall of Fame RB Floyd Little was a great returner early in his career, averaging 26.1 yards on KRs and 13.1 on PRs in the AFL.

4. Noland Smith, Kansas City's 5'5," 154-lb. Super Gnat, was one of only four AFL players to score on both a KR and a PR. He averaged 26.8 yards on kickoff returns.

5. Bobby Jancik may have been the best kickoff returner in AFL history, but his only touchdown actually came on a punt return. Jancik had a great KR average (26.5) and by far the most KR yards in AFL history.

8. Abe Woodson

1958-66, San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Cardinals
193 KR, 5,538 yards, 28.69 average, 5 TD
123 PR, 956 yards, 7.77 average, 2 TD

A world-record hurdler, Woodson ranks as perhaps the greatest kickoff returner in NFL history. I'd put him second or third, personally, but certainly he's in the conversation. Woodson and Lynn Chandnois are the only players to average at least 29 yards per KR in five different seasons. Actually, Woodson's average in 1961 was 28.96, but even if you don't round up, he's ahead of everyone but Chandnois. Highest career KR averages: Gale Sayers (30.6), Chandnois (29.6), Woodson (28.7). The highest in at least 100 returns is Woodson, and no one else is close.

Chandnois didn't make the final list. Why not? (1) His career was very short. (2) He was a miserable punt returner. Chandnois retired with a PR average of 4.7 yards. From 1951-52, the league averaged 10.1 yards per punt return, with the most PR TDs per team per game in history. Chandnois during those two years returned 29 punts for 166 yards (5.7), with no TDs. An average returner would have gained 293 yards and scored a touchdown.*

Chandnois was an exceptional kickoff returner — on 92 returns. Is Chandnois' 0.9 yard of return average worth Woodson's 101 extra returns? Obviously not. And Woodson was a good punt returner.

* Okay, 9/10 of a touchdown.

7. Devin Hester

2006-10, Chicago Bears
113 KR, 2,724 yards, 24.11 average, 4 TD
178 PR, 2,200 yards, 12.36 average, 10 TD

Probably the most feared returner in history, certainly the most feared in many years, he's also the all-time record-holder for combined kick return touchdowns (14). Devin Hester is a good kickoff returner, but he has truly made his mark as a punt returner. As a kickoff man, Hester had one great season, his rookie year of 2006, when he averaged 26.4 yards, scoring 2 regular season TDs and another to open Super Bowl XLI. Since then, he's had his moments, but also got replaced on kickoffs by teammate Danieal Manning. Overall, his KR record is nice, but there are a dozen contemporaries who are just as good.

As a punt returner, however, Hester is among the most successful not just of his generation but in all of history. What's strange about Hester's punt returning career is its shape. He was a fantastic returner in '06 (12.8 avg, 3 TDs) and '07 (15.5 avg, 4 TDs), then terrible in '08 (6.2 avg, career-high 14 fair catches, 3 fumbles) and poor in '09 (7.8 avg) before rebounding with a sensational 2010 campaign (17.1 avg, 3 TDs). Hester is the only player in history with three seasons of 3 or more PR TDs. In fact, he's the only player with two such seasons.

Early in his career, Hester had a fumble problem, but it seems to have been resolved.

6. Brian Mitchell

1990-2003, Washington Redskins, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants
607 KR, 14,014 yards, 23.09 average, 4 TD
463 PR, 4,999 yards, 10.80 average, 9 TD

All-time NFL leaders in all-purpose yardage:

1. Jerry Rice, 23,546
2. Brian Mitchell, 23,316
3. Walter Payton, 21,803
4. Emmitt Smith, 21,579

Brian Mitchell is the most productive return man in history. He is the NFL's all-time leader in both kickoff return yards and punt return yards, and he is 2nd all-time in combined return TDs. Whereas Devin Hester has had three amazing years, Mitchell had 14 good ones. At this point in time, Mitchell has helped his teams more.

Ollie Matson, Bobby Mitchell, and Brian Mitchell are the only NFL players who have scored at least three each of rushing, receiving, kickoff return, and punt return TDs.

5. Joshua Cribbs

2005-10, Cleveland Browns
305 KR, 7,863 yards, 25.78 average, 8 TD
123 PR, 1,309 yards, 10.64 average, 2 TD

Why is Cribbs ahead of Hester?

Partly, it's plain production. He has 428 returns, Hester has 291. Cribbs has five seasons with over 1,000 KR yards; Hester has none. There has been exactly one season in which Hester had more combined return yards than Cribbs: 2010. Every other year of Hester's career, Cribbs has been more productive. 2007 is a good example. Hester that year set a career-high for return TDs, with a total of 6 (2 KR, 4 PR), but Cribbs had a better season.

Compared to an average returner (22.6 KR, 9.1 PR), Cribbs gave the Browns an extra 474 yards of field position on kickoff returns and 132 yards on punt returns. That's more than 600 yards, the highest single-season total for any returner in history. Hester actually cost the Bears 39 yards on kickoffs, though he added 269 on punt returns, a total of +230. That's great, but it's less than half of Cribbs' total. Hester has a three-TD advantage (6-3), but 376 yards of field position will get you more than three TDs. Cribbs had a better year.

That's the story of their careers. Cribbs has 9,172 yards to Hester's 4,924. The extra 4,000 yards are easily worth 4 TDs. Hester has more TDs than Cribbs because Hester is a great punt returner. Only 6 out of every 1,000 kickoffs gets returned for a touchdown, compared to 11 out of every 1,000 punts. It's almost twice as easy for returners to score TDs on punts as on kickoffs. Cribbs has the most KR TDs of any player in NFL history. He's just as exceptional a kickoff returner as Hester is a punt returner, and he has returned many more kicks. That makes him more valuable.

The 12 greatest combined kick return seasons of the 2000s, in chronological order:

Honorable mentions: Darrick Vaughn (2000), Desmond Howard (2000), Steve Smith (2001), Dante Hall (2002), Dante Hall (2004), Jerome Mathis (2005), Adam Jones (2006), Andre' Davis (2007). Best returner not listed: Leon Washington, by far. His best seasons have been 2007 and 2010, with 3 KR TDs each year.

Best of the Rest: The All-America Football Conference

The AAFC ran from 1946-49, producing the San Francisco 49ers, Baltimore Colts, and Cleveland Browns (who became NFL champions in 1950, immediately following the partial merger). The greatest returners in AAFC history:

1. Legendary New York Yankees tailback Spec Sanders averaged 27.4 yards on KRs, and 15.3 on PRs, with a combined 3 TDs. He was also a decent passer, exceptional runner, and sensational defensive back. He played only four seasons (1946-48, '50), but is one of the greatest players not in the Hall of Fame.

2. Buddy Young, another Yankee (as well as a hero for the Colts in the '50s), posted great averages (27.2 KR, 16.3 PR) and returned 3 kicks for touchdowns during his AAFC career. Young was equally productive in the NFL, averaging 27.9 yards on kickoff returns and scoring another 3 return TDs. Young was a more accomplished returner than Sanders and arguably should be on the Top 20 list, but purely on their AAFC careers, he's second.

3. Forgotten Buffalo Bills RB Chet Mutryn — probably one of the most underrated players in the history of football — had a 27.7 KR average and scored both KR and PR touchdowns.

4. Billy Hillenbrand, a successful receiving RB with the Colts, joins Sanders and Young as the only players with 3 kick return TDs in the AAFC.

5. Before jumping leagues and becoming a Hall of Fame receiver with the NFL's Rams, Crazy Legs Hirsch averaged 27.0 yards on KRs and 13.6 on PRs with the AAFC's Chicago Rockets, scoring both KR and PR TDs.

4. Gale Sayers

1965-71, Chicago Bears
91 KR, 2,781 yards, 30.56 average, 6 TD
27 PR, 391 yards, 14.48 average, 2 TD

Gale Sayers' record for kickoff return average (30.6) will probably never be broken. Since 1994, when the NFL moved kickoffs to the 30-yard line, only seven players have averaged 30.6 yards per KR in a season, and no one has done it more than once. Sayers also has the best punt return average (among players with at least 20 attempts) since 1950.

He is almost certainly the most exceptional kick returner who has ever played, but I can't rank him any higher than this with so few returns. If all you're looking for is peak, Gale Sayers is the greatest returner in history. But if longevity matters at all, there are better choices. Other players have been nearly as good for much longer.

3. Billy "White Shoes" Johnson

1974-88, Houston Oilers, Atlanta Falcons, Washington Redskins
123 KR, 2,941 yards, 23.91 average, 2 TD
282 PR, 3,317 yards, 11.76 average, 6 TD

I didn't expect Johnson to rank so high. He was a legend, a showman, a flashy player who captured the public's imagination. You almost expect such players to be overrated. Johnson, to my surprise, is not overrated.

He makes this list primarily as a punt returner, but start with kickoffs, which he only did from 1974-77. In those four seasons, Johnson scored two KR TDs and was well above the league average of 21.9. He was a very good kickoff returner. As a punt returner, though, he was something more than good. He was a legend in his own time. Part of that is that is the nickname, and a lot of it is the end zone celebration, but mostly, it's 6 PR TDs and a 13.73 average before his knee injury.

Johnson's punt return numbers before the injury are mind-blowing: 143 PR, 1,963 yds, 13.7 avg, 5 TDs. If the injury had ended his career, Johnson would have by far the highest punt return average in history, almost a full yard ahead of George McAfee (12.78). It almost did end his career. He barely played in '79 and '80, spent '81 in the CFL. He made it back to the NFL and played seven more years, even made the Pro Bowl in 1983, but he was just a good returner, not a true standout any more.

2. Rick Upchurch

1975-83, Denver Broncos
95 KR, 2,355 yards, 24.79 average, 0 TD
248 PR, 3,008 yards, 12.13 average, 8 TD

Upchurch and Johnson were contemporaries. It wasn't easy to choose between them. Both averaged 27.1 yards per kickoff return as rookies, then stopped returning kickoffs after a few years to focus on punt returning and become moderately successful wide receivers. Johnson had a longer career and more yards, Upchurch had better averages. They each scored 8 return TDs.

I rate the kickoff returning as basically equal, maybe a slight edge for Johnson because he had more yards and a couple of touchdowns. But ultimately, this is about comparing two of the greatest punt returners in the history of football. Obviously, I've put Upchurch ahead. His average is almost 4/10 of a yard higher, and he has more TDs in fewer returns. The gap between them is razor-thin, though, and I wouldn't argue with someone who ranked Johnson ahead.

Here's a list of everyone with at least 200 punt returns and an average of 12.0 or better: Rick Upchurch.

That's the list. Closest behind him are Desmond Howard (11.86) and Johnson (11.76), with Devin Hester (12.36) in sight at 178 returns. No one else is even in the neighborhood. I wrote earlier that Jack Christiansen was "probably the greatest punt returner who ever lived." I do believe that's right, but Christiansen returned 85 punts in his career, about a third of Upchurch's total. The greatest punt returner with more than a handful of returns is Upchurch, by far.

A couple of comments in the NFL Films piece mentioned that Upchurch may have benefitted from the thin air in Denver and the booming kicks that resulted. Billy Johnson played on artificial turf, in a dome. Hester plays at a time when punt return averages are half a yard higher than in Upchurch's era. Howard played when they were a full yard higher. Upchurch didn't have any more advantages than other great punt returners.

1. Mel Gray

1986-97 New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions, Houston/Tennessee Oilers, Philadelphia Eagles
421 KR, 10,250 yards, 24.35 average, 6 TD
252 PR, 2,753 yards, 10.92 average, 3 TD

Everyone who remembers him knows that Mel Gray was a great returner, but I suspect very few, asked to name the greatest return man of all time, would answer that it was Gray. His stats are good, even great, but he doesn't overwhelm you with sheer numbers like Brian Mitchell, he doesn't have mind-blowing averages like Gale Sayers, and he doesn't have Devin Hester's touchdown record. He's everyone's top 10, nobody's number one.

Gray is the most consistent returner in history: other than his last season, at age 36, he never had a bad year, ever. That's just unheard of in a long career. Pick anyone else on this list, and at some point he had a down season. Maybe not Sayers or Upchurch, but they only returned kicks for like six seasons each. The table below shows Gray's production as compared to the league average, and how many yards he added compared to an average returner.

That's 10 seasons, including nine in a row, where Gray gave his team a 100-yard advantage compared to an average returner. Altogether, it's +2,201 yards, and we're not comparing him to replacement level (a guy off the street), but to league average, to a guy who's better than 14 teams' return men. Gray's mark is the best in history, and it's the best by a lot. The top 10:

Some other names of interest: Michael Bates (+1,008), Gale Sayers (+954), Allen Rossum (+866), Devin Hester (+757), Tim Brown (+628), Terry Metcalf (+617), Herschel Walker (+605), Steve Van Buren (+515), Jack Christiansen (+443), Lynn Chandnois (+429), Tim Dwight (+377), Pacman Jones (+278), Bill Dudley (+223), Emlen Tunnell (+183), Eric Metcalf (+141).

You probably notice a strong resemblance between that list and the order I've chosen. It's not exact, of course — this isn't a math problem — and explosive players like Sayers and Hester change games in a way that slow-and-steady does not. They're true impact players.

But look how far ahead of the pack Mel Gray is. He's 500 yards in front of Mitchell, 1,000 yards up on everyone else. And Gray was plenty explosive. The word "consistent" can seem like a curse when you're talking about the very top-level talent, because it implies that nothing stands out. Gray made four Pro Bowls and three All-Pro teams, the 1990s All-Decade Team and the USFL All-Time Team. His 1991 and '94 seasons are among the finest by any returner in NFL history.

In 1991, an average kickoff return went 18.9 yards. This is the only season in history in which the average dipped below 19. The five lowest:

1991: 18.89
1990: 19.13
1989: 19.40
1992: 19.42
1987: 19.43

Gray was in his prime during the worst period in history for kickoff returners, yet his 24.35 career average is among the best in history, eighth-highest of anyone with at least 200 returns. He is tied for third-most KR TDs in history, behind only Cribbs and Washington. Gray is the only player in history to combine explosiveness, consistency, and longevity at the highest level. His speed was stunning, the sort that drives opponents crazy, because film study alone can't prepare you for it. He was among the top returners in the league year-in, year-out, and he kept this up for 13 seasons (including two in the USFL). It is my belief that Mel Gray was the greatest kick returner in the history of professional football.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:17 PM | Comments (9)

We're So Sorry, Uncle Albert

"What did I want? I wanted to be a Cardinal forever. That's my goal."
— Albert Pujols

What a load of garbage that is. Unless you add "...if the price is right." And notice the use of past tense. But I digress.

As anyone with a pulse knows by now, St. Louis Cardinals first baseman and resident baseball deity Albert Pujols is now in full shutdown mode when it comes to the deadline (now long gone) he imposed on Cards management to discuss a contract extension with him, a deadline that came and went without much more than a whisper from the front office crew. You know, for two entities so desperately in love with one another, they sure don't seem so in the public eye.

Most of what's been brought to light concerning this matter has been rumor and innuendo; the team has supposedly made several offers (as well as modifications of same), including a stake in the freakin' team, but the only certain offer on the table was an 8-year, $200 million monster that Pujols barely sniffed at. So we can now say, with some assurance, that $25 million per year is not quite enough to entice the Busch Basher.

And let's be honest, who can blame him?

Right? Anyone?

Now, I could simply go the way of the purist and rail on and on about how no man should ever make that kind of money to play a kid's game, and how the players and free agency in general is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah, but I'm not going that direction. This time. What I would say is simply this: pay the man.

The financial groundwork in baseball and in pro sports as a whole was laid many years ago. We all know the stark reality of free agency: the money is there, and the players, as the primary attraction, deserve their fair share. The amount they make, no matter how egregious it may seem on the surface, should be based on a simple percentage of the gross revenue of their respective teams. For example, if the Yankees have a player who demands $30 million a year, no big whoop. But if Kansas City has to deal with the same demand, not on your life do they even dream of paying that much. They'd have to sell the stadium to cover it. Probably. Assuming you could find a buyer.

There was even speculation that KC would actually make a play for Pujols, like that's going to happen. The theory that the three-time MVP's ties to Kansas City would be enough to keep him in the state is shaky, at best, and anyhow GM David Glass quietly put that rumor out of its misery.

So it all comes down to whether or not the team can swing it. Of course, clubhouse lawyer (literally) Tony LaRussa is convinced that the Players Union has "leaned on" Pujols basically to extort as much money from St. Louis as possible in order than future free agents could use his contract as a starting point. Problem is, it just doesn't matter. If they want to keep the big man, they have to ante up. And by allowing the deadline pass them by, they've lost their first, best chance to tie him up for the next decade.

With St. Louis out of the running (for the moment), all manner of speculation has sprung up; the Red Sox (apologies to Adrian Gonzalez), the Yankees (ditto, Mark Texeira), even the Cubs (fat chance) have been mentioned as possibilities. But $25 million a year is a lot of lunch money, and he's already turned that down, anyway. Maybe if everyone in Illinois searched under their sofa cushions and in the floorboards of their cars, they might be able to swing half a year. Even being the Cubs fan that I am, I have to think that Albert has better sense than to even consider that move. But I can dream.

The bottom line is this: the Cardinals knew what was ahead of them, they knew this was a once-in-a-generation-type of player they were dealing with, they knew they had to make a serious offer, and they blew it. Big time. There's now a distinct possibility that we could see one of the greatest hitters ever in another uniform, and if St. Louis allows that to happen, the repercussions could be severe. What if he does go to the Cubs? You don't think that's gonna hurt their chances of winning the NL Central? Like he wouldn't stick it to them every time the Cubs and Cards faced off? Please. He's a machine, for Pete's sake.

There a lot of fans out there for whom escalating salaries have been a tough pill to swallow, especially when ticket prices have made it nearly impossible for a family to attend more than a couple games a year without taking out a second mortgage, but this is the state of the game, the grim truth of the business side of the grand old game. And whatever dream the Cardinals' brass is languishing under, they better snap out of it, and soon.

Because letting go of the biggest baseball legend in St. Louis since Musial could make the years ahead a real nightmare for the entire organization.

Posted by Clinton Riddle at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2011

College Hoops Surprises and Disappointments

With only about three weeks remaining in the college basketball season, many fans and pundits are starting to look at the potential March Madness brackets. One thing that some people pay attention to is the number of teams that aren't going to make it that were supposed to, and vice-versa. So, in the interest of comparing the preseason projections to who's really in contention, I've compiled a "top five" list of surprises and disappointments.

For reference, I compared the preseason tournament picks from The Sporting News College Basketball annual to the Bracketology predictions found at CBS Sportsline on the web. Here's what I found.

Major Surprises

1. Notre Dame — A team projected to finish in the bottom half of the Big East is now poised to earn a No. 2 seed in the tournament. But the road will be tough for the Fighting Irish to a top spot in the Big Dance with games against Villanova, whom they've not played yet, and at Connecticut, a team they beat by only three at home earlier. Regardless, Notre Dame should be "dancing" come March, especially if they finish high in the conference tournament.

2. Vanderbilt — Also a team projected to finish near the bottom of the SEC is now in place for a potential No. 5 seed. But with conference powers Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida left on the schedule, the Commodores' stock could drop a little, although not enough to knock them out of the tournament. And a good showing in the SEC tournament wouldn't hurt.

3. St. John's — Steve Lavin's return to the bench has been a successful one, to say the least. The Red Storm were predicted to finish behind Notre Dame in the Big East, but are now projected as a No. 6 seed in the Tournament. With only Villanova as the remaining challenge on the schedule, St. John's could take some momentum into the Big East Tournament and earn an even higher seed.

4. St. Mary's — Projected to finish just behind Gonzaga in the West Coast Conference, but be passed over for tournament consideration, the Gaels are now looking at a possible No. 7 seed. St. Mary's can sew up the conference title with a win over the Zags this week and then look to have a head of steam going into the conference tournament. If they win both the regular season and tourney titles, they could oust Gonzaga from March Madness.

5. UNLV — Predicted to finish fourth in the Mountain West, the Runnin' Rebels have gone from Tournament hopefuls to a potential seventh seed. All that's left for the Rebs on the schedule are bubble team New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. Then it's on to the MWC tournament where they'll try to wreak some havoc against two other surprising teams from the conference.

Mild Surprises

1. San Diego State — Projected to win the MWC but only be a No. 7 tournament seed at the beginning of the year, now a potential No. 1 seed. However, they'll have a tough road to No. 1 the rest of the way with BYU, Wyoming (not so tough), and Colorado State to end the regular season. If they can win out they'll probably earn a top seed somewhere, even if they don't win the Mountain West tournament.

2. Texas — Also projected to be a No. 7 seed preseason and in position to be a No. 1. They also have a seemingly difficult schedule with Colorado, Kansas State, and Baylor left, but two of those teams have been big disappointments this year. Barring a major disaster, the Longhorns will be a top seed somewhere, and maybe even No. 1 overall.

