Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« February 2011 | Main | April 2011 »

March 31, 2011

NBA Powerless Rankings: Draft Lottery Edition

With just over about two weeks remaining in the NBA season, you're likely finding yourself knee-deep in pointed, in-depth, and knowledgeable research in regards to the league's playoff race. Or rather, this is surely the case if you come to Sports Central for your NBA reading needs.

With this in mind, though, especially since I've always got our readers' best interests directly at heart, I've decided to put a spin on the regular reporting and instead utilize a special edition of my vaunted powerless rankings. You see, with not many games left to be played, these very same powerless rankings can essentially offer us a window into the NBA draft lottery sweepstakes, a window that you may have found yourself avoiding at all costs because you may have found it boring. 'Tis anything but boring, friend.

26) Sacramento Kings (21-52, 8.8% chance at receiving the No. 1 pick)

While the Kings would obviously do well with a higher pick, the fact that they need help in both the scoring and defensive areas likely means fans should be happy with what they get. At this point, it looks like the worst they could possibly do is a pick in the 5-7 range with the best possible scenario consisting of them dropping further down into 3-4 range. Cross your fingers, Kings fans!

27) Toronto Raptors (20-53, 11.9% chance at receiving the No. 1 pick)

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The Raptors are sorely in need of a young, franchise player who can turn public opinion back around in favor of the team. Ideally, this could very well be accomplished by the team dropping a bit further over the course of the next two weeks and nabbing the top 2011 draft spot. But as we all know, we do not live in a perfect world, no matter how fun it is to pretend sometimes.

28) Washington Wizards (18-55, 15.6% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick)

With so many talented young players already on board, the Wizards will likely go the best player on the board route. Then again, they could surprise everyone and deal their high pick for a veteran that can help meld the promising young talent in-ship. Hey, at least the future looks nice and bright for you Wizards fans still remaining. All twelve of you!

29) Minnesota Timberwolves (17-57, 19.9% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick)

Fortunately for Timberwolves fans, the team has some promising young studs in Kevin Love and Jonny Flynn. Even more fortunately, they're poised to have an extremely high draft pick to further their team building needs. Odds are they'll try and take a perimeter shooter or hybrid of the sort, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they decided to go with the best player on the board if they can manage to survive the lottery process and rake in a top two or three pick.

30) Cleveland Cavaliers (15-58, 25% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick)

It couldn't have gone much worse for the Cavs in the first year since LeBron James' departure. Fortunately for them, they're the odds-on favorite to win the coveted No. 1 pick in this years draft. While they most certainly won't get someone of James' caliber with the pick, it's at least the best possible outcome in the wake of such a depressing and frustrating season. Besides, James has clearly outed himself as a straight-up dick in the past year, so it's definitely for the better.

Posted by Josh Galligan at 2:59 PM | Comments (0)

Bonds: Hearsay and the Home Run King

The entire world knows that Barry Bonds took steroids. This assertion, of course, only includes human beings, but if we gave a chimpanzee enough time looking at the differences in hat size between Bonds' Pirates and Giants hats, I may be able to expand the list.

In 2003, the world already knew. Despite this glaring truth, 2003 marked the year when Bonds told a grand jury that he never knowingly took steroids. Seems like a strange decision given the fact that this grand jury testimony was taken under oath, subjecting Bonds to a potential perjury trial.

Fast forward to 2011 and that potential perjury trial is finally living out its potential. Unlike Bonds, it didn't need any performance enhancing supplements to do so. Rather, it took prosecutors seeking to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds lied when he said he was never knowingly injected with steroids. That should be easy enough, right? After all, even if there are enough people out there without the background information to stop them from being partial in their decision-making so that Bonds can get a fair jury, there are so many people who know Bonds was injected with steroids that the prosecution should never be short of witnesses. Once the jurors are convinced of his steroid use, the prosecution can simply put forward the testimony from the 2003 grand jury, let the jurors connect the dots, and head home victorious.

Bring on the Testimony

A simple starting point for the prosecution should be the man who trained Bonds. After all, the 2003 grand jury testimony from Bonds specifically had to do with a statement saying that Greg Anderson never injected him with steroids. So if Bonds is lying, Anderson must know the truth. Further, Anderson is legally required to testify, as the Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to testify only applies for self-incrimination. Unfortunately, it puts a real kink in this plan if Anderson simply refuses.

On July 5, 2006, Anderson was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify against Bonds at a grand jury proceeding investigating this perjury charge, but he was subsequently released upon expiration of the grand jury. On August 28, 2006, he was again found in contempt of court for refusing to testify, and he again sat in jail rather than spill the beans on Bonds. He was content to remain in jail until November 15, 2007, when a federal judge ordered his release.

Given Anderson's history, the prosecution may be better off looking elsewhere. After all, with a world population of roughly 6.8 billion people, someone must be able to convince the jurors of Bonds infidelity with the truth.

Not to be hindered by Anderson's refusal, the prosecution has turned to ... Steve Hoskins.

Steve Hoskins is Bonds' childhood friend and former business partner. More importantly, he saw Bonds and Anderson walk into a bedroom together while Anderson had a syringe. Damning evidence! Maybe ... it seems bad until the other side brings to light the fact that professional athletes get injected with all sorts of perfectly legal, perfectly rule-abiding substances. After all, Chase Utley has been receiving cortisone injections for the injury problems he's been having this spring, and I haven't heard anyone complain about that.

So all Hoskins can offer is that he witnessed Bonds and an athletic trainer walk into a bedroom with a syringe? Even if the testimony was better for the prosecution, and Anderson had been carrying a box with big letters on the side that said steroids, I'm still not sure they could get a conviction. I saw "My Cousin Vinny," if you don't see the crime occur, a defense lawyer is going to tear your story apart.

Meanwhile, the prosecution's idea to bolster the Hoskins testimony is more not-all-that-helpful testimony. Kimberly Bell, a former Bonds girlfriend (and playmate), testified to the fact that at a certain point, Bonds couldn't perform in all the manly ways he had early in their relationship. She'll also say he was angry and threatening. But last I heard, you don't go to jail for impotence and anger. This leaves only the testimony by Bell that Bonds blamed an elbow injury on steroid use and that other players were using steroids, a pretty sparse collection of evidence to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, considering Bell's possible biases (she wouldn't exactly be the first ex-lover to try and stick it to someone).

The Missing Link

What's missing in all of the prosecution's available testimony is Anderson, Bonds, or a fly on the wall's testimony saying Anderson injected Bonds with what Bonds knew to be steroids. Alternatively, Anderson, Bonds, or a fly on the wall could simply corroborate existing steroid-positive blood and urine samples as having come from Bonds.

The good news: James Valente, former BALCO Vice President, can bridge the gap between Anderson's mouth and the jurors' ears! Anderson told Valente (according to Valente's own prior testimony) that certain steroid-positive blood and urine samples came from Bonds.

The bad news: the jurors will never get to hear it. In 2009, a federal judge ruled Valente's prior testimony as inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the statement. The statement by Anderson testified to by Valente would be submitted for the sake of proving its truth: the steroid-positive blood and urine samples come from Bonds.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the laws governing what can and cannot be shown to the jury, Congress has decided that hearsay evidence, barring certain exceptions, is not reliable enough to be shown to a jury. Therefore, the evidence is kept out. In ruling Valente's prior testimony as inadmissible hearsay, the federal judge decided the testimony did not fit any acceptable exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the jury will never see it.*

*In addition to testifying about circumstantial evidence, Kimberly Bell provided testimony that Bonds blamed an elbow injury on steroid use. This provides a nice example of an admissible out of court statement presented to prove the matter asserted. In contrast to Valente's potential testimony regarding a statement by Anderson, not a party to the trial, Bell saying Bonds blamed steroid use for the elbow injury regards an admission — the use of steroids — by a party to the trial. Party admissions are not defined as hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)), so the jurors can hear the statement.

The End Result

In order to get a perjury conviction, the prosecutors for Bonds are going to have to keep parading evidence of Bonds' anger, impotence, and associations. So long as Anderson is content to sit in jail and Bonds continues to plead the Fifth, there is no indication that any conclusive evidence can come before the jury. Given current hearsay rules, Bonds has a legitimate shot of beating a perjury charge for which the whole world knows he's guilty. While he may never be widely beloved, he may very well at least be a free man. I don't know about you, but to me that certainly feels like something for him to hang his (oversized) hat on. Oh right, he's also the home run king.

Posted by Charles Coughlin at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2011

Legends From the Past: Henri Cochet

Henri Jean Cochet was born in Lyon, France on December 14, 1901, the city where he would see his first taste of tennis due to his father working as a secretary at the local club. Cochet would attend the club and be a ball boy on a regular basis, thus earning himself the nickname "The Ball Boy of Lyon." On the very same courts that he acted as a ball boy, he practiced to improve his own game and in 1921, he set off to Paris to enter a tournament where he met and beat Jean Borotra in the final.

Les Quatre Mousquetaires

Thanks to such fine performances, the two of them were selected for the French Davis Cup team the following year, where they became friends with both René Lacoste and Jacques Brugnon, these four Frenchmen would come to be known as Les Quatre Mousquetaires ("The Four Musketeers"). They were all part of many Davis Cup winning teams for the French as they won the prestigious event six straight times between 1927 and 1932. Given this team achievement and all of their individual triumphs, they were all inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1976.

Henri Cochet's Achievements

Cochet's individual accolades were also plentiful. He has seven grand slam victories to his name; four of which occurred on home soil in the French Championships, two took place in London at Wimbledon, and his final major triumph took place at the U.S. Championships. Besides his major individual victories, he also won eight doubles grand slams.

It was at the U.S. Championships where he shot to international fame when he toppled six-time reigning champion and legend of the sport, Bill Tilden, in the 1926 quarterfinals. Regardless of this victory, it would pale in comparison to what he would achieve one year later at Wimbledon.

Wimbledon, 1927

When Cochet arrived in London for the championships, he would’ve had little idea of the legacy he would leave behind for himself. It all began in the quarterfinals when he was trailing by two sets to future Hall of Famer Francis Hunter, and yet the No. 4 seed Cochet would manage to rally back and claim the last three sets and run out the victor, 3-6, 3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4.

Then, in the semis, he would once again slay Bill Tilden, but this time it was in a more heroic fashion as he was two sets down, yet again, and 3 points away from being ousted. However, Cochet dug deep and somehow won the next 17 points and from there, he went on the achieve the seemingly impossible, or at least the highly improbable, the final score being 3-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-0, 6-3.

The small Frenchmen (5'6" and 145 lbs) had been overpowered by Tilden in the first two sets and trailed 5-1 in the third set, but a new Cochet come to the fore and he began to take risks and hit the ball early in order to overcome his adversary, the world No. 1 at the time and widely considered the best player ever by his contemporaries. In many ways, this match could've been seen as a changing of the guard considering Cochet would go onto occupy the world No. 1 spot from 1928-30.

After having battled his way to the final, one would suspect that he would be troubled by fatigue, and he may well have been has he struggled early on and fell behind by two sets. By this time, however, it had surely become common ground for the French battler. Jean Borotra, Cochet's opponent, even had 6 match points, but Cochet repelled them all and eventually went onto win, 4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 7-5. Cochet was the last person to win a Wimbledon final after being two sets down. It's little wonder that the International Tennis Hall of Fame has affectionately named him Henri Houdini.

This is the first article in what will hopefully be a series of articles on past players. Want more stories like this? Let us know in the comments.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 2:19 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 5

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kyle Busch — Busch led 151 of 200 laps at Fontana, but couldn't hold off the late charges of Jimmie Johnson and Kevin Harvick. Johnson passed Busch with two laps to go, while Harvick slid by the No. 18 Toyota a lap later. Busch finished third, narrowly missing another weekend sweep after taking the Nationwide and Sprint Cup races at Bristol a week earlier.

"I'm disappointed we didn't win," Busch said, "but I can't complain about a finish. Nor can Denny Hamlin, because he didn't have one to complain about. I'll send Denny my condolences via Federal Express, to his new address at the corner of Start and Park. But it's concerning when engine woes become engine 'whoas.' Apparently, the engine shop has some bugs to work out. Fans of AMC's infamous 1970s subcompact car will be thrilled to hear this, but it seems that Toyota is now making Gremlins.

"I led ¾ of Sunday's race, so, for 151 laps, I did what everyone expects of Kyle Busch, and that's to 'show my behind.' That's called giving the rest of the field a view of the 'tail end of the lap leader.'"

2. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished sixth in the Auto Club 400, posting his fourth top-10 result of the year. It was a solid finish for Edwards, albeit a disappointing one at a track on which he's consistently been competitive, and gave him the lead in the Sprint Cup point standings. Edwards leads Ryan Newman by 9 points.

"Kevin Harvick wasted no time in passing Jimmie Johnson," Edwards said. "I hear they're calling it 'The Pass.' And they're calling my failure to overtake Kyle Busch at Bristol 'The Passive.'

"I still regret not pushing Kyle a little harder at Bristol. Next time, I won't 'beat around the Busch.' I've learned a hard lesson in complacence. Next time, when Carl Edwards 'sees' an opportunity, Carl Edwards will 'seize' that opportunity."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson overtook Kyle Busch on lap 199 in the Auto Club 500, only to see Kevin Harvick slip by on the final turn, stealing the win from Johnson, who had won five times previously at Fontana. Johnson's runner-up finish advanced him two spots in the Sprint Cup point standings to fifth, 14 points behind Carl Edwards.

"I guess Jimmy John's does deliver," Johnson said, "because I got 'served' by Kevin Harvick in the No. 29 Jimmy John's Chevy. Harvick gave me something to think about, so I guess that makes it 'food for thought.' I wonder if he accepts tips. If he does, I've got one for him: It happens, but it won't happen again.

"But does a last-lap pass make Harvick a contender for the Cup? Not in my eyes. I've got five Cup titles propping me up. My lovely wife has one 'ring' finger; I've got five. My three biggest rivals, Harvick, Kyle Busch, and Carl Edwards, have none. So, until something changes, I'm playing 'ring around the posers.' If they want to prove something to me, then they should improve.

But I've got the field right where I want them. I'm fifth in the standings, and you know how my competitors hate to hear the words 'fifth' and 'Jimmie Johnson' used together."

4. Kevin Harvick — In fifth with nine laps remaining, Harvick blasted to the front in the final two laps, gaining Jimmie Johnson's bumper before sling-shotting by the No. 48 in turn 4. Harvick posted his first win of the year, beating Johnson by a .144 margin.

"I hope this win reaffirms my commitment to dethroning the five-time defending champion," Harvick said. "I'd like to think I'm seen as a legitimate threat, and I hope that when the No. 29 Chevrolet with 'Jimmy John's' on the hood appeared in Jimmie Johnson's rearview mirror, he saw a little bit of 'himself' out there."

5. Ryan Newman — Newman finished fifth at Fontana, posting his third top-five and fourth top-10 result of the year, as the Stewart-Haas Racing duo was again strong. Teammate Tony Stewart finished 13th after spending much of the day in the top 10. Newman moved up two spots to second in the point standings, and trails Carl Edwards by only 9.

"I think Stewart-Haas may be the strongest team in NASCAR right now," Newman said. "Tony and I are talented drivers, and we're not afraid to say or do whatever necessary to get our point across. You could say Tony and I have and make a formidable pair. And my engineering degree from Purdue University makes me the 'dynamic' of the 'dynamic duo.' As for Tony, he adamantly disavows any accusations that he's ever matriculated in his life."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch started 23rd in the Auto Club 500 and gained little ground throughout the duration of the race. The No. 22 Dodge, bearing Auto Club sponsorship, started tight, and the "Double Deuce" never found a remedy despite multiple adjustments. Busch fell from the lead in the point standings to third, ten points behind Carl Edwards.

"We were stuck in the middle of the pack all day," Busch said. "Had we been sporting our usual sponsors and paint schemes, it would have been fitting to call us 'Shell stationary.'

"But leads in the point standings this early in the season can be fleeting. Of all people, I should know. As a veteran of cosmetic surgery, I can tell you that some things are 'ear today and gone tomorrow.' And that's no joke. Trust me, I know importance of being earnest. However, I don't know the importance of being ear-less, but I do know the importance of having less ear."

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart ran among the leaders all day at Fontana, chasing front-runner Kyle Busch, who led 151 laps, for much of the race. However, after the final restart, Stewart's No. 14 Office Depot Chevrolet faded, and he finished a disappointing 13th. He dropped two spots in the point standings to sixth, 17 out of first.

"We've been fast all year," Stewart said. "We've led laps, and we've made the right pit calls. We've done everything but win. Someone once said, or some someone once misquoted me in Rolling Stone as saying, "Racing is a lot like a visit to the massage parlor — it's a lot better when there's a happy ending."

8. Paul Menard — Menard scrambled to a 16th-place finish in the Auto Club 400, with tight handling conditions spoiling his chances for a result in the top 10. Menard's No. 27 Serta/Menard's Chevrolet stood in ninth for a restart with about 25 laps remaining, but quickly dropped to 16th as the handling deserted him. He fell further back before the race's last restart.

"Despite a lackluster finish," Menard said, "I'm still proud of my position in the Sprint Cup point standings. I don't think anyone expected me to be seventh in the points after five races. And, with Serta sponsorship on my car, you could say I'm a real 'sleeper.' Apparently, it was enough to wake up my RCR teammates, who've been sleeping on the job."

9. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished fourth in the Auto Club 400, registering his second top-five result of the year. He's charged back from a slow start to the season with two consecutive fourth-place finishes, and is now 10th in the point standings, 30 out of first.

"Carl Edwards has assumed the Sprint Cup points lead," Kenseth said. "He's become the unquestioned leader of Roush Fenway Racing, but that doesn't mean his teammates like it. I like to say he's the 'face' and the 'ass' of Roush Fenway.

"Now, as NASCAR's unofficial spokesman for bland and boring, and the lead singer of the Mötley Crüe cover band 'Mätt-ley Crüe, a band known for the hit 'Mild Side,' I'm compelled to comment on Sunday's race. It was 197 laps of low drama, followed by three laps of melodrama. For the first 197 laps, the Auto Club 400 should have been called the 'Auto Pilot 400.'"

10. Kasey Kahne — Kahne posted his third top-10 finish of the year with a ninth at Fontana, backing up an identical ninth at Bristol a week earlier. After a 25th at Daytona, Kahne hasn't finished outside the top 15, and is now 11th in the points, 30 out of first.

"I guess it's true what they say," Kahne said. "Red Bull does give you wings, because I'll be taking flight from Red Bull to Hendrick Motorsports at season's end. It's common knowledge that when I sign a contract, it's often scored by the sound of the Beatles 'Hello Goodbye' playing in the background."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2011

Final Four: College Hoops Truly Gone Mad

When I received the assignment to write a college basketball article for this week, my head started to spin. How do you pick just one thing to write about when you not only have the most unlikely Final Four in the modern tournament era (since 1980), but you have the annual coaching carousel spinning at frantic speed?

Butler and VCU playing for a shot at the title. Mike Anderson ditching Missouri like a guy dumping his wife for his old high school girlfriend. One of John Calipari's best coaching jobs — ever. Tennessee's curious hire of Cuonzo Martin from Missouri State. Arizona missing a wide-open three for a shot at the Final Four in Sean Miller's second year.

I mean, how the heck do you pick just one?

You don't.

Virginia is for Lovers. And shooters. By now you've read that only two of 5.9 million brackets in ESPN's Tournament Challenge had the Final Four correct. The primary reason is very few people were tempted to take "play-in winner" all the way through a bracket that contained Georgetown, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Kansas. But thanks to Jay Bilas' overreacting to VCU's inclusion into the field like it was some kind of affront to all that is holy and decent, Shaka Smart's crew has played with a chip the size of Kansas on their shoulders.

I'm sure you'll hear the word parity more than a few times this week, but that's not what this is about. The real lesson of VCU's run is that that you can do anything — as long as you are hot from three. In their five wins over USC, Georgetown, Purdue, Florida State, and Kansas, VCU is 53-of-121 from long-range. That's 44% for a team that shot 36% on the season. When you average 24 attempts from three per game in the tournament, you better hit them. Virginia Commonwealth has, and that's why they're headed to Houston.

Self Destruction

The other side of the VCU glory is that a Bill Self-coached team under-performed yet again. In his 13 seasons as a head coach in the NCAA tournament (two with Tulsa, three with Illinois, and now eight with KU), Self's teams have failed to live up to their seeding seven times, including five of the past seven years with the Jayhawks. I know he gets a grace period for winning the title in 2008, but his serial failure to meet expectations in the tournament has to be of serious concern in Lawrence.

To put it in some context, I broke down several of the coaches in this year's tournament as it related to their performance compared to their seeding, assigning a point value for each game a team either exceeded or failed to meet their seed line. For example, if you're a nine-seed or lower, you are expected to lose in the first round. Any game you win is +1 per win. Conversely, if you are a one-seed, you are expected to get to the Final Four. If you win the title (two wins past the Final Four), that's +2; if you lose in the Elite 8, that's -1.

In his 13 tournaments, Self is -5. Self's predecessor, Roy Williams, is only slightly better at -4 in 21 career tournaments, but it's worth noting Williams is actually +2 since moving to North Carolina. It's also worth noting Williams has seven Final Fours to his credit, while Self still has just the one.

A few other notables: Michigan State's Tom Izzo is tops with 12 points in 14 tournaments. Jim Calhoun is +5 in 22 tournaments with a chance at two more if he wins his third title. Mike Krzyzewski is -2 in 27 tournaments, made even more shocking by the fact he was at +10 after back-to-back titles in 1991 and 1992. Calipari, a notorious tournament underachiever, is a career -4 in 13 tournaments and that includes a +2 already this year.

Butler's Brad Stevens is off to a great start at +7 in four seasons with the Bulldogs. Arizona's Miller is +4 in five tournaments with Xavier and Arizona. Rick Pitino is +3 in 16 tournaments with Boston University, Providence College, Kentucky, and Louisville. And for all the accolades about what a great guy he is, Pittsburgh's Jamie Dixon is now -6 after his top-seeded Panthers suffered one of the dumbest losses in NCAA tournament history to Butler in the second round. (Seriously. Take your guys off the lane. There's no reason for them to be there. NO REASON!)

Show Me Your Resume

Sticking with head coaches, former Missouri head man Mike Anderson took his talents Fayetteville, leaving Mizzou officials searching for a replacement. There's no point in lamenting Anderson's move. Sure, it was messy, what with his agent playing both schools against each other and leaving everybody hanging for a week or so, but that's business. Anderson spent 17 years with the Hogs under Nolan Richardson, so one can hardly blame him for wanting to return home and attempt to return the program to its glory days.

As for Missouri, current speculation surrounds Purdue coach Matt Painter, who will reportedly meet with Missouri athletic director Mike Alden about the position. Personally, I have a hard time buying it. Painter is a Purdue guy, and there's nothing to suggest that Missouri and the diminished Big 12 would offer any kind of step up from Purdue and the expanded Big 10. This has all the makings of a play on the part of Painter's representation to push his current administration into a making a commitment, both in salary and in facilities for the program. Then again, if Purdue officials are dumb enough to let Painter walk, Missouri fans should rejoice — Painter is a huge step up from Anderson.

If Missouri can't land Painter, there's a pretty big drop to the next tier of candidates. With openings remaining at Oklahoma and NC State, Mizzou is not the only (or necessarily best) job on the market. And with Richmond's Chris Mooney signing a 10-year extension, Butler's Stevens locked in with the Bulldogs (signed through 2022), and Buzz Williams likely staying at Marquette (according to reports by ESPN's Andy Katz), the "big fish" talent pool is basically down to VCU's Shaka Smart, who has never worked west of Ohio. If Smart does jump (he's losing Jamie Skeen, Joey Rodriguez, and Brandon Rozzell, so now might be the time), my money is on NC State.

So where will that leave Mizzou? I'd love to see them take a look at Billy Kennedy from Murray State. Kennedy has won the Ohio Valley Coach of the Year Award each of the past two seasons, racking up a combined 54-14 record (31-5 in the OVC). In the 2010 NCAA tournament, the Racers beat four-seed Vanderbilt, then fell by just 2 to eventual runners-up Butler. Kennedy has experience in the midwest and southwest with assistant stints at Creighton and Texas A&M, and we know he'd be willing to move after he interviewed last March for the Auburn job that eventually went to UTEP's Tony Barbee.

A Few Quick Hitters

* Like all Arizona alums, I was super bummed about their loss to Connecticut in the Elite Eight. There was a split second when Jamelle Horne's three was in the air when I thought Arizona was going to the Final Four, but then the ball bounced off the rim and UConn was cutting down the nets. But once you get over the sting of defeat, you have to love where Miller has this program just two years removed from potential armageddon in the slow and messy transition out of the Lute Olson era. The Wildcats do lose the senior Horne off this team, and Derrick Williams' likely departure to the NBA will be a huge loss, but they return everybody else and add a monster recruiting class ranked eighth in the nation by ESPN. The future is very bright.

* I mentioned I thought this year's Kentucky team was Calipari's best coaching job ever, and much of that has to do with center Josh Harrellson. Putting together all-star teams of recruits is a testament to Calipari's recruiting prowess, but once highly-touted recruit Enes Kanter was declared ineligible, Calipari had to use his coaching chops to get the most out of Harrellson, who scored all of 28 points last year. Harrellson's development this year proves that the coaching skill that helped Calipari build winners at Massachusetts and Memphis hasn't disappeared just because he lands the best recruits year in and year out. Plus, it's not exactly a cake walk getting a bunch of freshmen to play like vets year after year.

* Former Calipari assistant Josh Pastner is going to have a monster team next season at Memphis if everybody comes back. The Tigers played out of control a lot, but I don't think I saw a more athletic team all season. If I'm a rival coach in Conference USA, I'm terrified of what Pastner is bringing next year. And I'm willing to bet big money that after Memphis goes on an NCAA tournament run next season, Pastner becomes a huge name in the 2012 coaching carousel.

* Jay Bilas is a smart guy and he knows his hoops, but nobody looked worse on Selection Sunday than Bilas for putting down VCU. It's one thing to argue for another team or disagree with the selection, but to denigrate a bunch of kids just to make your point is just a jerk move. (And it would have been just as bad had VCU lost the "first round" game to USC. It just makes Bilas look like more of an ass because they made the Final Four after supposedly not even passing the "laugh test.")

* Here's hoping Michigan's John Beilien keeps his team intact and makes another run in 2012. That was a fun team to watch.

* Former Missouri State coach Cuonzo Martin has been hired by Tennessee, which is odd considering the only real success of Martin's three-year tenure at Missouri State is riding Barry Hinson's final recruiting class to the 2011 MVC regular season title and the second round of the NIT. How exactly is that a resume worth an SEC job? This feels like a panic hire in the face of an uncertain future with the NCAA's hammer still hanging over the program.

* I wonder how the ratings for this year's Final Four will compare to past seasons. VCU/Butler is a good story and should be a entertaining game, but it's a Bracketbusters matchup, not a traditional power vs. power Final Four game. I'm guessing CBS execs are rooting for a Kentucky/Butler final. I'm going Connecticut/Butler, with Calhoun taking home his third national championship to Storrs.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 8:02 PM | Comments (2)

Cal Ripken, Ten Years Later

Cal Ripken Jr. played 21 seasons in the major leagues. Well, really, just one major league: the American League. And he only played for one team, the Baltimore Orioles. The Orioles were his home team. Ripken was born in Havre De Grace, Maryland, less than an hour from Baltimore. His father spent 36 years in the Orioles organization; his brother Billy played for the Orioles.

It's easy to root for a guy like that: a hometown kid made good. He was a shortstop, and a good one. He was a terrific hitter. He broke Lou Gehrig's unbreakable streak of consecutive games played. The 2001 season was like a retirement tour for Ripken; a decade past his prime, he was cheered in every stadium. A 19-time all-star, he is easily one of the most beloved players in baseball history.

This will be our 10th season without him. How do you evaluate a player like Ripken, separate the man from the myth? He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2007, his first year of eligibility, but that doesn't tell us anything — it had been obvious for years that Ripken was a Hall of Famer. How do you separate him from other great shortstops? Now that we've had some time to put things in context, how does he compare?

Almost 10 years later, it is my assessment that Cal Ripken ranks as the third-best shortstop in major league history. Almost all knowledgeable fans identify Honus Wagner as the greatest shortstop in history. Alex Rodriguez is the obvious choice for second-best, provided that you can get past three things: (1) PEDs, (2) he's played about a thousand games at third base, (3) you don't count Pop Lloyd, a Negro Leagues star who never played in the majors. I'm willing to look past all those things right now, so A-Rod is second on my list. Ripken is third.

What about Ozzie Smith? What about Robin Yount? Hey, what about Derek Jeter? Funny you should ask.

Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith

Ozzie and Ripken were contemporaries. Smith holds a unique distinction, as probably the greatest defensive shortstop in history. If he's not the best, he's close. Ripken was also a great fielder, a two-time Gold Glove winner. He wasn't Ozzie.

But Ozzie couldn't hit. He was a singles hitter with a .262 average. Ripken hit as many home runs as a rookie (28) as Smith did in his whole career. Ozzie's OPS was .666, OPS+ of 87. He was a good baserunner, but it hardly mattered because he was never on base. Ripken, in contrast, was a great hitter. He's one of only eight players with both 3,000 hits and 400 home runs. Six of the other seven were first basemen or corner outfielders, guys you try to hide defensively. The seventh is Willie Mays. So in the 3000/400/decent fielding club, you've got Ripken and Mays.

No one disputes that Smith was a better fielder than Ripken, even a much better fielder. But Ripken's offensive advantages are staggering. Compared to Ozzie Smith, Ripken hit 400 more home runs and 200 more doubles. Ripken scored 400 more runs and had 900 more RBI. He had more singles, more walks, a better batting average, better OBP, better slugging percentage by over 100 points. Ripken had 2,084 total bases more than Smith.

I love Ozzie. We all love Ozzie. There's no way that the defensive difference between him and Ripken was 2,000 bases, or 1,300 runs + RBI, or 122 points of OPS. I'm not trying to disparage Ozzie Smith. He was a great player: a magnificent fielder and a good baserunner, wholly deserving of his first-ballot ticket to Cooperstown. Did Ozzie's glove win as many games as Ripken's bat? Absolutely not.

Cal Ripken and Robin Yount

Ripken and Yount were similar players. Yount, like the Iron Man, collected 3,000 hits in the majors. Like Ripken, he had some power, and he won a Gold Glove at shortstop. Like Ripken, he won two AL MVP awards.

I rate Ripken ahead for two reasons: consistency and defense. Yount was not a good defensive shortstop. He wasn't terrible, but he was a below-average fielder for his position. In fact, for about half of Yount's career, shortstop wasn't his position. He played over 10,000 innings in the outfield, and he was used as a designated hitter as early as 1980, when he was 25. By the time he was 28, Yount was DH-ing regularly. He played 120 games at short, and 39 as a DH. He moved to the outfield the next season.

At the same age, Ripken led the majors in assists (531), with a .990 fielding percentage. He won two Gold Gloves in his thirties. In his career, Ripken played over 20,000 innings at shortstop, compared to about 13,000 for Yount. Looking only at their shortstop years, Ripken has a huge advantage in fielding percentage (.979 to .964), and advanced defensive metrics like Total Zone and Ultimate Zone Rating also show Ripken far ahead. Ripken led all AL shortstops in assists seven times, in putouts six times, and in fielding percentage four times. Yount led once each in assists and putouts. He was more successful as a center fielder.

If you have two great hitters — and they were both great hitters — but one holds a significant fielding advantage, that alone should make it clear who rates ahead. But Ripken is also distinguished by his consistency: he had more productive years than Yount did. Yount, from 1980-84, was otherworldly. Over those five seasons, his line was .303/.355/.498. He averaged 101 runs and 36 doubles per year, and he stole 64 bases. His OPS+ was 139, and his defense was decent, even garnering a Gold Glove in '82, when he was named AL MVP.

Ripken, from 1982-86, was pretty spectacular himself: .291/.353/.487, 106 runs and 94 RBI per year, 68 extra-base hits per season, 131 OPS+, and better defense than Yount. Ripken was also great from 1987-91, and in the 1994-95 strike years. He received MVP votes in 10 different seasons and made 19 all-star teams. Yount, after his magical five-year run, had two more great seasons, 1988 and '89. He received MVP votes in seven seasons and played in three all-star games.

Again, I'm not trying to bash Robin Yount. He was a sensational hitter, and he provided adequate defense at demanding positions. Ripken was better.

Cal Ripken and Derek Jeter

First, let's acknowledge that Derek Jeter's career is not yet over. He did not have a particularly good season in 2010, and appears to be slowing down, but it is entirely possible that he has a couple more big years in him, and the man's intangibles are through the roof. He probably helps his team just by being in the locker room or sitting on the bench.

Even with the possibility of more good years ahead of him, Jeter already has an impressive résumé. He has 1,685 runs and almost 3,000 hits, including seven 200-hit seasons. Throw in five Gold Gloves, 11 all-star appearances, seven years among the top 10 in MVP voting, and 1996 AL Rookie of the Year, and we've got someone who can compete with Ripken.

Offensively, it's harder to compare Ripken with Jeter than with Smith or Yount, because Jeter has played in the offensive explosion of the Selig Era, whereas Ripken was years past his prime when the home run era came in. The raw numbers favor Ripken because he played longer, but the averages go to Jeter.

Ripken: 3184 H, 1078 XBH, 5168 TB, 1647 R, 1695 RBI, 1129 BB, 36 SB
Jeter: 2926 H, 763 XBH, 4218 TB, 1685 R, 1135 RBI, 948 BB, 323 SB

Ripken: .276/.340/.447, 112 OPS+
Jeter: .314/.385/.452, 119 OPS+

It's not apparent to me that either player has a decisive batting edge. Jeter's best years are in the past, and his averages will drop even as he catches up in the other statistics. Forced to rate one ahead of the other, I'd probably go with Jeter, but it's close: 300 extra-base hits, 550 RBI, 950 total bases ... these aren't small things.

Ripken rates as the superior player because of his fielding — because of Jeter's, really. Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Jeter is a subpar defensive shortstop. His fielding percentages are pretty good, league-leading in 2009 and 2010. It's his range that is problematic. He led the AL in putouts and assists once each, but his career Total Zone rating is -129. Ripken's is +176. That's a difference of about 31 wins based on their defense. Call me crazy, but I didn't see 31 wins of difference in their offense.

Cal Ripken and Arky Vaughan

This is just to appease the statheads. Vaughan, ever since Bill James declared him the second-best shortstop in major league history, has become acknowledged as not just a Hall of Famer, but as one of the finest players ever at his position. Vaughan was a fantastic offensive player, a .318 hitter who walked, ran the bases well, and had some power. As a defensive shortstop, he was okay: better than Jeter and Yount, not as good as Ripken.

According to the Win Shares system, developed by James, Vaughan's 1935 season was the best ever by a shortstop other than Honus Wagner. Certainly it was a phenomenal season. Vaughan led the majors in batting average (.385), on-base percentage (.491), OPS (1.098), and OPS+ (190). He led the AL in walks (97) and slugging (.607), scored 108 runs and drove in 99. Hell of a year.

However, according to both Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs, Ripken had two seasons better than that, his MVP campaigns in 1983 and '91. In '91, Ripken hit .323 with 85 extra-base hits, led the majors in total bases (368), and was the best fielder in the league. Is that better than Vaughan's season? I don't think it's any worse. Vaughan probably did have more great seasons than Ripken, but his career was not long: 14 seasons, 1,817 games. Ripken played 21 seasons, 3,001 games. How much better would Vaughan have to be to make up for 1,200 games? Vaughan has a huge advantage in OBP (66 points), but Ripken had more hits (3,184) than Vaughan had total bases (3,003), and he was a better fielder.

Cal Ripken and Everyone Else

Ernie Banks? Joe Cronin? Barry Larkin? I just don't see it, and I think any rigorous analysis makes that clear, so I won't go into depth on the comparisons. Banks was overmatched in the field as a shortstop, actually played more games and more innings at first base. Larkin and Cronin weren't quite as good in the field as Ripken, didn't have quite as much power, and didn't play nearly as many games, 1,000 fewer.

The Streak

Cal Ripken played in 2,632 consecutive games, breaking Lou Gehrig's legendary record. It sometimes seems like this is all anyone wants to talk about with Cal Ripken. In the '90s, it was popular to say that Ripken didn't get enough credit for his consecutive games streak. More recently, it's in vogue to claim that Ripken is overrated because of the streak. Perversely, many fans hold this remarkable accomplishment against him.

If you've made it this far in the column, I'm sure you're smart enough to dismiss out of hand the foolish claim that Ripken is only famous because of the streak. A 19-time all-star, 2-time AL MVP, multiple Gold Glove shortstop, Rookie of the Year, World Series champ, with 3,000 hits, 400 homers, 1,500 runs, 1,500 RBI, 1,000 extra-base hits, and 5,000 total bases — yeah, I think that might be a Hall of Famer regardless.

I don't believe Ripken deserves extra credit for the streak, per sé. But he did play more games because of it, and he deserves credit for what he did in those games. The really ugly accusation that has gotten popular in some quarters is that the streak was selfish, that it should be held against Ripken. Maybe I'm missing something, but this line of thinking strikes me not only as idiotic, but as unforgivably cynical and troublingly mean-spirited. Other players with long consecutive games streaks include Lou Gehrig, Billy Williams, Stan Musial, Nellie Fox, Pete Rose, Richie Ashburn ... Were those selfish players, seeking personal glory at the expense of the team? When you think Ripken, Gehrig, and Musial, is "selfish" the first word that comes to mind? Are these guys that hurt the team?

The argument is that if Ripken and Gehrig and company had taken a day off once in a while, they would have been more effective when they were in the lineup. I don't know if that's true, and you don't, either. But put yourself in Ripken's shoes, or Gehrig's. You're the best player in the world at your position, and it doesn't take a big head to recognize that. If you feel like you can play, don't you owe it to your coaches and teammates to take the field? How much better was Ripken than the Orioles' backup shortstop? How far ahead of the backup first baseman was Gehrig? The streak would have had to really diminish these guys' play to hurt their teams rather than helping.

The numbers, such as they are, would not lead you to believe that Ripken's performance suffered because of the streak. His best season probably was 1991, when Ripken was more than 30 years old and had played in about 1,500 straight games. He won a Gold Glove at age 32, hit .315 when he was 34, 40 doubles and 100 RBI at 36 years and 2,300 games, hit .340 and slugged .584 in 86 games when he was 39. If his performance suffered because he was too hard on his body, I hate to think what he might have accomplished without the streak. When you're playing at that level, you don't think to yourself, "Gee, I'm not playing as well as I could be."

The other popular line of attack, equally unfounded, is that Ripken's numbers are only big because he never missed a game. This doesn't require any complicated math. If you passed fifth grade, you should be able to figure out that this is false. Let's say Ripken had taken off one game every month, plus one extra game a year: that's about 140 games, a little less than a season. Per 162 games, Ripken averaged 172 hits, 33 doubles, 23 homers, 89 runs, and 91 RBI. Let's take all of that away from Ripken, and what we're left with is: 3012 H, 570 2B, 408 HR, 1558 R, 1604 RBI. Man, he barely makes it to 3,000 hits and 400 homers.

If you are capable of even the most basic arithmetic, this argument obviously doesn't hold water. Ripken's batting accomplishments are all the more remarkable because he was an exceptional fielder at the most challenging defensive position in baseball. He had more hits than any other middle infielder since World War II, and hit more home runs as a shortstop than any player in history. Furthermore, modern defensive metrics indicate that his fielding, although highly regarded, actually was underrated.

He inspired a generation of fans, recorded unique accomplishments at his position, and at 6'4", paved the way for today's big shortstops. And if A-Rod plays a few more seasons at third, Ripken just might be the best shortstop since Wagner.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 3:23 PM | Comments (2)

March 28, 2011

March Madness? How About March Insanity?

Who would have thought that this year's Final Four would be comprised of an eight-seed, an 11-seed (both being mid-majors), and a couple traditional powers not seeded No. 1? If anyone in America got this year's bracket totally correct, I'd like to meet this person, shake his or her hand, and treat them to a steak dinner. Even as a fairly avid college basketball fan, I never saw this coming.

Looking at this year's Final Four from a historical perspective, it's the most topsy-turvy collection of schools ever, since seeding began in 1979. If you simply add the total of the team's seed numbers, it equals 26. The next year with the highest total for seeds was 2000 with 22, followed by 1980 at 21 and 2006 with 20. It's also the first year that a number 1 or 2 seed has not made the Final Four. Unbelievable.

From a statistical perspective, none of these teams had any business coming near the Final Four. For the past couple of years, I have put together my brackets based solely on statistical information. I did pretty good last year, so I figured I'd spice it up a bit this year by adding RPI and Strength of Schedule factors into my ratings. Based on the stats, VCU should never have even gotten to the tournament (USC was my play-in winner), Butler was supposed to be a first round loser to Old Dominion, and both UConn and Kentucky were knocked out in the Sweet 16. Statistically, the Final Four should have been Ohio State, Duke, Kansas, and Florida, with Kansas beating Duke for the title. Stats be damned!

Looking at the Final Four from a competition perspective, maybe it's time to start really taking the so-called "mid-majors" seriously. I know, ever since Gonzaga started making reservations for March Madness the previous April, people have been saying that mid-majors should be treated with a little more respect and fear than they were previously given, and not many really took that seriously until George Mason made the Final Four a few years ago, but looking at what's gone on the past couple of years is cause for thought. Who would have ever thought that Butler would be back in the Final Four and possibly their second-straight title game? And what about VCU? They're only the third 11th seed to make the Final Four (along with George Mason and LSU). Maybe this is an indication that mid-majors might deserve higher seeding, or at least not be relegated to a ridiculous play-in game.

Which leads me to another point — why is the NCAA designating its play-in games for any seed higher than 16? It seems odd to me that a team not invited to the main tournament has to play-in for an 11 or 12 seed. Shouldn't all teams on the outside looking in be playing for a lowly 16 seed? Maybe they should start making the top seeds play an extra game — "if you think you deserve to be No. 1, you're gonna have to work extra hard to win the championship!"

Which leads me to yet another point: I know the NCAA just expanded the tournament by another four teams to even out the number of play-in games (it also baffles me that they put two of those games in the same bracket — huh?), but maybe it's time to go all-out and create a "Hoosiers"-style tournament that involves just about every team on the planet.

And why not? There are so many postseason tournaments now that it's starting to resemble the football bowl season. I had no idea that a fourth tournament had been added this year, the CollegeInsiders.com Tournament, or CIT, until a couple weeks ago. Seriously? You're telling me that the NCAA and NIT committees snub enough "worthy" teams that we have to create a third, and now a fourth, postseason tournament? I'm not buying it.

But if that is the case, why not make the NCAA tournament a 128-team tournament, throw them all in to a hat, and pick them out one by one, and then say, "Okay, boys, have at it. The last one standing is the champ." Who's to say that one of the NIT's Final Four teams wouldn't be in the hunt for the title? After all, they're the ones complaining the most that they didn't get their shot at it, right? Let's get rid of all the "bubble" controversy and make it the biggest tournament in the world.

Okay, so maybe that's not practical. But the point I'm trying to make is that, just as in some of the BCS controversy during football season, maybe the mid-majors need a little more respect than what they're getting. Should more of them be allowed into the NCAA tournament? I don't know. Just like Boise State and TCU are beginning to change perceptions of the so-called "non-BCS" schools in football, maybe teams like Butler and VCU can start to change the perceptions of the smaller schools in basketball. The great thing, though, is that one of them is guaranteed a spot in the title game. And if one of the should win it, not only will it bring some much-needed credibility to mid-major schools, but it will cement this year's tournament as being one of the most insane in history.

Posted by Adam Russell at 12:41 PM | Comments (1)

March 27, 2011

Can You Buy Wins in Baseball?

New York Rangers - New York Islanders = $32,265,000
Los Angeles Lakers - Sacramento Kings = $47,539,063
New York Yankees - Pittsburg Pirates = $171,390,389

Above are three simple equations showing the range of team salaries in the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, and Major League Baseball, respectively. Clearly, Major League Baseball takes home the medal for this one.

Why? Baseball has been all out of whack for a long time; allowing teams to spend wildly, resulting in a disproportionate range of salaries across the league. In fact, the range in salaries for MLB is just below the sum of the top three team salaries in the NHL. In other words: MLB is a financial nightmare.

Not surprisingly, all the heat has fallen on one team. You guessed it, it's the New York Yankees. Every year, the Yankees spend, spend, spend. $190 million, $200 million, whatever it takes to put together an all-star team, the Yankees will throw down the cash.

But how much does that cash matter? Could the Yankees' unlimited sum of cash really result in an astonishing 27 World Championships?

Consider the following graph, which compares each MLB team's salary against their win total in 2010:

Evidently, there is minimal correlation between salary and wins (a correlation coefficient of just .1218 for all you statisticians).

Thus, we can conclude something very counterintuitive and potentially controversial: you are not guaranteed more wins by spending more money. In other words, you can't buy wins in baseball.

The typical fan would point to the Yankees as a counter-example. Consistently, the Yankees spend the most money, and consequently, they say, they have won 27 World Championships.

However, there are some counter-counter-examples. The Chicago Cubs spent the third most of any team in 2010, and won just 75 games, finishing 16 games out of first place. The Seattle Mariners spent the ninth most of any team in 2010, and finished 29 games out of first place with the second worst record in baseball.

Conversely, the San Diego Padres spent the second least of any team in 2010, but finished just two games out of first place with 90 wins. Finally, and most famously, the Tampa Bay Rays went to the World Series in 2008 with the second lowest payroll in baseball.

Baseball has been continually criticized for allowing teams to create empires by spending loads of money each year. However, this assertion is surprisingly false: more money does not equal more wins in Major League Baseball.

Nevertheless, a new problem arises. It is ridiculous enough that teams spend so much money on a game, but now we know that they are spending that money for no reason. It's all pretentious. Sure, the money may help a bit, but if it's not guaranteeing wins, couldn't it be better used elsewhere?