3. BYU — Predicted to finish just behind San Diego State in the MWC and earn a No. 8 seed into the tournament, the Cougars have played well enough to be a possible No. 2 in March. But they're schedule the rest of the way is also tough, with the aforementioned matchup with the Aztecs, plus games against Colorado State and New Mexico. The conference tournament should be the tell-all of just how high BYU can go in the March Madness seeding.

4. UConn — Projected to finish eighth in the Big East and be just a No. 12 seed into the tournament, the Huskies are looking at a possible No. 3 seed. While they sit in the middle of the pack in the conference standings, an upset win over Notre Dame and a good finish in the conference tournament could solidify UConn as a legitimate No. 3.

5. Old Dominion — Predicted to finish second in the Colonial, but miss the tournament, the Monarchs are now a possible No. 8 seed and potentially one of three teams to earn a tournament berth. It will be the conference tournament that will decide where they ultimately end up in the March bracket.

The best of the rest — George Mason, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Louisville

Mild Disappointments

1. Michigan State — Thought by many to be title contenders this year, the Spartans are projected to earn only an 11 seed into the tournament. Of course, anything can happen in March. Purdue is the only test left on the schedule, but the conference tournament will be a test in the stacked Big Ten.

2. Kansas State — Came out like gangbusters in the beginning of the year, but early losses to Duke and Florida, and narrow victories over Washington State and Loyola (Ill.) marked the decline of the Wildcats heading into Big 12 play. Originally projected as a No. 2 seed into the tournament, now they're looking at a potential No. 11, unless they can run the table at the conference tournament.

3. Memphis — Expected to easily win the Conference USA title and earn a No. 3 seed into the tournament, the Tigers are tied for fourth in the conference and are projected to be an 11 seed in March. A game at league-leading UTEP is the only significant game on the schedule heading into the conference tournament.

4. Oklahoma State — Another Big 12 team with tournament expectations, the Cowboys were projected to be a No. 11 seed in March after being there last year. But they are near the bottom of the conference standings and don't have the non-conference resume' to land an at-large bid. But they could help themselves with a strong showing in the Big 12 tournament.

5. Mississippi State — Predicted to win the SEC West division title and earn a No. 9 seed into the tournament, the Bulldogs are four games behind Alabama in the division standings and barely over .500 in their overall record. While Tennessee is the only really good team left on the schedule, MSU will probably have to reach the conference tournament title game to get a spot in the Big Dance.

Major Disappointments

1. Gonzaga — The Bulldogs were "probable" WCC title contenders this year with a projected No. 4 seed going into March Madness, but with St. Mary's in the conference lead, the Zags' only hope for a 13-straight tournament appearance will be a conference tournament title.

2. Butler — After last year's championship game appearance, many thought the Bulldogs would reload this year and enter March as high as a No. 4 seed. But they, too, will need to win their conference tournament as the Horizon may not be strong enough to land an at-large berth, although Cleveland State and Valparaiso are as tough as anyone in the country — which is why Butler has struggled to run away with the league.

3. Illinois — Projected to finish fourth in the Big Ten and earn a No. 5 seed into the tournament, the Illini are right where they were expected to be in the standings, but could miss the Big Dance altogether. Games left include one at league-leading Ohio State and another at second-place Purdue. It will take a high finish in the conference tournament to get the Illini a March bid.

4. Wichita State — The Shockers were projected to win the Missouri Valley Conference title and, therefore, get the automatic bid into the Big Dance, as high as a No. 7 seed. But they're currently behind Missouri State in the standings and will need to win the conference title to get the bid in March.

5. North Carolina State — Expected to be a No. 8 seed into the tournament and the fourth-place finisher in the ACC, the Wolfpack are clearly out of the running with a 4-8 conference record and just 14-12 overall. Like with many other teams, it will take a conference tournament title to get them into the Big Dance.

The worst (?) of the rest — Dayton, Clemson, Maryland, Northwestern

Posted by Adam Russell at 7:40 PM | Comments (0)

Time to Shorten the NBA Season

In his annual State of the League address on All-Star Weekend, Commissioner David Stern acknowledged both owners and players have the capacity for mutual assured destruction as the league's CBA winds to its end on June 30. But his words didn't send a Cold War chill through his entire audience. The last labor unrest in 1998 was the progenitor of a refreshingly-shortened 50-game season that proved disappointing only in its failure to serve as the prototype for seasons to come.

The dog days that follow the 2011 NBA All-Star game are good occasion for owners and players to take the pulse of their league, and the hard truth both sides need to confront is that the regular season should have ended last Thursday night. It has become a megalith strapped around the necks of fans who labor to tread the rising waters of a surplus of supply, a burden that can be alleviated this June before spectator demand seeks a more appropriate level.

For one thing, there is calendar creep. The Lakers kicked off defense of their NBA championship on September 25, just 100 days after winning their 16th title. This season will take them into late June again if they are to repeat. Something is wrongly out of place in taking a radio to the beach to listen to a winter sport's championship. It's like finding Ross the Intern sitting at a back table in your cigar bar. For that matter, I wouldn't mind getting back a piece of May. It would make a nice head start on crabgrass prevention and time to buy my wife a decent Mother's Day present for a change.

The bigger question is, what are we trying to achieve by running out an endless string of meaningless games? At this point, the season is already twice as long as that of college basketball. There's a long way yet to go, but the slate of meaningful games left to play is about as long as Mick Jagger's penis. The Lakers are a lock in this year's Finals, and no amount of back-to-back drubbings in Charlotte and Cleveland is going to change that. The only thing their pre-All-Star fizzle proved is that they, like so many of Stern's subjects, are bored senseless by the droning schedule. Phil Jackson is the only guy in Hollywood with his Hanes in a bunch, and that's sure to settle out as soon as his March issue of AARP the Magazine comes in the mail.

That's not to say there won't be a few interesting games to tip off. LeBron is due back in Cleveland on March 29, and Chris Bosh returns to Toronto to close the regular season on April 13. But, at this point, it's all personal conflict mixed in with on-court acrobatic theatre. Hey, did you know Blake Griffin has 140 dunks on the season? He has to be nearing some rookie record in the category. Not that it matters, but the Clippers are the 13th seed in the West, and 140 more dunks aren't getting them into the postseason.

For other teams, however, there is still some playoff positioning in the balance, but it's more an exercise of chair rearranging. Each division is by-and-large wrapped up, with all six leaders no less than four games in front; three have leads of at least nine games. They may no longer be assured the top three seeds in their respective conferences, but the Dallas Mavericks are the only second-place team that can shake things up.

If you're following the hotly-contested eighth-seed battles between Charlotte and Indiana in the East and Memphis and Utah in the West, keep in mind that it's been 17 years since Dikembe Mutombo became the poster child for Anything-is-Possible in the NBA postseason. An eight-seed has only won twice since; the 2007 Golden State Warriors are the only team to accomplish it in a seven-game series. The days of players rolling on the floor holding their heads in disbelief went out with pagers, and that fact is enough to bring down an early curtain on the balance of this season. If you want drama in your spring, switch to NASCAR.

The knell, of course, has been sounded by the protectionists that make up front offices around the NBA. Like every sport outside of football, professional basketball has established its overextended regular season through much perseverance; the league incrementally added on to it all through the 1960s until reaching the current 82 games in 1967-68. They're not about to give it up, which means many more miles of Kings-at-Timberwolves and Wizards-at-Raptors before we sleep.

What's more, the NBA has laid claim to ever-increasing chunks of spring; the last game of that 1968 season was played on May 2; last year's final game was on June 17. That's a six-week cut out of baseball's vernal monopoly. Why let fans spend dollars on hope when they're still willing to spend it on despair?

Stern and NBA owners are probably right in their assessment that Reaganomics won't work. If more money is put back into fans' pockets by eliminating meaningless post-All-Star dates, they will more than likely spend it on Dodgers tickets than updating their wardrobe with the latest Ron Artest Lakers jersey.

But trickle-down hasn't worked so well on the supply side, either. Putting more money into owners' and players' pockets may be a boon to tattoo parlors, gun shops, and strip clubs, but it's not doing much for the common man, who now needs to shell out $505.64 to watch the swooning Knicks rappel down the Eastern Conference standings. And that will seem like petty cash if Carmelo Anthony comes to town.

Cash is king in the NBA, as it is in every corner of life. As long as the league schedules it, fans will come. Nor is the return of a 50-game schedule going to be championed during upcoming CBA negotiations; as in 1998, that can only be achieved through a resultant lockout.

So we may as well leave the tanning oil on the garage shelf and enjoy the theatre. After all, 140 dunks can't be all wrong, even if David Stern and 30 owners are.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 5:35 PM | Comments (1)

February 20, 2011

Foul Territory With Jeffrey Boswell

* Dollars and Sins — Cam Newton signed the most lucrative endorsement deal in history for an incoming NFL player, inking with Under Armour for more than $1 million per year. In a related development, Newton's father, the esteemed Reverend Cecil Newton, will soon be sporting Under Armour's first form-fitting, moisture-wicking pastor's robe.

* St. Elsewhere? — After the deadline passed for Albert Pujols and the St. Louis Cardinals to reach a new contract, it's now likely Pujols will become a free agent after the 2011 season. Pujols insisted his goal is still "to be a Cardinal forever," and told reporters on hand not to read too deeply into the pinstripe suit he was wearing.

* Phlegm-flammed — Tiger Woods was fined by the European Tour for spitting on the 12th green during the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic. It was one of the few greens Woods hit all day in a +3 round. The amount of the fine is unclear, but Woods insisted, in light of past events, that it not be categorized as "money shot."

* March Madness — The Egyptian people took to the streets for demonstrations that eventually led to the resignation of unpopular president Hosni Mubarak. Apparently, March Madness takes place early in Egypt. It was a poignant reminder to the American people of the liberties and privileges they take for granted, like street parties after national championships.

* Draft? Roger — Dale Earnhardt, Jr. won the pole for Sunday's Daytona 500, then wrecked in practice on Tuesday, forcing him to start at the back of the field. Junior fans are not worried, though, and feel that it's just as advantageous for Earnhardt to start at the back. Any Junior supporter, worth his/her weight in beer, among legions of like-thinking racing fans, knows that a "draft" partner is easy to find. The same goes for Junior on the track.

* Bitch Flap — A high school wrestler in the Iowa state high school championships chose to default rather than face one of the first girls to ever qualify for the tournament. The boy, Joel Northrup, has been asked to appear on a number of talk shows, while the girl, Cassy Herkelman, has been asked to appear at Mark Sanchez's bedroom.

* 'Melo Out? — The NBA's February 24th trade deadline is less than a week away, and the Denver Nuggets have yet to find a suitable trade offer for Carmelo Anthony. Reportedly, the desperate Nuggets have enlisted the aid of former Broncos head coach Josh McDaniels to assist in ridding the city of another superstar athlete.

* Nipple Effect — Russian supermodel Irina Shayk was on the cover for Sports Illustrated's 2011 swimsuit issue, which hit newstands on February 15th, and bathrooms minutes later.

* Carnivaya Con Dios — Brazilian soccer star Ronaldo announced his retirement from the sport on Monday, ending his 18-year career due to lack of fitness. "It was time," said Ronaldo, or, as Telemundo announcer Andreas Cantor put it, it was time to "goooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

* Jerry, Jerry, Why Ya' Buggin'? — Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson spoke condescendingly to Peyton Manning and Drew Brees at February 5th negotiations between the NFL owners and the Players Association. For their parts, Manning and Brees remained polite, polishing their Super Bowl rings while courteously asking, "Jerry who?"

* Peter-ed Out — Peter Forsberg ended his comeback after just two games with the Colorado Avalanche, tearfully announcing his retirement on Monday, citing a chronic foot ailment. The Avs have planned a special night for Forsberg at a future date, when his No. 21 jersey will be retired, and those in attendance will try to keep a straight face while teammate Adam Foote speaks.

* Urine, You're Out — Lance Armstrong announced his retirement from cycling on Tuesday, this time for good, following a career marked by seven-straight Tour De France wins and ongoing doping accusations. Armstrong quickly deflected talk of a return, and said the only thing he has in common with Brett Favre is that his penis has been seen by way too many people.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 6:18 PM | Comments (0)

How Pitchers Can Prevent Injuries

I had the great pleasure of speaking with former Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson Saturday at the Strat-O-Matic 50th year anniversary. Before speaking with me, Peterson took the stage with Stats, Inc. founder John Dewan to talk statistics in front of hundreds of Strat-O-Matic fans.

Of all the fascinating figures that these two men presented, one statistic particularly startled the crowd. Peterson mentioned that, every year, over 25% of the money spent on Major League Baseball pitchers is spent on pitchers on the disabled list.

Stop for a second. What comes to mind immediately?

Maybe it's Carl Pavano, who signed a four-year, $40 million contract with the Yankees in 2004. Injuries and a secret car accident prevented him from pitching any more than 145 2/3 innings in his four seasons in pinstripes. (CC Sabathia pitched almost 100 more innings in 2010 alone.)

Or maybe Barry Zito comes to mind, who signed a seven-year, $126 million contract with the Giants in 2006. Don't tell Giant fans, but the contract is still not over. Thus far, he has won just 40 games. And, oh, he missed out on their championship last year.

A startling statistic, yes. And the emotions that come with it are fierce. Almost every fan can relate in some way to this astonishing fact, and not one of those fans is happy with it.

But what are the implications?

Given that figure, that 25% of the total salary for pitchers is spent on injured pitchers, there are two possible explanations: 1) a lot of low-paid, mediocre pitchers are often injured, or 2) fewer, high-paid pitchers are often injured.

Looking at data from FanGraphs.com, No. 1 is likely the answer. Since 2001, 39.1% of the 947 total pitchers have spent time on the disabled list. Because that number is higher than the 25% of total salary, that means that quite a few, low-paid players are on the disabled list.

Indeed, this is quite encouraging to hear. If No. 2 was correct, if fewer, high-paid players were often injured, then we would conclude that being a good, dominating pitcher meant that you would be injured more often.

However, that is not the case. Rather, we find that the true cost lies in mediocracy. In other words, being a bad pitcher increases your chances of getting injured.

This makes sense. Bad pitchers usually have something wrong with their mechanics. If you throw a baseball 90 miles per hour even remotely wrong, not only will you be unsuccessful, but you will be destroying your arm.

There are other explanations as well. Maybe it is a matter of intelligence. Smart pitchers will usually be more successful, and will also be more likely to protect their arms and prevent injuries. If this were true, it would be seen across all positions, not just pitchers.

Nevertheless, this is good for pitchers to hear. Constantly, we hear about how unhealthy it is to be a major league pitcher. But if you are a good major league pitcher, it may not be all that dangerous. It's the bad pitchers we need to worry about.

If success correlates with injuries, how should it be put into practice? Maybe when managers are looking at pitch counts and protecting young arms, they should take into account their level of success: bad pitchers get less pitches than good ones. In practice, that probably happens anyway, because who wants a bad pitcher to stay in the game?

So, why has this fallen through the cracks? Why haven't we heard this before?

Simple: when Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, or Barry Zito goes down after signing a lucrative contract, we hear about it. Those rare situations are so inflated by fans that we think they happen often. Conversely, when a young, low-paid, decent pitcher gets injured, nobody hears about it. But the reality is that the latter happens much more often.

Ultimately, the lesson is simple: the best defense against Tommy John surgery is not ice, or a good trainer, or fewer pitches. It's a good ERA.

Posted by Jess Coleman at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2011

Auburn's Loss is College Football's Loss

I never thought I'd be writing about trees, but here I am doing just that.

SEC fans are the most passionate college football fans on Earth.

It's why ESPN and CBS threw piles of cash for the right to show SEC games. It's why the last five BCS crystal football trophies are sitting on SEC campuses as we speak. It's why spring football scrimmages draw tens of thousands of fans. It's why recruiting has become an absolute circus. Only the SEC had a recruit bring out a live version of its mascot. Only the SEC had a recruit shut down his Facebook because of fans flooding his account. Only the SEC brought the term "over-signing" to national attention.

It's felt everywhere, even here. A couple of years ago, I criticized Urban Meyer's move to keep Tim Tebow on the field for a play in the fourth quarter with the Gators up by several touchdowns. The comments on that thread speak for themselves. A few months ago, I wrote that it would be good for the game if Auburn lost, based on the still-continuing Cam Newton scandal and the tarnish it could bring to the sport. Auburn fans unleashed with angry comments, including a few who tried to dig dirt (For the record, they found the wrong guy). But, despite knowing that it's likely to happen when you have a forum to bring up heated opinions, the fact that someone actually would dig for information is pretty crazy stuff.

That's SEC fans, though. They come with the territory. Intense to the absolute core, from the tailgate barbecue to the last play of the game. In some ways, it's positive. In many ways, it's quite the opposite.

The news yesterday, however, was the sign of a fan that jumped way past intensity and well into insanity.

The probable killing of the trees at Toomer's Corner was not a prank. Listening to the audio clip, you hear the voice of an old man who has taken a rivalry and upped it to levels that go beyond disturbing. It's one thing to throw crimson tissue paper in the trees. It's one thing even to take some purple and gold Krylon to the grass. It's another to destroy someone's traditions.

Traditions build into the lore of college football. Ohio State dots the "i." Florida State spikes a burning spear at midfield. Auburn rolls two massive oak trees after a win. It's what people know and appreciate about the sport, no matter the affiliation. Everyone has their traditions and, while some seem absolute crazy or silly to fans, especially rival fans, there's a respect level that has to be maintained.

What "Al from Dadeville" did transcended the sport. He crossed the line. A passionate fan took his passion way too far. And for that, he not only hurt Auburn, but the sport itself.

What happened serves as a message to SEC fans. Fly your car flags, wear your colors, and cheer like crazy. Keep the stadiums rocking. Expect to hate and be hated. But don't go to extremes. There is a fine line between greatness and stupidity when it comes to being a fan. College football needs the SEC, and they need their fans to be the former, not the latter.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 5:49 PM | Comments (1)

February 17, 2011

Wait For a Pujols Deal ... But Make a Deal

Of course Albert Pujols deserves whatever off-the-chart contract might seduce him enough to sign after the season soon to begin. Don't be silly. But you notice that Pujols, who doesn't exactly own a reputation as a garrulous soul (and that isn't intended as a knock on the man who admits he's locked in all season long), was quite the chatter when he arrived at the St. Louis Cardinals' spring training complex, no new deal signed, and sticking to his position that spring training and the season aren't the time to negotiate.

He wasn't nasty in any way, shape, or form about it. If he didn't shed enough light upon the impasse for the taste of some of the reporters who greeted him and performed a thirty-minute press dance with him upon arrival, neither did he suggest that anything should be read between the syllables, never mind the lines, of one thing he did say, and rather emphatically at that:

I want to be a Cardinal forever.

St. Louis would love nothing more than to see that wish granted. Pujols is nothing if not the single most beloved baseball player the city has known since a fellow named Stan Musial patrolled left field and then manned first base for the Cardinals. And he's more than that. If Pujols decided to retire this instant, he'd not only have nothing more than to count the months until his no-questions-asked Hall of Fame enshrinement, but he'd retire as the single greatest position player the franchise has ever known.

Stan Musial was a great ballplayer. Ballplayer. If you want just one measure of how great he was, he always left the batter's box on the dead run. There's no question about it. "He even makes it to his natural habitat, the ballpark, from time to time," wrote Tampa writer Larry Thornberry about Musial last year. "Good thing. Somebody has to give Albert Pujols batting tips."

Musial has the numbers to back him up as a great ballplayer: He has a lifetime .976 OPS, a lifetime 159 OPS+, a lifetime average of 39 doubles and 25 home runs per 162 games, a lifetime .417 OBP, a lifetime .309 batting average against left-handed pitching (The Man batted from the port side, you know), a .294 batting average with men in scoring position and two outs, and a lifetime .308 hitter in the final three innings.

There are Hall of Famers who would give an arm, a leg, and the next generation of family to brandish those statistics. And there's one future Hall of Famer, wearing a Cardinal uniform for this season at least, who doesn't have to.

Albert Pujols is a great ballplayer. Ballplayer. He doesn't always stop to admire his blasts, though you couldn't really blame him when the Houston Astros were fool enough to let Brad Lidge pitch to him with the pennant about to go into their hip pockets, and Pujols was fool enough to hit one that only the retractable roof support kept from landing in the streets behind Minute Maid Park on the dead fly, delaying the Astros' pennant celebration by a game.

And Pujols has the numbers to back him up, too. He has a 1.050 lifetime OPS, a lifetime 172 OPS+, a lifetime average of 44 doubles and 42 home runs per 162 games, a lifetime .426 OBP, a lifetime .328 batting average against right-handed pitching (he's a right-handed hitter), a lifetime .291 batting average when he's behind in the count, a lifetime .326 hitter with two outs, a lifetime .324 hitter with men in scoring position and two outs, and a lifetime .323 hitter from the seventh inning forward.