Posted by Jess Coleman at 11:27 AM | Comments (1)

March 25, 2011

Foul Territory: Tiger Strokes, NCAA Chokes

* Choker Ace, or Number One With a Bullet(in) Detailing the Itinerary of Your Early Flight Home — The East's No. 1 seed, Pittsburgh, lost to Butler on Saturday, adding to a history of recent early failures in the NCAA tournament. Pittsburgh's Nasir Robinson fouled Butler's Matt Howard on a rebound of a free throw with .8 seconds left, allowing Howard to make the game-winning free throw. They cab blame the laying of an egg on a stupid "fowl." It's a testament to physical basketball, in that only after the rigors of a full Big East season were the Panthers able to beat themselves.

* No Defense, or Goin' Back From Cali — Three of the four higher seeds lost in the regional semifinals on Thursday night. Duke, the West's No. 1 seed, fell 93-77 to fifth-seeded Arizona in Anaheim, ending the Devils' run at a second-straight national championship. The Wildcats outscored the Blue Devils by 22 points in the second half, exposing Duke's "devil-may-care" attitude towards defense. It's proof that defense is not defined by how hard you slap the floor, especially when your feet are nailed to it.

* Minnesota Spiking — Los Angeles Laker Andrew Bynum was suspended for two games for a flagrant foul 2 that left Minnesota's Michael Beasley on his back. Timberwolves head coach Kurt Rambis, when asked to comment, said it reminded him of the good old days, when a foul that left you on your back was called "practice." Bynum now gives the Lakers a "cheap shot artist" to complement their established "cheap shot Artest."

* Gangsta App — PGA bad boy Tiger Woods launched a mobile phone application called "Tiger Woods: My Swing" on Wednesday for the iPhone and iPod. The app is aimed at helping golfers improve through video analysis and instruction. The app is available via the internet for $9.99. However, Woods cautioned that Googling "Tiger Woods," "swing," and "video" would likely lead one to a less instructive, albeit more entertaining, site.

* Crime Doesn't Pay-Per-View or New Jersey Dragnet — UFC fighter Jon Jones chased down a thief on the streets of Patterson, New Jersey, just hours before showing no apprehension in demolishing Mauricio Rua at UFC 128 to become the youngest champion in the organization's history. UFC president Dana White lauded Jones for his heroics, while WWE boss Vince McMahon expressed his appreciation, as well, for making the situation seem not the least bit "scripted."

* Pearl Jam, or Take Me to Your Misleader — Tennessee fired men's basketball head coach Bruce Pearl after a tumultuous season that saw Pearl accused of unethical conduct for lying to NCAA investigators. The University demanded Pearl purge himself of all things Tennessee. So, in the span of less than a year, Pearl went from the invoking to the revoking of his right to "Volunteer anything."

* As Per Jury — Jury selections were made for the perjury trial of home run king Barry Bonds, who is charged with lying to a grand jury about his alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs. Twelve jurors were chosen after being approved by the prosecution and Bonds' lawyers, who deemed the jurors "in the clear." If Bonds is to truly be judged by a jury of his "peers," is it safe to assume that 2/3 of those jurors, are, in fact, on performance-enhancing drugs?

* Bonds Have More Funds — Bonds' high-priced defense lawyer, like Bonds' supplier, whipped out his best stuff early, with the comically outrageous claim that Bonds took steroids, but only because he was misled by a personal trainer into thinking he was only taking flaxseed oil and arthritis cream. Baseball announcing great Vin Scully expressed his disbelief with a variation of his famous call when he said, "I don't believe what I just heard!" Harry Caray chimed in from the grave with an exclamation of "Holy bull!" And the voice of Bob Uecker commented that the claim was "Juuust a bit outlandish."

* Commission Implausible — The NFL players union responded very unfavorably to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's e-mail urging them to return to the negotiating table, with many players calling Goodell a "liar." In light of Goodell's earlier promise to cut his salary to $1 if there is a work stoppage, it seems that players are telling the commissioner to go suck a big, fat "one."

* Hall of Fame Defender, Habitual Offender — Lawrence Taylor was sentenced to six year's probation for an encounter with an underage prostitute. Taylor avoided a more serious statutory rape charge, and will have to abide by the conditions of a sex offender. I guess it is true: Taylor is a moral deviant. And that's not just "crazed dogma."

* Paul Blart-ed, or Possession of Crack — Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant was thrown out of a Dallas mall by off-duty police officers after a dispute over the sagging pants worn by Bryant and his friends. According to the police report, Bryant became belligerent when asked to leave, leading to their escort off the premises. Apparently, even Cowboy wide receivers are as equally deficient as Cowboy defensive backs, in that they all lack "man coverage" skills.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 3:50 PM | Comments (0)

The Deacon's Due

So you thought the Los Angeles Angels learned a bitter lesson about the dark side of celebrations last year, when teammates broke Kendry Morales' leg piling onto him, whooping it up at the plate after he hit a walk-off grand slam. That only helped them lose their usual annual shot at the American League West.

A comparable whoop-it-up in a slightly different location ended up costing the Pittsburgh Pirates and their best pitcher in the long run, even though in the short run they'd go on to win a thriller of a 1960 World Series Pittsburgh still can't forget.

The Pirates clinched the National League pennant in Milwaukee, where they'd lost to the Braves while the Chicago Cubs, of all people, were manhandling the St. Louis Cardinals to secure the Pittsburgh flag. The Pirates went nuts in the clubhouse and it spilled over to the team bus, where reserve catcher Bob Oldis playfully yanked a shoe off Vernon Law, the Pirates' best pitcher and the Cy Young Award winner in waiting.

That cause a sprained ankle and compelled a motion change that turned Law's shoulder, little by little, into an undetected mess that — despite his winning two World Series outings — would end up dictating his immediate baseball future. He spent the next three or four years pitching in varying pain, with mostly declining results to show for it. And he spent the next four or five decades saying nothing publicly about who he thought the real instigator of the bus-bound hijinks was.

John Moody, a longtime journalist (he made a career in the wire services and on Time before helping co-found FOX News Channel) who grew up in Pittsburgh with Law as his baseball hero, actually got Law to talk about the injury that turned him from one of the National League's best pitchers into a near-also ran who made an unlikely self-resurrection in 1965-66 before calling it a career in 1967, far from the greatness his 1959 and 1960 seasons suggested would be his.

Kiss it Goodbye: The Mystery, the Mormon, and the Moral of the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates — the title, of course, was broadcast legend Bob Prince's customary home run call — isn't exactly long on real in-depth analysis. Don't look for sophisticated sabermetric surgery upon Vernon Law's or that Pirate team's rise and fall. (It took the Pirates a decade to return to the World Series.) Moody comes from a world in which the counting statistics were the statistics that mattered. But if you're looking for a character study, and a pleasantly-written recollection by a fan grown up, you'll find it in abundance.

Law is not the kind of man to hold a grudge. But even he can't help wondering whether the pennant-clinching hijinks whose continuance on the team bus was instigated, he now reveals, by none other than the fun-loving Prince himself, cost him even an outside shot at the Hall of Fame. Prince and his broadcast partner Jim Woods playfully led a round of shirt and tie shredding and reached Law, popping his shirt buttons and then reaching for his underwear, which unnerved the deeply religious Law, but somewhere in there was the opportunity for Oldis to strip Law's shoe and sprain the pitcher's ankle.

Law was murdered in his next and last regular season start, when the Braves strafed him for 8 earned runs in 2.2 innings' work, en route a 13-2 drubbing, shooting his earned run average from 2.84 to its final 3.03. There were fears he wouldn't be able to pitch Game 1 of the Series as was manager Danny Murtaugh's plan. He made the start, however, holding the Yankees to a pair of runs through seven full, coming out for Elroy Face with two on and no out in the eighth, and getting the win despite Face surrendering a two-run bomb to Elston Howard in the ninth.

Pitching in pain again, Law started Game 4 and won a squeaker, 3-2, surrendering the second Yankee run on a seventh-inning groundout that allowed a run to score, then surrendering a base hit before Face relieved him to save it. He was tapped to start Game 7, and had a 4-1 lead when Murtaugh noticed his man faltering somewhat, the ankle barking a little more profoundly and Law showing a little hesitance in his shoulder, punctuated by a leadoff single up the pipe by eventual Series MVP Bobby Richardson and a followup walk to Tony Kubek.

Law could only watch from the dugout as the Yankees overthrew that lead (including Yogi Berra hammering a mammoth homer off Face), the Pirates wrestled them back for a 9-7 lead (Gino Cimoli, leadoff hit; Bill Virdon setting it up further with the hopper that caught Kubek's throat and left all hands safe; Dick Groat, RBI single; Roberto Clemente, RBI single when Yankee reliever Jim Coates missed covering first base; Hal Smith, 3-run bomb), the Yankees tied it in the top of the ninth (Mickey Mantle, RBI single; Berra, RBI groundout), and Bill Mazeroski hitting Ralph Terry's second pitch over the left field wall in the bottom of the ninth for game, set, and rings.

A decent man who was raised a strict Mormon and has lived likewise, Law married a girl who happened to share his first initial (though they tell different stories about why she hesitated to date him at first); so devoted to each other were they that, among other things, they named every one of their eight children with the same first initial. Law was so respected even as a young prospect that, when he stood up and walked out of a Southern restaurant that refused to serve a black teammate, his entire team followed him out without his saying a word.

Law had to be dragged kicking and screaming, so it seems, to reveal the real source of the injury that dictated his post-Series career. Oldis might not have had the chance to jerk his shoe off, Law tells Moody, had it not been for Prince, of all people.

"Bob Prince ... was probably more of an instigator [of the continuing celebration] than anyone," Law says, "as he was in front of me leading the pack on ... I wasn't about to stay in the clubhouse any longer than necessary, so my roommate, Smoky Burgess [the Pirates' catcher, and the pinch-hitting legend in waiting], another non drinker, and I showered, dressed, and got out of there as quickly as we could.

"Most of the others came pretty soon after we did. I think most of them were anxious to get back to Pittsburgh. They were pretty lit up, loud, and doing crazy things. So was Bob ... Bob grabbed my shirt and popped the buttons right off it. Then he put his hands on my underwear, and I said, 'I wish you wouldn't do that.' And he said, 'Ohhh.' He recognized what it was, he knew a bit about my church and what we believe, the undergarment we wear and what it means to us. But by then, it was too late, the damage had been done. So yes, it's true, he was the one more than any other who was responsible for the things that happened to me."

Law suffered a slow-burning shoulder injury on the unlikely lift, but he refuses to consider any recourse other than forgiveness even now. It was in his religious upbringing and thus second-nature to him. Nicknamed the Deacon because of his devout faith, Law managed to negotiate a baseball life without falling into the traps to which professional athletes are too often prey. Once, after beating the Braves, he was rousted out of a sound sleep by an ardent female fan. After politely brushing her invitations away, she asked what he did for fun. "Beat the Braves," he deadpanned through the telephone.

He simply tried to deal with the injury as best he could. Prince ("a good man who, like all of us, occasionally made mistakes") helped make life a little easier for him, recommending titles among the Western novels Law loved to read and cautioning the straight-arrowed pitcher against books that included "[a l]ittle too much cowgirl action, if you get my drift." He was also as tenacious a competitor on the mound as he was a firm but gentle fellow off the mound.

But his record collapsed in 1961; he had a serviceable if unspectacular 1962; he had a terrible 1963, so much so that he took his manager's advice and prepared to retire; he returned in 1964 to win twelve games; he went 17-9 in 1965 to earn the National League's Comeback Player of the Year award; he went a respectable 12-8 in 1966; but he suffered a groin injury in 1967 and retired for good after the season. He went on to coach Brigham Young University's baseball team, a job his son now holds while he coaches high school baseball in Provo, Utah.

Moody, who had bonded with his own father over Pirates baseball, saves most of his own concurrent story for last, just about. A world-girdling journalist, he settled with his family at last in New Jersey and they became, one and all of them, Yankee fans, of all things. But he never forgot his boyhood passion, his boyhood hero, or how his Pirates' rise seemed to hold hands with his city's rise through 1960, a story he tells simply but effectively.

He tells Law's story with a lot more care than he seems to refer to some of baseball history, alas. (Hint: Mickey Mantle's singular abilities were manifest long before 1960; Casey Stengel wasn't driven out of baseball after the 1960 World Series — the Yankees might have canned him because of his age, but he had a few influential innings yet to play in helping establish the infant New York Mets.) Pirate fans in particular and baseball fans in general may be pleasantly amused to learn that Law became a Pirate thanks to a little skulduggery instigated by their then co-owner.

Brooklyn Dodger legend Babe Herman was now working as a Pirate scout, and he was one of the band of scouts who'd caught onto Law's pitching potential in his school days on the farm in Meridian, Idaho. When the scouts arrived at the Law homestead, after Law had impressed one and all pitching American Legion ball in 1947, one and all caused the non-smoking Laws to quake at the sight of their cigars. Herman showed up brandishing not a cigar but a bunch of roses for Law's mother.

Then the telephone rang and Herman urged Mrs. Law to answer. What a surprise that the elder Laws approved their son signing with the Pirates. On the other end was the aforesaid Pirates co-owner — Bing Crosby.

"My mother," Law wrote in his yet-unpublished memoir, quoted by Moody, "about fell over in a faint. She couldn't believe she was talking to the great singer, Bing. That was about the determining factor in my signing with them. They made promises to the folks, that if I made the big leagues and pitched in a World Series, they'd have an expenses-paid trip."

It only took the Pirates and their son 13 years to make good on those promises. Before that, Law — with whom Crosby often corresponded as he made his way to the top of the Pirate rotation — learned from Crosby the backstory behind his signing with the club. One fine day after Law beat the Dodgers in Los Angeles, Crosby buttonholed him and reminisced about his signing day. Law mentioned how his father almost fainted at the scouts' cigars.

"I thought that might work," Crosby said in a kind of by-the-way fashion. Law asked what he meant. "Well," Der Bingle confessed, "I told Herman to go get a big box of cigars and pass them out to the other boys while they were waiting on your porch." Kiss 'em goodbye!

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 3:45 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2011

NFL Rule Changes on the Horizon

Believe it or not, there were some NFL happenings this week that did not involve the labor dispute, as the NFL head honchos agreed to some amendments in their annual roundup of rule changes.

Sure, there were plenty of competitive changes which we'll get to, but I'm sure you, like me, care most about the new rule stating that the NFL Commissioner must approve any changes to the main turf color a team wants to adopt, and it has it be a shade of green. I call it the "None of that Boise State/Eastern Washington shit here" rule.

According to Falcons owner Arthur Blank, the concern was that sponsors could come in and suggest a field in their corporate color in return for sponsorship cash. What a load of crap. First, this isn't the CFL, where the fields are covered in sponsor ads. Here in the NFL, we keep the fields and the uniforms completely clear of advertisements. Pristine.

Indeed, the NFL honors its corporate overlords by stuffing in commercial breaks during replay challenges so you, the viewer, can see fewer crucial replays. And having commercial breaks before and after extra point attempts. And before and after kickoffs. And during all injury breaks. And during all timeouts. Yes, the NFL will not sully your proud eyesight with untoward colors and corporate logos ... they will just waste your time. That's the way God intended.

When I was a little kid, the family television was black and white. Yet, I had convinced myself that I could discern in the various shades of gray the actual colors that lay underneath. I had my mom convinced, too.

Of course, I didn't actually have that ability. But I did believe the field turf at Texas Stadium, where the Cowboys played, was silver. Silver and awesome. Imagine my disappointment when I found out the truth.

So do you see, NFL? You are ruining the dreams of little boys everywhere with black and white TVs in 2011.

In all seriousness, I truly am against this rule. What's wrong with a little color? I write about logos a lot here, and respect tradition and understatement, but not at the expense of creativity. Color is good, it's why we give babies colorful mobiles and toys to play with, it excites and pleases the brain. Imagine a silver Cowboys field, a gold Chargers field, or a black Raiders field. Too bad it will never be, at least not anytime soon. However, I would like to point out to NFL owners that agree with me that this is a shade of green.

The NFL is also moving kickoffs back to the the 35 yard line from the 30, going back to the way it was before 1994. Additionally, kicking team players must line up within 5 yards of the 35. They can't, for example, line up at the 20 so that they are going full speed with they launch themselves at the return man.

This will result in more touchbacks, more instances of Sebastian Janikowski launching kickoffs through the uprights, and less returns.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of less returns, but these rules were enacted to reduce concussions and serious injuries (an inordinate number of which occur on kickoffs), and I don't really have a better idea. Perhaps this will result in so many touchbacks that the league can comfortably create a new commercial break where we miss the kickoff altogether — fingers crossed, NFL owners!

The final rule to be implemented whenever the NFL plays again is that all scoring plays can be reviewed on instant replay at the behest of the officials in the review booth, not just the coaches.

This is a teensy-tiny step in the right direction, but doesn't address the worst instant replay rule, which is that coaches only get two challenges per game, and only pick up a third if they were correct on the first two.

There are fewer bigger proponents of NFL officials, and sports referees in general, than myself. I note that fans and pundits generally only complain when they make a mistake against their team. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Whoa! We really got away with one there! Thanks for that bad call that benefitted us, refs!" Even if one does acknowledge a bad call that benefits their team, they see it as an only-fair, poetic justice for all the wrongs done to their team in the past.

But refs generally do a great job, especially in the NFL, which is played at blinding speed television doesn't even begin to capture. But they do make mistakes — and by God, it's possible they would make more than three mistakes in a game on those split-second out-of-bounds plays or possible fumbles where only the advent of a dozen cameras can find the angle which shows whether the runner's knee was down or not.

If a coach makes a challenge that is ultimately overturned, he should not lose the challenge. As long as the refs, bless their hearts, keep getting it wrong, a coach should not have a maximum of three opportunities to right those wrongs. Let the coaches only lose challenge opportunities for lost challenges. It's simple, it's fair, it's right.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:17 AM | Comments (1)

March 23, 2011

The Real NCAA Tournament

Past the stroke of midnight, with Sunday melting into a puddle of Monday, the CBS/Turner studio crew looked tired. As they wrapped their fourth consecutive day of March Madness coverage, they tried to make sense of a 48-game blur like a hung-over college junior auditing the wad of bar receipts in the previous night's jeans. And like our fictional bar hero, Greg Gumbel, Charles Barkley, and the rest were unable to make much out of a weekend full of shots, Boilermakers, and Cougars.

To a mistaken many, the chaos of the first weekend of the NCAA tournament is its most charming hour. By repeating David vs. Goliath in enough trials, the early rounds of the tournament almost always give college basketball populists some nourishment for their underdog-loving hearts. But if the tournament exists to tell a champion's story, these supposedly great moments are merely prologue to more important chapters.

Do not confuse close with quality. Butler and Pitt served a perfect example Saturday night in their Third (think second) Round tilt. In the game's final two seconds, the Bulldogs and Panthers traded inexplicable game-surrendering fouls a middle school coach would have lost sleep over. Exciting? Of course. Grade A hoops? Only by the most generous curve.

Still think the early tournament matters? Consider some of more mystical species that inhabit that part of the bracket. Gonzaga, for all of its hype, has never returned to the Elite Eight after its run in 1999. And Butler, the mid-major usurpers from last year, traded in their Cinderella slippers when they tried on a five-seed.

That is why the real NCAA tournament will tip off this weekend. The 16 teams still playing have a few days to realize the weight of what they are about to attempt. In the first rounds, they were one of several dozen teams trying to plan itineraries, schedule practice time, and adjust to the tournament's bizarre schedule and obscure opponents. They survived their abbreviated spring breaks; now the rest is a business trip.

By the second weekend, the field has been boiled down to a concentration. For most of the teams playing from here on, a four-win run over tournament-caliber competition is conceivable. We could not have said the same a week ago for six consecutive Texas-San Antonio or Boston University wins.

At this point in the tournament, the nonsense of Selection Sunday is well forgotten. A week ago, VCU had to ford a river of Dick Vitale's tears just to get into the tournament. But when the Rams take the floor Friday, they will do so with the credibility of three eye-popping beatings of power conference teams under their belts. Keep your early round seeds; real respect is measured in wins.

Are Florida State and Richmond two of the best 16 teams in the country? Probably not. But that kind of matchup is the exception, not the rule, at this stage. After a coma-worthy onslaught of mismatches last weekend, the Sweet 16 finally brings us tradition-rich bouts like Ohio State/Kentucky and Duke/Arizona, as well as compelling matchups of gatekeepers versus newcomers like Connecticut/San Diego State and Florida/BYU.

At this point in the tournament, there is no more bluffing, no more growing left to do. These are good teams playing good teams, and there is no more time to get better. Shouldn't we hope to see this instead of good teams stumbling to lesser ones on a cold shooting night? Isn't this much more fun than seeing a team capable of more playing listlessly against a frenzied underdog in the early afternoon?

The appetizer plates have been cleared. Now it's time to enjoy the tournament's main courses.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 4

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — After Kyle Busch took the lead on the final pit stop, Edwards chased the No. 18 M&Ms Toyota over the final 45 laps at Bristol, nearing the lead on occasion but never overtaking Busch. Despite pulling close enough to implement the tried-and-true "bump and run" ploy, Edwards, in the No. 99 Roush Fenway Ford, settled for second, then made it clear that he still "owes" Busch one.

"That's right," Edwards said. "Kyle wrecked me in Phoenix, and although it was unintentional and Kyle apologized immediately, I made it known to Kyle that I still retain the right to exact payback. I gave him something to worry about. As my primary sponsor for the race, Scott's EZ Seed, would suggest, I 'planted' a seed."

As you may have heard, Gilbert Gottfried was fired from his duties as voice of the Aflac duck for some insensitive remarks he posted on Twitter. I heard Kyle, the Keselowski clan, Kevin Harvick, and many of my other rivals got a little excited when they heard that I lost my 'voice.'"

2. Kyle Busch — Busch was strong all day, leading 153 of 500 laps, including the final 45, to conquer Bristol again, a day after claiming the Nationwide Scotts EZ Seed 300 on Saturday. Busch has now won the last five NASCAR races at Bristol, including the last two Sprint Cup races there. He vaulted eight places in the point standings to sixth, 17 behind older brother Kurt.

"The word 'sweep' has become synonymous with 'Kyle Busch,'" Busch said. "You can call me 'The Broom,' but only under one condition: that you call Carl Edwards 'The Dustpan,' because he ate my dust."

I understand Edwards 'owes' me something. I assume that would be 'congratulations.' Maybe Carl should act more and think less when he has a chance to bump me out of the way for a win. I drive with a simple motto in mind: 'It's better to owe apologies than to owe congratulations.'"

3. Kurt Busch — Busch finished seventh in the Jeff Byrd 500 at Bristol, posting his fourth top-10 finish in as many races this season. Busch took over sole possession of the Sprint Cup point standings, and now leads Carl Edwards by one point.

"Between my brother Kyle and I," Busch said, "we have 10 wins at Bristol Motor Speedway. Sure, we face our share of criticism, which is called getting 'Busch-flacked,' but we dominate at BMS, and that's a 'Busch-fact.' Edwards should have taken Kyle out when he had the chance. I can promise you that if it would have been me in that situation, Kyle would have been in the wall. As it was, nothing happened. The race itself was a lot like Kyle's televised wedding on the Style Channel: uneventful."

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led a race-high 164 laps at Bristol, but finished third behind Kyle Busch and Carl Edwards, who battled for the lead before Kusch pulled away for a comfortable win. Johnson hoped that contact between the two rivals would open the door for the No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet to slip by for the win. As it was, Edwards raced clean, only to regret not racing Busch harder.

"Carl should have seized his opportunity while Kyle was right in front of him," Johnson said. "Apparently, Carl took Kyle's Yosemite Sam 'Back Off!' mud flaps a bit too literally. Come November, his failure to act may very well be the difference in finishing second or third in the Chase."

Frankly, I'm amazed at all the talk about a so-called 'feud' between Kyle and Carl. It may be the first feud in NASCAR history initiated by a driver not wrecking another. I was content to cruise in third and watch the action, or lack of it, unfold in front of me. It reminded me a lot of trailing Denny Hamlin last year, in which I sat back and watched him unravel in front of me."

5. Paul Menard — Menard continued his surprising start to the season, working his way to a fifth-place finish at Bristol and again leading the charge for Richard Childress Racing. Menard moved up one spot in the point standings to fifth, only 14 out of first.

"If you asked 10 people on the street," said Menard, "if they know who Paul Menard is, I'm guessing five would say 'no.' Of those five, three would be teammates of mine at RCR. But I don't mind my lack of recognition and fame. Despite my obscurity, I've become one of the most feared drivers on the NASCAR circuit. In fact, some have taken to calling me the 'Anonymity-ville Horror.'"

6. Tony Stewart — Stewart damaged the front end of the No. 14 Office Depot Chevrolet when he rear-ended Stewart-Haas teammate Ryan Newman, as Stewart tried to avoid the spinning No. 47 of Bobby Labonte. The damage incurred only worsened persistent handling problems, and Stewart eventually finished 19th, the last car on the lead lap.

"Ryan and I both needed repairs after that collision," Stewart said. "I guess that's what you call 'teamwork.' What can I say, though? There was nowhere I could go. My view was obscured by smoke. 'View obscured by 'Smoke?' That's a refrain that the chubby version of Tony Stewart heard quite often when he sat in the front row at drivers' meetings."

But times have changed. I've slimmed down, gas prices are up, the 'new' Kyle Busch is in, and Carl Edwards chickened 'out.'"

7. Ryan Newman — Newman finished 10th at Bristol, posting his third top-10 result of the year, and improving two spots to third in the Sprint Cup point standings. Newman, along with teammate Tony Stewart, trails Kurt Busch by 12 points.

"It was a solid day for us," Newman said, "and third in the point standings puts us right in the thick of things. I can't complain, and I won't complain, otherwise, people may take to calling me 'Knock-it Man' instead of 'Rocketman,' which obviously doesn't apply since I don't win anything anymore."

They don't call Bristol Motor Speedway the 'Bull Ring' for nothing. That became even more evident when they announced the attendance for Sunday's race, and everyone in the sparsely populated complex uttered a collective 'Bull!'"

8. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished 11th in the Jeff Byrd 500, just missing his third top-10 finish of the year. He advanced two places in the points standing to crack the top 10 in ninth, where he trails Kurt Busch by 26.

"Not only does Junior Nation have a buzz," Earnhardt said. "Junior Nation is abuzz. Thankfully, most members of the Nation are optimists, which means they see a glass as half-full, which inevitably means they'll soon make it all empty."

"Now, the sales of Dale Earnhardt, Jr. merchandise are booming as always. And we're hoping that fans will also flock to buy merchandise bearing the likeness of Danica Patrick, who drives for me for JR Motorsports. One particular item is sure to be a hot seller. It's a pair of ladies underwear balled up and shrink-wrapped in No. 7 GoDaddy.com packaging. We're calling it 'Danica Patrick's Panties in a Wad.'"

9. Kevin Harvick — Harvick drove the No. 29 Budweiser Chevy to his second top-10 result of the year, leading 37 laps and finishing sixth, right behind Richard Childress Racing teammate Paul Menard in fifth.

"After such a lackluster start to the season," Harvick said, "it's satisfying to finally post a finish worthy of my sponsor, Budweiser. It's great to be associated with the Budweiser brand and its mascots, such as the Clydesdales and the Dalmation, which, up until Bristol, have both been considered faster than my No. 29 Chevrolet."

10. Juan Montoya — A promising day at Bristol was derailed near the halfway point at Bristol when a loose right-front wheel forced Montoya to pit on lap 247. The No. 42 Target Impala dropped two laps down, and Montoya struggled to a 24th-place finish, three laps down.

"A loose wheel for a loose cannon," Montoya said. "I was three laps down and even I considered taking Kyle Busch out of the lead. Of course, it wouldn't have been for the lead, but it would have made good Target practice for the next time. What gives, Carl Edwards? Of all times, this was one when 'Thunder Valley' actually needed some 'thunder.' As it turned out, Carl was 'all talk'; the race was 'no action.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2011

Will NHL's Concussion Plan Work?

Head shots have been a big part of the NHL's hot topics for a few years, but perhaps it took the spotlight of Sidney Crosby's two-months-and-counting concussion issues for the NHL's big wigs to give it the merit that it truly deserves. While a certain percentage of responsibility still remains with the NHLPA and the notion of respect among its constituents, there's no doubt that the game plays faster and harder than ever before. Even on the open forums of message boards and talk radio, there was even the discussion of slowing the game down just a notch.

Think about that: slowing the game down instead of speeding it up. When have we ever heard that before?

The big result, of course, from the NHL's general managers meetings was the new five-point plan:

1) An evaluation of equipment led by Brendan Shanahan.
2) A revamp of the medical policy when a player takes a hit to the head.
3) Enhanced standards of enforcement, especially for repeat offenders.
4) An "engineering review" of the facilities (glass, boards, stations, etc.)
5) A think tank of Shanahan, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman, and Joe Nieuwendyk to review relevant topics.

There had been some talk of creating a rule to ban hits to the head completely, along with the ensuing discussion of how to police that from a logistical perspective. There had also been talk about not doing anything and letting the players assume responsibility for how they make contact with each other.

In between those two extremes lies this plan, and while this plan falls closer to the area of "do nothing," it is actually a significant step forward for the league — if it can stick to its guns.

One of the NHL's biggest problems when dealing with, well, pretty much any issue is the fact that it turns a blind eye to things. Whether or not it's because of Crosby's injury or vocal scolding from sponsors like Air Canada, this seems to be a serious and honest approach at addressing the situation without rocking the boat too much. And maybe the boat doesn't need to be rocked; perhaps the five points will provide some relief:

1) Equipment will finally get rid of the hard plastic caps on shoulder and elbow pads, a complaint that's lasted for more than a decade.
2) Concussions will be more than just "got his bell rung."
3) A defined standard for suspensions will finally be set.
4) Arenas will have a fixed standard for safety that gets rid of seamless glass.
5) By having former elite players evaluate this, it won't be run by people who are out of touch from the game but rather have seen concussion effects up close.

It all sounds good on paper, and it's worth it for hockey fans to give the league and its efforts the benefit of the doubt. Will it produce results? Will standards of analysis and enforcement actually press forward? Or will it merely be another bone thrown the way of rabid critics for brief bit of respite? Let's hope the NHL finally got this one right.

Posted by Mike Chen at 2:28 PM | Comments (1)

The Best Postseason Running Backs

For years, a great running back would rise up in the playoffs and just take over, leading his team to a title. Seven RBs have been named as Super Bowl MVP, more than any position except quarterback. The last running back to win the award was Terrell Davis, following the 1997 season. Yeah, we've gone 13 years in a row without a running back as MVP of the big game. The seven winners were:

Larry Csonka, Miami Dolphins, Super Bowl VIII
Franco Harris, Pittsburgh Steelers, Super Bowl IX
John Riggins, Washington Redskins, Super Bowl XVII
Marcus Allen, Los Angeles Raiders, Super Bowl XVIII
Ottis Anderson, New York Giants, Super Bowl XXV
Emmitt Smith, Dallas Cowboys, Super Bowl XXVIII
Terrell Davis, Denver Broncos, Super Bowl XXXII

Not only do we miss players like Harris, Riggins, and Smith driving their teams through the postseason, but RBs seem to have less impact every year, as teams rely more and more on the passing game. Super Bowl XLIII (Steelers over Cardinals) set records for the fewest rush attempts (37) and fewest rushing yards (91) in a Super Bowl, breaking the previous records set ... the year before (Giants over Patriots).

Since they may be a thing of the past, here's a look back at the greatest postseason runners in history, eight terrific RBs presented in chronological order. These are players who consistently brought their A-game in the postseason, not one-hit wonders like Timmy Smith or Keith Lincoln.

Steve Van Buren

Philadelphia Eagles, 1944-51

We don't have reliable statistics for all of Van Buren's postseason games, but he makes this list for a pair of legendary performances when the Eagles won NFL championships in 1948 and 1949.

In 1948, when Van Buren led the NFL in rushing by almost 300 yards — 21 per game — the Eastern Conference champion Eagles faced the 11-1 West champion Cardinals, who had beaten them the year before. It snowed so heavily that Van Buren assumed the game would be cancelled, and was almost late getting to Shibe Park when he found out the game was on. The snow was so thick that it was impossible to use chains for the measurements, and the otherwise invisible sidelines were marked by laying rope on the field. In these nearly unplayable conditions, one player excelled. Van Buren rushed for 98 yards and the game's only touchdown, giving Philadelphia a 7-0 victory and its first-ever NFL championship.

The next season's title game, against the Rams in Los Angeles, was plagued not by snow but by mud. Ankle-deep mud. Van Buren rushed for 196 yards, an NFL championship record that stood for almost 40 years, and the Eagles won 14-0. Paul Zimmerman (Dr. Z) called him "perhaps the best who ever lived on a muddy, slippery field." In the 1940s, the playoffs usually consisted of a single championship game, so Van Buren only played in four postseason games, but the Eagles went 3-1 and won two titles, with their Hall of Fame RB overcoming a blizzard and a mudfield on his way to the record books.

Larry Csonka

Miami Dolphins, 1968-74, 1979; New York Giants, 1976-78
225 att, 891 yds, 3.96 avg, 9 TD

Csonka's best postseason came the year after Miami went undefeated, the '73 season when the team finished 12-2. Csonka rushed for 71 yards and a touchdown in the first game. That's pretty good, nothing special. But in the AFC Championship victory over Oakland, Zonk ran for 117 and 3 TDs. Facing the Vikings in Super Bowl VIII, he set a Super Bowl record with 145 rushing yards, and scored two TDs, earning MVP honors. Csonka had also rushed for over 100 yards (112) against Washington in the previous Super Bowl.

Csonka's teams went 8-4 in postseason play, with Csonka averaging 74 yards on the ground, a 1,188-yard pace over 16 games. Four times he rushed for at least 100 yards in a postseason game.

Franco Harris

Pittsburgh Steelers, 1972-83; Seattle Seahawks, 1984
400 att, 1556 yds, 3.89 avg, 16 TD

As a rookie, playing in his first postseason game, his Immaculate Reception led the Steelers to their first postseason win in franchise history, after nearly 40 years of futility. Argue whether it was a catch if you're a Raider fan, or if you just want to ruin one of the great moments in NFL history, but it's still a pretty nice way to start your postseason career.

Harris had five 100-yard games in the postseason and retired as the all-time leader in postseason rushing yards, but his greatest achievements came in 1974 postseason. That year, Franco scored 5 TDs in two playoff games, then rushed for 158 yards in Super Bowl IX, breaking Csonka's record en route to being named the game's MVP.

Altogether, he played in 19 postseason games, during which the Steelers went 14-5. Harris averaged 82 rushing yards per game, equivalent to 1,310 in a 16-game season.

John Riggins

New York Jets, 1971-75; Washington Redskins, 1976-79, 1981-85
251 att, 996 yds, 3.97 avg, 12 TD

No running back has ever had a postseason quite like Riggins did in 1982. When the playoffs began, Riggins — always one to speak his mind — told Joe Gibbs to give him the ball. Gibbs obliged, and Riggins responded by running for 119 yards (100 more than Pro Bowler Billy Sims) in a 31-7 pasting of the Lions. The next week, Riggins put up 185 yards and a TD against Minnesota, then 140 yards and two TDs against the arch-rival Cowboys in the NFC Championship Game. Riggins was named MVP of Super Bowl XVII, rushing for 166 yards, including one of the most famous plays in Super Bowl history. With Washington down 17-13 in the 4th quarter, Riggins took a handoff on 4th-and-1. He bulled over one defender, shook off another, and rumbled 43 yards for the game-winning TD.

That's 650 yards in four games, against playoff teams. It's a unique accomplishment. Riggins also combined for 242 yards and 5 TDs in two playoff games in 1983. In Super Bowl XVIII, he was held to 64 yards but scored Washington's only touchdown. Altogether, he had six 100-yard games in the postseason. His teams went 6-3 in postseason play, with the Diesel averaging 111 yards per game on the ground — a 1,771-yard pace in a 16-game season.

Marcus Allen

Los Angeles Raiders, 1982-92; Kansas City Chiefs, 1993-97
267 att, 1347 yds, 5.04 avg, 11 TD

On January 8, 1983, Marcus Allen was a 22-year-old rookie, appearing in his first playoff game. He gained a combined 147 rushing and receiving yards and scored two touchdowns in a Raider victory. The team lost its next game, but in 1983 the Raiders were back, and no one more so than Allen. In the divisional round, the Raiders dominated Pittsburgh, 38-10, with Allen rushing for 121 yards and 2 TDs. In the AFC Championship Game, another blowout victory, Allen posted 154 rushing yards, 62 receiving yards, and scored on a catch. In Super Bowl XVIII, he rushed for a record-setting 191 yards and was named the game's MVP.

For those of you keeping track, Csonka's Super Bowl rushing record was broken by Harris, who had it broken by Riggins, and then by Allen. Allen's record fell to Timmy Smith in Super Bowl XXII. Smith's mark (204 yards) has never been broken, and probably never will be.

Allen's teams went just 7-9 in postseason play, but we normally blame that more on Marty Schottenheimer than on Allen. His career featured five 100-yard rushing performances in the postseason, and he averaged 84 rushing yards per game (plus 33 receiving). That would be good against regular-season opposition: 1,347 yards, over five yards a carry, 530 receiving yards, 13 TDs. Allen did that against playoff defenses.

Thurman Thomas

Buffalo Bills, 1988-99; Miami Dolphins, 2000
339 att, 1442 yds, 4.25 avg, 16 TD

Okay, I know this probably seems wrong. Thomas played on teams that went 0-4 in the Super Bowl, including three games that weren't particularly close. He even missed the beginning of Super Bowl XXVI because he lost his helmet. Boooo.

However, Thomas rushed for 1,442 yards in the postseason, third-best all-time. That includes six 100-yard rushing games, tied with Riggins for third all-time. He's one of only three players — the others are Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith — to score at least 20 TDs in postseason play. Arguably his best game came in Super Bowl XX. Thomas belongs on this list, maybe not in the same category as someone like Riggins or Smith, but up there with Csonka and Allen.

Thomas cemented his legacy in the 1990 postseason. The Bills got into a shootout with Dan Marino's Dolphins, and Thomas went off for 117 rushing yards, 38 receiving, and 2 TDs in Buffalo's 44-34 victory. In a 51-3 rout over the Raiders, Thomas tallied 138 yards on the ground, 199 total, with a 12-yard TD run. In Super Bowl XXV, facing a Giants defense that ranks among the best of all time, Thomas rushed for 135 yards with a 9.0 average, adding 55 receiving yards (190 total). His 31-yard TD run gave the Bills a 19-17 lead in the fourth quarter, but the Giants came back to win, and Thomas' heroics were largely forgotten.

The Bills went 11-10 in postseason play with Thomas, though that includes a 4-game losing streak at the end of his career, when Thomas wasn't playing a big role in the offense any more. He averaged 68.7 rushing yards per game, 1,099 per 16 games.

Emmitt Smith

Dallas Cowboys, 1990-2002; Arizona Cardinals, 2003-04
349 att, 1586 yds, 4.54 avg, 19 TD

The all-time leader in postseason rushing yards and TDs, he ran for 105 yards and a score in his first playoff game. His postseason highlight was a third-quarter scoring drive in Super Bowl XXVIII, on which Emmitt gained 61 of the team's 64 yards and scored a TD. He finished the game with 132 rushing yards, 26 receiving yards, and 2 touchdowns, earning MVP honors.

Smith's 1992 postseason, the year before, was probably even better. In two playoffs and the Super Bowl, Emmitt rushed for over 100 yards in all three games (336 total), scoring in each contest. In the 1995 NFC Championship Game (which was played in 1996, just so we're all clear), Smith burned the Green Bay Packers for 150 yards and 3 touchdowns, securing his team's last Super Bowl appearance.

During his time in Dallas, Smith set a postseason record — since tied — with seven 100-yard rushing games. In 17 games, he actually averaged nearly 100 yards on the ground, 93 per game (1,488 in 16 games). The Cowboys were 12-5 in postseason play during Smith's tenure.

Terrell Davis

Denver Broncos, 1995-2001
204 att, 1140 yds, 5.41 avg, 12 TD

Because his career was so short, Davis doesn't have the big numbers like Franco Harris and Emmitt Smith do, but there is an argument to be made that he is the greatest postseason runner of all time. Not only was he the last of the great postseason backs, the final player at his position to put a team on his shoulders and carry it to a title, but his per-game averages are off the charts, easily the best of any player on the list. Only John Riggins is even in the same neighborhood.

Davis played in eight postseason games. In each of the last seven, he ran for over 100 yards. His seven 100-yard games tie Emmitt Smith, who made 19 postseason appearances, for the most in history. Davis took over the 1997 playoffs in a way we hadn't seen since Riggins in '82. Facing a Jacksonville team that had knocked the Broncos out of the playoffs the year before, Davis rushed for 184 yards and 2 TDs before leaving with a rib injury. He was back the next week against Kansas City, running for 101 and 2 more touchdowns. In the AFC Championship Game, he was held to one TD but pounded out 139 yards on 26 attempts.

Super Bowl XXXII made Davis a legend even before his 2,000-yard season the next year. Davis rushed for a touchdown in the first quarter, but he missed almost the entire second quarter because of a blinding migraine. Famously, Mike Shanahan forced him onto the field for a play so that the Broncos could use him as a decoy on play-action. "They won't believe the fake if you're not in there." Davis trotted onto the field, the Packers bought the fake, the play worked. Davis returned for the second half, finishing with 157 yards and 3 touchdowns in only three quarters of play. He was named game MVP.

The Broncos went 7-1 in the postseason with Davis, and he averaged an unreal 142.5 yards per game — 2,280 over 16 games.

This list is is chronological order rather than any type of ranking, but in my mind, four players stand out even among this elite group of eight. Those are Harris, Riggins, Smith, and Davis. Harris and Smith are the guys who played in a million games and performed at a high level. Riggins and Davis played in fewer games, but at an exceptional, almost unbelievable level. Make a movie with the same plot as the '82 or '97 playoffs, and no one would believe it. It's clichéd and unrealistic. But it happened. That's why I love sports. There is no substitute for watching people accomplish things you always believed were impossible.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 10:38 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2011

BYU's Marketing Genius and Lack of Honor

When Brandon Davies was dismissed from BYU's basketball team for having pre-marital sex, most people seemed to have two immediate reactions.

1. Well, there goes BYU's shot at a national title.
2. Really? He got suspended for having sex with his girlfriend? Give me a freaking break.

What Davies did would be considered tame on nearly any other college campus in the United States, even others with religious affiliations.

BYU is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are more commonly known to the world as Mormon. This group of people seems to be very odd to the general population since they disallow certain things that the average American loves to consume daily, such as coffee.

What Davies did was break the honor code that every BYU student, athlete or not, signs and commits to. I'm guessing that you haven't read that code. Here it is, taken from BYU's website.

As a matter of personal commitment, students, staff, and faculty of Brigham Young University seek to demonstrate in daily living on and off campus those moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ and will:

* Be honest
* Live a chaste and virtuous life
* Obey the law and all campus policies
* Use clean language
* Respect others
* Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
* Participate regularly in church services
* Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
* Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

Now, before you decide that what is demanded is ridiculous and crazy, let's just accept that this code is a set of standards that every student must adhere to or suffer the consequences.

What BYU has done? The school has taken a profession that is vastly deteriorating in regards to its quality of people and made a commitment to producing higher quality people. Let's face it, as a loyal reader of any sports news, you can't go two days without reading about a professional athlete committing a criminal offense. Oftentimes it's drugs, sometimes drunk driving, sometimes assault, sometimes worse.

In an atmosphere where athletes are daily doing things unacceptable to general society and getting away with those actions or at least getting far less punishment than normal people, BYU has put in place and kept in place a set of standards that when broken have consequences, not only for the individual who broke the rule but for his or her teammates, his or her school and the school's fans. A student's celebrity status will not save him or her.

BYU is asking its students and student-athletes to rise to a standard that no other school is demanding and the result is that BYU is getting noticed by all the right people. They're getting noticed by the student-athletes who think to themselves, "There is absolutely no way I am ever going to play at BYU." Good, that's what BYU wants. If you don't take their standards seriously, go somewhere else.

This publicity also attracts all the students and their parents who are interested in helping their sons or daughters become better people and as we can see from some of BYU's current and former students, there are really high quality people who are also really high quality athletes. Jimmer Fredette being the obvious example of the day.

Now, let me make it very clear that the particular standards that BYU has chosen are not the ones I would choose (***see authors note at the bottom), tea and coffee being the foremost, but I am not the audience BYU wants to attract. I swear. I drink alcohol. I drink tea and coffee. I don't always respect others. I'm not always honest and I would certainly not claim to be virtuous. Do I wish I were capable of such things? Some no, some yes. I have no reason to give up coffee. I don't believe drinking coffee is sinful or hurtful to my body, mind or soul. I love coffee. I do wish I were capable of being more honest, of respecting others more, of being virtuous, but those things are not exactly measurable.

All of this made me wonder if other schools have honor codes. Are there any other colleges where students are signing similar agreements?

Notre Dame has nothing of the sort. While over 90% of its students self-identify as Christians (80% as Catholic) there are no rules excluding anybody for reasons of religion, beliefs or any life-style choices.

Marquette is also affiliated with the Catholic Church and they also have no honor codes or policies for any students to sign that have to deal with leading a chaste and virtuous life.

Army does have an honor code. It goes as follows:

A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.

Nice, isn't it? A very honorable charge in my opinion.

Navy has an Honor Concept that is very similar to Army's honor code, but a bit longer:

Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.

They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie.

They embrace fairness in all actions. They ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented. They do not cheat.

They respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property. They do not steal.