Albert Pujols ought to be giving Stan Musial batting tips.

They're both great hitters. Great ballplayers. And they're both the kind of men you'd like to grill a few steaks with and shoot the breeze about, well, just about anything. If you're a musician, well, I don't know if Pujols plays anything other than the stereo, but Stan the Man would love to break out his harmonica with you. He'll play anything you like with you, so long as it's "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."

Pujols's value reaches well enough beyond the net results of his plate appearances, never mind that there's a delicious thrill in watching even the best pitchers in the game pondering whether he's going to carve his initials into their foreheads with any one swing. When was the last time you got to watch a no-questions-asked baseball superstar step into his office at the plate without wondering just when something was going to explode over his head to tarnish that pleasure?

Tony La Russa is a manager whose heart is usually found in the right place but whose respected-enough brain sometimes finds itself guiding a foot to his mouth. Such was the case when he suggested, a few days ago, and without a shred of evidence beyond an instinct that's understandable enough when all is said and done, that the Major League Baseball Players Association might be pressuring his big man to reach for ... well, the hell with the stars, try the Delta Quadrant.

I know what he’s going through with the union and, to some extent, his representatives, because his representatives are getting beaten up by the union. Set the bar, set the bar. That’s ... really and truly, but you’ve got to deal with it ... I know that he’s getting pressured. And it’s not arm-twisting. It’s dropping anvils on your back and through the roof of your house.

Not so fast, Tony, says MLBPA executive director Michael Weiner: "We have had no conversations with Albert or [Pujols's agent] Dan Lozano or any representative of Albert’s about the numbers. No pressure. Not even any conversations. Our concern is that players make an informed decision when exercising their rights under the contract. Knowing Albert, knowing Danny, a very sophisticated player and representative, they’re going to make well-considered decisions."

Pujols just isn't going to think about it while he's rounding into playing shape this spring, or striking fear into the hearts of pitching staffs during the season. He's also not even going to think about trying to see and raise basketball's LeBron James in the self-congratulation department. There won't be an Albert Pujols hourlong television spectacular explaining where he's staying or going and why.

"I'm Albert Pujols," Pujols told the press gathering, "and he's LeBron James."

Right there is ironclad evidence as to why baseball, warts and all, is superior to basketball and just about every other professional team sport known to mankind. And, perhaps, too, the reason a Cardinal teammate such as Matt Holliday would offer, quite seriously, to defer some of his own considerable salary on behalf of helping the Cardinals grant Pujols' enunciated wish.

Attracting an entity such as Pujols speaks splendidly of the old ball game and one of its storied franchises. Keeping an entity such as Pujols, who's earned every dollar of the possible $300 million he might stand to earn for the decade to follow 2011, would speak splendidly — albeit after the season — of that franchise and its host city, both of which customarily reek of that crazy little thing called class.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 3:55 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR 2011 Season Predictions

* In response to NASCAR's requirement that drivers can only compete for the title in a single series, Jimmie Johnson quickly proclaims his intentions for the Sprint Cup championship. In a related development, Sam Hornish, Jr. declares that although he will be racing, he won't be competing for titles in any series.

* Jeff Gordon slips past Clint Bowyer on the final turn to win at Phoenix on February 27th, snapping his 65-race losing streak. Riding a wave of momentum not felt in nearly three years, a jubilant Gordon vows to "finish what he started," and does exactly that, finishing 34th the following week at Las Vegas, ending his one-race winning streak.

* Dale Earnhardt, Jr. wins the Daytona 500 by .33 seconds over the No. 33 car of Clint Bowyer, leading 33 laps.

* NASCAR's new points system, which logically awards 43 points to the race winner down to one point for 43rd place, is a big hit, particularly among math-challenged racing fans. However, midway through the season, NASCAR's dimwitted CEO Brian France inexplicably orders a return to the old format, deeming the month of July "Throwback Month" in NASCAR. Then, just as suddenly, he demands a change back to the 43-point system. Subsequently, Brad Daugherty creates a firestorm when, on Showtime's "Inside NASCAR" program, he says that the points system "has seen more 'tweaking' than the Mayfield family."

* Tony Stewart is involved in his second altercation with an Australian in less than three months when he slugs a kangaroo at a roadside petting zoo in rural Tennessee. Stewart is charged with assault and is ordered to undergo counseling under the conditions of a plea deal. As an extra measure of good will towards Australians, Stewart finances a new racing team, called Gibb Racing, and presents it to the Bee Gees. In addition, at Stewart's Prelude to a Dream charity race at Eldora Speedway, Stewart has participants draw qualifying numbers from the pouch of his new pet wallaby, "Mojo-ey."

* After a solid 13th-place finish in the Daytona 500, Kevin Conway's Nemco Motorsports No. 97 ExtenZe Toyota fails a post-race inspection due to a rear spoiler that measures 3/16 of an inch too high. The No. 97 team proclaims innocence, and cunningly claims that the increase in length must be due to ExtenZe sponsorship. This leads to a huge marketing push for the brand in ads featuring the catchy slogan, "ExtenZe: For Those Times When You (or She) Can't Take it Any Longer."

* After Jimmie Johnson opens up a sizable lead four races into the season after a controversial win at Bristol on April 3rd, a radical group of conspiracy theorists coin Johnson's quest for six straight Sprint Cup titles as "The Fix For Six." However, an injunction filed by twice-dead Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx, who had previously copyrighted "The Fix For Sixx" as the title of the sequel to his 2007 autobiography The Heroin Diaries, puts an end to the use of the title.

The conspiracy theories live on, to such a degree that Jesse Ventura is seen lurking around the Lowe's hauler at Daytona in July.

* Kurt Busch, in the No. 22 car sporting the Shell/Pennzoil paint scheme made famous by Kevin Harvick, revels in his newfound ability to "get under Harvick's skin." Busch and Harvick tangle at Bristol on March 20th as Busch sends Harvick's No. 29 Budweiser car spinning. Harvick exacts revenge later, jumping Busch in the garage area, where he backhands the Penske driver, who falls and bumps his head on his car. Busch loses all memory of his time in the Miller Lite car, and Harvick boasts of his ability to slap the "tastes great" out of Busch's mouth.

* Denny Hamlin sweeps the 2011 season's two Martinsville races, out-dueling Jimmie Johnson on both occasions. After winning the Tums Fast Relief 500 in October, Hamlin takes the Chase lead by a 21-point margin. Crew chief Mike Ford unwisely questions the ability of the No. 48 team, and all but guarantees Hamlin will end Johnson's five-year reign.

Later, at the NASCAR awards banquet in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, Johnson is feted as champion, while Ford amazes those in attendance, including magician Criss Angel and illusionists Penn and Teller, by eating crow with a foot in his mouth.

* After a sparse crowd of 45,000 attends March 27th's Auto Club 400 in Fontana, heated arguments ensue, not only among those debating whether or not California should remain on the Sprint Cup schedule, but also between pessimists and optimists, who can't decide if the stands were half-empty or half-full.

* Pop diva Christina Aguilera returns to Texas after botching the national anthem at February's Super Bowl in Dallas, this time to perform the song before the Samsung Mobil 500 on April 9th in Fort Worth. Bolstered by a throng of over 90,000 appreciative fans, all holding placards that, when raised, spell out the words to the "Star Spangled Banner," Aguilera nails the lyrics. Aguilera then jams with Texas icons ZZ Top on "Got Me Under Pressure" during an after-race concert, where she fails to see the irony of the song.

Kasey Kahne wins the race, giving Red Bull Racing its first and only win of the year.

* After Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski crash at Kansas on June 5th in the Kansas Speedway 400, tensions flare in the garage area as Edwards stalks his nemesis, while Keselowski angrily does the same. The two finally meet near the NASCAR hauler, where the two rivals feverishly engage, surprisingly in a passionate embrace, as both later cite the need to "keep their friends close, and their enemies closer."

Keselowski's father, Bob, is moved to tears, of disgust, and disowns his son.

* Matt Kenseth takes a stroll through the Talladega infield on April 16th, the day before the Aaron's 499, and goes unnoticed. He then takes the same walk wearing his drivers suit, yet still goes unrecognized. He finally experiences a moderate level of acknowledgement when he dons a Dale Earnhart, Jr. baseball cap, and is mobbed by adoring fans, of Earnhardt's.

In Sunday's race, Kenseth survives three big crashes that take out a total of 21 cars, including the rest of the Roush Fenway stable, and holds on for the win after two attempts at a green-white-checkered finish.

* Danica Patrick wins the Nationwide NAPA Auto Parts 200 at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve when leader Marcos Ambrose stalls his car on lap 73 under caution, causing a 13-car pileup behind him. Patrick, running 14th, takes the checkered flag under caution.

A wild celebration in Victory Lane ensues, as the No. 7 GoDaddy.com team pops the tops on a case of champagne, dousing Patrick, who then invites viewers to log on to GoDaddy.com, where, for a nominal fee of $9.95, they can view the unrated remainder of the celebration, as well as receive a four-pack of ShamWows and a t-shirt that reads "Sucker" across the front.

* Jimmie Johnson heads into the 2011 season finale at Homestead with a 19-point lead over Kevin Harvick, and secures his sixth consecutive Sprint Cup championship with a fourth-place finish. Johnson, only one title shy of the 7 achieved by Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt, sports a t-shirt that reads "I Am Legend." Meanwhile, Hendrick teammate Jeff Gordon, finding his legacy of 4 Cups diminishing with every Johnson triumph, dons a similar t-shirt, with a design that asks "Am I Legend?"

* A rejuvenated Kyle Busch, buoyed by a new, calmer demeanor resulting from a Far Eastern-flavored regimen of hypnosis and acupuncture, adopts the nickname "Rowdy Doody," and enjoys the support of a new, appreciative fan base, dubbed the "M&M Peanut Gallery."

Busch wins 7 races and heads into the Chase with the top seed, but falters at New Hampshire after winning the previous week at Chicago. Busch prematurely declares his Cup hopes dashed, then whines incessantly about his bad luck, leading to an ESPN.com headline of "Over and (P)out."

* After a broken drive shaft on lap 153 knocks Mark Martin out of the race at Dover on May 15th, Martin takes to Twitter via his mobile phone to report the situation. Martin draws comparisons to Brett Favre after texting a photo of the damaged equipment, a picture he unfortunately tags with the caption, "Take a good look at my shaft."

Martin misses the Chase and finishes 18th in the standings, then announces his retirement in an echo chamber.

* Clint Bowyer wins the One Last Race to Make The Chase 400 at Richmond on September 10, and thanks his teammates, and Dr. Seuss, for making the win possible. Bowyer earns the sixth seed in the Chase For the Cup. The Chase field is set as follows (in order): Kyle Busch, Denny Hamlin, Kevin Harvick, Jimmie Johnson, Carl Edwards, Bowyer, Matt Kenseth, Greg Biffle, Jeff Gordon, Kurt Busch, Joey Logano, and Juan Montoya.

* Chicago Bears head coach Lovie Smith gets the 2011 Chase For the Cup underway, waving the green flag at Chicagoland Speedway on September 18th under threatening skies. With Kyle Busch leading after 200 laps, the skies open up, and thunderstorms drench the track. Fittingly, Bears quarterback Jay Cutler mans the red flag, signaling the field that the race is over at the halfway point.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:24 AM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2011

Worst Case Scenario: Must Win or Get in?

We're getting closer to March Madness, and the mid-major bubble picture is as murky as ever. While many conference tournaments will decide who's dancing next month and who stays home, the question still lingers for some teams who have performed well this season, yet would be firmly on the bubble if they didn't win their conference's automatic bid.

So, with that in mind, let's take a look at some mid-major programs that are sitting at or near the top of their conferences. They all have RPIs squarely in the bubble range. Do they need to win their conference tournament to get in the Big Dance, or should they be in regardless?

Wichita State
RPI (from CollegeRPI.com): 52
Record: 22-5, (13-3 Missouri Valley)
Last 10 Games: 8-2

MUST WIN OR GET IN?

I love Missouri Valley teams, and barring complete collapse, the selection committee should let them in whether they win the conference tournament or not. Wichita State is one of those teams that will frustrate opposing coaches. They play stifling defense, crash the boards well, and have a deep bench. Furthermore, as of tonight, they are 8-0 on the road in conference play, which demands some attention. Gregg Marshall is the real deal as coach; Winthrop had never been to the Big Dance until he took the Eagles there seven of his nine years as coach. He came to Wichita in a rebuilding phase and has built another winner. It wouldn't be a surprise at all if the Shockers won their first round game.

On a side note, the same goes for Missouri State (21-6, 13-3, RPI 46), Cuonzo Martin's Bears deserve to play in the NCAA tournament if they don't win the Missouri Valley's automatic bid.

Coastal Carolina
RPI: 56
Record: 24-3 (15-1 Big South)
Last 10 Games: 9-1

MUST WIN OR GET IN?

Kudos to Cliff Ellis for what he's done at Coastal Carolina. The Chanticleers are easily the class of the conference and already have a share of the Big South regular season title. The Chants are a small but scrappy team and I really like what Desmond Holloway brings to the table. However, the Big South is typically a one-bid conference, and the Chants did not help themselves in losing to Gardner-Webb this week. If Coastal was unable to win the Big South tournament, they'd be great NIT material, but wouldn't grab an at-large bid. They've got to win their conference tournament to get in.

Southern Miss
RPI: 48
Record: 18-6 (7-4 Conference USA)
Last 10 Games: 6-4

MUST WIN OR GET IN?

The Memphis game said it all; they have to win the conference tournament to get in. Had Larry Eustachy's crew pulled off the win, they'd be in a much stronger position to state a case for gaining an at-large bid regardless of what happens in the Conference USA tournament. However, Memphis, at 19-6 (7-3 Conference USA, RPI of 32) should have the upper hand for an at-large bid, along with Mike Davis' talented UAB squad (18-6, 8-3, 34). Give the Golden Eagles credit for what's been a solid year, but right now, I think they have to finish very strong to get on the dance floor.

Cleveland State
RPI: 37
Record: 22-5, (11-4 Horizon)
Last 10 Games: 7-3

MUST WIN OR GET IN?

A lot of people are predicting 10-11 Big East teams get in the tournament and in that case, Cleveland State would have to win the Horizon League tournament in an all-out battle with Butler and Valparaiso. Myself, I'd put the Vikings in regardless. First off, the Horizon League is no slouch. 2010 Butler aside, Cleveland State did cruise past the first round as a 13 seed in their last appearance. Secondly, I don't want to see any team who didn't finish in at least the top half of their conference in the Big Dance. I don't care that it's the Big East, which is no doubt the beast of all basketball conferences, if you finish 10th or 11th, you shouldn't be in. Put the Vikings in instead and let the nation take a look at Norris Cole, who might be the best player you've never heard of this season.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 7:08 PM | Comments (0)

Fear of Tomorrow Keeps French Open at Roland Garros

For a long time, and as late as a week ago, it looked like the French Open was going to leave its traditional place in Auteuil and move to one of the three new proposed sites, all outside the city limits of Paris, by 2016. In order to keep up with the other three major Slam tournaments (Roland Garros is by far the smallest venue), the French Open needed a larger area and to make plans to build roofs over the main action courts.

Versailles looked like the candidate in the best position to be the next host of the prestigious Slam, the only one played on clay courts. The proposed site was more than four times the size of the current Roland Garros site, almost three times bigger than the proposed expansion of the current site to keep the tournament there. Out of the three new sites proposed, it was still the closest to the city of Paris. Transportation would not be a problem as Versailles is reachable by public transportation from the city and there was also the proposed opening of a new railway station near the new site by 2015.

The other two sites, Marne-la-Vallée and Gonesse, carried the burden of overcoming substantial distances to the city center, 25 miles and 15 miles away, respectively. Furthermore, Versailles carried the history and the prestige of its name that would seem to fit the tournament's high status in the tennis world.

The battle was fierce (for example, Marne-La-Vallée site took multiple page ads in major tennis publications in France to advance its agenda), but at the end of the day, the 195 delegates who voted last weekend decided convincingly to keep the tournament at its current site, albeit expanded by 2015, with 70% of the votes in the final round against Marne-la-Vallée. Gonesse was eliminated in the first round, Versailles in the second.

What was the reason for the late turnaround in favor of the current site? The answer is no secret: love of tradition and fear of tomorrow. Moving the tournament out of the current site represented too many unknowns for a tournament who built its image on its legendary relation to what many consider the most romantic city in the world, and its rich tradition cherished by a population who highly values notions such as beauty, ambiance, prestige, location, and emotional bonds, often times at the expense of others such as pragmatism, cost, and modernism.

The fear of the unknown and the possibility of Roland Garros losing its romantically constructed love relationship with the city of Paris worked against Versailles and the other new sites. What would happen if Versailles and its history's grand reputation with the magnificent Palace built during the leadership of Louis XIV became the image that snatched Roland Garros out of its long-time relationship with Paris, and build a new image as the tournament being "Versailles' tournament," and absorbing the image of Roland Garros being "Paris' tournament?"

Would Parisians still embrace the tournament as their own if they could not get there in a few minutes or be able to have an elegant dinner in one of the many stylish Parisian cafés and restaurants at the end of a day of watching tennis? What about all the memories cherished over the decades at the current site?

This last question above was not just the concern of the French tennis lovers, but also the two biggest clay court masters of the Open Era; Rafael Nadal and Bjorn Borg. Borg's headlining quote in L'Équipe, the largest daily sports paper in France, read "My Second House," in reference to his feelings to the current site, while Nadal firmly stated that Roland Garros had a history to protect and that the history exists within the walls of the current site and nowhere else. He added that the tournament would remain big if it moved, but it would lose its "essence." One could almost speculate that Nadal's French alter-ego came out for a moment to make that quote! Yannick Noah, the last French man to win Roland Garros, spoke briefly, leaving no doubt on his position on the affair: according to him, at the current site, "the walls speak."

In the middle of all the fear of unknown and losing the traditional values of the current site, last few days leading up to the vote, suddenly the tide changed. The project of keeping the current site and expanding it found some last minute allies and received some late "gifts." The French Tennis Federation's directing committee publicly endorsed the idea of keeping the tournament in Roland Garros one day before the vote. In the last hours leading up to the vote, the City Council of Paris promised the Federation a 99-year lease on the property. Finally, the potential of future legal actions by ecologist groups due to the inclusion of annexation of the greenhouses in the nearby neighborhood seemed to be swept quickly under the rug.

These late manipulations did not go unnoticed by François de Mazieres, the head of the Versailles proposal. He tried in vain to remind the public that his proposed site was supported by both the Ministry of Culture and the architectural committees and would be finalized without any "headaches." He went as far as accusing Paris of utilizing fear tactics to sway the vote.

Call it fear tactics, or the resolve to hang on to traditional images. Despite Mazières' pleas and the surprising number of current French players on the tour such as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Alizé Cornet, and Michaël Llodra looking warmly to the idea of moving (Tsonga openly suggested the move to Versailles would be great), it seemed ultimately that Paris' push in the last few days was all that was needed to keep French Open at Roland Garros.

Roger Federer was the one who made the most accurate and concise analysis days prior to the tournament. He said that players and fans felt crowded and squeezed at Roland Garros, and there was a real need for more square meters. Nevertheless, he added that from an emotional point of view, he loved Roland Garros and that his feeling was that ultimately the tournament would stay there.

It turned out that Federer was correct in his prediction. Bound to tradition and the fear of separation leading to the loss of years of emotional ties built to the current site were deep down at the source of last weekend's vote. In the years to come, perhaps even a few decades, history will judge whether the historic decision of February 2011 was the right choice or not.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 4:24 PM | Comments (6)

February 15, 2011

Jerome Bettis vs. Herschel Walker

I wrote in a recent column that Herschel Walker deserves election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. On the ballot for years, Walker has never gotten much support. Jerome Bettis, in his first year of eligibility, reached the Finalist stage, one of the last 10 candidates to be cut. Walker and Bettis have something in common, which is that besides great football careers, they both seem like genuinely nice people. What they don't have in common are Hall of Fame credentials: Walker has them, and Bettis does not.

On the surface, that may seem ridiculous. Bettis, after all, rushed for 13,662 yards, fifth-most in NFL history, and Walker rushed for just 8,225. We all know that over 8,000 yards is awfully good — that's more than Roger Craig or Priest Holmes or Larry Csonka — but really, how is someone with almost 5,500 fewer rushing yards a better player?

The obvious answer is that Walker actually had 13,787 yards, including his years in the USFL. But here's the thing: Walker was so much better than Bettis, so incredibly far ahead, that you don't even need to include his three seasons in the USFL — his athletic prime — for him to come out ahead of Bettis. That's how much of a no-brainer Walker is for the PFHOF, and how undeserving Bettis is.