Now if somebody breaks the rules at Army or Navy, what do you think happens to them? They face a trial, are judged by their peers, and if found guilty can be expelled from the school. I would say that is fair, wouldn't you? After all, I would greatly appreciate it if the soldiers protecting my freedom were high quality people who didn't lie, cheat, or steal. I think most every student who signs their name to such a code is not doing it lightly.

Other prestigious colleges and universities also have honor codes, such as Harvard, Princeton, Davidson, William and Mary, and Vanderbilt.

Of all of these, BYU's seems to be the only one that addresses anything other than ethical academic behavior. No cheating. No lying. No stealing. Have integrity. Be truthful. Be fair.

I think all of these are reasonable for every person in the United States to adhere to. I think BYU's take on what it means to have integrity, virtue or honor is vastly different from mine.

If a student is caught plagiarizing or cheating in any way at any institution, they deserve to be punished accordingly and if that means expulsion from school, so be it. If it means failing that particular class, so be it. People need to learn there are consequences for their actions. While many students may not know the full consequences of cheating, they certainly know that there will be consequences if they're caught. I think having academic consequences is admirable.

Let me tell you what BYU has done that is not admirable. They have absolutely humiliated a young man in the national spotlight. If Davies goes on to the NBA, do you think he'll be able to be known as anything other than the guy who got kicked out for having pre-marital sex?
If somebody cheats at Harvard, Princeton, Army, Navy or any other school in the country, do you think it will show up on national news? I doubt it highly.

Perhaps if the student in question were a nationally known athlete there would be national press for a cheating scandal, but even if there were, I think that would be more reasonable than what is happening to Davies because plagiarism is something unacceptable to every university (I would hope). Sex is addressed by BYU and seemingly BYU only.

That's what makes this so terrible in my eyes. This guy is at the one school in the country where the rules are stricter and he does something that the average college student does. And because BYU is so vastly different from every other university in the nation, he's suddenly in the spotlight, shamed and humiliated for doing what the average college student does.

Davies has been humiliated not because of his actions, but because of his school's desire to stand out and be different.

I've got nothing against standards. I've got nothing against being different. I've got something against humiliating a student to show off your standards, to show off how different you are.

Yes, Davies should have taken the honor code he signed seriously. Yes, BYU has every right to hold their students to whatever standards they choose. Yes, they shouldn't let their athletes get away with more than normal students. They're doing exactly what they want to do and getting the exact results they want.

But should they have humiliated this young man? No. He didn't deserve that. That wasn't the honorable thing to do. Where are BYU's virtues of forgiveness, grace and mercy? Maybe those are just important to a different type of quality people.

Author's note: This sentence initially read, "Now, let me make it very clear that I think the particular standards that BYU has chosen are completely ridiculous." Comments referring to this are accurate. I believe using the phrase "completely ridiculous" was hurtful and I apologize if I offended anyone in saying it.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 11:57 AM | Comments (40)

Kommissar Stern is Zeke of the NBA

Dwight Howard's one-game suspension two weeks ago began a war of words between Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy and NBA Commissioner David Stern that was ended within a week by a STFU order sent Van Gundy's way. The incident is eerily similar to one involving his brother Jeff six years earlier, and offers a frightening look into the oppressive regime Stern has built in 27 years on the job.

From elementary school to work place to retirement center, bullies are everywhere, and professional basketball is not spared. In the absence of wealth or physical size, sheer longevity can empower the bully in the front office of your NBA, just as it can for the one on your neighborhood playground. I learned that from a guy named Zeke, who had neither riches nor size but nevertheless climbed to the top of his neighborhood playground simply by out-squatting everyone else.

It was during my first job out of college. We'd go down into an Italian enclave not far from the office to shoot hoop after work, changing out of our suits in the car and taking on the locals. These courts were ruled by Zeke. Even then, most of Zeke's contemporaries had moved on, but the upstart kids idolized him. They would all line up in hopes of getting picked for his team. It never seemed to matter that the ball had to go through Zeke with every change of possession.

He was heralded without challenge — or any objective supporting statistics — to be the all-time leading scorer in the neighborhood. Hell, he was pushing 30 and had been playing on these courts since his pre-teens, so no one really needed to call in STATS for verification. There were whispers that he could have played in the NBA were it not for some mystery surrounding his high school days. He had perfected this Dr. J driving layup that mesmerized the short kids of his neighborhood, but wasn't much of a challenge for a long-limbed Swede like me, and I was never once on the NBA's radar.

Zeke would come to the courts laden with gold chains and crosses and rings, none of which he ever paid for. Some evenings, he was high, others drunk. Once, he came with a black eye, apparently the result of being jumped by three guys after sleeping with each of their girlfriends. The locals high-fived each other with this tale, then relentlessly fed him in the low post, where his quick-spinning power ups inevitably smacked into the palm of my hand, prompting his minions to close in and stare me down. Zeke, of course, would call a foul.

These days, 645 Fifth Avenue seems a lot like those courts we played on after work. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Commissioner David Stern, the Zeke of the NBA.

The highest basketball office in the land is filled with minions that Stern has chosen for his team, players like Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who upholds his mantra that team personnel should be exploited at every opportunity and subscribe to the doctrine of Der Kommissar's infallibility. And when out-of-turfers like the Van Gundy brothers reject it for the low-post garbage it is, what is the fitting reaction? Like Zeke, David Stern calls a foul.

NBA officiating is the least credible among the four major sports. Judges, refs, and umpires in the MLB and NFL are, at times, as incompetent, but they call them the way they think they see them, not the way Bud Selig and Roger Goodell tell them to. Moreover, their front offices are increasingly looking to technology to at least cast an upstanding appearance. The NBA, on the other hand, looks to deny, to suppress all challenges, to punish the source rather than the target.

Come on. The chances of Howard having never been flagrantly assaulted in any of the last 593 times fouled are as slim as going through 10 seasons of American Idol without even one contestant covering a Nirvana song. Not happening. It's small wonder the big guy has already picked up 16 technicals, and smaller wonder that Stan Van Gundy should smell a conspiracy. After all, protecting their big men from the wrath of Stern and his refs is something Van Gundys do.

In 2005, while coaching the Houston Rockets in the Western Conference opening round playoff series, younger brother Jeff claimed an anonymous official told him the front office wanted Yao Ming kept in check. The Rocket center's constant foul trouble in that series had just pushed Houston to the brink of elimination, and, for what it's worth, Van Gundy's allegation was later substantiated by former referee Tim Donaghy. Nevertheless, Stern became enraged and hit Van Gundy with a record $100,000 fine, along with threats for continued retribution after the Rockets' season ended. Van Gundy later apologized and the conflict blew over with Stern, by necessity, the winner.

No such apology was coming from Stan last week. Only a gag order stemmed the barbs between Fifth Avenue and Orlando, with the last word going to Stern. “I would render a guess that we won't be hearing from him for the rest of the season,” he told ESPN Radio last Thursday, while brother Jeff defended Stan and called the comments “godfathery-like.”

And with the Magic center shooting only 58% at the line, Hack-a-Howard rages on as a prime in-game strategy. Opponents can continue to count on one-for-two at the line, no flagrants, and repossession of the ball in short order. Heading into Sunday, Howard is far and away the most-fouled player in the NBA and has attempted 36% more free throws per game than Blake Griffin, the next in line, who, by the way, has been awarded a league-high eight flagrants.

In the meantime, the NBA's credibility is eroding faster than Zeke's driving lay-up. Each suggestion of referees being the executors of Stern's orders that is met with bullying rather than with investigation will further dislodge public trust. There is a problem in today's NBA; just don't tell that to Commissioner Stern.

Falco had it right when he said, “If he talks to you then you'll know why; the more you live, the faster you will die.”

Don't turn around, uh-oh. Der Kommissar's in town.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 10:26 AM | Comments (2)

March 17, 2011

Sports Q&A: NCAA Tourney Bric-A-Bracketology

What happens in the dark room once the NCAA Selection Committee convenes?

You mean besides Charlie Rich's "Behind Closed Doors" playing on a continuous loop? Beyond that, it's business as usual for the committee, like formulating new and creative ways to explain Virginia Tech's omission from the tournament, all while sifting through their Big East goody bags. This year, the committee donned Guy Fawkes masks, because, apparently, the 'V' in "Virginia Tech" is for 'Vendetta.'

The tourney expanded from 64 to 68 teams, yet the committee still shafted teams that deserved bids, and rewarded some that did not. Why? No one knows. When asked to explain, committee members usually respond with the usual canned answers, with sentences beginning with "We felt..." and "We were of the opinion...," or "Buffaloes have been extinct in Indianapolis for centuries." The public wants answers, and there's only one way to get them: by granting full media access to the selection committee meetings and televise them, preferably with an annoying host, like one named "Ryan Sequester." And publish committee members' addresses, telephone numbers, and bank account activity within the last week.

What more do the Colorado Buffalos have to do to prove they belonged in the NCAA tournament?

It's simple: join the Big East.

First-round games will be televised not only on CBS, but also on TruTV, TBS, and TNT. Is this a basketball junkie's dream?

Absolutely. What can be better than a few basketball games on TruTV followed by a "Cops" marathon? That's like watching "Current Basketball Stars," then chasing it with "Former Basketball Stars: Where Are They Now?"

Watching basketball on TBS and TNT, two stations built by professional wrestling, will be a new experience, and as long as the N.W.O. doesn't threaten the broadcasts, viewers should be quite satisfied.

By the way, shouldn't TruTV, at least for a few days, return to calling itself CourtTV?

Who is the odd-on favorite to capture the title?

Ohio State. The Buckeyes have the talent, depth, leadership, and coaching. Plus, the potential market for national championship memorabilia has the team eager to succeed and start cashing in.

How long before an overly exuberant Gus Johnson call ends up on YouTube?

Not soon enough.

What are some of the intriguing first-round matchups?

In the Southwest Region, Louisville and Morehead State, both from the state of Kentucky, meet in Denver in the 4-13 game. Louisville is heavily-favored. Rick Pitino won a national championship in 1996 and is the only coach to have led three different schools to the Final Four. Morehead State head coach Donnie Tyndall's accomplishments are minuscule by comparison. But Tyndall's never been extorted by a woman with whom he had sex on a restaurant table. So call the coaching matchup even, and Tyndall envious.

After a close half, Louisville steadily pulls away to win by 16.

In the West, Bruce Pearl and 9th-seeded Tennessee face the 8th-seeded Michigan Wolverines in Charlotte, with the winner drawing top-seeded Duke. Pearl will likely be wearing his orange sports jacket, not necessarily because it's Tennessee's school color. The NCAA has mandated that Pearl wear orange because it makes him easier to see, as well as indicate a "recruiting threat level" of "5," the highest.

Give me the Wolverines over the Volunteers by (Fab) 5.

In the Southeast, 22-10 UCLA takes on 19-14 Michigan State meet in Tampa with the winner likely meeting No. 2-seeded Florida. The Bruins' and Spartans' combined 24 losses are the second-most of any first-round matchup, but don't underestimate the threat of these two teams. Michigan State coach Tom Izzo's reputation precedes him as one of the best tournament coaches. In fact, if Izzo coached Virginia Tech, they'd be a No. 5 seed. MSU wins, 74-70.

The No. 13-seeded Princeton Tigers challenge 4th-seeded Kentucky in the East. Princeton's Ivy League champion team is senior-heavy. To Kentucky head coach John Calipari, a "senior" is a terrible recruiting job on his part. Princeton relies on "back-door" cuts. Calipari leaves jobs via the back door. But he sure knows how to sweet-talk a 17-year-old. Call him the "Mark Sanchez of college basketball." Wildcats by 21.

Can Duke repeat as national champions?

If the Blue Devils are hitting three-pointers, and officials are calling questionable charging violations on their opponents, then anything is possible. Duke football players aren't the only athletes at Duke that fall down without being touched. Take a look at Dexter Strickland's dunk over Kyle Singler from Sunday's ACC title game. That's a charge? I've heard more valid accusations by a stripper at a Duke lacrosse party. Here's a novel idea for the NCAA basketball rules committee to ponder: if you try to take a charge but get dunked on instead, then the call is automatically blocking.

If the Devils can get by the underachieving Texas Longhorns in the regional semis, then a berth in the Final Four is likely. If super freshman Kyrie "Dr. Scholl's" Irving plays, then it's a guarantee they'll be in Houston. However, with Ohio State in Duke's side of the bracket, a title repeat seems unlikely.

How far can Jimmer Fredette carry Brigham Young?

Reportedly, the Cougars have dedicated their tournament to suspended player Brandon Davies, so anything less than going all the way will be a disappointment. Any player that can score 52 points in a game (as Fredette did against New Mexico in the Mountain West semifinals) is capable of leading his team deep into the tournament. BYU's team of undersexed young adults has won 30 games, and their pent-up energy is suited to winning multiple games in the tournament. In Provo, that's called "polygame-y."

Fredette drops 37 on St. John's in the second round, then shoots down Florida in the regional semi-finals, but the Cougars fall to Pittsburgh in the Southeast finals.

Can North Carolina bounce back from a devastating ACC tournament title game loss?

For the Heels, it's all about motivation. And just a glance through the East brackets should give UNC plenty of motivation. Revenge is the name of the game. Assuming the Heels beat Long Island, they'll face either Georgia (who dropped Carolina in the 1983 East region final) or Washington, led by guard Isaiah Thomas, who's named after Isiah Thomas, who led Indiana to the 1981 national championship over Carolina.

Then there's 11th-seeded Marquette, the team that vanquished North Carolina in the 1977 national championship title game. And 8th-seeded George Mason shocked the Heels in the second round in 2010.

So, if Roy Williams can get his team motivated by three of four events that occurred before any of his players were even born, the Heels should be fired up and ready. Anything less than a trip to the regional final will be a disappointment.

Speaking of UNC, will Roy Williams faint at any point in the tournament?

You say "Tar," I say "he'll" pass out during the second half of Carolina's regional semifinal against Xavier.

Will UNC's Harrison Barnes return for his sophomore season at Carolina?

Yes, in 2014 after his third year in the NBA with the Sacramento Kings.

Can the Big East tournament champion Connecticut Huskies make an impact after playing five games in five days?

Yes. In fact, it should be easy. Heck, all they have to do is win two games in three days, and they've made an impact. Kemba Walker may be the Huskies driving force, but most of the credit should go to head coach Jim Calhoun. After all, it all happened under his watch.

First Round Winners

East: Ohio State, George Mason, West Virginia, Kentucky, Xavier, Syracuse, Washington, North Carolina

West: Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, Missouri, Connecticut, Temple, San Diego State

Southwest: Kansas, UNLV, Richmond, Louisville, Georgetown, Purdue, Florida State, Notre Dame

Southeast: Pittsburgh, Butler, Kansas State, Wisconsin, St. John's, BYU, Michigan State, Florida

Sweet 16

Ohio State, Kentucky, Syracuse, North Carolina, Duke, Arizona, Missouri, San Diego State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Purdue, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin, BYU, Florida

Elite Eight

Ohio State vs. North Carolina
Duke vs. San Diego State
Kansas vs. Notre Dame
Pittsburgh vs. BYU

Final Four

Ohio State
Duke
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh

Championship

Ohio State over Pittsburgh

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2011

March Madness: A Quick Overview

Finally, we've arrived at March Madness.

As millions of us scramble to pencil in our brackets and plan ways to sneak in a radio or TV during work, here's a quick rundown on what I see before the Madness really kicks into gear.

TOUGHEST REGION: East

Ohio State, North Carolina, Syracuse, and Kentucky are the top four seeds in this region. Ouch. Whoever gets out of this region will definitely be battle tested. Ohio State, assuming they do what all top seeds have done before them and win their first round game, will not have an easy task with either George Mason or Villanova. North Carolina might have all they could handle from Washington, who is fresh from winning the Pac-10 tournament in impressive fashion. Perhaps the real darkhorse in the field could be Xavier, who's historically been an extremely tough out and is coming off a great season in a solid Atlantic 10 this year. No doubt about it, the East is the Beast.

UPSET SPECIAL: (13) Belmont over (4) Wisconsin

When I saw Belmont as a 13 seed, I immediately thought "underrated." They re incredibly deep, running a 10-man rotation where every player plays under 25 minutes. The Bruins have had close calls in tournament play before and this year, played both Vanderbilt and Tennessee tough, while dominating their conference. Belmont is lethal behind the three-point arc, which makes them especially dangerous for a Wisconsin team that takes slow basketball to all new levels. If Belmont is hitting early, the Badgers could be in for a long day and a quick exit.

Also, when did a top 25 team get placed as a 12-seed in the tournament? Watch out for the Aggies of Utah State. Kansas State must've done something horribly wrong to the search committee to have drawn that assignment.

PLAYER TO WATCH: Jimmer Fredette, BYU

Who else, right? The Jimmer has been a one man wrecking crew for the Cougars this season in becoming arguably the best player in college basketball. What he's been able to do for BYU this season is nothing short of awesome. However, there's more than his play that makes him the one to watch. With the suspension of Brandon Davies putting a serious crimp into BYU's tournament aspirations, the pressure is on Fredette more than anyone else in this tournament to succeed. Sure, Ohio State and Kansas are favorites and their players will feel the spotlight on them every game. But no team depends on one player like the Cougars do Jimmer.

FOR THE FIRST ROUND, THE DOUBLE-DIGIT SEED I WOULD NOT WANT TO FACE IS: Missouri

Remember UAB over Kentucky a few years ago? Mike Anderson's frenetic style of play, taken from Nolan Richardson's "40 Minutes of Hell," is tolerable for most coaches in January, or even February. But come tournament time, facing this kind of intense up-tempo play is the last thing you want to run up against, especially when Anderson's team s rested. Since becoming a head coach, Anderson is 4-1 in first round games. I wouldn't be surprised if Missouri made it 5-1 after this weekend. The Tigers could put a real scare into UConn, as well.

THE FINAL FOUR PICKS

Ohio State (over UNC), Kansas (over Purdue), Pittsburgh (over St. John's), and in Butler-esque fashion, San Diego State (over Duke).

THE WINNER

Ohio State over Kansas. Like many others, I have to pick the team that not only looks the most complete, but has also been the most consistent. In both cases, the Buckeyes have been that team this season, so I'm going with Thad Matta's group.

Good luck to everyone on their brackets, and let's get this thing underway!

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 1:43 PM | Comments (0)

Variations Within the Modern Era of Tennis

Around a table in the clubhouse, one hears often various arguments over the history of tennis, often on subjects like "the best player of all-time," "the deepest era in rankings," or even more specific topics like "who was the best serve-and-volley player" or "the best forehand that one has ever seen." These types of arguments are usually embellished by phrases that are designed to make the person who is talking sound "smart."

What these phrases really mean, nobody seems to know. In any case, this is the purpose of these expressions and phrases; they provide you with an infinite number of explanations and avenues that you can use, in case your argument may begin to breakdown.

Before I digress any further, let's get back to our clubhouse table discussion and consider one of these types of phrases: "in the modern era."

When someone is trying to affirm that X or Y player is the best player in tennis, he or she will follow it up with phrases such as "nobody accomplished what she has in the modern era of tennis," or "his serve is the most versatile in the modern era," or better yet, "she is faster than any other player that has stepped on the court in the modern era."

Does anyone know what that means? When does the modern era begin? What time period is this "know-it-all" talking about? Once again, nobody knows, but at the same time, everybody knows.

Depending on how it fits to your argument, you can take one of the numerous explanations that you have at your disposition thanks to the play-dough shaped term "modern era" that you can mold into any form and fit into any argument.

For example, "modern era" could be when graphite rackets came around. That way, anyone who argues with you about the greatness of Manuel Orantes, Bjorn Borg, or Ilie Nastase can find himself swiftly excluded unless his argument is limited to the 'pre-modern era': "Hey buddy, those guys did not even play in the modern era, so drop it!" You can even strengthen your point and say that another guy from the same era as the ones listed above, namely Guillermo Vilas, could not survive in this particular "graphite-enforced modern era" that you just created, since he never won a tournament once he switched to his first ever non-wood racket in 1984, even though he played well into the late-'80s.

With the above definition of the expression, players like Martina Navratilova and John McEnroe could fit into both "modern era" and "pre-modern era" arguments, since they switched from the old wooden rackets to the rackets that used the new technology; for example, McEnroe played with the wooden Dunlop Maxplay racket, as well as the graphite Dunlop Max 200G.

If the rackets alone are not enough for your purpose, you can always take the "new technology" approach to define your own definition of "modern era of tennis," meaning that now rackets are not enough to describe your understanding of it, but you also need to include in the term "technology," the various machines used in fitness training, different strings, etc. As a result, much to your delight, the "modern era" has now moved nicely and conveniently past John McEnroe into the late-'90s and forward. You can amplify the importance of Ivan Lendl by claiming that he introduced fitness into men's tennis, thus the "modern era."

What? You need it to be placed even further into the future? No problem. Simply modify your parameters and add the manipulation of balls and surfaces to slow down the game in your "modern era" definition. Wimbledon is your prime example as they did both to slow the conditions down in the beginning of the previous decade. Now, my friend, you are well in the 21st century. Wouldn't that fit nicely if your argument was that the game of tennis improved more than ever during the Rafael Nadal/Roger Federer decade? Those two would effectively be the only ones playing in the "modern era," thus helping establish it and "ushering in a new era of tennis." Ah, the wonderful world of elaborate but empty terms.

If you are nostalgic and believe like many other older generation tennis followers that the golden era of tennis was the late-'70s and early-'80s with Jimmy Connors, Borg, and McEnroe in the leading roles on the men's side and Navratilova and Chris Evert on the women's, you can always claim the variety of surfaces in Slams as the determining factor of the "modern era." Slams were beginning to vary more in terms of surfaces (U.S. Open changing surfaces twice) and grass courts were gradually losing their dominance on the game. This way you can claim that the Australian group of female players such as Evonne Goolagong and Margaret Court, and male players such as Rod Laver, John Newcombe, and Ken Rosewall of the late-'60s and early-'70s did not play in the "modern era."

Oh, but don't fret if you are a fan of the Australians mentioned above or if you are an Aussie yourself. You can always define the parameters of your modern era as the "Open Era" if that suits you. In fact, you happen to be on solid grounds if you do so, since the professional organizing body of the game has established this term and entered it into practice in 1968 by allowing professionals and amateurs to play in the same tournaments: your "modern era" is indeed "official."

These are many of the endless types of avenues you can use in your rhetoric by making use of the term "modern era." But what does it really mean? Nobody could tell you; just one of those terms that sounds "full," but when you open it up and look inside, it's all "empty."

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 10:59 AM | Comments (4)

March 15, 2011

Does Size Matter For Running Backs?

I noted in a recent column that Jerome Bettis — all 250 pounds of him — wasn't a particularly good short-yardage runner. In 13 NFL seasons, Bettis led his own team in TDs only four times. Emmitt Smith weighed 40 pounds less, but he led his team in TDs 12 times. Even as other positions become increasingly specialized, the use of a giant battering-ram RB in short-yardage situations doesn't seem to be gaining traction. Is this a mistake?