So how does Walker make up all those yards? Mostly as a receiver. Walker is one of the most accomplished receivers of any RB in history. In his NFL career, Walker caught 512 passes for 4,859 yards and 21 TDs. Bettis had 200 receptions for 1,449 yards and 3 TDs. Obviously, 300 catches, 3,400 yards, and 18 TDs are worth quite a lot. Walker also was one of the greatest kickoff returners of his generation, amassing over 5,000 yards as a returner.

Walker also had more great seasons than Bettis, whose numbers are big largely as a function of luck. Bettis was a very good player ... for three seasons. Other than that, well, he got a lot of carries, because he played forever, and he was on a rushing team. Let's look at their three best seasons: 1986-88 for Walker, 1993 and '96-'97 for Bettis.

That's pretty close, right? Walker has more total yardage and more touchdowns, but Bettis has slightly better rushing averages, and rushing yards should probably count for a little more than receiving yards anyway. Basically equal. Here's the thing: because of the 1987 strike, Walker only played 12 games. He was the best RB in the NFL that year. In 1987, Walker averaged 74.2 rushing yards per game — 1,188 in a 16-game season. He was on pace for 953 receiving yards (2,141 total) and 11 TDs. Include those missing games, and Walker is clearly ahead. His numbers are just as good as Bettis', even though one of these years was effectively a 12-game season.

Well, that's three seasons. What about the rest of their careers? Let's look at another three seasons.

Again, this probably looks close to equal. Walker's advantages in receiving (700 yards) and TDs (+10) make up for Bettis' advantage on the ground. What's missing from the stats above is Walker's returning: 62 KR, 1,423 yds, 23.0 avg, with a TD (which is included above). Walker was perhaps the best kickoff returner in the NFL during these years, with a better average than celebrated returners like Rod Woodson, Deion Sanders, and Eric Metcalf. That's a pretty important detail in determining which was the better player, adding the little fact that Walker was maybe the best kickoff returner in the NFL. So again, Walker has the advantage.

Walker is obviously ahead here, right? I know Bettis has the rushing yards, but his averages are terrible, he's behind by nearly 1,000 receiving yards, and Walker has more TDs again. People often assume that because Bettis was so big, essentially a power back, he must have been a great goal-line runner. The truth is that he wasn't a particularly effective short-yardage runner. He wasn't bad, but he wasn't anything special. You know how many times Bettis, in his 13-year career, led his own team in touchdowns? Four. Walker, who spent 12 seasons in the NFL, led his team in TDs nine times. In 1989, he actually led both the Cowboys and Vikings in TDs. Bettis was big and strong, but Walker's first step was so much quicker, he was actually a more effective goal-line back, and unlike Bettis, he could score on pass plays.

In their six best seasons, Walker was ahead of Bettis, not by a lot, but pretty clearly ahead. For these three seasons, though, Walker is ahead by a lot. The stats above don't even include his returning: 35 KR, 834 yds, 23.8 avg, TD.

But forget this season-by-season stuff — big picture, who were the best RBs of the late '80s? Eric Dickerson and Walker. Who were the best RBs of the late '90s? Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin, and Ricky Watters. Then Eddie George, Corey Dillon, and Bettis. Go with the mid-'90s instead? Sanders, Smith, Watters, Thurman Thomas, and Chris Warren. Early 2000s? Bettis isn't even in the discussion.

There was never a time when Bettis was considered the best running back in the NFL. There was never a time when he was considered second-best, or even third. Walker, when he was traded to the Vikings in 1989, was widely seen as the premier RB in the game. Bettis was never the best, and he was never particularly close to being the best. He was good, and he played for the right teams and hung around for a long time.

Look at 1994. At this point, Bettis was 22 and Walker was 32. Bettis should destroy him. Instead, Walker had the better season. True, Bettis had 497 more rushing yards. He also had 206 more rush attempts, and honestly, those are wasted plays for the Rams, 2.4 yards per attempt. Bettis' 3.2 average is the second-worst in history for a 1,000-yard rusher. Walker has a 207-yard receiving advantage and 4 more TDs. He also had over 500 kick return yards, with a 27.7 average (second in NFL) and a touchdown. Walker had 4 fumbles, Bettis had 5. Who's going to help your team more, a guy who averages 3.2 yards per carry and can't do anything else, or one with 500 yards but a great average, plus good receiving and exceptional returning? I'd take Herschel in a heartbeat.

We've looked at nine years, and Walker is out of good NFL seasons at this point, but so is Bettis, really. In all of his four remaining seasons, he was under 1,000 rushing yards, with horrible averages (under 3.6), no receiving (under 20 catches), and single-digit TDs. Those four seasons account for 2,500 of Bettis' rushing yards. He wasn't helping his team at that point. That kind of production is easily replaceable, if not outright detrimental. Walker's last three seasons account for just 229 rushing yards (4.9 avg), so about 95% of his productivity is at a high level, where much of Bettis' career was barely average, the running back equivalent of an innings-eater, a fourth or fifth starter. You don't put those guys in the Hall of Fame.

Bettis is overrated, and Walker underrated, for mostly the same reason. Statistics are about simplification, and for running backs, the simplest thing to do is just look at their rushing yards. But with both of these players, that's misleading. Bettis had a weak rushing average, couldn't catch, and didn't score a lot. Among the top 15 rushers of all time, he is the only one to average below 4.0 yards per attempt, the only one with fewer than 2,000 receiving yards, and ranks 11th of the 15 in TDs. He's uniquely one-dimensional among the great backs in history: all he has are the rushing yards. Look at any other statistic, and he's not impressive. Walker, in contrast, is uniquely multi-dimensional. He was a grade-A receiver and a great returner whose talents frequently didn't show up in his rushing yards.

I know some people will never get past 13,662 and 8,225. But Walker was a standout in his own era, a player good enough to command six first- or second-round draft picks in a trade. Bettis was good for a long time, but he was never at the top of the list. Walker's best season were better than Bettis', who compiled much of his yardage simply as hang-around value. They were both great players, but Walker was clearly better. His case for the Hall of Fame is incredibly clear, while Bettis' case rests on a single, misleading statistic.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:11 PM | Comments (2)

Penguins' Injuries Are No Excuse For Defensive Lapses

When looking at a losing team, fans often console each other by saying, "Well, they were really injured."

In the case of the Pittsburgh Penguins, one could easily make that claim when looking at their recent free-fall. After all, it's not everyday you lose two former league MVPs who haven't reached their theoretical peak yet. And yet, here are the Penguins, marching forward without Evgeni Malkin (torn ACL) and Sidney Crosby (concussion). We know Malkin won't return to the ice until next season's training camp. As for Crosby, well, who knows? It could be the next few weeks and it could be the next few months — concussions are scary, unpredictable things that lead to plenty of uncertainty. Let's not forget rookie Dustin Jeffrey and two-way forward Chris Kunitz.

So you might pin the Penguins recent woes on injuries — and it'd be fair to say that their goal-scoring has all but evaporated. But it's difficult to say that the Penguins are down out. A woe-is-me attitude doesn't remove one of the league's best groups of blueliners: Paul Martin, Brooks Orpik, Zbynek Michalek, and Kris Letang. Nor does it knock out goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury.

When you lose some of your forward depth, of course you'll wind up giving up more scoring chances. Less time in the offensive zone generally leads to more time in the defensive zone, and that can inevitably lead to more shots against. However, the quality of Pittsburgh's defensemen shouldn't mean that all is lost without Crosby, Malkin, and the others. It just means that Pittsburgh will have to try and win games 2-1 instead of 4-2.

That inevitably puts more pressure on the shoulders of the defensemen and goaltending. Pittsburgh has the talent to turn games into gritty defensive contests. With Pittsburgh's place in the standings earned in the first half of the season, the rest of the crew has to simply steady the ship, not be world-beaters, to get into the playoffs. This might be the biggest challenge faced by coach Dan Bylsma since getting elevated to the NHL — especially if Crosby is indeed out for February and March and possibly even April. Through some recent stretches, it's clear that the Penguins haven't adapted.

Of course, if that is the case, then the even bigger challenge is navigating the playoffs without all of this talent. Assuming Crosby returns by the time the first round of the playoffs start, it's a manageable challenge and an opportunity for someone like, say, Jordan Staal to step into the spotlight.

The bigger picture than that, though, is for fans to treat the season with realistic expectations. If and when Crosby returns, there's no telling how he'll be affected by his first major concussion. Some players need days to return to form but others need weeks — and seeing that NHL teams are already at game 50-something, weeks aren't exactly available.

Up in Boston, the Marc Savard situation should provide warning enough of why patience is key. Savard came back too early late last season, wound up missing more time in training camp and early this season, and this sort of extra impact on his head probably lead to the increased susceptibility that created his current situation. With Crosby, he's not just a star center, he's the leader on and off the ice and the franchise player. A mistaken situation like Savard's would be unacceptable. His injury must be handled with extreme care.

Does that make this season a write-off to injury?

Yes and no. Players like Crosby and Malkin are irreplaceable, and inevitably contribute to a team's final standing. It's no reason to give up, though; it's up to the coaching staff to really buckle down and transform the team into a squad designed to win low-scoring games. For the fan, the most important thing to keep in mind is that concussions take time, and Crosby shouldn't be rushed back, even at the expense of this season's standings.

Posted by Mike Chen at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2011

Why the NBA Has the Best All-Star Game

Over the years, the NBA All-Star Game has started to separate itself as the best event of its kind among the four major sports. The slam dunk contest may have lost a bit of its luster over time, but the overall festivities and weekend far outshine the NFL Pro Bowl, MLB All-Star Game, and NHL All-Star Weekend. All four leagues have portions of their events that are good, but the NBA's location, complete lineup of events, and quality of game makes its All-Star Weekend the best that is held.

Location

The NBA, like MLB and the NHL, rotate the game among its team cities. The MLB and NHL have made it mandates in the past that a city has to put up a new stadium in order to host the event. For some MLB cities, however, even after putting up a new stadium there was no guarantee of an All-Star Game. The Detroit Tigers had to wait a few years before getting its all-star and only after much complaining by ownership was an All-Star Game granted to Comerica Park.

The NFL has moved the Pro Bowl back to Hawaii, which is a hard trip for most fans to make after having the Super Bowl city host the game for a year. It is understandable as to why the Pro Bowl was originally in Hawaii. It was a reward for the players, who, for most part, weren't paid enough to make a trip to Hawaii on their salary.

Today's players, however, complain about the long trip, skip the game, and are able to vacation in Hawaii whenever they want. Outside of tradition, Hawaii seems like an awkward choice at best for the Pro Bowl.

The NBA not only has its league cities host the game, but also has put the game in Las Vegas. Many believe the Las Vegas game was a trial run for the city to see if the NBA could expand the league to Las Vegas. The NBA was using the All-Star Game to grow the game, and not to punish those cities whose tax payers weren't able or willing to finance a new stadium.

All-Star Festivities

All four leagues have made tremendous efforts to involve fans and craft events that will generate interest among fans.

The NFL has Ohana Day, where there is an open practice for fans, which is pretty much the extent of their fan involvement. MLB has events that include a red carpet ceremony/parade, the Home Run Derby, in addition to a fan fest.

The Home Run Derby has quickly become similar to the Slam Dunk Contest. An event that started out as a must-see event where players wanted to participate, but it has now devolved into players opting out and a struggle to get the game's best dunkers and heavy swingers to participate. Originally, both events attracted not only the marquee players, but spectacular plays were made that were talked about for years.

The Slam Dunk Contest has maintained a little bit of that swagger with Dwight Howard as Superman and the possible and sometimes rumored entry of a superstar participating. The Home Run Derby's suspense often now comes down to which player doesn't find it too much of an inconvenience and who can overcome the damage that might be done to his swing and his numbers the rest of the season.

The NBA's Three-Point Contest will have its big stars participate as the league's all time three-point shooter in Ray Allen will take on Kevin Durant and Paul Pierce, among other stars. None of these stars seem to be worried about messing up their shooting stroke in this contest.

The NHL Skills Competition is trying to find its groove with a big contest that everyone wants to see. The speed skating contest and shot contest are exciting, but the NBA has its own skills contest that includes dribbling, passing, and shooting. Additionally, the NBA features the Shooting Stars contest where a former NBA player, current NBA player, and a WNBA player compete on teams.

The NBA goes one step further in their events by hosting an All-Star Celebrity Game. The NHL, MLB, and NFL lack this kind of event, which shouldn't be terribly difficult to put together. There have been numerous celebrity softball tournaments, many celebrity hockey games, and a few flag football contests among celebrities, but none have made their way on a consistent basis into their all-star festivities.

The Actual Game

Perhaps it is the actual game that helps separate the NBA All-Star game from the other leagues. It starts with the players. They actually go to the game and are willing to participate. Baseball players seem to find reasons to skip the festivities and when they play, it is for a very limited time.

Hockey players generally go, but there are so many who show-up and get minimum minutes because of the larger rosters that are sent. Prodding NFL players to go can be so tough that some years as many six position players get selected for each conference due to cancellations. The rosters end up going so deep to find people who are willing to show-up that the addition of Pro Bowl on a resume doesn't seem to mean as much in recent years as it did in the past.

The play during the game also separates the NBA's All-Star Game from the rest of the leagues. It is an exhibition, and like hockey and football, it doesn't pretend to be anything else. Baseball's awarding of home field advantage to the league that wins has been ill-conceived at best. It was an overreaction to a tie and has forced the managers to balance getting everyone on the field with trying to win and forcing the players to pretend they care.

The quality of play has risen slightly, but for the most, it hasn't ignited interest in the game. The game was special in the past because there was no interleague play, so the All-Star Game and the World Series were the only times to see the National League play the American League. Now different styles of play are regularly on display in not only interleague play, but because of free agency. Additionally, many American League teams employ the National League's style of play and vice-versa.

The quality of play in the Pro Bowl is akin to two-hand touch and the players don't want to hit or play hard so they can avoid getting hurt and hurting each other. Hockey may as well pull the goalies as offense is emphasized, which also helps keep the injuries down.

Basketball players limit the hard plays for similar reasons, but the interest and excitement stays in the game. The type of game may change slightly, but not to the detriment of the game. Most fans don't enjoy 76-70 slugfests of a basketball game and a 120-115 game is welcome. More offense is not a detriment to basketball as it can be the other sports.

When football opens up the offense in the Pro Bowl, the defenders don't tackle and it is noticeable because players in football don't play both ways. So essentially half of the rosters aren't doing anything. Hockey has its players play both offense and defense, but defensemen play mostly defense and again a large part of the roster is shut-out of playing.

Basketball players can generally shoot, score, and play defense. So more scoring doesn't shut-out half of the team.

Sports that are based on the physical brutality of hits like football don't translate to a friendly game of catch. Part of the appeal of hockey is the hits and fights, which won't happen in the all-star hockey game.

Essentially, each league has parts of their all-star games that are interesting and fun for fans and the participants. The NBA combines all of the best of each of the major sports leagues and then adds other events to make their event the best all-star game. Finally, the willingness of its players to participate and the nature of basketball make the NBA All-Star game the best of the four major all-star games.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 6:41 PM | Comments (0)

Albert Pujols Talk Takes a Hard Right Into Crazy-Town

He wants to stay. They need him to stay. And yet, #Albertageddon trending on Twitter amid reports that the Cardinals and Albert Pujols aren't yet close to a deal in contract negotiations. With a full season before his contract expires.

Keeping negotiations private and refusing to negotiate from spring training through the World Series might keep the team from becoming opinionated and divided on the issue, and even at least temper the number of questions Pujols and Co. get. But writers and fear-mongers couldn't be happier; it is the perfect formula to fuel rampant speculation about whether a player will test free agency in a year.

Of course, this isn't just any player. Pujols hits a baseball better than perhaps any man who has ever walked on earth. Sure, in a given year, another player will have a career year and put up comparable numbers to Pujols. Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera, and Josh Hamilton (save some injury time) did last year. But only one man has the Pujols Guarantee.

Let's be clear how much better he is than other great players: Pujols' pedestrian eighth (yes, 8th) best numbers out of 10 seasons in key categories: .327, .414 OBP, 37 homers, 118 RBI, 112 runs. Adrian Gonzalez, the Red Sox' prized new acquisition at first, has never posted an average or OBP that high and only once amassed so many homers. The Yankees' Mark Teixeira (current deal: eight years, $180 million) has clipped those numbers once in OBP and thrice in homers, but never in average. Cabrera's 2010 season matched those OBP, average, and homer numbers ... for just the second time each. Elite NL one-baggers Ryan Howard and Prince Fielder can matchup with raw power, but matchup OBP once between them.

Even Alex Rodriguez, with 15 full seasons, has just as many 37-homer seasons as Pujols, and only half as many seasons with OBPs north of .414. (Only Barry Bonds' odd late-30s resurgence allows his numbers to even compare, and we all have a good idea how that came about.) Now, many still regard A-Rod's $252 million contract in Texas among the worst contracts ever, and the Rangers just recently recovered. While that deal did limit flexibility, so did dropping $64 million on Chan Ho Park to lead a pitching staff of awfulness; the Rangers' demise was compounded and elongated by A-Rod's deal, not caused by it.

But still, a middle-market team like St. Louis has to be cautious about how much more than a quarter of projected payroll they commit to one man (especially with Matt Holliday and others leaving the Cardinals plenty of other commitments), even if attendance and revenue in a baseball town like St. Louis wouldn't likely plummet as fast because of a bad season as it did in Arlington.

The Cardinals know this risk. Even most Cardinals fans know this. Though generally favoring a "pay the man" attitude when asked, we (yes, I'm one of them) know Albert isn't worth infinity dollars. No player is. And as great as Pujols has been, is there any guarantee (or even likelihood) that he'll be worth $30 million at 38, much less 41? How exactly do you project the future decline a player with no precedent? Plus, what happens if he does get hurt? How many years would disaster set the Cardinals back?

And unlike the Cubs, where multiple bad signings and injuries derailed the franchise (another team just now coming up for air), a sinkhole of this magnitude wouldn't have to be paired with much else to cripple an organization for years, considering the payroll capacity and farm system talent are middle-of-the-road.

Even though he is utterly irreplaceable and not signing him would be a definitive embarrassment, apprehension to act recklessly is natural and warranted. There is such thing as "more than he's worth," in wins and in revenue. The Cardinals should be willing to go over that to keep the face of the franchise. But by how much?

Pujols, meanwhile, is trying to effectively sign the last contract of his baseball life. He knows the Cardinals need him, probably quite a bit more than he needs them. Yes, he'd lose the charm of his loyalty to his only club. Prior statements that he'd made "enough" money and that if the Cards were committed to winning, he'd want to retire in St. Louis would ring hollow if he bailed for an extra year or two at a few more million per. But it would hardly bury him for years as the decision could the Cardinals. And considering that, more than any other player in history, he has justified his previous seven-year, $100-million extension better than anyone has ever justified a nine-figure deal. In fairness, the fair market might argue that the Cardinals probably still owe him for much of his 2001-2010 production.

Still, Pujols leaving would have St. Louisans feeling like Clevelanders after LeBronapalooza. But it would only be a feeling. First, baseball is not like basketball where one player, even Pujols, can disappear and have the team go from leading a conference in wins to tying the professional sports record for consecutive losses. It would hurt a lot, but the team wouldn't drop off the planet in the NL Central, either. Also, Pujols is unlikely to sucker punch the city with a big F-U press conference to talk about where he'll take his talents. Most importantly, Pujols has won a title in St. Louis, a city whose baseball tradition, despite what would be an emotional clobbering, would continue even in a post-Pujols apocalyptic world. Cleveland went back to having three awful pro sports teams to go with a dysfunctional economy and crappy weather.

At the same time, where could he go? As this article points out, most places that can really afford him don't make much sense. (The Cubs, of all teams, seem to be an exception). To outbid the Cardinals, a team would have to break the bank and take a gargantuan risk. Other teams have been mentioned, like the Nationals, Mariners, Orioles, and even Royals. But they'd be such long shots based on how much of their revenues they'd have to commit. And despite young potential on those clubs, leaving for a few extra dollars hardly rings true with any "commitment to winning" prerequisite Pujols has set forth. Potential doesn't make the playoffs. Wins do, and those teams haven't done it yet. The Cardinals have frequently over recent years and retain a great core.

The most telling recent comparison would probably be the negotiations of Derek Jeter. Both El Hombre and the Captain are iconic, respected stars playing their entire careers in one place. Both franchises would have taken a massive PR hit if they had lost their face-of-the-franchise figure. Neither player seemed to have any true interest in leaving. And Jeter also rejected a more-than-fair offer from New York, calling the initial three-year, $45 million dollar offer and the Yankees' negotiating approach "baffling." So don't equate rejected offer with contempt or an inclination to leave.

In fairness, that analogy is imperfect. Jeter's signing was just a thank you from the Yankees; Pujols has plenty of production left in his bat. Even Jeter had to know that any other GM would have to be on a Charlie Sheen-type bender to contemplate offering half that for his declining bat and awful defense. (Then again, the Angels traded for Vernon Wells' contract, Washington spent 1/8th of a billion dollars on Jayson Werth, and the Dodgers dropped $21 million on Juan Uribe's .300 career OBP. So who knows?)