For every season from 1991-2010, I looked at the top 10 rushers that year, slicing and dicing their statistics to see how height, weight, and Body Mass Index (BMI) might play a role in short-yardage success. 1991 is a good starting point because that's the year the NFL began keeping first down data for individual players. There are a lot of numbers coming up, so for those of you whose eyes get blurry at that kind of thing — or if you just can't stand suspense — being taller and heavier does not help in short-yardage situations, and it may be detrimental.

The average top-10 rusher, looking at all 20 seasons, was 71 inches tall (5'11") and weighed 219.4 pounds, with a BMI of 30.6. Basically Garrison Hearst, or Clinton Portis in Washington — not the skinny Denver years. BMI is a very basic measure of the relationship between an individual's height and weight. A higher BMI indicates more weight per inch of height. Essentially, a higher BMI means a fatter (or at least more muscular) running back.

The height, weight, and BMI of the top 10 rushers has remained fairly constant over the past two decades, from an average of 70.5 inches, 219.4 lbs., 31.0 BMI in '91 to 70.6 inches, 215.7 lbs., 30.5 BMI in 2010 — basically the same. The year-to-year fluctuations in between are small enough that they appear to be coincidences rather than patterns.

I examined relationships between these three size factors and a number of statistical categories, including: rushing yards, rushing TDs, rushing first downs, percentage of rushes yielding first downs, and fumbles. Note that the NFL counts a touchdown as a first down, so those count in both categories. In all cases, the height and weight I used are those given on a player's NFL.com page as of March 1, 2011.

Height

The optimal height for a running back is 5'9". This was one of the few conclusions of my research. I broke the 200 RB seasons into seven groups:

(1) less than 5'9" (14 seasons, includes Barry Sanders, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Ray Rice)
(2) 5'9" (19 seasons, includes Emmitt Smith, Priest Holmes, and Frank Gore)
(3) 5'10" (47 seasons, includes Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, and LaDainian Tomlinson)
(4) 5'11" (54 seasons, includes Terrell Davis, Jerome Bettis, and Chris Johnson)
(5) 6' (16 seasons, includes Edgerrin James, Ahman Green, and Willis McGahee)
(6) 6'1" (32 seasons, includes Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon, and Adrian Peterson)
(7) more than 6'1" (18 seasons, includes Chris Warren, Eddie George, and Steven Jackson)

The players mentioned are examples, not the only top-10 RBs of that height. Group 2, the 5'9" players, outperformed the other groups in virtually every category: rushing yards, rushing TDs (by a huge margin), first downs, and first down %. The advantage is so large that you can subtract Emmitt Smith from the group entirely, and it still leads in most categories, plus it passes Group 1 (the shortest players) for best rushing average (4.84).

The further over 5'9" the players went, the lower their TD totals got. The data suggest that the advantages gained by shorter players (low center of gravity, tough for defenders to see behind the line) outweigh the advantages of a taller player (arm length, extra inch or two if they fall forward). In a goal-line situation, you simply aren't going to fall forward very often. Here's the 5'9" group with Emmitt, without Emmitt, and combined with the shortest group into a 33-season sample of all the RBs under 5'10":

This isn't about sample size, and it isn't about Emmitt skewing the stats. Shorter RBs, when they are successful, gain more yards and more first downs, score more touchdowns, and have better averages than successful RBs who are tall. Height in excess of 69 inches is a disadvantage for running backs, including in short-yardage rushing situations.

Weight

For the categories tracked, a weight between 206-225 pounds appears to be ideal. Lighter-weight RBs outperformed the heavier backs in most categories, but in the statistics linked to short-yardage performance, neither very light nor very heavy runners equaled those in the middle. I sorted players into five weight classes:

(1) 205 lbs. and below (25 seasons, includes Barry Sanders, Tiki Barber, and Chris Johnson)
(2) 206-215 lbs. (62 seasons, includes Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, and LaDainian Tomlinson)
(3) 216-225 lbs. (46 seasons, includes Emmitt Smith, Edgerrin James, and Adrian Peterson)
(4) 226-235 lbs. (46 seasons, includes Rodney Hampton, Eddie George, and Shaun Alexander)
(5) over 235 lbs. (21 seasons, includes Jerome Bettis, Jamal Lewis, and Steven Jackson)

The middle category performs best in the three stats we would expect to be associated with short-yardage success: TDs, first downs, and first down percentage. The further removed a group is from the center (216-225 lbs.), the more poorly it performs, except that the lightest backs have the second-highest first down percentage. The heaviest backs are clearly the weakest, last or second-to-last in almost every category. These data suggest that speed and elusiveness outweigh mass even in goal-line and short-yardage scenarios. A lighter back might hit the hole quickly, beat defenders to the outside, leap over the pile, and slip through tackles in a way that larger players are unable to.

It bears mention that Emmitt Smith is listed at 216 lbs., his weight with the Cardinals, thus barely edging into the middle weight class. Smith played most of his career 5-10 pounds lighter than that, and was such an incredibly successful short-yardage runner that he single-handedly skews the statistics. I would suggest that the 206-215 range is actually at least as advantageous for short-yardage and goal-line situations as the 216-225 category. The stats are basically even if you move Emmitt (the only 216-er) to the lighter weight class.

BMI

The formula for BMI is kilograms divided by (meters squared): BMI = kg/m². Or, for us heathens in the U.S., multiply your weight in pounds by 703 and divide by the square of your height in inches: BMI = (703 * lbs) / in². Higher BMIs indicate more weight per height. A healthy BMI is usually between 18.5-24.9, though this is acknowledged to be inaccurate for athletes with high muscle mass.

I used five groups here:

(1) below 29 (24 seasons, includes Ricky Watters, Adrian Peterson, and Chris Johnson)
(2) 29-29.9 (54 seasons, includes Thurman Thomas, Eddie George, and Brian Westbrook)
(3) 30-30.9 (53 seasons, includes Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, and LaDainian Tomlinson)
(4) 31-31.9 (35 seasons, includes Emmitt Smith, Priest Holmes, and Shaun Alexander)
(5) 32 and over (34 seasons, includes Jerome Bettis, Ricky Williams, and Maurice Jones-Drew)

As you might expect, the 31s blow away the pack. Smith, Holmes, and Alexander all set single-season TD records in the last 20 years, and this group is clearly and dramatically the best in the short-yardage categories.

It seems apparent that the optimal BMI for a short-yardage back is something very close to 31.5. The other groups are all roughly equal, and all far below the 31.x-BMI group.

Other Data

For all 20 seasons studied, I broke down the first through tenth in several statistical categories, producing a group of (for instance) all the leading rushers: Emmitt Smith, Emmitt Smith, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Barry Sanders, Terrell Davis, Edgerrin James, Edgerrin James, Priest Holmes, Ricky Williams, Jamal Lewis, Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander, LaDainian Tomlinson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Arian Foster. I also have all the second-ranked rushers, and third-ranked, and fourth, and so on down to tenth, for every year from 1991-2010. Some of the more interesting findings:

* The leading rushers were the shortest (70.2") and lightest (215.2 lbs) of all 10 groups.

* The 10th-ranked rushers were the second-tallest (71.5"), second-heaviest (223.9), and had the second-highest BMIs (30.9).

* The leading TD scorers were the shortest (70.2") by a large margin, almost half an inch.

* The tallest group was the ninth-ranked TD scorers (71.8").

* The second-leading scorers were the heaviest (224.2) and had the highest BMI (31.4).

* The first-down leaders were the shortest (70.5"), followed by the third-leading (70.6") and second-leading (70.7").

* The 10th-ranked group for first downs was the heaviest (225.0).

The stat that most obviously correlates with size is first down percentage. The smaller running backs consistently and dramatically outperformed the larger in this category:

* The three shortest groups were the top three in this category. The leaders checked in at 70.3", followed by 70.7" and 70.4".

* Four of the top five groups in 1stD% — 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th — weighed an average of less than 220 lbs., and four of the bottom five weighed over 220 lbs. The lightest group was the 2nd-ranked in first down percentage.

These data confirm the height and weight breakdowns presented already: height is a disadvantage, and weight except to the extent it correlates with BMI. Not only do smaller RBs gain more yards overall and per carry, but they gain more first downs and score more TDs. Short, powerful runners with a medium-to-high BMI tend to be the most successful RBs in goal-line and short-yardage situations. You probably don't want Dexter McCluster (5-8, 170) carrying the ball on 3rd-and-1, but you do want Jones-Drew (5-7, 208) or Rashard Mendenhall (5-10, 225) or LT (5-10, 215).

Fumbles

Shorter players fumble less often than tall players, and lighter-weight RBs fumble less often than heavier RBs.

* The top-10 rushers with the fewest fumbles each season were the shortest (70.3") and by far the lightest (210.6 lbs) of all 10 groups.

* The 10th-ranked group (most fumbles) was the second-tallest (71.5"), second-heaviest (225.4), and had the second-highest BMIs (31.0).

* In the height study, the shortest group (under 5'9") fumbled far less than the other groups, 2.1 per season. The tallest group (over 6'1") fumbled second-least (2.9), but the other tall groups fumbled the most.

* In the weight study, the lightest group (205 and less) fumbled the least, 2.6 per season, followed by the second-lightest group (206-215), at 2.8 per season. The other three groups were roughly equal, and almost a full fumble higher per season (3.7, 3.8, and 3.4, in ascending order of weight).

* There is no obvious correlation between BMI and fumbling. The players with BMIs between 30-32 fumbled the least (2.8), players above 32 the most (3.8).

Short-Distance TDs

The top 10 in rushing TDs of 1-2 yards, since 1991:

Hold the presses! This doesn't look like 5'9" is an ideal height for RBs. Nine of the 10 players are taller than that!

That's because most RBs are taller than 5'9". Only 33 of the 200 seasons included were by a running back that short — and half of those 33 seasons are just Emmitt and Barry. Players that short seldom even get a chance in the NFL, or they're forced into part-time roles and leave the game in goal-to-go situations. A team that has a choice uses Tons of Fun in that situation.

When short RBs get a chance, however, they prove themselves over and over. DeAngelo Williams is about 5-8½, and he plays with a stereotypically "big back" who gets most of the goal-line work, but he led the NFL in TDs a couple years ago. Priest Holmes (5'9") set a single-season TD record. Maurice Jones-Drew is only 5'7", but he's scored double-digit TDs in four of his first five seasons, including 18 runs of 1-2 yards. Smith, of course, is the all-time leader in rushing TDs, one of the greatest short-yardage runners of all time.

The average size for the leaders in 1-2 yard TDs correspond almost exactly to the averages of all top-10 rushers: 71 inches tall (5'11"), 219.4 pounds, 30.6 BMI. The difference is less than a pound.

The Ideal Size

On average, the most successful short-yardage RBs over the past 20 seasons were about 5'9", 215 lbs., and BMI 31.5. I would suggest that a model short-yardage runner is 69" tall and weighs 210-215 pounds, indicating a BMI between 31-31.75. This very nearly matches Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, Earnest Byner, Frank Gore, Barry Foster, DeAngelo Williams, and Steve Slaton.

Conversely, running backs taller than 6'1" appear to be at a disadvantage and probably should not be regularly used in important short-yardage situations if the team has another good RB. This includes Eddie George, Steven Jackson, Chris Warren, Robert Smith, Leonard Russell, Matt Forte, Harvey Williams, and Harold Green.

Domination of the game (and the goal line in particular) by big fat guys has noticeably diminished over the past several decades. I would suggest that the primary reason for this is the explosion of size among linemen. Remember when Refrigerator Perry was a punch-line, a guy so fat it was comical? Most teams now have half a dozen guys that big. It used to be that a John Riggins or Earl Campbell could get a head of steam and bowl over linemen who didn't weigh much more than he did. But now, send a 240-lb. RB crashing into a wall of 320-lb. refrigerators, and he's not going to get past them.

I would posit that the performance of the offensive line is probably the most important factor in straight-ahead rushing attempts, and that even a big, strong RB is very limited in his capacity to create opportunities without a strong push from his blockers. A faster RB who works outside, or presents the threat of an outside run, may be less handcuffed by his blocking opportunities, and presents more threats to a defense. Send in the tank, and the defense knows it doesn't have to defend against an outside run. A more nimble back forces the defenders to spread out.

Running backs can't create holes if the blockers in front don't make them. The most successful short-yardage runners in today's game threaten as much with their agility and balance as their power, and probably more than anything with their vision and intelligence. A good running back will do well on the goal line, too, regardless of size (though it's probably best if he's not too tall). An increasingly popular trend involves increasing the size of the blocking back rather than the ball-handler, for instance by using a 310-lb. defensive tackle at fullback. I'm not sure how much difference that makes, but it's a better idea than replacing your best RB with a big slow guy just when you really need a good play.

It probably was true at one time that larger backs were more effective at picking up 3rd-and-1, but that was a long time ago. Like, 30 years, son. If you still believe, in 2011, that your best bet on the goal line is the 240-pounder who snuck out of the locker room for a hot dog at halftime, you probably also believe 1,000-yard rushing seasons are really groovy. Half the starters in the league make it to 1,000 these days, big guy. Remember when a Hall of Fame defensive tackle might weigh less than a running back? Alan Page, who retired in 1978, finished his career at 225 lbs. Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore.

The best goal-line runner is your best running back, period. He doesn't have to be huge, and it might be preferable that he isn't.

Possible Biases

That's basically it, but if you're kind of a stats nerd, you might want to keep reading about how the numbers presented above might be misleading. If that sounds boring, you can quit while you're ahead and probably won't miss anything important. Thanks for stopping by.

The numbers don't lie, but that doesn't mean they necessarily tell us what they appear to tell us. The four most important potential biases that seem likely to me are: (1) bigger RBs get more short-yardage opportunities than smaller RBs, (2) a player's weight can vary over his career, (3) bad teams are more likely to use unusually big or small RBs than good teams, and (4) possible issues with sample size.

Bigger RBs get more short-yardage opportunities than smaller RBs.

Conventional wisdom dictates that a big, heavy back (like Bettis or George) is best-suited to short-yardage situations, and that a lighter back (like Terry Allen or Terrell Davis) is not a good choice for those situations. Of course, Allen (208 lbs) and Davis (210) and Faulk (211) and Holmes (213) and Tomlinson (215) and Barry Sanders (200) all led the NFL in TDs, which Bettis (255) and George (235) and Jamal Lewis (245) and Michael Turner (244) and Larry Johnson (235) and Deuce McAllister (232) never did.

I believe the disadvantage of heavier RBs is even greater than it appears from this data, because they get many more goal-line opportunities than lighter RBs. Tiki Barber, listed at 205 lbs., was a very good short-yardage runner, but the Giants routinely subbed him out for Ron Dayne (245) and Brandon Jacobs (264). I remember thinking at the time that it was crazy. Dayne was a disaster, and Jacobs, especially early in his career, wasn't much better. But the Giants regularly removed their best running back from the game in the most crucial situations. Imagine if the Yankees pulled Mariano Rivera before the final out of a game because the next batter was left-handed. It's the same thing.

Barber scored more rushing TDs of over 10 yards (20) than rushing TDs of 1-2 yards (18), because the Giants rarely gave him the ball in short yardage. Some of you may remember that Barber had a fumbling problem, and wonder if the Giants kept him out of goal-line situations because they were afraid he'd pull an Earnest Byner. Only 32 of Barber's 53 career fumbles came on rush attempts. The others were receptions or punt returns, where fumbles are more common. Barber fumbled less often per carry (1.44%) than Jacobs (1.51%), and in 2005, he actually had the fewest fumbles (1) of any top-10 rusher.

Barber is just one example. In 2005, splitting time with Bettis, Willie Parker scored TDs of 10, 11, 37, and 80 yards. The next season, with Bettis retired, he scored from 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 41. Obviously, he could handle short-yardage, but he lost opportunities because he played with a guy who outweighed him by 45 pounds. The same thing happened to Chris Johnson, who in his 2,000-yard season regularly left the game so LenDale White could stumble into a wall of defenders. Guys like Warrick Dunn and Ray Rice and Jamaal Charles don't even get a chance to prove themselves in short-yardage situations. Their TD statistics are poor not because they were bad at picking up 3rd-and-1 or 4th-and-goal, but because they were never in the game on 3rd-and-1 or 4th-and-goal. Thus, the lightest backs are probably even better at short-yardage than their stats suggest, and the big guys probably a little worse.

A player's weight can vary over his career.

As a rookie, Clinton Portis weighed about 190 lbs. He rushed for 1,500 yards, with a 5.5 average and 15 TDs. The next season, almost 1,600 yards, 5.5 average, 14 TDs. Then he got traded to Washington, and bulked up to 220 in an effort to handle increased workload. For what it's worth, all his career highs were set in those two seasons, but that's not the point — on every line of this study, Portis is 5'11", 219 lbs. That means that in '02 and '03, his weight listing is off by almost 30 lbs., and that the results are not 100% accurate.

Similarly, Emmitt Smith is listed at 216. He put on weight at the end of his career, but was below 210 in the '90s. In this study, Jerome Bettis is 255 lbs., because that's what his NFL.com page shows, but in his prime, Bettis barely weighed 240. Late in their careers, many players compensate for lost speed with extra size and strength, so again, most RBs are probably listed as weighing more than they really did for the majority of their careers. Some are even listed at different heights. Fred Taylor, 6' in 1998, was later listed at 6'1".

Bad teams are more likely to use unusually big or small RBs than good teams.

Most teams, if they have a choice, use a running back close to average size: somewhere between 5'9" and 6'1", 205-235 lbs. Players who fall outside that range are most likely to play only if the team is desperate: if there are no other good running backs on the roster, or if injuries force him into action. That's how Peyton Hillis, originally a fullback, became a fantasy football sensation for the Browns in 2010. Players who are too short, too tall, too heavy, too light, usually begin their careers as part-time players: special teamers, third-down backs, goal-line specialists, fullbacks. If the team already has an Emmitt Smith or Marshall Faulk, they might not carry the ball at all.

Bad teams sometimes have no choice but to put these players in the lineup, and often, they pleasantly surprise. But a bad team with a good running back is still a bad team. It won't score very many touchdowns, and it especially won't score many rushing touchdowns. It won't get a lot of first downs, and it will have a poor first down percentage. Thus, the size outliers — the very big and the very small — might be better than their low TD and first down numbers suggest.

Possible issues with sample size.

In any study like this, you have to balance precision with certainty. A small group that fit a certain height or weight range, maybe as few as 15 or 20 players, may not be terribly meaningful. For instance, the Under-5'9" group in the height section included only 14 seasons, and eight of them were by Barry Sanders. Does this tell us anything meaningful about players besides Sanders?

On the other hand, a larger group — say 100 seasons — eliminates that uncertainty, but with only two groups, you're lumping together as "similar" vastly different players. We could split weight at 215 lbs., yielding groups of 87 and 113: nice, big samples. But now we're putting Emmitt Smith and Clinton Portis in the same category as Jerome Bettis and Christian Okoye. That's just not a valid comparison. When we talk about big backs, we don't mean guys like Smith and Portis.

Two hundred seasons are a lot, and I think there's a decent balance in most of the data sets presented here, but it's not perfect.

Players Listed

Some RBs appear on the top-10 leaderboard more than once. Here are all who posted at least three appearances, with height, weight, BMI, and number of top-10 seasons since '91. They're organized by ascending weight, because alphabetical order was boring and I felt like it.

Eight Top-10 Seasons

Barry Sanders: 5'8", 200 lbs, 30.4 BMI
LaDainian Tomlinson: 5'10", 215 lbs, 30.8 BMI
Emmitt Smith: 5'9", 216 lbs, 31.9 BMI

Seven Top-10 Seasons

Curtis Martin: 5'11", 210 lbs, 29.3 BMI

Six Top-10 Seasons

Clinton Portis: 5'11", 219 lbs, 30.5 BMI
Corey Dillon: 6'1", 225 lbs, 29.7 BMI
Fred Taylor: 6'1", 228 lbs, 30.1 BMI

Five Top-10 Seasons

Marshall Faulk: 5'10", 211 lbs, 30.3 BMI
Ricky Watters: 6'1", 211 lbs, 27.8 BMI
Edgerrin James: 6'0, 219 lbs, 29.7 BMI
Rodney Hampton: 5'11", 228 lbs, 31.8 BMI
Eddie George: 6'3", 235 lbs, 29.4 BMI
Jerome Bettis: 5'11", 255 lbs, 35.6 BMI

Four Top-10 Seasons

Tiki Barber: 5'10", 205 lbs, 29.4 BMI
Thurman Thomas: 5'10", 206 lbs, 29.6 BMI
Terry Allen: 5'11", 208 lbs, 29.0 BMI
Terrell Davis: 5'11", 210 lbs, 29.3 BMI
Thomas Jones: 5'10", 212 lbs, 30.4 BMI
Adrian Peterson: 6'1", 217 lbs, 28.6 BMI
Shaun Alexander: 5'11", 228 lbs, 31.8 BMI
Ricky Williams: 5'10", 230 lbs, 33.0 BMI
Stephen Davis: 6'0, 230 lbs, 31.2 BMI
Jamal Lewis: 5'11", 235 lbs, 34.2 BMI

Three Top-10 Seasons

Chris Johnson: 5'11", 191 lbs, 26.6 BMI
Priest Holmes: 5'9", 213 lbs, 31.5 BMI
Chris Warren: 6'2", 227 lbs, 29.1 BMI
Steven Jackson: 6'2", 236 lbs, 30.3 BMI
Rudi Johnson: 5'10", 255 lbs, 32.3 BMI

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:31 PM | Comments (6)

"Facing" the Facts in MLB For 2011

As is the case each March, spring training camps in Arizona and Florida feature no fewer than 28 teams (apologies to fans in Cleveland and Pittsburgh) excitedly preparing for the eight-month grind of a season ahead. Teams have renewed optimism and self-assured confidence in their faith that this may well be "the year." Veterans who have been peddling their baseball wares for the same team for years merge with new acquisitions, fresh-faced youngsters, and coaching staffs and are each comparably eager to make their mark on the 2011 MLB season.

The offseason leading into the fast-approaching 2011 campaign has no shortage of big-names changing teams, attention-grabbing prospects looking to break out, and question marks needing to be answered in the areas of underperformance and injury. And while the gusting winds of change are leading experts and amateurs alike to predictions of success from South Beach to Puget Sound, the reality is only a small handful of Major League Baseball's 30 franchises stand to have a reasonable shot at even making the postseason, much less playing for a World Series pennant.

Have teams like the Brewers, White Sox, Padres, and Dodgers made enough quality moves to truly be viable contenders? Have last year's title combatants in Arlington and San Francisco remained in the mix? What do we make of the perennial "big boys" in New York, Boston, and Philly? Do their moves make the 2011 season a foregone conclusion?

While those arguments will rage on well into the "dog days" of summer, the one underlying truth that cannot be debated is that a good number of teams made some significant "facelifts" to their teams. In homage to that oft-used metaphor, this article takes a look through the plastic surgeon's post-operative eye in identifying successes in failures by MLB teams in working towards a serviceable product in 2011.