So yes, Cardinals fans can fret about every negotiation tidbit and every day that passes without a contract, sleeplessly tossing and turning, ghoulish images of a deranged Albert cloaked in blue Cubs pinstripes tormenting your dreams as he takes a flamethrower to a paper machete arch replica while guzzling Old Style and cursing at small children in old Cardinals No. 5 replica jerseys.

But if Albert were only about the money, he would have waited for free agency the first time rather than signing an extension. If he wanted to play somewhere else, he wouldn't threaten to veto any trade this season, no matter what. If he could move back to third base for a cash heavy team already set at first, he'd do that for a St. Louis lineup that would rather not have Lance Berkman in the OF. And if the Cardinals weren't willing to do what it takes to keep him or spend money on winning, they wouldn't have dropped $120 million on Holliday to convince Pujols that they were committed to winning. Right? RIGHT?!

All kinds of people are spouting off about how he's gone. Hypochondria's new capital city is the Gateway to the Midwest. Every little cough emerging from contract talks is quarantined and examined as if The Plague had emerged. Pujols is being greedy. The front office is shunning its breadwinner and made him cry.

My advice: ignore it. Naïve? Maybe. But guess what: my attitude can't re-sign Pujols, and there's no tangible reason to believe it won't happen anyway. It's called a contract negotiation, people. And it's one involving the most valuable asset in a sport where these things are far from an exact science. It takes time. And as Jeter's example shows, tough talk doesn't preclude future harmony. The Cardinals are still the most logical destination. They will offer a contract very similar to anything he'll find elsewhere; there are no Yankees or Red Sox waiting with blank checks. St. Louis has proven able to contend in what is usually a quite winnable division. The Cardinals need Pujols more than any other team. Pujols says he likes St. Louis and wants to stay. And baseball people (people actually in the game, not writing about it and with incentive to drum up drama over the issue) have almost been universally quoted as saying they can't envision him landing elsewhere.

I refuse to torture myself. My guess: 8-9 years, $225-$240 million, with the final few years heavily deferred. Even if they don't negotiate until November, I'd be shocked if Pujols played in another uniform.

Yet, I still can't help but question whether a cough is a symptom every once in a while. Guess that's what happens when a player this good makes the stakes this high.

Posted by Kyle Jahner at 1:18 PM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2011

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl XLV Edition

Are the Packers the favorites to win Super Bowl XLVI?

Yes, the Packers are the early favorites to win, just ahead of the Patriots at most betting sites. Of course, a lot can happen between now and next season's playoffs. But whatever happens, the Packers should be prepared for it. If the 2011 season, and Super Bowl XLV itself, showed us anything, it's that the Packers have the depth to overcome injuries. And chances are they won't face as many injuries as they did last year. Plus, the emergence of James Starks, coupled with the return of Ryan Grant, will give the Packers a solid and deep running attack.

Don't count on a repeat, though. Green Bay got hot at the right time, just barely making the playoffs and very nearly losing their first playoff game at Philadelphia. And, the NFC North will be tough, with the Bears and the improving Lions sure to challenge the Packers. And who knows what the Vikings will bring. In addition, the NFC East and South feature five, maybe six, teams capable of winning the NFC.

Early Super Bowl XLVI forecast: Chargers over Falcons. Or Jets over Cowboys. Or Eagles over Colts.

What was the downfall of the Steelers?

Of course, 3 turnovers doomed the Steelers, as did their inability to handle Green Bay's wide receivers. Despite all of that, though, they were still in the game late in the fourth with a chance to drive for the potential game-winning touchdown. What hurt them was having only one time out (after having wasted two time outs earlier in the second half) with which to travel the length of the field. That, of course, is not to say Pittsburgh would have scored with two or three time outs, but it couldn't have hurt.

Is Aaron Rodgers officially free from Brett Favre's shadow?

Sure, Rodgers has equaled Favre's haul of one Super Bowl championship, but Rodgers has a ways to go before he can be totally free from the specter of Favre. Luckily, at only 27 years of age, Rodgers has a plenty of time to amass an NFL-record number of touchdowns and interceptions, and plenty of time to alienate fans with retirement indecisiveness and perverted sexual scandals.

Will the Steelers Mike Wallace be a top-five fantasy pick at wide receiver next year?

Yes, and he should produce like one. That is, barring an injury, like one he could get catching a pass on a bubble screen and running directly into the path of a pursuing lineman or linebacker. The Steelers used Wallace in this capacity much too often on Sunday, and Wallace took some big shots. When he ran routes upfield, he either scored or nearly scored (Roethlisberger overthrew him on what would have been a touchdown). Wallace had 60 catches for 1,257 yards and 10 touchdowns this season, so it's not a stretch to expect a huge year. Give him 80 catches and you could be looking at 15 touchdowns.

Was the President Obama/Bill O'Reilly sit down symbolic of the negotiations between the NFL and the players union?

No, football fans actually care about negotiations between the NFL and the players union. In fact, if the NFL Network aired the negotiations, they'd probably get better ratings that a State of the Union address or The O'Reilly Factor.

Who is the worst interview? Greg Jennings or Aaron Rodgers?

It's a tie. They both said a whole lot of nothing. When I hear an interview immediately following the Super Bowl, I expect to hear some talk of football. All Rodgers and Jennings gave us were some confusing ramblings about "teammates" and "God." Jennings kept saying "God be the glory." First of all, that's grammatically incorrect. Second of all, what's next? A cheap bracelet promoting "G.B.T.G.?" What would Jesus do in this situation? Or "W.W.J.D.?" He'd order Jennings to say something worthwhile, like how he felt when Donald Driver left the game. Or how he beat Troy Polamalu on his second touchdown. Or why he wasn't dropping passes like his teammates?

As for Rodgers, he's a Packer quarterback, so he's probably much more comfortable texting than talking.

Are Cameron Diaz and Alex Rodriguez dating?

It certainly looks that way. Apparently, she's got him eating out of her hands, among other places. I myself would have been more intrigued had I seen Chad Ochocinco feeding popcorn to Terrell Owens.

How did Lea Michele's singing of "America the Beautiful" compare to Christina Aguillera's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner?"

I'd call it a draw, but only because I judged with the sound muted. Michele looked better, fresh, gorgeous, and tanned, in stark contrast to Aguilera, who resembled a lipstick-wearing ghoul.

I'm as red-blooded as the next American, but I've found that singing patriotic anthems at sporting events has become all about appearances and vocal acrobatics and less about America. I'll give Michelle the edge, since she nailed the lyrics, and may have even added some in what was probably the slowest singing of that song ever. I thought I'd never hear the end of it, which is what Aguilera is experiencing after flubbing the lyrics to a song she learned in the second grade and has performed hundreds of times. After being universally criticized for her acting in Burlesque, she'll now face an equal amount of bad press for her singing, thus earning the nickname "Pan-tina."

In her defense, she did nail all of the words to her apology on Monday. By the way, is Aguilera starting to look a bit like Cyndi Lauper?

Was the halftime show featuring the Black Eyed Peas one of the worst in Super Bowl history?

If it's not the worst, it's certainly in the conversation. Luckily, those outfits the Peas were wearing looked to be pretty thick-skinned, which will come in handy since they are sure to face a heap of criticism. Hopefully, it will help them take their lumps, their lumps, their lovely little lumps.

Did the Peas sound horrible? Let's just say the number of nose-bleed seats in cavernous Cowboys Stadium was dwarfed by the number of ear-bleed seats. It was so bad, Slash rose from the earth, and Usher fell from the heavens, and I didn't even know either one was dead! What's a sure-fire way to get Axl Rose and Guns 'N Roses back together? Have Fergie butcher "Sweet Child O' Mine."

Of course, some of the blame falls on acoustics and shabby sound engineering. Or does it? I'm of the belief that the lack of sound quality was an intentional oversight, the results of which gave the Peas an alibi for sounding like a band that should never leave the studio.

But let's at least credit the Black Eyed Peas for spreading their inspirational message. What's that message, you ask? Here it is: if you aspire to fame in the music industry, don't let anything hold you back, not even a complete lack of vocal talent.

Was Brett Favre happy for the Packers win?

Of course he was. Word is he was so happy, he couldn't hide his "excitement," and texted it to a number of female acquaintances.

What were some of the memorable commercials?

For simplicity, I liked Bud Light's "Hack Job" ad, where a kitchen makeover is simply a six-pack on the counter. Quick and to the point and no celebrity needed. Convincing? Charlie Sheen thinks so. Toss in a bag of coke and a few hookers and porn stars to go with the Bud Light, and you've got an entire home makeover, not just a kitchen makeover.

Volkswagen's Passat commercial featuring a Darth Vader-costumed kid using the "force" to start his father's car was cute, but it needed an ending twist. Such as, the car running over the kid. Or, the kid revealing to his father that he, in fact, is his father's father. What moves product better than anything? Incest.

Doritos: I love it! A finger-licking, pants-sniffing co-worker? Sounds like a day in the life of a New York Jets employee while Brett Favre was quarterback.

Kim Kardashian for Shape-Ups: It's rumored that the bodacious Kardashian will soon star in a Skechers shoe ad geared towards men, for footwear called "Bone-Ups."

Joan Rivers as a Go Daddy girl: It's ironic that Danica Patrick, with only one win in her Indy Racing League career, co-starred in a commercial with Jillian Michaels of The Biggest Loser. As for Rivers, she's never looked better, nor has a paper bag. Rivers plays pretty about as well as Shaquille O'Neal plays Terry Bradshaw.

Ozzy Osborne and Justin Bieber for Best Buy: This may have been the most disappointing advertisement of the night. Sure, Ozzy and Bieber together is an odd pairing, but Best Buy should have taken it one step further. Have the two switch roles: Ozzy as the virginal teen idol, and Bieber as the legendary rock madman. Ozzy with the Bieber hairstyle? Funny! Bieber biting an out-of-date cell phone in half (as opposed to biting the head off of a bat)? Priceless!

The "Cowboys & Aliens" trailer featuring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig: What? No Clint Eastwood? Oh, that's right. He's directing. As I watched the trailer, I kept expecting to see a bottle of Bud Light, or Sigourney Weaver.

Kenny G for Audi?: What's this? Audi has resorted to pimping saxophone god Kenny G to pawn cars to Americans? What's this? Kenny G has resorted to ridiculing himself to pay the bills?

Eminem for Lipton Brisk Iced Tea and Chrysler: I was disappointed. Not in the ads themselves. But that Eminem did two ads, with neither featuring Rihanna.

Will Ben Roethlisberger's subpar performance tarnish his reputation as a quarterback who thrives under pressure?

No, not at all. If anything, it will only add to his legacy. In Super Bowl XL, Roethlisberger played horribly and won. In Super Bowl XLV, he proved that he can play horribly and lose. That's versatility for which most quarterbacks would kill.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:38 PM | Comments (2)

February 10, 2011

2011 College Football Week 1 Preview

The Super Bowl is over, and as always at this time of year, I miss football. It's over six and a half months away and insanely, though we can put a man on the moon, we haven't yet figured out a way to play meaningful football year-round.

So, in what has become a tradition in this space, I present a Week 1 preview of college football, which I tout as the first in the nation (even though I've done no research to substantiate that claim), to give us football fans something to happily think about for the next half year. In fact, I recommend re-reading this article every day until football begins anew.

Speaking of traditions, a big game is once again played in Atlanta in Week 1. Last year, the game pitted LSU vs. North Carolina, There was a great deal of hype surrounding the game, which I did not quite understand. North Carolina hasn't played in a bowl more meaningful than the Meineke Car Care Bowl in ages. To their credit, UNC had LSU on the ropes, but next year's matchup, Boise State and Georgia looks equally uncompetitive on paper.

One thing lost among the accolades bestowed on Boise is how impressively they start seasons. They knocked off ACC champ Virginia Tech (in what was essentially a road game for the Broncos, as this game will be) in last year's opener, and Pac-10 champ Oregon in the opener the year before (you may remember that as the famous LeGarrette-Blount-punches-Byron-Hout game).

Georgia was not competitive last year, and while I don't see them standing in the way of Boise State, maybe they will pull a UNC and we'll have a great game. Might be something about the Georgia Dome water.

Dallas has also taken to hosting a premier, neutral-site matchup to start each year, and they got a great one lined up, Oregon/LSU, in what will be the first meaningful football game to be played in Cowboys Stadium since the Super Bowl. It will be Oregon's third taste of SEC football within 12 months, as they pasted Tennessee on the road last year and then of course lost to Auburn in the National Championship Game. It's hard seeing this game not being close.

The old Southwestern Conference will enjoy a bit of a renaissance in Week 1, as no less than three games featuring former SWC foes matchup.

Rice at Texas is probably the least compelling of the three games, but it would be amusing if we discover that Texas still has not hit their nadir and loses to lowly Rice.

The other two games feature four teams that all earned bowl berths last year. SMU, after decades, is finally shaking the rust off their "Death Penalty" sanction in 1987 (in fact, it is said that the reason the NCAA hasn't meted out another Death Penalty since is because they did not foresee the long-term devastation to the SMU program, who once upon a time was a national power with guys like Eric Dickerson and Craig James — The Pony Express). They've earned back-to-back bowl bids, but it won't be easy to stay competitive with Texas A&M in Kyle Field.

Texas A&M is coming off their best season (in terms of season-ending ranking) since 1995 and, Cotton Bowl loss aside, is coming into 2011 with tons of momentum. They won their last five regular season games, including victories over favorite Nebraska, Big 12 champ Oklahoma, and a watershed victory over their rival Texas.

Baylor has enjoyed a similarly impressive turnaround, staying in the Big 12 South title race until they sputtered down the stretch. They earned their first bowl berth since 1994, and now find themselves in perhaps their biggest ever non-conference home game against TCU, who of course is right up there with Boise State in terms of huge success from a non-BCS conference.

I'd like to call a Baylor victory, not based on analysis, but out of the sheer geographical ridiculousness of TCU joining the Big East conference. Who else is looking forward to those TCU/Rutgers basketball games?

Given the way the teams ended the year, one of the strangest results of the year was Colorado throttling Hawaii 31-13 last year. True, Hawaii are not exactly road warriors, but they ended up right in the mix with with Nevada and Boise State for the WAC crown, and Colorado was ... Colorado.

They will meet again in Hawaii this year, and I hope that ESPN, as they sometimes do, air the Hawaii production team's broadcast of the game on ESPN3/ESPN Gameplan. This is because their play-by-play man, Jim Leahey, is a hidden gem and the most dulcet voice in the game. Those late-night Hawaii games are the perfect way to end a long day of college football.

Because we haven't had enough college football games crammed into baseball stadia lately, the Cal Bears will take on Fresno State at Candlestick Park. Fresno State was once mentioned in the same breath as TCU and Boise State as mid-major giants, but flamed out after their 50-42 loss to USC in 2005, the year the Trojans were unstoppable until the Rose Bowl (and one of the seasons wiped out by the NCAA due to the Reggie Bush violations), and have since lost their way. This is a great opportunity for the Bulldogs to get their mojo back.

The final game I'd like to highlight on a personal level (indulge me) is Akron at Ohio State. I'm from Akron and a diehard Zips supporter. I attended Ohio State and I'm a diehard Buckeye supporter. I HATE HATE HATE when they play each other. But play each other they do, because Ohio State generously rotates games amongst the Ohio MAC schools (they play all of them between 2006-2012, with Cincinnati and Youngstown State thrown in) thereby granting them some brief visibility and a hefty paycheck.

It's the sports equivalent of incest, and angers God, who views sports through my eyes. I grit my teeth and root for the Zips, because a win would mean more to their program than a loss would hurt OSU's. But I'm trying to figure out a way they can somehow both win, and root for that outcome instead.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:24 AM | Comments (1)

February 9, 2011

Aaron Rodgers is Steve Young 2.0

In 1984, Steve Young began his professional football career with the Los Angeles Express of the now-defunct USFL, where he put up decent numbers. After two years with a horrible Tampa Bay Buccaneers team, Young found himself in San Francisco, warming the bench for Joe Montana. After four years of shining in the role of backup to an all-time great, Young finally got his chance. What happened in the following nine years is legendary.

Three years later, Aaron Rodgers enrolled at Butte Community College, where he would play for one year. He then transferred to California, where he played for two years, before entering the NFL draft. After falling to the Green Bay Packers as the 24th overall pick in the 2005 draft, Rodgers played backup to Brett Favre for three years, before getting a chance to prove himself in the 2008 season.

Aaron Rodgers did something on Sunday that may have catapulted his career to new heights. Surrounded by a team filled with second-string players due to an onslaught of injuries, facing a defense that was better than any in the league, he took the game over.

Pinpoint accuracy, 20- and 30-yard lasers over the middle of the field, and dancing out of trouble to extend plays just long enough. These weren't just plays that defined Rodgers' game, and possibly his entire season, but are also plays that defined the career of Steve Young. They both started their careers with more doubters than believers, they both lived in the shadow of a future Hall of Fame QB, and they both won over their cities with unparalleled talent.

The greatest aspect of Rodgers' Super Bowl performance may have been his unrelenting faith in his receivers, despite the fact that they dropped six easily catchable passes. He knew what needed to be done, and with barely inches to spare on more than one occasion, he made it happen.

Each of his first two touchdown passes could have easily been picked off if it had been even a few inches off the mark. But both times, Rodgers delivered a tight spiral in a place that only the hands of his receiver could reach. They weren't good passes. They were perfect passes.

But perhaps that faith in his arm and his receivers wasn't the greatest part of his possibly career-defining performance. It may just have been his resilience despite the fact that he had never been on a stage that big before.

If it wasn't enough that the Packers entered the game without their starting TE, their starting RB, and a starting LB, they also lost a starting WR and enough of their defensive secondary to injuries that it caused Joe Buck to jokingly wonder aloud if there was a pre-halftime defensive meeting going on in the locker room.

Yet with the ground around him burning, and with a defense as daunting as the Steelers in front of him, Rodgers turned in one of the greatest performances in Super Bowl history. Best of all, it doesn't appear he's done wowing football fans everywhere.

Perhaps Steve Young's greatest career statistic that is indicative of his talent is his career 96.9 passer rating, which is exactly two points higher than Peyton Manning's, and good for third in the history of the game. Aaron Rodgers currently owns a career passer rating of 98.4 — first all-time.

While Rodgers may still have some steps to take before he's considered as good as the greatest quarterbacks to ever play, if his first few years are any indication, he may just go down as Steve Young 2.0.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 6:28 PM | Comments (0)

Individuals Who Have Shaped College Hoops

As many loyal college basketball fans are acutely aware, the past decade has netted a plethora of changes that were intended to infuse drama and order into the already drama-filled and orderly NCAA hoops landscape. Everything from the sublime (an overdue lengthening of three-point distance) to the ridiculous (a nonsensical expanding of the NCAA tourney field from 65 to 68 teams) has been considered, if not already implemented.

Even the NBA, in all its morality-fed grandeur, has contributed to the changing college landscape by implementing a curious restriction on a players' draft eligibility status. Though largely changing a whole lot of nothing, these rules have each been concocted with the best interests of the game in mind.

Beyond these topical changes to the game, some individuals have been so dominant that they themselves necessitated rules changes that still impact the college and pro games alike. While many of you out there surely remember the (Lew) "Alcindor Rule" — this was one that was actually rescinded upon Alcindor's (aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for those of you who take no interest in the history of the game; LeBron, I'm looking at you) departure from the college basketball scene — a few other well-known big men have significant rule changes credited to their dominance. George Mikan's introduction as the NBA's first real "big-man" resulted in a widened free throw lane and the institution of that pesky three-second rule. Wilt Chamberlain actually used to shoot free throws in high school by chucking the ball at the hoop, taking two large steps and launching himself towards the rim to hammer home his rebound. This resulted in a universally recognized basketball rule limiting a shooter's right to cross the free throw stripe upon being awarded foul shots.

Apart from these well-documented changes, the college game has been impacted by a handful of past and current players whose presence — or lack thereof — in the college hoops scene directly attributed some more vague rules changes or changes in procedures and policies. This article identifies a few of those individuals and details the altered state-of-the-game that followed.

Kevin Garnett — Okay, this is the most obvious culprit on the list, but the facts are even more staggering when you realize just how he changed the college basketball landscape. KG's decision to forgo the college experience marked the first time a player had made the move straight from high school since 1975 (Darryl Dawkins and Bill Willoughby) and only the fourth time in the game's history.

Over the next 10 years, a total of 38 high schoolers followed suit. While this obviously has impacted the pro game a great deal more than the college game, the resulting lack of potential marquee names among the college ranks surely has impacted the balance of power in college basketball. Even with the onset of the NBA's minimum age requirements in 2005, this genie was very much out of the bottle and cannot be put back in under the current setup.

Consider for a moment the list of Final Four participants since 1995 and this interesting tidbit: in this span, only thrice was there not at least one team in the Final Four who had been there the previous year. In the 10 years prior to the 1995 season, only Michigan in 1992 and 1993 duplicated this feat (not including Duke, which I think we can all agree is a special circumstance: they made a staggering seven Final Four appearances over this time). Clearly, the reduced volume of young stars playing out the string in college basketball has provided an advantage to the programs that do manage to retain talent year in and year out.

Dorell Wright, Sebastian Telfair, Robert Swift, Shaun Livingston, Martell Webster, Gerald Geren, C.J. Miles, Louis Williams, Andray Blatche, Amir Johnson — These 10 players were members of the most abundant two-year stretch of ex-high schoolers to make the jump straight to the pros (16 players turned pro out of high school in 2004 and 2005). Though those same classes peppered in the occasional success story (Dwight Howard, Al Jefferson, Josh and J.R. Smith, Monta Ellis, Andrew Bynum), the volume of useless, underprepared, overmatched youngsters taking their shot at the NBA underscored the need for change.

The result was the aforementioned NBA minimum age limit being instituted, which did bring some of the talent back to college basketball landscape. While the efficacy of forcing pros-to-be to play at least one year of college basketball remains somewhat of a question mark, it certainly has helped bring up the level of play in some of the less-known college basketball programs. This hasn't translated to Final Four appearances or championships, per se, but it has allowed some of those teams to get some attention come March Madness as they make runs into the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 rounds of the tourney.

Michigan's "Fab Five" — Those who are in my age group certainly remember the five super-frosh players that the Wolverines trotted out in the early 1990s. Chris Weber, Juwan Howard, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson were considered by most everyone to be the greatest class ever recruited in college basketball. As individuals, this five-some didn't necessarily change the game, but as a unit, their exploits — and ultimate failure to win a championship and subsequent embarrassing scandal — plays as a cautionary tale to any team looking to make a name for their selves by making a nickname for themselves.

Since the Fab Five fell into infamy, no other noteworthy group has dared attempt to inflate their value by way of a catchy group moniker. Further, the obviously underhanded tactics employed by the school to secure these five top-100 high school prospects in 1991 has led to a much more open-eyed approach by the NCAA in watching over "highly-touted" recruiting classes.

Rick Pitino — Yes, initial reaction to this will probably be "that S.O.B. has caused far more problems than good results in the game" and frankly, I can't disagree with such an assessment. But the fact of the matter is no coach has ever best utilized a rule change to gain a competitive advantage as Coach Pitino has. Facts don't lie (even if Coach Pitino does); Pitino is the only men's coach in NCAA history to lead three different schools to the Final Four (Providence, Kentucky, Louisville).

His teams are always, if nothing else, very entertaining to watch. His willingness to utilize the three-point shot as a strategic weapon by increasing the volume of attempts his team was directed to take remains one of the most significant "force multipliers" that have ever come to light in the game. "Pitino's Bombinos," as his Kentucky squads came to be known by, made those Wildcat teams a threat to win in every contest they entered and he has carried this reliance on the deep shot as one of the hallmarks of his very successful coaching career.

Make no mistake, the "bomb's away" strategies employed by many of today's basketball programs were birthed in the mind of Rick Pitino and his unique willingness to turn the focus from high-percentage offensive game planning to one predicated on a saturation of attempts is the model on which many a successful program has been built since.

John Thompson, Jr. – You can't really write a story about things that changed college basketball without introducing race as a contributing factor. While the stories about Texas Western's all-black starting five are well documented ("Glory Road," along with "Hoosiers," clearly are the bar by which all other basketball films will be measured), black student-athletes succeeding en masse in mainstream college basketball programs were still very much anomalies up to the late 1970s. This all began to change when John Thompson left his small-time Washington D.C. coaching gig to take on the challenge of leading the Georgetown Hoyas.

Thompson — one of a very small number of African American head coaches at the time — made it a point to pursue inner-city kids to fill out his roster, a practice that was largely unheard of in the late-'70s. Over time, the Hoyas were the only major East-coast program to regularly trot out an all-black starting five, and the successes he found in this strategy were far-reaching. In less than 10 years time, the Hoyas went from relative obscurity to the most successfully marketed brand name in college sports.

The appeal that followed is something of legend — inner city youths became very much in play for even the most traditionally white programs and many followers attempted to parlay the marketing successes the Hoyas had in their new-found demographic to their own potential growth in the apparel-selling arena.

Fact is, Thompson's willingness to think outside the box and stay true to his own roots and his unyielding belief in the value of black America as student-athletes ushered in an age of expansion and immeasurable growth in a college game that had — apart from the occasional Magic Johnson/Larry Bird showdown — largely fallen into relative obscurity. Without the paradigm shift that occurred as a result of the successes the all-black Georgetown teams exemplified, we would see a very different dynamic in college hoops and the universal appeal of basketball on this level would not have been realized.

Posted by Matt Thomas at 4:38 PM | Comments (0)

February 8, 2011

Calling Cinderella: Who Will Crash This Year's Tournament?

While the state of Wisconsin gets drunk on Miller and 18-year-old Cheddar celebrating the Super Bowl, the end of the NFL season officially kicks us off into the stretch run to March Madness. We're only a few weeks away from the first conference tournaments and barely a month from Selection Sunday.

This year's tournament will be different in that rather than 65 teams, this year's bracket will feature 68 teams, with the bottom four 16 seeds and the bottom four at-large seeds facing off the Tuesday and Wednesday before the tournament to earn entry into the "second round."

Frankly, I wish the NCAA had just left well enough alone with the old format, because we don't need two more mediocre at-large teams, and it sucks that now instead of one small-conference champ getting screwed out of the full bracket experience, two such teams will get the shaft. But you'll never get anywhere in life if you spend all your energy bitching and moaning about what should have been, so 68 it is and we go from there.

The one thing that won't change this year is the search for the upset. Everybody loves a Cinderella, unless of course one is knocking off the team you picked to win it all like Northern Iowa did to Kansas last season.

Over the past four tournaments 24 of the 112 teams with a double-digit seeding have won their first-round game, with seven of those moving on to the Sweet 16, and one of those, Davidson in 2008, moving into the Elite 8. The key of course is figuring out which ones. Here are three to keep an eye on:

George Mason, Colonial

I swear I began last weekend all ready to write a strictly George Mason article. I even had a headline: "The next George Mason? George Mason." But then the Patriots went out and smacked Hofstra and Old Dominion by a combined 36 points and come Monday there were "Watch out for George Mason" articles all over the web. So rather than a whole article extolling the virtues of head coach Jim Larranaga and the scoring tandem of senior guard Cam Long (15.5 ppg) and junior forward Ryan Pearson (14.4 ppg), I'll just mention that the Patriots have an adjusted efficiency split of 21.26. That's important because only five of the 128 teams in the past four tournaments with a sub-20 adjusted efficiency split made the Sweet 16, and none made it to the Elite 8. Only three other non-BCS conference teams are currently sitting at 20+. The other three are all ranked in the AP top 25: No. 6 San Diego State, No. 7 BYU, and No. 21 Utah State.

(Note: You won't see BYU, San Diego State or Utah State on this list because I expect them to be the higher seeds in their first-round games. Maybe Utah State gets jobbed — ESPN's Joe Lunardi has them at a nine seed in his latest bracketology — but the depth of quality in the BCS conferences is so shallow right now, the Aggies deserve at least a seven- or eight-seed.)

Wichita State, Missouri Valley

The Shockers are the prototypical "sum is better than the parts" team, leading the Valley in scoring at 74.3 ppg without a single player averaging more than 12 points. They are also second in the league in scoring defense, giving up just 61.5 points per game, and lead the league in both field goal offense (.478) and field goal defense (.407). Their schedule is light, which could cause them to be under-seeded, but they played Connecticut to within four early in the season and actually held a second-half lead at San Diego State in early December before the Aztecs pulled ahead.

Remember this also: Head coach Gregg Marshall may not have any NCAA tournament appearances since taking over the Shockers in 2007, but he knows how to pull an NCAA tournament upset: As head coach at Winthrop in 2007, he became the first Big South coach to win an NCAA tournament game when his 11th-seeded Eagles beat six-seed Notre Dame. And he almost pulled the 15-2 upset over Tennessee in 2006.

Alabama Crimson Tide, SEC

What'chu talking 'bout, Willis? This is Cinderella territory man! BCS teams can't be Cinderella!

Sorry, but BCS teams get to pull upsets too. As a matter of fact, nearly half (16 of the 33) of the lower seeded teams to win their first-round games over the past four years came from a BCS conference. So stuff that in your mid-major and smoke it.

Back to the Tide, Lunardi has them at an 11-seed right now, which is understandable considering they were terrible to start the season, racking up losses to Seton Hall, Iowa, St. Peter's, and Providence. But since starting 5-6 the, Tide have won 10 of 11 with Ws over Kentucky and Tennessee (on the road) to make their way back to the conversation. Even if Alabama slips a few times the rest of the way, don't write them off as just another weak SEC squad. They are fifth nationally in adjusted defensive efficiency, and they don't have to play Wisconsin-style slow ball to get it done.

Of course, upsets aren't just about one team. Upsets happen because the strength of the lower-seeded team matches up with the weakness of the higher seeded team. But without knowing who is playing who for another month, all we can do for now is identify teams who look primed for an upset. Here are three I'm hoping to see against one of my Cinderellas-in-waiting above.

Florida State Seminoles, ACC

I have to admit I'm rooting for the Seminoles to do well through the rest of their ACC slate just so they'll get a higher seed and it will be a bigger upset when they lose. Seventeen teams over the past four years have come in with an adjusted offensive efficiency of less than 101.0. All 17 have flamed out in the first round. FSU's adjusted offensive efficiency as of Monday? 100.52.

One other note: The last time the ACC made it through the first round without suffering an upset was 2006. In the four years since then, ACC teams have been on the losing end of seven first-round upsets, three by Clemson and one each by Florida State, Wake Forest, Duke, and Boston College. If I thought Clemson had a chance at making the tournament as a top eight seed, I'd just go with them. But since I don't think that will happen, FSU seems like the best bet to continue the streak.

Missouri Tigers, Big 12

The Tigers don't have a flameout stat profile, but this is a gut thing based on watching a good number of their games living St. Louis. The bottom line is the guards on this team just aren't good enough. Marcus Denmon is doing his part, but Kim English has been so inconsistent coach Mike Anderson started bringing him off the bench in an attempt to get him to play more under control. In the Tigers' five road conference losses, English has hit just 11 of his 43 shot attempts for a total of 37 points. Whenever the guy who takes the second most shots on your team ends up with less than a point per shot, that's not good. It's also not a real good thing when that same guy is a better shooter from three (44-112, .393) than from two (37-102, .363).

(And if you think I'm over-reacting to one guy's performance, ask Notre Dame fans how thankful they are to finally escape the Tory Jackson era. The Irish lost as the higher seed twice in the three first round games while Jackson was in South Bend. Bad guard play kills you in the NCAA tournament.)

Connecticut Huskies, Big East

You just don't know what you're going to get from Kemba Walker. The average of 23.2 points per game looks great, but averages don't win games. Consistency does. And Connecticut has no idea game by game whether Walker is going to go off for 30+, as he has six times this season, or whether he's going to build a brick city like he did against Syracuse last week (3-14 FG, 8 points). Walker's points per possession are the lowest of his career at 1.27, and that's a problem when almost all of your other contributors are freshmen and sophomores.

Also, I know Roscoe Smith was a highly touted recruit and all, but he doesn't attack on offense and he doesn't rotate on defense. He just stands there and waits for something good to happen. It's not entirely unexpected from an overmatched freshman forward making the jump into the Big East, but the fact he has played almost 65 percent of the minutes (26.5 mpg) is a bad sign that UConn has no better options. And when you combine weak post play with inconsistent guard play, that spells U-P-S-E-T.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 6:37 PM | Comments (0)

Will Carmelo Create a Power Surge in East?

We all witnessed LeBron James spurn the Cleveland Cavaliers in favor of the Miami Heat this Summer. We also watched Amare Stoudemire leave the Phoenix Suns, the only team he had ever played with in the NBA, for the New York Knicks.

After these two moves seemed to lead the headlines during the NBA offseason, Carmelo Anthony quietly sat in the shadows, waiting to make the same kind of ripple effect throughout the league.

According to sources, trade talks are starting to heat up, as there are rumors of a three-team deal being negotiated. Denver doesn't have a ton of room to work with because 'Melo has made it clear that it is the Knicks or nobody.

Not only will this trade blow up the headlines, it will create another power shift in the Eastern Conference; that is, if it happens.

After an early struggle, Miami has started playing team oriented basketball, which will make them especially dangerous as time passes. Boston's veterans have held up, allowing them to achieve the best record in the Eastern Conference. Atlanta, Orlando, and Chicago are all playing very well, standing only a few games out of the conference lead.

Without Carmelo, the Knicks are still looking at a a playoff spot. With him, they would have a fighting chance of being the best team in the Eastern Conference. Amare Stoudemire has put the Knicks on his back this season. With a player like Carmelo, the Knicks would be exhibiting serious talent every time they stepped out onto the court.

With a record of 25-24, the Knicks are currently the sixth best team in the Eastern Conference. Amare Stoudemire has been the go-to guy all season for New York, however, without another consistent presence like Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks will be forced to ride a one-car train into the playoffs.

That's not to say that the Knicks don't have talent outside of Stoudemire. Danilo Gallinari has shown that he can put up numbers, averaging just over 16 points per game. Raymond Felton and Wilson Chandler are also getting it done this season.

Even with those four players averaging 76 points per game collectively, production from the fifth man and on is lacking. Imagine if Carmelo was part of a starting lineup featuring Amare Stoudemire, Raymon Felton, and Danilo Gallinari. That would be an electrifying group of players that is hard for any team to match up against.

There are some that would be against a trade like this happening. However, given that sentiment, think of how this would benefit the NBA as a whole. Not only will it provide fans with excitement, it will make the Eastern Conference even more competitive.

Not to say that this trade is final, but considering the rumors, it would make sense in so many ways. The Nuggets would be getting rid of a disgruntled player, while the Knicks would be acquiring a player who is eager to play for them.

The Nuggets may be losing a great player in Carmelo Anthony, but they are also losing the baggage that he carries with him everywhere he goes. New York Seems to be the perfect fit for Anthony, and vice-versa.

If a trade does occur, it would have to happen before the February 24th trade deadline.

Posted by Jason Clary at 12:18 PM | Comments (0)

February 7, 2011

Super Bowl XLV Rewind

Super Bowl XLV
February 6, 2011
Arlington, Texas
Green Bay Packers 31, Pittsburgh Steelers 25

Off the field, Super Bowl XLV got off to an ugly start. The weather outdoors was frightful, hundreds of ticket-holders were shafted out of their seats, Christina Aguilera positively destroyed the Star-Spangled Banner (in a bad way), and the hands of fate inexplicably swung in the NFC's favor for the 14th year in a row when Green Bay won the coin toss.

When we got down to business, fans were treated to a Super Bowl that was sloppy at times — neither team played as well as it could have — but came down to the final minute, with Aaron Rodgers continuing to emerge as a star, and veterans like Donald Driver and Charles Woodson (both of whom left the game with injuries) finally earning Super Bowl titles. It takes a heart of stone (or steel) to begrudge those guys their rings.

Why the Packers Won

Turnovers were the obvious difference in the game. The Packers forced three turnovers, including an interception return for a touchdown, and committed none. Super Bowl teams that go +3 in turnovers are 22-1, and those with INT return TDs are now 11-0. Credit Green Bay's defense: the Steelers hadn't committed three turnovers in any of their previous 18 games this season.

The other thing Green Bay did was score. I worried two weeks ago that the Packers would settle for field goals, but instead they found the end zone four times. It was only the second time this season that an opponent scored more than 24 points against Pittsburgh (the Patriots put up 39). The Steelers, however, were just the third team to score more than 24 against Green Bay (Patriots and Lions).

Perhaps the most amazing note about the game is that Green Bay was able to overcome so many problems and still win. Woodson got hurt, and the Packers nearly squandered a 21-3 lead after he left. Driver got hurt, and the other receivers dropped about 70 passes. The Packers got hit for seven penalties, including three 15-yarders. They overcame it all and won. That's how good this team was. Years from now, people may see that the Packers went 10-6, snuck into the playoffs as the sixth seed, and assume this wasn't a great team. They'd be wrong. A lot of things came together at the end of the season, but the Packers were dangerous all year.

Noteworthy

The Packers won partially by forcing Pittsburgh out of its gameplan. The Steelers began the game very conservative on offense, but quickly got away from the run. At halftime, Rashard Mendenhall had eight rush attempts, and Ben Roethlisberger had three. Pittsburgh averaged 5.5 yards per rush, which is phenomenal, but only handed off 19 times, compared to 45 pass plays. The Packers had even less balance, but they're a passing team, and were able to win despite handing off just 11 times.

Even in the passing game, the Steelers were forced out of their comfort zone. Mike Wallace scored a 25-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter, but the Packers mostly kept him underneath. During the regular season, Wallace, one of the NFL's fastest players at any position, averaged 21.0 yards per reception. In the Super Bowl, he caught 9 passes for 89 yards, a 9.9 average — less than half his regular-season average.

Ultimately, though, you can't get away from the turnovers. The Steelers had more yards, more first downs, better third down percentage, and more time of possession, but you can't give away possessions and field position that many times and expect to win.

What Happened

The Steelers came out conservative on offense, using one-receivers sets, or two receivers in tight where they could block. The Packers did the opposite, spreading the field with three or four wide receivers. This wasn't surprising unless you expected the teams to try to surprise each other, out-think the opponents and maybe themselves. Run defense was the weak link in Green Bay's defense, so Pittsburgh tested it early. The Steelers' ground defense was nearly impenetrable, and the Packers have depth at WR, so they forced Pittsburgh into nickel coverage.

Rodgers began the game 1/4 for 24 yards, but he sparked an 80-yard touchdown drive on Green Bay's second possession, followed immediately by Nick Collins' 37-yard INT return for a touchdown. Collins drew a 15-yard penalty afterwards, and while I support the league's efforts to promote sportsmanship, the rule that made it a penalty for Collins to fall to his knees is stupid. He wasn't showing anyone up. I really think officials should have more discretion about what does and does not constitute excessive celebration. Anyway, it's 14-0.

The Steelers drove for a field goal, but another Roethlisberger interception gave Green Bay the ball around midfield, and the Packers scored another touchdown, giving them a 21-3 lead. The largest deficit overcome in a Super Bowl is 10 points, and the Steelers trailed by 18. At this point, though, Woodson was injured defending a deep pass on the left sideline, and Pittsburgh's offense came alive, driving 77 yards in 1:45 to make it 21-10 at halftime.

Pittsburgh's momentum carried into the second half, as Green Bay went three-and-out (really five-and-out because of two penalties). The Packers drew another penalty on the punt, a 15-yard facemask penalty that replays showed was a bad call by the officials. The Steelers went 50 yards on five straight runs, and all of a sudden the Packers' lead was down to four: 21-17. The Packers punted again, and then the Steelers made a strange decision: they let Shaun Suisham try a 52-yard field goal.

Suisham has played in the NFL for six seasons. He's just 3-of-9 from 50 yards and beyond, and he has never made a field goal longer than 52. I realize the 34-yard line is No Man's Land. It's too close to punt, and you can't go for it on 4th-and-15. But Suisham missed by a mile, and the Packers took over at their own 42, which is great field position. If your punter can force a fair catch inside the 20, or kick it out of bounds at the 10- or 15-yard line, that's a huge swing in field position.

The Packers apparently realized this, because on the ensuing possession, they punted instead of trying a 56-yard field goal, and Mason Crosby's chances from 56 have to be just as good as Suisham's from 52. Tim Masthay's punt went only 25 yards, but it was fair caught at the 13, and Pittsburgh took over deep in its own territory. After a couple more punts, Rashard Mendenhall fumbled — Pittsburgh third turnover — and the momentum palpably shifted. Green Bay's stalled offense woke up, and the Packers scored another touchdown.

Abandoning the run, the Steelers threw on eight straight plays, culminating in a perfect 25-yard rainbow from Roethlisberger to Mike Wallace for a touchdown. Antwaan Randle El scored a two-point conversion on a really brilliant option play, and it was 28-25 Packers with 7:34 remaining in Super Bowl XLV. Rodgers responded. He engineered a 10-play, 5:27 drive that ended on a Crosby field goal, giving Green Bay a 31-25 lead with just 2:07 to play. Roethlisberger completed two passes for 20 yards, then threw three straight incompletions to turn the ball over on downs, and Rodgers knelt twice to run out the clock.