Greta Van Susteren Division

(Improvement in overall looks, but still miles away from attractive)

Baltimore Orioles — The addition of Derrek Lee, Mark Reynolds, J.J. Hardy, and Vlad Guerrero looks like a coup in "Charm City," bolstering a lineup that had only a single returning batter with more than 20 home runs in 2010 and providing veteran leadership to a team starving for an identity. Still, it is a curious series of moves considering that the net result is a team filled with aging talent that doesn't stand to contribute to Baltimore's long-term success in a division where the short-term outlook is not the best for teams outside of Boston, New York and Tampa/St. Pete. Nonetheless, this Oriole lineup should be vastly improved in 2011 and Oriole fans will once again have a reason to watch baseball as this team should keep things interesting before they inevitably fade into non-contention in July and August.

San Diego Padres — Coming off a year where everyone — and I mean everyone — outside of their own clubhouse was shocked with the unexpected success of the young, one-for-all/all-for-one Padres, you had to expect some major (and financially sound) steps towards building off their unlikely run from a year ago. Fans of the Pads cannot be disappointed in their moves. Though they will be losing their most consistent bat from recent years in 1B Adrian Gonzalez, Brad Hawpe is a reasonable replacement both offensively and defensively. Adding Orlando Hudson at 2B and Jorge Cantu at 3B gives San Diego a formidable infield with tools that dovetail nicely with the expansive PETCO Park. Aaron Harang will provide some veteran leadership to a solid but young group of starting pitchers and Chad Qualls is a decent bullpen add.

Even with these changes, the truth is the Padres' makeover was not nearly as extreme as that as their rivals to the north in Dodger-land and the class of the division is still that talented San Francisco squad that will be defending its World Series title. While the Padres are clearly closer to the top of the NL West than they are the bottom, it is quite unlikely that this group will be alive for a wild card berth once the calendar turns to September, much less any shot at a division title.

Pittsburgh Pirates — Okay, okay, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am neither a Pirates fan nor am I related to any of the players they picked up during the offseason. But, for this first time in a very long time, the Buckos spent their winter doing something other than sleepwalking, cashing in their revenue-sharing checks, and watching their best young prospects walk out the doors. Though modest in their reputations as highly-skilled, all-around great baseball players, the group that Pittsburgh is bringing into the mix seems very much like the "right" group of guys.

I liken their offseason signings to the trade that brought 3B Scott Rolen to Cincy two years back; not the most talented players out there, but good "clubhouse guys" that, if they stick around, could begin to transition the cloud of negativity that surrounds Pittsburgh Pirates baseball into something a bit more palatable for its long-suffering fan base. Kevin Correia seems to have finally figured it out as a major league starter, Joe Beimel and Jose Veras are serviceable bullpen arms and Josh Fields, Lyle Overbay, and Matt Diaz are all high-character, hard-working guys that do have some talent to contribute. While it is quite clear that the Pirates will be on the losing side of the ledger more often than not (for what will be the 19th consecutive season), it is equally clear that this team should not be in the basement of the NL Central once the dust settles on the 2011 season.

Kate Beckinsale Division

("Before" was good, but not quite ready for primetime; "after" is full of promise)

Chicago Cubs — The Cubs' frustrating oscillation between on-the-cusp-of-excellence and one-foot-in-the-toilet-bowl from one season to the next is almost otherworldly. In fact, I'm quite sure if you ever met an alien life form, taught them the intricacies of baseball, and then went on to explain the history of the Cubs, you'd be vaporized by their ray guns in a fit of rage at your attempt to mislead them so boldly and so completely. So, one may ask, why on Earth would anyone ever include these same, unpredictably inconsistent Cubbies in a story about predicted results, particularly in a section of the article that alludes to success? Simply put, the moves they made are solid.

Any self-respecting Cubs fan (no, that is not an oxymoron) will tell you that the primary failing of the North-siders in 2010 was a lack of an identity, followed closely by weaknesses at three critical points in their operations: power from the left side of the plate, consistency in the pitching rotation, and bridging games to their outstanding closer Carlos Marmol. What did GM Jim Hendry do to account for this? He brought back historically popular ex-Cubs in Reed Johnson, Auggie Ojeda, and Kerry Wood (who also serves the second purpose of providing a reliable "bridge" to Marmol) to bring some character to the team's clubhouse.

Hendry also went out and overpaid (though smartly in the offering of a single-year contract) for one of the best left-handed power bats in baseball, and traded for Matt Garza, as consistent a starting arm as was available and someone that will give the team the luxury of a third high-end starting pitcher. While winning their division is far from a likelihood, only a foolhardy, half-retarded, gap-toothed Cubs-hater (aka "typical Cardinals fan") would argue that they aren't in that conversation.

Milwaukee Brewers — The additions of SS Yuniesky Bettencourt, SP Shaun Marcum, RP Takashi Saito, C Wil Nieves, and OF/IF Mark Kotsay give the Brew Crew depth that they haven't had in a very long time. The addition of SP Zach Greinke provides the star-power that makes this offseason move from the "nice" category into the "team to watch" stratosphere. Featuring — and returning largely intact — one of the more potent offensive lineups, Milwaukee has a nice mix of veterans and youth in the bullpen and on the bench. Saito should provide a fall-back option should the inexperienced but promising John Axford falter at closer and really solidifies an already strong bullpen. Greinke's presence as a true number one moves all the other starters back a slot, positioning them much closer to a slot in the rotation that is more befitting of their skills.

All this said, much of their hopes for becoming a serious contender rest on the health and sustained performance of Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, and Corey Hart, which, though not completely out of the question, is by no means a sure thing. Expect the Brewers to be at or very near the top of the NL Central and a solid contender in the wild card hunt.

Los Angeles Dodgers — You'd be hard-pressed to find a team that did more this offseason — at least in terms of volume — than the L.A. Dodgers. The team added a front line starter in Jon Garland, a quality short reliever in Matt Guerrier, role players in slugger Marcus Thames and the speedy Tony Gwynn, and a one-time hated rival in IF Juan Uribe, who they signed away from the Giants. Gone is Russell Martin, who's tendency to speak his mind was beginning to wear at the Dodger front office, replaced with the reserved and professional Dioner Navarro.

When all is said and done, L.A. should have done just enough to keep themselves in the conversation about who may win the NL West into September. Still, the team lacks a singular, stable force in the middle of the lineup. Much of their success will hinge on how well players handle the platoon systems that they are going to have to employ to get quality reps for all the veterans on this roster. Pitching won't be a weakness, but neither will it be the strength of this team. Their offseason may make the Dodgers contenders for their division, should the cards fall into place, but things will have to break down quite perfectly for them to contend for anything beyond that.

Chicago White Sox — Anytime a roster loses marquee names like Manny Ramirez, J.J. Putz, Bobby Jenks, and Andruw Jones in an offseason, you'd have to assume that the result would be a lesser product. However, in the case of the White Sox, these losses may actually contribute to an improved 2011. Jones and Ramirez weren't good fits in a place where fans demand maximum effort at all times and Jenks and Putz battled injuries and inconsistency all season, creating a situation where their success while in games was largely a crapshoot.

White Sox management did a great job bringing in players who should better fit the expectations of manager Ozzie Guillen and who are known as maximum effort guys. Jesse Crain and Will Ohman are workhorse types in the bullpen and should get things set up nicely for likely closer-candidates Matt Thornton and Chris Sale. Omar Vizquel brings a leadership quality that this team sorely lacked over the past two seasons.

And then, of course, there is Adam Dunn. Dunn may be the most common disrespected and undervalued star in the game today, but his talents play very nicely in Chicago's South Side. Dunn brings a big, left-handed bat, patience at the plate, and a soft-spoken quality that makes him a very non-abrasive teammate. The Chi-Sox have put themselves in a very good situation for 2011 and should be able to make a bunch of noise, even without some of the bigger name talent that they leaned on last year in hopes of making a run deep into the playoffs.

Megan Fox Division

(From super hot to super-duper hot ... an embarrassment of riches)

Philadelphia Phillies — No surprise to see this team's name here, I'd be willing to wager. With a grand total of zero key losses during the offseason, all Philly did was add a left-handed ace to an already loaded pitching staff (Cliff Lee). Their lineup — clearly one of the best in baseball top to bottom — remains intact with only Jayson Werth leaving town, and he is being replaced by a five-tool prospect named Dominic Brown who may wind up far more valuable than the afore-mentioned Werth. This team has been one of the best over the past three seasons, and the bottom line is they have solidified their chance even further by making a few very targeted, very effective moves during this past offseason.

Boston Red Sox — Nobody has done it better than the Boston organization in recent years. They don't typically overpay for "hometown heroes" (see Johnny Damon, Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez) and they always reload with savvy, well-timed roster moves that nearly never backfire on them. The 2010 offseason was no different, as they wave good-bye to a fading Mike Lowell, an overpaid Victor Martinez, and three infielders who they brought in last season to help out an injury-plagued team in Bill Hall, Adrian Beltre, and Felipe Lopez.

While those losses will not go without notice, the front office has wisely made the decision to change their strategy from bludgeoning their opposition to death to a more tactful, surgical attack and to execute on this change in strategy the team brought in lots of quality relief help (Bobby Jenks, Alfredo Aceves, Dennys Reyes, Dan Wheeler) and broke the bank to bring in a superstar quality table-setter in OF Carl Crawford. Boston didn't need to do much to remain dominant in the AL East, but managed to somehow raise the bar further for those in the division that will be chasing them.

Tampa Bay — Not long ago, Tampa was on nobody's radar screen in terms of teams that would fall into the "embarrassment of riches" category. Even today, many of you would point to the loss of Crawford to a division rival as a telling sign that Tampa is not and will not be an elite franchise for the long haul. I beg to differ with this assessment, however. True, losing Crawford is not going to be something that just simply can be ignored. Likewise, the loss of 1B Carlos Pena and the trading of SP Matt Garza are surprising developments that will impact the on-the-field product in 2011.

But the reality is this team is loaded in terms of depth in their farm system and players like SP Jeremy Hellickson, C John Jaso, and OF Desmond Jennings are poised to fill in some of the gaps left by departing Rays. And, for good measure, to help bridge the gap to the next wave of uber-talented prospects, the Rays have brought in Manny Ramirez to bolster the lineup's heart, Felipe Lopez to provide top-of-the-order stability, 1B Casey Kotchman to play gold glove-caliber defense at first, and Johnny Damon to provide some left-handed consistency in their order. Tampa may not be in the same class as Boston and New York in terms of year in, year out dominance, but they certainly have a workable model that is keeping them in contention even in times of transition.

Melanie Griffith Division

(What was once tolerable is suddenly painful to look at)

L.A. Angels of Anaheim — A team with the supposed resources of the Angels should not be on list under a category that implies a move away from respectability, but that is right where they find themselves. True, the team only lost three players through free agency, and none of those were of considerable consequence (RP Scot Shields, LF Hideki Matsui, and IF Kevin Frandsen), but it was more about what they didn't do than what they did do.

Bringing in Scott Downs to replace Shields in the bullpen is fine, but not an improvement. Trading for Vernon Wells to replace Matsui's stick brings nothing extra to the table. Frankly, the team could have made plays for any number of impact players, but did not. The result won't be a disaster, but will certainly be a disappointing 2011 result as they simply are not in the same class as the Texas Rangers right now and are doing nothing to stop their backslide out of the top of the American League's group of premier teams.

New York Yankees — I will preface this by saying that by no means am I trying to imply that the Yankees' 2011 season will be an unmitigated disaster. This team will, simply by force of talent, compete. They still have four-to-six all-stars in their everyday lineup and they still have a very good ace at the top of their rotation and one of the game's all-time great closers at the back end of their pitching staff. However, this is more about what could have been than what is. The Yankees play in a division with two other heavy lifters: the aforementioned Red Sox and Rays. Their other two chief divisional rivals, Toronto and Baltimore, are improving products.

The effect you get from this is a situation where the Yankees are no longer the "pivot point" of the AL East, and therefore they become another satellite rotating around the center of their divisional universe, which is clearly now located in Beantown. With all their high-priced talent and unmistakable swagger, New York will be lucky to find themselves in the playoffs in 2011 and by any measure, this would be a precipitous drop-off from the success we've grown accustomed to from the pin-strippers in the Big Apple.

Donatella Versace Division

(Though quite ugly before, the "new look" is grotesque and sub-human)

Houston Astros — Look up the phrase "going nowhere fast" in the encyclopedia and you will see a picture of the Houston Astros. This is a team that is overburdened with one bad contract (Carlos Lee), a handful of roster spots occupied by players who barely deserve major league consideration (Chris Johnson, Brett Wallace, Wesley Wright, Humberto Quintero), and a fan base that eternally rationalizes poor on-field performances by focusing on the one or two things that each player does well, while ignoring the six or seven each player does poorly. A team needing to make some bold offseason decisions oddly opted to stand pat and "build" of a modest late-season performance that was certainly not indicative of a team on the cusp of success.

Bringing in the likes of Clint Barmes and Bill Hall, while not terrible moves, do nothing to help the long-term outlook of the club. A more effective approach would have been to package what few trade-worthy assets they have — namely Hunter Pence, Michael Bourne, Wandy Rodriguez, or Brett Myers for some minor league depth that they so sorely need. What you are going to get now in Houston is a sustained dry spell punctuated by a real lack of the type of homegrown talent organizations need to pull themselves out of the consuming "rebuilding" cycle that has doomed franchises in Pittsburgh and Kansas City for so long.

Oakland Athletics — Oakland needed to go "all-in" during their 2010 offseason as they face irrelevance like never before. The emergence of Texas as a consistent force in their division is one thing, but the willingness of Seattle to spend money in their rebuilding project and the continued financial position of the L.A. Angels of Anaheim make Oakland an afterthought in their own division, much less the American League on the whole.

What did they do this offseason? Not only did they lose OFs Travis Buck and Jack Cust, but they also lost two 3B (Eric Chavez and Edwin Encarnacion) and a quality young arm (Justin Duchscherer) to boot. To counter those losses, the team overpaid for RPs Brian Fuentes and Grant Belfour and also brought in an aging Hideki Matsui, not exactly moves that reek of "can't-miss" undertones. The long story short here is Oakland was not a good team in 2010 and are looking to be even worse in 2011. Add to this reality the fact that their cross-bay foes in San Francisco are drinking champaign and working off their World Series hangover, and things are dismal indeed for A's fans everywhere.

Posted by Matt Thomas at 1:01 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2011

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Selection Committee

The NCAA Basketball Selection Committee is in many ways like the Supreme Court. Its decisions are done behind closed doors and many are outraged after the verdicts are reached. After those decisions are made, many suspect some sort of insidious motives or personal agendas. Sometimes the question is posed if the committee members/justices have their heads on straight. Even the numbers on each panel are similar, nine for the Supreme Court and 10 for the committee.

There is one big difference, though. As an institution, the Supreme Court almost always registers approval ratings above 50 percent. One would suspect that the majority of college basketball fans do not have approbation of the selection committee in any year.

After Sunday's Selection Show for the NCAA tournament, the most surprising edition of selections since 2007 at least, that low level of trust was well and alive. Seth Davis and Greg Anthony were puzzled on CBS. Jay Bilas asked if "the committee knew if the ball was round." Digger Phelps insinuated that there was some latent non-BCS at-large quota the committee had to meet after expanding the tournament to 68 teams and 37 at-large bids.

I choose to believe NCAA basketball supremo Greg Shaheen, who every year brings in a group of media personalities to participate in a mock selection committee and runs it the exact same way that the committee operates. Does he have incentive to lie to the media if somehow the committee has institutionalized a "judicial activism" as part of its normal affairs? I suppose he has some, but there have been far too many people serving on the committee over the years with a wide array of conference and school affiliations for a secret agenda to be feasible and stay under wraps. Furthermore, the committee has not been consistent enough on issues like a mid-major quota over the years for that agenda to be at work.

What the committee ultimately decides on is inherently rooted in the principles of groupthink. Out of a 10-member committee, six have to agree on something for it to get voted through. This is why 88 individuals projecting the process is a foolish endeavor. Different groups of people can come up with wildly divergent preferences, especially if a compelling argument on behalf of a certain viewpoint takes root. Also, different committee members may value different factors of a team's resume to varying extents. Such is the existence of a subjective committee. The alternative would be computers selecting the teams, something that has been mentioned by no one as a practical substitute for good reason. A compromise between the two approaches would be to select teams in a similar vein to the oh-so-popular BCS.

On a personal note, I used to be one of these individuals who tried to predict the decisions of the 10-member group. Three out of the four years I posted a mock bracket on the Internet, it was rated better than Joe Lunardi's final submissions, based on a formula that includes the correct number of teams selected, as well as the numbers of teams within one seed line of their actual position. Last year, I was outraged when Florida got in over Illinois, who I thought had a superior case. Florida subsequently gave BYU a heck of a game. In the end, it became ridiculous to try to replicate something that is only truly replicable with an abundance of time and capable people with the right knowledge.

This year, the inclusions causing the biggest uproar are UAB and VCU, with Clemson and USC providing an auxiliary level of grumblings. Those four teams provide the at-large component of the First Four in Dayton. Three of the four would not have been in the field if last year's format were in place. In a year in which everybody seemed to cite the existence of a weak, wide-open bubble, the outrage over teams being "snubbed" seems curious. UAB and VCU have not put together resumes that would be confused with a middling Big West or MEAC team on any day of the week.

UAB won the regular season conference championship of a top-10 league outright and went 10-7 against the RPI Top 100. Many teams in the field can't cite a winning record against the upper third of Division I. The Blazers possess an excellent point guard in Aaron Johnson. Forward Cameron Moore and Guard Jamarr Sanders provide an inside-outside scoring combo. UAB has C-USA's best defense not named Memphis.

VCU beat the CAA's other two NCAA representatives, Old Dominion and George Mason. The Rams also took care of UCLA on a neutral floor, and won at Wichita State, one of the most historically impenetrable venues outside of the BCS conferences. Four players average in double figures, and VCU ranks only behind a superb George Mason team in offensive efficiency among CAA teams.

If I were to singularly pick NCAA teams, would I have chosen UAB or VCU? Probably not. Yet, one person picking teams in a vacuum is not how the process works.

The fact remains that, with the exception of the Ivy League, the only way to be completely sure about your fate for the tournament is to win your league tournament. Short of that, you have to win at a regular clip against quality teams and not suffer bad losses to be reasonably confident about where you stand on the second Sunday of March. Colorado and Virginia Tech did not meet either of those requirements, each suffering three bad losses. The Buffaloes and Hokies lost 13 and 11 times overall, respectively.

This is not to say that the selection committee does everything right. Its lack of transparency leaves a lot to be desired and leaves it open to even educated people formulating extravagant conspiracy theories about it. If we can rule out the committee room ever having cameras with live audio available on a pay-per-view channel, the NCAA should at least make the transcripts of the committee proceedings available. The NCAA could probably make a lot of money off the transcripts, if it were to make each day's proceedings available for download at a $10 or $20 cost at 10 PM ET the week or so it is in session.

Additionally, the RPI has become a rump metric, if it wasn't already before. It is three-quarters based on some form of schedule-strength and only takes wins and losses into account. A new formula incorporating things like margin of victory, offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency needs to arise. Committee members and those who have participated in mock selections will tell you that a team's RPI number is not important, but the baselines by which schedule strength and quality wins are measured are still based on RPI.

Every year, once tournament games begin, the debate about who belonged in the field seems to melt away. After all, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Virginia Tech, Colorado, or Saint Mary's would have won the national championship were any or all to have been included.

Even assuming that the committee has messed up two or three selections this year, and that left-out teams were indeed of higher quality than those included, that still means the committee has picked about 93% of the most deserving at-large teams. I dare even the most passionate of BCS supporters to argue that an aggregation of the polls and computer ratings has allowed that system to get the teams playing for the championship in college football right 93% of the time.

If the selection process were to solely use computer rankings to decide the field, the problem would be worse. If at-large teams were picked based on the highly respected Pomeroy ratings, Maryland, Nebraska, and New Mexico would all be on their way to the NCAA tournament.

The selection committee is not perfect by any means. It can most certainly be improved in future years by finding something to replace RPI. However, its existence is better than any of the alternatives available for selecting teams to participate in the tournament. The use of the selection committee by the NCAA in its current composition is something that should be largely celebrated, not condemned.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 12:41 PM | Comments (4)

Eastern Conference Race is Heating Up

The NBA's Eastern Conference is garnerning a lot of attention and not just due to East Coast bias and Carmelo Anthony's presence in NYC. Some teams are imploding, while others are rising, and there are actual races for playoff spots.

The Western Conference race is also tight for the eighth and final spot and there are notable headlines, but an examination of the Eastern Conference is a little like watching a favorite movie with a twist. There's laughter, tears, and drama along the way.

The Miami Heat's Apparent Implosion

We are being told that LeBron James can't hit a game-winner, Chris Bosh is soft, the team may or may not be crying, and the coach's job is safe.

Will any of this matter when the playoffs start? Dwyane Wade can hit a late game jumper, but he will need to be asked to do so. Miami's issues might have more to do with whose team it is. The topic has been debated since "The Decision" and it may be time for LeBron to think about dominating the first three quarters and let Dwayne Wade take over the last. After all, Wade's championship ring shows he can lead a team to the promised land and LeBron has already proven he can take a team to the Finals.

With Kendrick Perkins not a Celtic, Chris Bosh may not need to play as "big" as was thought, but it could matter who the coach is in Miami. Pat Riley has assured us that Erik Spoelstra is the coach, and they are still one of the top seeds in the East, but it is hard to imagine the Heat playing so poorly against the elite teams in the NBA if Riley was in charge.

It is also hard to believe Riley would talk about players crying in the locker room. Spoelstra is Riley's hand-picked protégé and maybe it was a motivational tactic that backfired, but even Riley's unorthodox tactics probably wouldn't have invited such widespread criticism and apparent implosion.

Having a high seed should help the Heat advance to the second round, but as the playoffs progress, the Heat could find their late game non-heroics problematic. Beating the Lakers is never a bad win and the Heat have done it twice, but the Heat won't play the Lakers in the Eastern Conference playoffs.

Derrick Rose and the Bulls are Suddenly Championship-Ready

Jerry Reinsdorf recently proclaimed this current group of Bulls is capable of winning four championships. It is unclear if he realizes that this team not only has zero trophies, but Jordan finished with six. Although Jordan took some time off playing baseball, it is hard to imagine a team that consistently plays without key starters for long stretches of games will win this year's championship let alone four.

Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah are too important to this team's championship hopes to miss games on a consistent basis. Boozer's current injury doesn't appear to be serious, but time will tell and winning a championship means a minimum of 16 games and everyone will need to stay healthy throughout the playoffs. Derrick Rose can overcome team injuries during the regular season, but in the playoffs, the margin for error gets much smaller.

Derrick Rose is an MVP contender and Tom Thibodeau has the Bulls pointed in a championship direction. This may be the year they advance to the conference finals. Anything less than a conference finals appearance will most likely be a disappointment for the NBA's current "it" team and latest MVP contender. The Bulls need to spend the final part of the NBA season getting healthy and staying healthy.

The New York Knicks Are the Center of the Basketball Universe

From the attention the Knicks are receiving, it may seem as though they are the sun and the rest of the NBA are mere rocks in orbit around them. They are surging with Carmelo, are a media darling, and everyone is salivating at a Heat vs. Knicks first-round playoff matchup.