The Dumbest Play

The most foolish play in Super Bowl history was obviously Leon Lett's premature celebration in Super Bowl XXVII, turning a touchdown into a touchback. This game didn't feature anything of that magnitude, but with 1:01 left in the third quarter, Green Bay's Tramon Williams made one of the dumbest plays I have ever seen in a postseason game. Back to field a punt, Williams let the ball bounce. That was a bad idea, because the ball rolled about 15 yards in the wrong direction. Then he hung out near the ball. I don't know if Williams is aware of this, but footballs are oval, and sometimes they take funny bounces. He's lucky the ball didn't hit his leg and result in a turnover.

Finally, when the ball stopped rolling, Williams turned and slapped Anthony Madison in the head. That drew a 15-yard penalty, and it could have gotten him ejected. At this point, Woodson was already out of the game and Sam Shields was playing hurt. If Williams had been tossed, the Packers would have spent the fourth quarter trying to hold a four-point lead without either of their top two cornerbacks, and the third guy playing with a bad shoulder. Williams made three separate mistakes on the play, and he's lucky that all he cost the team was 30 yards of field position.

Aaron Rodgers, MVP

I seldom agree with the official Super Bowl MVP selection, but Rodgers was a no-brainer, the most obvious choice in over a decade. He passed for 304 yards with 3 TDs and a 111.5 passer rating against the best defense in the NFL, and that's even with all those drops. If his receivers had played better, it easily could have been 400 yards, 4 TDs, and a rating somewhere in the neighborhood of 140. Against the best defense in the NFL. MVP, hands down.

After the game, there was some discussion about Rodgers' place among the greatest quarterbacks in the league. He's at the top, as good as anyone. I don't understand how people can still say he's behind Peyton Manning. And I love Peyton Manning. If you're talking about their careers, obviously Manning is more accomplished. But if we mean, "Who's better right now?", the answer is, "No one."

In my mind there are five QBs who stand head-and-shoulders above everyone else: Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, and Rodgers. Suggesting that Rivers or Rodgers aren't in that class is absurd, and claiming that anyone else other than maybe a healthy Tony Romo is on the same level is just stupid. People who put Big Ben in the same category, for instance, don't understand football. Ben is a good QB, but suggesting that he's as good as Rodgers is nothing short of idiocy. He is not nearly as good as Aaron Rodgers.

In addition to the Super Bowl MVP Award, Tom Brady was announced Sunday as league MVP, the only unanimous AP selection in history. The NFL also announced before the game that Minnesota defensive back Madieu Williams won this year's Walter Payton Man of the Year Award. This primarily honors off-field contributions, and it's a very high form of recognition.

Announcers, Entertainment, and Commercials

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

* Calling the Super Bowl pre-game show a waste of time is an insult to wasting time. Next year I'm not tuning in until kickoff.

* Do you sing the National Anthem to honor the country or to show off your vocal range? Unforgivably bad performance by Christina Aguilera, even apart from her omitting one line and screwing up another. One of the ugliest, most disrespectful renditions of the song I have ever heard. Kat DeLuna thinks that was bad. Roseanne Barr thinks it was tasteless.

* Joe Buck and Troy Aikman did a surprisingly nice job in the booth on Sunday.

* My favorite Super Bowl ad: Kia Optima, with the constant one-ups of who wants the car.

* Boring halftime show by the Black-Eyed Peas. And my goodness, Fergie can't sing. What was she thinking on that version of "Sweet Child O Mine?"

Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame announced the Class of 2011 on Saturday: Richard Dent, Marshall Faulk, Chris Hanburger, Les Richter, Ed Sabol, Deion Sanders, and Shannon Sharpe. Faulk and Sanders, both in their first years on the ballot, were locks. Sabol, the man behind NFL Films, was long overdue for induction, an unassailable choice. Sharpe, who revolutionized the tight end position and set a number of records, enhances the Hall with his induction. Chris Hanburger, a nine-time Pro Bowler who should have been in years ago, might be the selection I'm most pleased by. Les Richter, who joined Hanburger as a Senior nominee, made eight Pro Bowls before the AFL merger. He and Hanburger are both among the greatest linebackers in history. Richard Dent was a cornerstone of the great Chicago defenses of the 1980s.

Dent's selection ahead of some of the other finalists surprised and disappointed me. As an easy comparison, Dent clearly was not as deserving as Chris Doleman. Both players were defensive ends in the NFC in the '80s and '90s. But Doleman made twice as many Pro Bowls (8) as Dent (4). Doleman had more tackles, more sacks, more forced fumbles, more fumble recoveries, more safeties, more touchdowns. There is nothing Dent was better at than Doleman.

I'm not trying to bash Richard Dent, and I don't think his election is some tragedy. But I can't imagine what led the voters to support Dent rather than Dermontti Dawson and Willie Roaf, or Tim Brown and Cris Carter, or Curtis Martin, or Doleman. I hope Dent's selection will at least clear the way for other worthy pass rushers, like Kevin Greene and Doleman, to finally win induction.

Similarly, I suspect Sharpe's election may pave the way for someone like Tim Brown. The voters have been reluctant to support receivers, and disagreement over which ones are worthy has kept many of them out for very long periods of time. What the voters demonstrated this year is that they are far more impressed by a high peak than sustained consistency. Guys like Brown and Carter and Martin have terrific career numbers, but were never considered the best at their positions. I have to believe all three will get in eventually, but the next few years will remain very competitive.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:35 PM | Comments (1)

A Tribute to Andy Pettitte

After months of straddling the fence, former Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte is retiring from baseball, leaving a void in the Bronx Bombers' bullpen.

Pettitte, who will be remembered for his saving the Yankees during the 1996 World Series and his admission to using performance-enhancing drugs in 2006, said it's not his body or career he feels is lacking. It's his heart.

"I know my body would get where it needs to be," said Pettitte, "but my heart's not where it needs to be."

Pettitte's superior skill on the mound was evident before he ever put on the pinstripes. Before he came into the league in 1995 he spent several seasons in the Yankees farm system, collecting a record of 51-22 in the minors and never having a losing season.

In 1996, Pettitte made the AL all-star team, led the league in wins (21) and helped lead the Yankees to their first World Series championship since 1978.

Pettitte spent the next seven years with the Yankees, reaching five more World Series Championships and winning three of them. It was during this first part of Pettitte's career that he began to compile what would end up being the best postseason record in the Major League Baseball history.

After the 2003 season, Pettitte left the Yankees to return home to Texas and play for the Houston Astros. During his three seasons with the Astros, Pettitte was the leader of a bullpen which helped the Astros reach their first World Series ever. His 2.39 ERA and 79.7% LOB in 2005 still stand as career-bests.

In 2006, Pettitte returned to New York to help the Yankees win a World Series in 2009 and help himself become the winningest pitcher of the 2000's, racking up 148 wins.

For his career, Pettitte will be remembered as one of the most experienced and one of the most successful pitchers in postseason history. Pettitte was 19–10 with a 3.83 ERA and 173 strikeouts in the postseason (1995–2003, 2005, 2007, 2009–2010), with the most postseason wins in the history of Major League Baseball. He also holds the all-time record for most starts and innings pitched in the postseason (42 and 263, through 2010).

So what's keeping Pettitte out of the Hall of Fame? Other than what would be one of the highest ERAs in Cooperstown (3.87) Pettitte's admission of guilt in using HGH, a hormone which stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration, looms a black cloud over an otherwise sunny career. There will certainly be Hall of Fame voters who will cast their vote against him for that.

But, if Pettitte falls short, his legacy will be that of a pitcher who stepped up to the mound in the biggest of moments and played his best in clutch time. Whenever Pettitte comes back for a pre-game ceremony, or is honored in some way decades down the road, fans will cheer him as they would any other Yankee who is in the Hall.

And there are worse ways to spend your retirement than as a New York baseball hero.

Posted by Ryan Day at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)

February 3, 2011

NFL Weekly Predictions: Super Bowl XLV

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay (-2½)

Super Bowl XLV pits the Steelers and Packers, two of the NFL's most tradition-laden teams, in a battle to determine the NFL's best team, or, according to the New York Jets and their boastful insistence, the NFL's second-best team. Pittsburgh and Green Bay ranked 1-2 in points against, and their respective defenses are complemented by solid and at times explosive offenses.

"One thing is for sure," said Roethlisberger. "This game will be settled on the field, and not via Twitter. Antonio Cromartie has replaced Chad Ochocinco as the clown prince of social networking. I'm amused by Cromartie's tweets on the collective bargaining agreement and the impending lockout. One would think his labor disputes would be confined to questions of paternity that take place in the delivery room. If he continues impregnating women at his current pace, there'll be 140 characters in his brood.

"Frankly, I'm amazed that we're the underdogs. But I can relate. It's much like Roger Goodell's opinion of me — not the favorite. So Roger says not one teammate came to my defense when he was investigating me. Can that be true? If it is, then I guess I now know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a 'cock-eyed' glance. Come on. Somebody's got to have my back. If not a teammate, then the guy guarding the bathroom door. No one can say I haven't lived a colorful life — I've been blackballed and blueballed.

"But you know me, I love talking about the spread. Or used to. As you know, I've reformed, from hard-partying a-hole to consummate teammate. Heck, even Troy Polamalu can look me in the eye now. And my new-found good buddy Terry Bradshaw just sent me a family photo, and I conveniently cut Terry out of the photo, leaving only his two daughters. They're big fans of mine; I'm an even bigger fan of theirs."

The Packers arrive as the NFC's No. 6 seed, having vanquished the Eagles, Falcons, and Bears, the conference's top three seeds, to reach Cowboys Stadium. Aaron Rodgers has led the way on offense, with 6 passing touchdowns and two rushing scores, while the Packers defense has forced 8 turnovers, including 2 interceptions returned for scores.

"Even our nose tackle got in on the interception action," said Rodgers. "B.J. Raji is deceptively fast, and can cover ground in other ways than by just laying on it. And the B.J. Raji celebratory dance is sweeping the nation. Hell, I even heard Roethlisberger and Brett Favre couldn't wait to come to Green Bay and volunteer for a 'B.J.' class.

"And speaking of Roethlisberger and Favre, it's interesting that the two quarterbacks I'm being measured against have found trouble because of their penises. Me? I'd simply rather be just hung, than 'hung in effigy.' There's only one chick I've ever been alone in a bathroom with. Her name is 'Angel Soft,' and unlike Big Ben, she is a roll model.

"But I understand that without a Super Bowl victory, I'll have no legacy to speak of. Favre won Super Bowl XXXI and collected three Most Valuable Player awards. Roethlisberger was the 2004 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year, and has two Super Bowl championships, among many other honors. I don't have a single award to my name. I've never been accused of 'reap.'"

What will be the keys to victory on Sunday? Quarterback protection? If the Super Bowl QBs were the statuesque (meaning as mobile as a statue) Brett Favre and Joe Flacco, then protection might be an issue. However, Rodgers and Roethlisberger are two of the most elusive non-black QBs in the game.

Sure, they will be sacked, but the game will be won by the QB who can make the most impactful plays on the run after escaping the rush.

The Steelers win the toss, and immediately march down the field, as Roethlisberger picks apart a Packers secondary that seems nervous and tight, just the way he likes them. On third and goal from the six-yard line, Roethlisberger, chased out of the pocket by Clay Matthews, finds Hines Ward for the touchdown, but not before complimenting Matthews on his hair, which smells of daffodils and mace. It's Steelers 7-0 early in the first quarter, and head coach Mike McCarthy can only grumble, "What the hell's going on out here?!"

The Packers, unlike Favre, respond quickly, and are soon in Pittsburgh territory. On second and ten from the Steeler 35, Rodgers improbably avoids a Polamalu blitz, ducks under James Harrison's helmet, frees himself from the clutches of Brett Keisel's beard, and finds Greg Jennings wide open across the middle. Jennings strolls in for the score, and the game is tied.

The defenses settle down, and halftime arrives with the Steelers clinging to a 13-10 lead, and as the teams head to their locker rooms, an anticipatory buzz permeates the stadium, although it's not clear whether it's real or piped in for the arrival of the Black Eyed Peas. But before the BEPs take the field, their opening act, the "PEDs," fronted by Texans linebacker Brian Cushing, warms up the apathetic crowd with their signature hit "Supplement Funkadelic," which sounds curiously like a public service announcement mandated by the terms of a suspension.

The Peas hit the stage, and, like all of the other Super Bowl halftime acts before them, they don't disappoint. Why? Because all the acts are anticlimactic. But, nevertheless, the Peas try. They break into an updated version of "Boom Boom Pow," the lyrics of which chronicle big-hitting Steeler linebacker Harrison's trials with illegal hits this year. Then, Rashard Mendenhall joins the BEP's to belt out the lyrics to "Dry Humps," then mounts Will.i.am. Next, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith lip syncs along in a Black Eyed Plea to Roger Goodell about the 2011 season with 'Let's Get it Started.' With the crowd in a mild state of entertainment, Terrell Owens assumes the mike, and, with the BEPs backing him, kills with "Imma Byatch." Finally, the Peas exit to the biggest cheers of the night when they announce that Motörhead will headline the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show next year in Indianapolis.

With the field cleared of all non-essentials, the game resumes, and after Rodgers sneaks it in for a touchdown, Green Bay leads 24-20 with 2:06 remaining. Cameras catch a calm Roethlisberger joking with tight end Heath Miller that "Sebastian Janikowski was good at sneaking it in, too." Big Ben rallies his troops, and gives a rousing sideline speech in which he urges everyone except Mendenhall to "get on his back."

The Steelers advance into Packers territory, and, with 26 seconds left, Roethlisberger connects with Emmanuel Sanders, open after Charles Woodson slips, for the game-winning score.

Steelers win, 27-24. Back in Pittsburgh, Steelers fans take to the street in droves, and give Egyptian protesters a lesson in mob mentality.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 6:30 PM | Comments (0)

Tourney Expansion: Is Bigger Better?

As the greatest four days in sports approaches (what used to be known as the first and second round of the NCAA college basketball tournament), college basketball fans will have to get used to a slightly larger warm up act on Tuesday and Wednesday as the field is now officially expanded from 65 to 68.

I was never a fan of expanding past 64, but one extra game to see who could lose to the top ranked team in the country seemed harmless enough. But now one has to wonder if the floodgates are being opened a little too wide. Expanding to 68 retains a bit of harmlessness. But there are some serious issues in my mind.

Firstly, the expansion is not helpful to small, non-power programs. It is only helpful to power-conference teams who underachieved, but now have a chance for redemption.

The extra at-large bids are not going to be given to teams like Belmont in the Atlantic Sun Conference. Belmont is currently 20-4, 12-1 in the conference. Hot on their trail is East Tennessee State, who is 15-8, 10-2 in the conference. Let's say Belmont ends the regular season 26-5, but doesn't win their conference tournament. Do you think they're going to get an invitation over say Penn St. who may finish their regular season 18-11 or 17-12? I doubt it.

This expansion extends the bubble lower and includes teams that ought not to be included. Now I'm not saying that Belmont could undoubtedly beat Penn St. if they were to play, but those invited to the tournament need to do something during the regular season to earn their invitation. Teams in less powerful conferences who only lose a handful of games have done their job. Teams in more powerful conferences that have lost twelve or more games haven't done their job.

Secondly, this expansion makes it even more difficult for small programs to pull off upsets.

As you undoubtedly know, a 16 seed has never beaten a No. 1 seed. However, 2 seeds have fallen to 15 seeds. Even last year, a No. 2, Villanova, had to scrape to fight off a No. 15, Robert Morris (only to lose to a No. 10, St. Mary's, two days later).

If the 68 team field had existed last year, would Robert Morris even have had the chance to play Villanova? Or would have they been demoted to a No. 16 playing a No. 17 for a chance to face a slightly better opponent?

I don't think anybody can honestly say that they would rather see Penn State the 14 seed upset Missouri the 3 seed than Belmont the 14 seed upset Missouri the 3 seed, even if it destroys your bracket.

People love upsets, near upsets, buzzer-beaters, etc. It is what makes the tournament great. Those moments are more enjoyable in my opinion when they come from a school that seldom gets to the tournament, but is looking to make the most of their opportunity in the short time they have. We love to see Goliath fall down. We love to see Cinderella come to life. Why would we want more Goliaths who are nothing but pretenders?

Beyond that, the first round games are being played on Tuesday and Wednesday, March 15-16 in Dayton, Ohio. The four winners of those games will then have to travel to places like Tampa, Tucson, Denver, and Tulsa. Perhaps they may stay in the state and head up to Cleveland, but adding an extra game two days before facing a No. 1 seed is bad enough even if you played in the same arena. Now they're going to have to travel on their one day of rest.

Why are we stacking the deck further against the 16 seeds? I honestly thought that at some point in my lifetime, I would see a 16 knock off a one. If the current system stays, I don't think that will ever happen.

Thirdly, this expansion may pave the way for further expansion.

The reason expansion of the tournament may continue is pretty simple, money. More games, more television, more advertising, more money. The danger is that through expansion, fans like myself, who consider the NCAA tournament to be the greatest sports event of the year, will lose interest, and perhaps not have any interest at all in the opening round. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see Cinderella beat up Cinderella.

This year we have 68. Why not add another four and bump it up to 72, making potential 15s and 16s play an extra game? Why stop there? Why not continually add four more until you reach 96, giving anybody with a one through eight seed a first round bye. Hell, why even stop there? Why not just double the field and have one seeds play 32 seeds. Doesn't 128 teams in the field sound great?

How long must this go on before we just turn the entire college basketball season into one giant tournament?

Finally, this expansion makes the season less meaningful.

As I mentioned before, teams with 12 losses that make the tournament make me shake my head. How many losses are we going to see this year's bubble teams have, 14 or 15? I hope not, but any further expansion will showcase those numbers rather quickly. Teams that manage to stay above .500 don't simply deserve an invitation. A team's performance in the regular season needs to retain some semblance of meaning.

If further expansion does occur, I think certain steps need to be taken to ensure big name conferences don't suck up every single at-large bid. Unfortunately, putting a cap on how many teams from each conference can get into the tournament will be rather difficult considering the Big East has 16 teams while the Great West has seven teams.

If the tournament were to spread to 96 teams, a two team minimum per conference might be in order. I think every conference regular season champion and conference tournament champion would need an invitation. If the same team managed both feats, perhaps that could open an at-large bid slot, but not necessarily.

The lack of consistency in the system drives me crazy. Why can't the maximum or minimum number in a conference be a little closer together than seven and 16? I'm not saying we need to add another team to the Ivy League or anything, but can't we agree on between eight and 12? Perhaps one must get in, two must not get in for each?

If expansion continues, those inconsistencies will need to be addressed so that the dream of Cinderella can stay alive.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 4:53 PM | Comments (0)

February 2, 2011

The Prequel to Super Bowl XLV

As week two of the Super Bowl Media Crunch cranks out one story or subplot after another to continue to hype up this game, there is one angle that cannot be overlooked or understated. The last time these two teams played was the best game I can remember in a long time.

It's hard to believe now, but just a year ago, while the 9-4 Packers were red-hot in mid-December, much the way they were this year, the mighty Steelers were 6-7 coming into the home stretch. They were coming off five consecutive losses (while Green Bay had just reeled off five straight wins), all of them by a touchdown or less. Two of the losses came in overtime, while a third came from surrendering the winning touchdown pass from 11 yards out with just nine seconds left. While the Packers were very much alive for the wild card (the Brett Favre-led Vikings were dominating the NFC North), Pittsburgh was seeing its season slip away and needed a win to salvage it.

And so a high-scoring slugfest of epic proportions ensued at Heinz Field in which defense was little more than an abstract concept. Ben Roethlisberger made it clear this would be a long night for the then-maligned defense of the Packers with a 60-yard TD pass to then-rookie Mike Wallace on the Steelers' first offensive play of the game. Rodgers would answer just four minutes later with an 83-yard bomb to Greg Jennings, which involved spinning away from a questionable-at-best attempt (again, abstract concept) by Tyrone Carter for a tying score.

The Steelers had a reply to that with a more conventional touchdown drive later in the quarter. When Green Bay tied it in the second quarter, Pittsburgh retook the lead with another touchdown drive right before the half and led 21-14 at halftime. A quiet third quarter that only saw a Pittsburgh field goal set the stage for a truly wild and thrilling fourth.

Only a minute and a half in, Rodgers found Jermichael Finley with an 11-yard touchdown pass to cut the lead to 3. (Luckily in next Sunday's game, Pittsburgh will not have to worry about Finley, who is on injured reserve.) The Steelers would have to settle for a field goal on their ensuing drive, which led to the Pack finally catching and passing them on a 24-yard touchdown run from Ryan Grant (also on injured reserve, as James Starks fills those shoes now). A 58-yard bomb to Hines Ward set up another field goal for the Steelers gave them the lead back at 30-28. The play that followed turned the game from entertaining to bizarre.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin, a coach with a Super Bowl ring, mind you, made the highly questionable decision to try an onside kick with a lead. With four minutes left in the game. The decision appeared to backfire when the Steelers recovered it illegally before the ball went 10 yards, giving the Packers the ball at the Steeler 39. Less than two minutes later, Rodgers found James Jones with a 24-yard touchdown pass to re-take the lead. The two-point conversion made the score 36-30, Pack, with two minutes to go.

Perhaps Mike Tomlin decided to do what he did because he knew whoever had the ball last would win the game. Certainly Aaron Rodgers was capable of running a four-minute offense down the field to setup a winning field goal with no time left. Giving the Packers a short field meant they might score quickly and give the Steelers the last possession to win the game. Sure enough, this is how it played out.

The last possession was a two-minute drive that proved to be a tightrope act all the way to the end zone. The first series resulted in a 4th-and-7 which Roethlisberger survived by hitting Santonio Holmes (now gone to the Jets, breathe a sigh of relief, cheeseheads) in the open field for 32 yards to the Green Bay 46.

Then came a 1st-and-20 and an interception by Jarrett Bush to end the game ... except for the illegal contact flag against the Packers. Big Ben then faced a 3rd-and-15 in which he found a diving Heath Miller 20 yards later on the sideline, who made a full-extension, toe-tapping-the-sidelines catch usually not asked of tight ends. Big Ben was then sacked on the next play until another flag came down from the officials.

After all these trials and mishaps, there stood the Steelers on the Packer 19 with three seconds left. Why not throw to the rookie who started this game with a bang? Roethlisberger bought time in the pocket and then fired to the left corner of the end zone where rookie Mike Wallace was pinned against the sideline. Wallace went horizontal to make a spectacular catch while keeping his feet stapled to the green turf throughout. The extra point made the Steelers a winner in the only NFL game ever to have the wild final score of 37-36.

When all was said and done, Aaron Rodgers had 383 passing yards, while Roethlisberger with that final completion topped out at a ridiculous 503. Both QBs finished with 3 touchdowns and no interceptions. More importantly, the Steelers had managed to stay alive in the playoff hunt for the moment, although they would eventually miss out with a 9-7 record. The Packers would make the playoffs at 11-5 and lose a similarly entertaining 51-45 game to Arizona in the wild card round in overtime.

The 2009 Packers were a team that relied on Rodgers to cover up for a shaky-at-times defense and an offensive line made of finish-line tape most of the season. This year's version does not have either problem.

The Steelers are a healthier team than they were last year, as defensive stars Troy Polamalu and Aaron Smith are ready to go for the Super Bowl. Yet they are far from 100%, thanks to the broken bone in the ankle of starting center Maurkice Pouncey, suffered in the AFC Championship Game.

The odds are that this will not turn into the kind of slugfest seen a year ago with two solid, healthy, elite defenses taking the field, and more conservative game plans undoubtedly being drawn up on both sides. And while the Super Bowl never has seen an overtime game or a finish as wild as last year's thriller, it has been very good to us lately with seven unforgettably dramatic endings over the last 13 years. This is also about as even a matchup as any we've seen recently, so there's no reason to think it won't be another thriller.

The final score will not be as crazy as last time, but Super Bowl XLV should still be good to the last snap.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 6:19 PM | Comments (0)

Another Upside Down Down Under Championship

On Sunday, there were two major jokes. Okay, one joke, and one Djokovic. The joke was the National Football League's Pro Bowl. I'm not even sure why they have it anymore. It's not really an all-star game, as no one really tries. Watching it yesterday, I had to laugh. No player really gives it much effort, as no one wants to get hurt, and it has zero meaning. I actually think the NFL has instituted a "no tackle rule," along with the "laugh when you get intercepted" rule. If that isn't the case, then I can't explain why no one really tackled anyone, and why every quarterback on the AFC smiled when they got picked off as the NFC was running up 42 unanswered points in the first half.

Which is why tennis is my sport; every day is an all-star game. Sunday was no exception, as Novak Djokovic man-handled Andy Murray in straight sets, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. Djokovic took home his second Australian Open title, and his second major, as well. The media was hoping for another Roger Federer/Rafael Nadal final, but that was not to be this year, with Federer falling to Djokovic in the semis and Nadal leaving in the quarters at the hands of fellow Spaniard David Ferrer.

Andy Murray surprised everyone with his sweep into the semis and competitive but seemingly inevitable victory over Ferrer that put him in the final. The story, as most of the media wanted, was to be Nadal/Federer, with the prediction or at least the hope that if either was victorious, there was still a chance for tennis to see its first men's Grand Slam winner since Rod Laver in 1969.

Instead, the story changed to the drought of British champions going back 75 years, to the victories of Fred Perry as the last major tournaments won in singles by a man sporting the Union Jack. Not unlike the curse of the Bambino and the Boston Red Sox, Andy Murray looked to be the first to win one of the four majors and like the Red Sox finally break the losing streak for the Brits after 75 years. Djokovic was clearly in top form. His straight set drubbing of Federer in the semis all but foretold his championship.

Murray has always been one of the most inconsistent-consistent top five men's players. With speed to match some of the quickest on tour, and a game as big as Djokovic and even Andy Roddick, he has continued to hover just below the top three and has always been a contender on the hard and fast surfaces. Murray returned to the Australian Open championship this year, and is the only Brit in over 70 years to perform a similar feat. Murray has been to the river three times now, bowing in each of his three major final appearances.

Djokovic now stands as the lone man capable in 2011 of collecting tennis' grand slam — victories at the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and U.S. Open Championships. It seems unlikely, as clay is not known to be his best surface. Djokovic has been to at least the semifinals in all four majors, to include back-to-back appearances in the French semis, so a Grand Slam is not out of the question.

Meanwhile, Kim Clijsters captured her fourth overall major title, and her second consecutive major title relatively unnoticed. Since returning to the tour as a mother in 2009, Kim has managed to win back-to-back U.S. Open titles and now has added the Aussie Open to her trophy shelf. Looking more fit than ever, looking more relaxed yet focused then this writer has ever seen, she walked through the women's draw with a couple of competitive matches, but was never really tested until the final against Chinese top player Na Li. Na Li and Clijsters had just faced off in the tournament immediately preceding the Aussie, with Li taking it in two tough sets. Of note is that this is the first appearance in a major final for any Chinese tennis player.

For this writer, it was a good start to what appears to be a good season. Yes, Serena Williams was not there, and again the U.S. men did not make a great showing. Seeing Murray start the season well is encouraging, and barring injury, it looks like there will be a compelling story or two to write come the All England Lawn Tennis Championships in June.

I would be remiss, though, if I didn't make a comment on the fashion introduced on the courts at the 2011 Aussie Open. Often known as the launching point for each major brand's signature styles for the tennis year, this one, well, is a dud. The best I could describe it, on both the women's and men's sides is, well, colorfully ugly. The most prevalent color can only be termed putrid bright green, and it was featured not only in trim on most of the players outfits, but also in full on some, including the men, leaving some to look like a big, tennis-playing M&M.

Of course, Venus Williams was not exception, once again pushing the envelope in what she called the "illusion dress," a light blue, striped dress that barely covered both her front and back, paired with flesh color undergarments to make it seem as if she really wasn't wearing anything. While I have often admired the women's fashion introduced in the sport, and also enjoyed greatly the Fila provided wear on Bjorn Borg, Arthur Ashe, and Guillermo Vilas in the 1970s, I believe Venus and others have pushed the boundaries of fashion too far, and have lost sight of what tennis and sports fashion is supposed to be.

With that, it's now on to the U.S. winter tour, heading toward the next significant championship, the Sony Ericsson Championships in Miami in March. Hopefully by then, the only green will be that of the grass in the park surrounding the tennis stadium.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

February 1, 2011

A Tour Held Hostage

Sunday's conclusion of the Farmer's Insurance Open at Torrey Pines should have been a banner day for the PGA. Phil Mickelson posted four rounds under 70 on his home turf; Dustin Johnson, Nick Watney, Hunter Mahan, and Anthony Kim continued to build their young careers with top-10 finishes; and frequent contender Bubba Watson won the year's first high profile event. But instead, the day was ruled by one question:

How did Tiger Woods do?

This, of course, is not a purely new phenomenon. Tiger-obsessing has expanded ratings and prize pools for more than a decade. But like this? This is different.

Our collective fixation on Tiger Woods in the first 12 years of his career was a tribute to greatness. When he contended, we watched because, well, anything was possible. A sport which had been characterized by seas of plodding consistency surrounding islands of "pretty good" suddenly offered frequent mountain-top views of the unbelievable.

But now? Golf's post-Elin world offers far less possibility. Woods has only briefly brushed relevance (on the course) in the past 10 months. And a second Tiger question not only dominates the sport's conversation, but its evolution has rendered everything else irrelevant. Upon his comeback, we asked, "When will Tiger be Tiger again?" But a portfolio of 70-plus rounds and weekly mediocrity has shortened that question: "Will Tiger be Tiger again?"

And this is the PGA's curse. It is so inextricably linked with Woods that until he flashes the dominance from not-so-long-ago or it becomes clear that he never will, nothing else will matter.

But unlike most other sports, a golfer's greatness tends to fade much more gradually. When golfers end their careers, it is much different than the 40-year-old pitcher who retires in an injury-plagued spring training or Allen Iverson's forgettable few weeks in Memphis. Even the aged golfer with one eye on the Champions Tour is only four rounds away from being Jack Nicklaus at the 1986 Masters.

Now more than ever, the PGA Tour needs a successful Tiger Woods. Sure, in the past the tour's week-to-week success was tied to Woods' involvement. But during those periods, the meta-story was never in question. If Woods had a poor week, it had little impact on our expectations for the next tournament. And in the months after his leg injuries in 2008, at least everyone knew there would be no red-shirt Sundays or back-nine fist pumps.

But in 2011, every shot Woods takes counts toward something bigger. Every putt he lips out, every short iron he sticks within a few feet, and every wayward tee shot will be marked against his own personal par.

Until the PGA can emerge from Tiger Limbo, the weekly results of the field will pale in significance. Who cares who wins at Bay Hill or Doral if Woods' performance there gives us a clear sign of his near future trajectory?

Sports fans depend on context to understand what they are watching. This is a large explanation for the success of both professional and college football. In those seasons, there is no such thing as a meaningless regular season game (unless your team has already been precluded from reaching every season milestone it started with). In golf, audience size and intensity fluctuate wildly with context. Is this event a major or a regular tour stop? Do the world's best players tend to show up? Answer these questions, and you have a pretty good idea what the interest level will be.

Of course, over the past 13-plus years, "Is Tiger contending?" has been the biggest context-setter of all. But with Woods' impotent post-scandal performance, the pattern of negative answers to that question has opened the once ironclad reality of Woods' dominance to question. Will the past decade's greatest athlete never again hold that throne?

The PGA Tour with Peak Woods is a far different landscape than with the 2010 model. Until we know which Tiger inhabits the terrain before us, every stop on tour will be a referendum for our expectations.

Corrie Trouw is the founder of Pigskinology.com.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)

Herschel Walker, Hall of Famer

Over the weekend, Herschel Walker won his second professional mixed martial arts bout. Walker will never contend for a major belt, but he has approached MMA seriously and earned the respect of initially skeptical fans who thought he was pulling a publicity stunt. More to the point, Walker is in amazing shape for a 48-year-old man. This guy is a physical marvel, one of the most gifted athletes of his generation.

Walker is best known for his distinguished football career, and that's what I want to write about. But he's also a state champion sprinter (100 meters), a Tae Kwon Do black belt, an Olympic bobsledder, and 2-0 as a professional mixed martial artist. It's a rare résumé, and while plenty of athletes 60 or 70 years ago starred in multiple disciplines, Walker's success in different fields is almost unique among more recent competitors.

That's the background, but the real reason I'm here is to explain why Walker belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. First of all, let's be clear. Herschel Walker is not Jim Brown. He's not Walter Payton or Barry Sanders or O.J. Simpson. Baseball fans sometimes talk about the "Willie Mays Hall of Fame", the idea that the Hall of Fame only has players like Willie Mays and Lou Gehrig and Stan Musial. Well, the PFHOF isn't just Emmitt Smith and Payton and Sanders. It's also Thurman Thomas and Marcus Allen and Tony Dorsett and Larry Csonka. Walker fits in nicely with that second group.

Herschel Walker was a top-five running back every season from 1986-88, and top-10 from 89-94. That's nine years as one of the best in the business, which is terrific consistency at a position known for injuries and ups and downs. And in the late '80s, Walker was the best running back in football, with the possible exception of Eric Dickerson. Walker is underrated primarily for five reasons:

1. He was good at lots of things, not great at one. Walker was a very good ball-carrier. But he was an also an exceptional receiver, and he was one of the best kickoff returners of his generation. We tend to focus on the rushing, and he doesn't get enough attention for his other skills. Also, I'm not sure why, but he's not perceived as a great receiver, although he undoubtedly was. Walker had almost exactly as many receiving yards (4,859) as Roger Craig (4,911), and he had more receiving TDs (21-17). Walker had more career receiving yards than Thurman Thomas, Brian Westbrook, John L. Williams. He was a great receiver.

2. The Trade. During the 1989 season, the Minnesota Vikings made probably the most infamous sports trade since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth for cash. The Vikings gave Dallas six first- or second-round draft picks, which turned the Cowboys into contenders, and Walker's production in Minnesota — good, but not elite, and for just 2½ seasons — didn't justify that kind of value. The Trade caused some people to see Walker as a failure, but he was a very good player. He just wasn't that good.

3. Walker spent his prime in the USFL. Running backs peak early. They have the shortest average careers of any position in the NFL, and even the great ones are basically done within a year or two of turning 30. Walker spent his early 20s, when he should have been rushing for 1,400 yards a year in the NFL, rushing for 1,800 a year in the rival USFL. When people assess whether or not Walker was a great football player, most of them ignore those three years, when Walker was in his athletic prime.

4. Walker had a long, consistent career. A little like Marcus Allen, he spent a long time being good after he had fallen off the radar. People sort of forgot about him after 1990 or so, even though he was still a top-10 RB, and never really remembered because he wasn't Sanders or Smith or Thurman Thomas.

5. Walker's best season was cut short by the 1987 strike. This was Walker's first shot as a full-time starter in the NFL, and he was in fact the best RB in the league. But he missed four games due to the players' strike, so the numbers don't jump off the page, and most people don't remember '87 as a special season for Walker.

Those five points explain why Walker is underrated, but the truth behind them is why he was a great player — so great that he deserves a bust in Canton.

Receiving and Returning

How many running backs were better receivers than Herschel Walker? I mean real running backs, not guys like Larry Centers who never carried the ball, or like Charley Taylor, who switched to wide receiver after a couple seasons. I would say only two were definitely better: Marshall Faulk and Lenny Moore. There are others — Allen, Craig, Westbrook — who are about the same, but no one else obviously better.

The Vikings added returning to Walker's duties, and in 1989, he averaged 28.8 yards per kickoff return, returning one for a touchdown. His 22.0 average the next season doesn't look like anything special, but the NFL that year averaged just 19.1 yards on KRs, the 2nd-lowest rate in history ('91 was even worse). In reality, Walker's 22.0 average on 44 returns gave his team an extra 125 yards of field position compared to an average returner. It wasn't even one of his best returning seasons. In 1994, he had another KR TD (27.7 avg), and in '96, he averaged 28.9 yards per return, second-best in the NFL.

Altogether, Walker had over 8,000 rushing yards, about 5,000 each of receiving and returning. His combined 18,168 all-purpose yards rank eighth in NFL history.

1. Jerry Rice, 23,546
2. Brian Mitchell, 23,316
3. Walter Payton, 21,803
4. Emmitt Smith, 21,579
5. Tim Brown, 19,679
6. Marshall Faulk, 19,172
7. Barry Sanders, 18,308
8. Herschel Walker, 18,168
9. LaDainian Tomlinson, 17,727
10. Marcus Allen, 17,654

The only players ever with more than one season of 700 yards rushing and 700 yards receiving are Walker, Faulk, and Westbrook. Walker is the only one with 8,000 rushing yards and 4,000 return yards. He also has more career TDs (84) than any Hall-eligible RB except Ricky Watters (91) and O.J. Anderson (86). Maybe all this doesn't put Walker even with someone like Faulk or Sanders, but it probably puts him around the same level as Allen or Dorsett or Curtis Martin, a notch above the HOF-almosts like Craig and Anderson.

The Trade

The Trade ruined Walker's image. He was perceived as a failure afterwards, the bad end of a one-sided deal. The Cowboys needed help, and their only shoppable assets were Michael Irvin and Walker, so they solicited offers, and Minnesota thought Walker was the final piece of the puzzle. It was obvious to everyone that the Vikings overpaid for Walker, but that's the kind of star he looked like in early '89. People kind of forgot about him afterwards, but he remained a top-10 RB for years, averaging 1,200 yards from scrimmage from 1989-94 and developing into an elite returner.

The USFL Years

I believe Walker has a strong Hall of Fame case based solely on his time in the NFL. However, Canton hosts the Pro Football Hall of Fame, honoring not just the NFL, but also other professional leagues. Marion Motley had his best years in the AAFC, played only 4½ seasons in the NFL. Billy Shaw, a star with the AFL's Buffalo Bills, never played a down in the NFL.

Herschel Walker won the 1982 Heisman Trophy after finishing in the top three of voting both of the previous two years, and he is widely considered one of the greatest college football players in history. Turning pro after his junior year, Walker signed with the United States Football League, which aimed to provide legitimate competition for the NFL. Other USFL stars included Hall of Famers Jim Kelly, Reggie White, Steve Young, and Gary Zimmerman, as well as fellow Heisman winners Mike Rozier and Doug Flutie.

Walker dominated the USFL, rushing for an average of 1,852 yards per season, and he holds every significant USFL rushing record. He also was a dominant running back when he entered the NFL, keeping pace with Eric Dickerson in the late '80s and easily outdoing everyone else.

So we have someone who was a sensational college running back from 1980-82, and a top NFL running back beginning in 1986. It is logical to assume that he was also an exceptionally good RB in the interim, 1983-85, and his play in the USFL only reinforces this view. It seems to me that we can safely assume Walker was at least as good from 1983-85 as he was from 1986-88. If you give Walker six great seasons instead of just three, he enters the discussion of the 10 greatest running backs of all time. Borderline-top 10 is still not Barry/Emmitt territory, but it's Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell territory. Those guys are solid Hall of Famers.

When we evaluate Walker as a player, does it make more sense to ignore three seasons when he was in his athletic prime, or to consider them among his accomplishments?

Consistency

The only RBs who were rookies between 1985-87 and had any kind of careers were Neal Anderson, Dalton Hilliard, Kevin Mack, John L. Williams, and Walker. None of them did anything worth mentioning after 1991, except Walker, who continued to excel until 1995. At that time, he was 33. John L. Williams was 30. Walker's longevity and sustained productivity, including his USFL seasons, is almost unparalleled outside of Canton.

The Strike

Actually, let's start in 1986. That was Walker's first year in the NFL. Sharing backfield duties with future HOFer Tony Dorsett, Walker got just 151 carries, but he averaged 4.9 yards per attempt (best in the NFC). He also ranked among the league leaders in rushing TDs (4th) and receptions (9th), with more receiving yards (837) than rushing (737). How often does a player have a year like that, 7th in yards from scrimmage and top-5 in TDs?

By my estimation, even with his limited workload, Walker was the fifth-most productive RB in the NFL as a rookie. Of course, the Cowboys noticed this, and in '87 it was Dorsett getting part-time work. Walker was the best running back in the NFL that season. He lost all-pro honors because the voters didn't notice that Charles White skipped the strike, but Walker led the league in yards from scrimmage by over 100, rushing for 891 yards and catching 60 passes for 715 yards, in just 12 games. His 16-game pace was 1,188 rushing yards and 953 receiving yards.

Walker probably lost over 500 yards to the strike, and he might have gotten to 1,000 receiving, which would have gotten his season the attention it deserved. His most celebrated season is 1988, but he was better in '87 (projected totals below).

Are 326 rushing yards more valuable than 448 receiving yards and 4 TDs? I don't see that they are. Walker had a truly great season in 1987, but he's not recognized for it because the strike kept his numbers down, and because so much of his contribution came as a receiver. The hit to his career numbers doesn't help, either, but the real problem is that people don't remember Walker having great years, because he only has the big rushing stats in one season ('88). He was almost as good in '86, and in '87 he was better.

If we gave Walker his four games from the '87 strike, and assumed that from 1983-85 he would have exactly replicated his performances from 1986-88, his stats would make him a no-brainer, first-ballot Hall of Famer. In fact, he'd have basically the same numbers as Marshall Faulk, except with 5,000 return yards thrown in.

Conclusion

If a running back's only job was to take hand-offs, Walker would have been a good one. But he was also a phenomenal receiver and a gifted returner, with a strong peak and a long, steady career. If people didn't dismiss the USFL years or if they appreciated the enormity of Walker's receiving and returning contributions, he'd be a very strong Hall of Fame candidate. Considering both, he should be a cinch.

Canton is missing a bust — Walker should be in.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:00 AM | Comments (11)