The Knicks, however, have to deal with Chauncey Billups, who is missing games sporadically, and a defense that doesn't offer much resistance. If defense wins championships, the Knicks may be celebrated with an early-round exit.

The countdown to the Chris Paul sweepstakes may be what gets Knicks fans excited in the coming months, but so did the LeBron sweepstakes and that didn't go very well. It may be wise for the Knicks to take the rest of the season and start to play some defense.

The Celtics Have Been Good All Year

Boston has done nothing but win this season and yet they don't seem to grab headlines the way the Knicks, Heat, and now the Bulls do. The subtraction of Kendrick Perkins would appear to hurt this team if it has to face L.A.'s bigs in the Finals.

Perkins and the rest of Boston's height looks like it will dominate Miami in the playoffs and be able to deal with Dwight Howard and the Magic in the playoffs, as well. The absence of Perkins is really the only drama this team faces, which, when compared to the rest of the conference, isn't too bad.

The drama of missing Perkins puts the attention squarely on Shaquille O'Neal as the regular season begins to wane. O'Neal's pursuit of another championship will add some juice to Boston's run to the playoffs, but his ability to stay healthy and guard Dwight Howard for 10-15 minutes a game may decide whether the Celtics will make the finals.

It is hard to imagine the Celtics giving up the top seed in the East over the last part of the season, but a surging and healthy Bulls team could overtake them.

What About the Philadelphia 76ers?

The Sixers aren't likely to advance to the conference finals, but their stifling defense will most likely give whatever team they face in the first round fits. Philadelphia will probably finish as a low enough seed that it will play one of the top three seeds. If they don't upset a team in the first round, they certainly could force one of the top seeds into a seven-game series. The remaining games are giving their coach and defense more time to gel and prepare for the playoffs.

Sixers coach Doug Collins doesn't have the star power to advance, but teams with stars like Chicago, Miami, or the Celtics will need to be wary of the Sixers.

David Stern isn't Feeling Magical

It is late in the season, which means Dwight Howard will now start to face game suspensions as punishment for racking up the requisite technical fouls. Like clockwork, Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy is now complaining publicly about officiating in an effort to have the next technical fouls rescinded. It has worked in the past and will most likely work in the future, as the NBA doesn't necessarily want a game or series decided because Howard is on the bench. The most likely scenario is Howard will be called for a few more technical fouls and will have a handful rescinded after further review.

Of course, Stan Van Gundy has done his best to work the officials all season and now it is time to start to work the league office and tweak NBA Commissioner David Stern. Stern has explained he is disappointed and will speak with Magic ownership. Stern's stern parenting is also predictable, but the last part of the season could be unpredictable for Orlando fans.

How much of an impact will Howard's technical foul situation have on the Magic's pursuit of the Finals and a high playoff seed? It's a little like asking how important LeBron was to the Cleveland Cavaliers; in retrospect, it looks like he was pretty important.

If Howard continues to get technical fouls and is forced to miss games, it would be much better for the NBA and the Magic if Howard missed games against Cleveland, New Jersey, and Toronto as opposed to New York, Atlanta, and Chicago. The NBA has suspended Howard for big games in the past, but they have also taken the fouls away for critical games.

The Race For the Last Playoff Spot

Indiana, Charlotte, and Milwaukee's race for the last playoff spot will provide their fans with excitement for the rest of the season. It is likely any team occupying the eighth slot in the east will be eliminated quickly, but the race to be the sacrificial lamb could be exciting. If the Detroit Pistons decided to pull in the same direction as opposed to the tug of war that is coach and team, even they could make a run at the eighth spot.

Of course, Larry Bird's recent criticism of the Pacers could either ignite the Indiana or aid in their implosion, but either way, the race for first out should get interesting.

The Eastern Conference is picking up steam as the NBA enters its last third of the season. The last stretch of the season will most likely see more drama and bickering, but probably not Heat players crying or rather not crying.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2011

Foul Territory With Jeffrey Boswell

* The Bawls in Their Court — Miami head coach Eric Spoelstra said that there was crying in the locker room after the Heat's 87-86 loss to the Bulls on Sunday. Considering the tears, and the Heat's massive payroll, it seems the Miami locker room can be considered a 'whine and cheese' crowd.

* Devils Without Applause — North Carolina toppled Duke 81-67 on Saturday to win the outright ACC regular season crown. It was a game fitting of teams headed in opposite directions, made more apparent by the fact that Duke players got ran off the court, while Tar Heel fans ran on the court.

* Mormon Conquest — Brigham Young basketball player Brandon Davies was kicked off the team on March 3rd for an honor code violation, apparently for having premarital sex with his girlfriend. Apparently, Davies failed to show "Latter Day Restraint." Oh well, you get some, you lose some.

* Know-hio State — Ohio State football head coach Jim Tressel was suspended for two games and fined $250,000 after it was discovered that he knew players were selling memorabilia eight months before OSU was made aware of the claims. With OSU memorabilia selling like hotcakes, it's ironic that Tressel was busted for "keeping to himself."

* Fools Rush in, or "Here She Comes Now Singin' 'Alimony,' or Barber-y Cost" — Former New York Giants running back Tiki Barber has announced he plans to return to football at the age of 36. The Giants will remove Barber from the reserve-retirement list and release him, once the league allows it. In 2010, it was reported that Barber was broke and couldn't pay his divorce settlement. Few teams have shown interest, although the Buffalo Bills seem like the most logical destination.

* Who Knew? Kobe Can Pass — Kobe Bryant passed Moses Malone for sixth on the NBA's all-time scoring list. Bryant trails only Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It's a long way to the top, with some distinguished names ahead of him, but Bryant has expressed that he looks forward to "taking it" from behind.

* Quarterback Chic — Tom Brady, with his hair in a pony tail, was videotaped dancing, badly, at Brazil's Carnival celebration. I think that even Patriot fans will agree that an "intentional grounding" penalty desperately needed to be enforced in that situation. It seems that Brady can only find his rhythm on the football field.

* Suicide Squeeze — The Detroit News reported that Tigers first baseball Miguel Cabrera was belligerent and told police to "shoot him" during his arrest on suspicion of drunk driving on February 16th. Luckily, cops shook off Cabrera's sign and just arrested him. It's common knowledge Cabrera has an alcohol problem, so it would seem this isn't the first time he's missed the "cut off" sign.

* Odd Thing is, She Finished Before All But Three of the Men — Danica Patrick finished fourth in Saturday's Nationwide Series Sam's Town 300 at Las Vegas, the best finish ever by a woman in a NASCAR race. Now, if only those GoDaddy.com commercials could live up to the hype.

* Money Talks, or "D.S." Walks — The NFL Players Association rejected the league's offer of requested financial information, an offer union leader DeMaurice Smith called "utterly meaningless." NFL owners said that if Smith wants them to take his request seriously, he should avoid using lines from Jerry Maguire.

* Jersey Gored — Officials in the St. John's/Rutgers Big East quarterfinal game missed two calls, a traveling violation and an out of bounds infringement, both on St. John's, in the Red Storm's 65-63 win on Wednesday. Rutgers would have had the ball with at least 1.7 seconds had either call been made. The referees left he court in a hurry, and were reportedly seen getting into a car driven by former NBA ref Tim Donaghy.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2011

The Case For Jim Tressel

Full disclosure: I am an alumnus of Ohio State, and as regular readers of this column know, a very big fan.

So naturally it was with great consternation that I learned, as the rest of us did, that Jim Tressel knew that five of his players had sold memorabilia and traded some for tattoos long before the story broke and those players were suspended.

But what I also did, which it seems few others in the media and commentariat are doing, is actually look at the details of this matter, particularly those that are unique and specific to this case, and basing my opinion on that, rather than presumptuous, bad-faith-assuming screeds that only want to hear that Tressel lied and that he and the football program need to be hung by their ankles and spat upon.

I do believe that Tressel should be suspended — two games seems light to me — and the players involved should not have had their suspensions postponed until after this past winter's Sugar Bowl.

I do not think that Tressel should be fired, nor sit out an entire season, nor should the team be banned from the postseason or have their records from last year vacated. I'll try to make the case for what I believe is a fair punishment here.

You have to look at this case in two parts: the violations, and then Tressel's non-disclosure of those violations. First, the violations themselves. Five Buckeye players sold memorabilia to a tattoo dealer, Eddie Rife, in exchange for tattoos and money in the low four figures. That's a slam dunk violation and I can't believe for a second that the players, as they claim, didn't know it was.

Even if you believe college athletes should be paid, or are entitled to sell their memorabilia while they are still in school, the fact is right now they are not. If it were permissible, the star players could become quite wealthy cashing in on their fame, likely causing greater disparity between the haves and the have-nots of the NCAA (a gap that is already too wide, but getting thinner).

Unlike Reggie Bush, who did indeed get pretty wealthy as a result of his actions, the Buckeye players profited by a sum that no one would consider a life-changing amount. Nor were the players profiting from future considerations, unlike Bush, because Rife is not an agent.

He is, however, a drug-dealer (allegedly) and an ex-con, and that brings us to part two of this story. The players' misdeeds came to light in the course of a federal investigation into Rife, and that's the context in which the attorney who tipped off Tressel came to know about the matter.

That aspect is crucial to Tressel's stated reasons for not coming forward with the information he received (and is corroborated by the tipster's e-mails, which have been released), and yet it barely gets a passing mention from the pundits reacting to this case. They prefer to view Tressel's lie in a vacuum, with no context, which allows them to make the ridiculous comparison to the Dez Bryant case.

Dez Bryant lied about visiting Deion Sanders at his house, and was suspended for a year by the NCAA for it. Tressel lied, too. That, however, is where the similarities end.

If Tressel came forward with the emails he received, he would potentially be doing three things: 1) interfering with a federal investigation, which certainly trumps the NCAA; 2) denying an attorney's request for confidentiality; 3) putting his players, who had nothing to do with Rife's felonious activities, in harm's way, which is a valid concern when you go running to the public (and running to the NCAA is tantamount to running to the public) about people involved, however peripherally, with a big-time drug dealer, and doing so under the auspices of that federal investigation of the dealer.

Those are all very valid concerns, and of course have no equivalent in the Bryant case or any other NCAA case.

Tressel heeded those concerns and said nothing publicly or to the University. He could have chosen a better route, and he said as much. But once he stuck with the decision to keep his mouth shut, he was basically stuck with that decision. Because if he came forward in December, would the reaction be any different, now that the heat was off? No. Whether he came forward in December, September, or May, the likely reaction from the public, the media, and the NCAA would be centered on the fact that he covered it up at all.

No matter how much the media likes to point to the opportunities he had to come clean, no one would have given him credit for keeping quiet, but only for a month. As I say, once Tressel made the decision to (in his mind) not interfere with a government investigation and protect his players, he was forced to abide by it.

He could have, instead, contacted OSU authorities. There are many things he could have and should have done differently, and perception is reality. If it looks like he kept quiet to win games, nothing that comes to light will change anyone's mind. Sadly, perception-is-reality also applies to the NCAA, and they are licking their wounds after the blowback they received in allowing the OSU suspensions to be postponed until the following season. They may be quite eager to demonstrate that they are not in Ohio State's pocket.

So I say to the NCAA, continue your investigation. See if what you discover corroborates Tressel's version of events. If it does, sit him for five games — the same as the players.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:22 AM | Comments (5)

March 9, 2011

On March Madness

March Madness. The Big Dance. The Best Four Weeks in Sports.

Starting from Selection Sunday on March 13 to the championship game in Houston, Texas on Monday, April 4, the NCAA puts on a hell of a show every year around this time. It is a spectacle that will never be duplicated. It is an exhibition in postseason gluttony. It is a sight to behold.

I wasn't always like this. I never truly enjoyed March Madness for what it was. In fact, I never even watched a full game of basketball until I was 14-years-old. What made me start watching?

During the 1999–2000 NCAA tournament, the upstart Gators beat such traditional powerhouses as Duke, Illinois, and North Carolina to advance to their first National Championship Game, before losing to heavily-favored Michigan State.

Since that unprecedented run by my hometown Florida Gators, I have been glued to my set every March. Not because I am in love with the idea of 30 straight days of postseason basketball, but because of what 30 straight days of postseason basketball has the potential for — incredible upsets and upstart programs scoring a signature win that catapults them into March Madness mainstay.

You see, when someone says they don't like the NCAA tournament because the whole month is so easily forgettable, they're missing the trees for the forest. I will be the first to admit that men's basketball championship games are some of the least memorable championships in all of sports.

Sure, you can't name the last five NCAA men's basketball champions, but can you remember where you were when the No. 12 you picked to beat a No. 5 actually did it? Did you pick Cornell to beat Temple last year? If so, you're probably still bragging about it to friends.

Or what about in 2001 when No. 15 Richmond (their nickname is the Spiders for crying out loud!) took out No. 2 Syracuse in the first round of the tournament. Do you remember sitting with your buddies during that one?

And to top it all off, the Holy Grails of March Madness memories: George Mason, a tiny commuter school in Fairfax, Virginia out of the Colonial Athletic Association, taking out No. 1 Connecticut in the 2006 postseason. George Mason became only the second No. 11 in NCAA history to reach the Final Four.

March Madness isn't perfect, and I think even the most ardent college basketball apologist would agree with me. But when you have a system in place that not only allows, but promotes, as many upsets and small-school runs as possible, you've got to give credit where credit is due.

It's funny. What should be the most memorable thing about March Madness (the championship games) are more often than not overshadowed by the mid-majors who didn't even make it into the Elite Eight. Start watching the NCAA men's basketball postseason through the lens of the individual storylines, and I guarantee you'll find what's truly unforgettable about March.

Posted by Ryan Day at 11:27 AM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 3

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards took two tires on the final pit stop with 33 laps remaining and held off Tony Stewart, who took four, to win at Las Vegas. Edwards led 69 laps and won for the first time this year, and third in the last five races. The win vaulted him nine places to third in the Sprint Cup point standings, only seven out of first.

"What does the comically oversized wrench, awarded the victor in Las Vegas, signify?" Edwards asked. "Duh, 'winning!' What's my favorite luxury hotel in Las Vegas? Duh, 'Wynn!' Man, since late last year, all we've done is put wins in the record books. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'I win so radically in my underwear before my first cup of coffee, it's scary,' because only Charlie Sheen can do that. Me? I don't drink coffee, and I don't wear underwear, but I win anyway. Take that, Sheen!"

2. Tony Stewart — Stewart led a race-high 163 laps, clearly boasting the day's best car, but saw the win slip away on the final pit stop. Stewart opted for four tires for the No. 14 Mobil 1/Office Depot Chevrolet with 33 laps remaining, while Carl Edwards took two, which gave him the lead, and eventual win.

"No one can say we didn't give it our best shot," Stewart said. "We left it all out on the track, including the win. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. In the three races so far this year, I could have won each. But I have to be patient. The wins will come, probably when the weather heats up and I go on my usual mid-season tear. Edwards can have the back flips now; I'll do 'summersaults' later.

"As you know, I'll be switching cars with Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton at Watkins Glen this summer. He's the best at what he does and I'm the best at what I do. And together it's like, it's on. It's epic."

3. Kurt Busch — Busch finished ninth at Las Vegas, surviving a spin-inducing run-in with Juan Montoya, earning his second top-10 finish of the year and leading one valuable lap in the Kobalt Tools 400. Busch is tied for first with Tony Stewart in the Sprint Cup point standings.

"The last time Stewart and I were in the same place," Busch said, "I got punched. I shudder to think what he would have done with fire-breathing fists. Luckily, only Charlie Sheen has those. I learned a hard lesson that day. There's only one thing worse than picking a fight with a warlock, and that's picking a fight with Tony Stewart.

"Now, the subject of Stewart's assault seems like a decent reason to give a shout out to the upcoming release of the movie Sucker Punch. And all this talk of Charlie Sheen begs for the making of the sequel to Platoon, called Buffoon."

4. Juan Pablo Montoya — Montoya finished third in the Kobalt Tools 400, racing in the top 10 for most of the day. Montoya led eight laps on Sunday, and jumped five places in the point standings to fourth, 7 points out of first.

"The No. 42 Clorox Chevrolet was fast on Sunday," Montoya said. "I like to call her 'Bleached Lightning.' It's ironic that NASCAR would allow a bleach product such a prominent advertising role. Why? Because the last thing this sport needs in more 'whitening.'

"I may not be the most popular driver here in America, but I'm a total frickin' rock star in Colombia, which might as well be Mars as far as the typical NASCAR fan is concerned."

5. Ryan Newman — Newman posted his second-straight top-five finish of the year with a fifth at Las Vegas, joining Stewart-Haas teammate Tony Stewart, who finished second in the top five. Newman is fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 10 points out of first.

"Obviously, Tony should have won the race," Newman said. "Had he not been penalized for leaving his pit stall with the air hose still attached, we'd be celebrating a Stewart victory. And speaking of 'air ho's,' Charlie Sheen's been on television an awful lot lately talking about his live-in 'goddesses.' Hey Charlie, that's not Adonis DNA and tiger blood coursing through your veins. It's penicillin."

6. Kyle Busch — Busch, a Las Vegas native, saw his day at his home track end abruptly when the engine of the No. 18 blew on lap 107, just 20 laps after a blown tire had sent him into the wall. Busch, in the Snickers Peanut Butter Squared Toyota, finished 38th.

"There was absolutely no indication the engine would go," Busch said. "It was a lot like Charlie Sheen: it just 'quit' with no reasonable explanation. Then it caught on fire. That sucks. What do you call an engine that's afire and has gone kaput? 'Hot Shot.' Hopefully, I won't have to experience that again. Incidentally, that's what moviegoers said after the first installment of Hot Shots.

"As you may know, my New Year's Eve wedding to Samantha Sarcinella was televised on the Style Channel last Saturday. It's a monogamy story. It's like an organic union of the hearts. Apparently, people watched it despite all that."

7. Paul Menard — Menard climbed to sixth in the Sprint Cup point standings after a solid 12th-place finish at Las Vegas. He's leading the way for Richard Childress Racing so far, as teammates Clint Bowyer, Kevin Harvick, and Jeff Burton sit 18th, 20th, and 31st in the standings.

"I'm the new guy at RCR," Menard said, "and although I wasn't blessed with top-billing, Adonis DNA, or tiger blood, I nevertheless have talent that significantly contributes to the team. You could say I'm 'carrying' RCR right now. I'm the consummate teammate. I carry jock straps, and I carry the torch."

8. Jeff Gordon — Gordon's No. 24 Dupont Chevrolet blew a tire and slammed the wall, sending him to the garage and leaving him with a disappointing 36th-place finish. The result halted the momentum Gordon established with last week's breakthrough win at Phoenix, and sent him tumbling down the point standings.

"What are Robby Gordon and Kevin Conway guilty of in Las Vegas?" Gordon said. "Duh! Sinning! Gordon should proceed with caution, though. In light of Conway's Extenze sponsorship, charges aren't the only thing Gordon could have pressed against him.

"As for my tire, it exploded like the body of someone who tried the drug 'Charlie Sheen,' which, not surprisingly, only comes in 'pill' form."

9. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin finished 7th at Las Vegas, posting his first top-10 result of the year, to lead the way for on an otherwise disappointing day for Joe Gibbs Racing. JGR teammates Joey Logano and Kyle Busch finished 23rd and 36th, respectively, with Busch suffering a blown engine just 107 laps into the race.

"It was a good result after two unsatisfactory finishes to start the season," Hamlin said. "The No. 11 FedEx team is still finding its groove, and I'm still battling through some lingering pain from last year's knee surgery. Painkillers have helped. I'm on a drug called 'Charlie Sheen' that alleviates the pain in my knee. Unfortunately, it has one glaring side effect: it causes severe pain in the ass.

"Despite my teammates' troubles at Vegas, the JGR squad is totally capable of competing for the Sprint Cup title. Obviously, Kyle and I are perennial favorites, while Logano is probably just 2-3 years away from sharing that distinction. So, you could say that JGR has 'Two and a Half Men' capable of winning the Sprint Cup championship."

10. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson battled handling issues and struggled in the Kobalt Tools 400, finishing 16th. Johnson's No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet team never unlocked the right adjustments, and last year's Las Vegas winner posted a disappointing finish after last week's third at Phoenix.

"What's a bigger story than all of Charlie Sheen's boasts of 'winning?'" Johnson said. "Me not winning. That truly is gnarly. But I'm not fretting. Like Sheen, I'm making things interesting. And, like Sheen, I've got one gear. I'm not sure what his only gear is, but mine is 'first,' because that's where I always finish."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 8, 2011

It's Official, Tennis is Cool

I was reading the latest copy of GQ magazine, and it had an article about the coolest athletes of all-time. It sounded interesting, so I read it. Think about it. Just 10, cooler than cool, badder than bad, male athletes. As I started down the listings, of course the coolest was Joe Namath, of NY Jets fame. I have to admit, under the definition of cool, he is definitely hard to beat.

Of course, not far away was former NY Knickerbocker Walt "Clyde" Frazier. He was the first recognized cool dude, and he was the first to have a suede Puma sneaker all his own. I think I still have my original pair of Puma Clydes in my closet. (They probably don't fit.)

As expected, there was Jim Brown, legendary running back and actor. He was probably the real life prototype of "Shaft." Add to that a couple of ancient soccer players, George Best and Pele. I'm not so sure how cool Pele was, but he sure was popular. As I continued, I figured I'd see a whole bunch of other predictable choices. Then I turned the page again.

Bjorn Borg and Arthur Ashe. Yep, a whole page dedicated to two hall of fame tennis players. I am proud and happy that the author chose two tennis players, period. Bjorn Borg would clearly be an expected choice. In the mid-to-late 1970s, there was no one who epitomized the sport and the lifestyle better. On the court, the 11-time major tournament winner and five-time back-to-back French Open and Wimbledon champion was cooler than cool. The long-locked, speedy, svelte Swede had and icy constitution and an even icier game. His western forehand and slap shot-styled two-handed backhand were the epitome of wow. From the first serve to the last point, you could not get under his skin. He showed no emotion. And after he had beaten you handily, you couldn't help but smile and shake his hand at the net.

Off the court, well, he was the consummate European party animal. With his trusty tennis sidekick, the late Vitas Gerulaitus, he was often spotted at discotheques and clubs, including the now legendary Studio 54. He was a male fashion icon. He made it cool to even listen to his fellow Swedes, ABBA. Whether it was hopping between parties, or modeling the latest in Fila sportswear, he was, well, the definition of cool.

I was surprised in a way to see Ashe given a similar nod. I would have expected Vitas Gerulaitus or John McEnroe. Ashe would not be the first tennis player to roll off your tongue if you were to put a tennis player's picture next to the word cool in the dictionary. I understand though, and I applaud GQ for recognizing him.

Arthur Ashe straddled the segregated America and the post-civil rights America. Born into a black family in the south, and growing up in Virginia, he clearly experienced all it was to be a black man in pre-civil rights America. He went to UCLA, won the NCAA men's singles championship, and was the first African-American male to play on the Unites States Davis Cup team. He continued to play at the top of the game, becoming the U.S. No. 1 amateur player. The very first Open tennis tournament (the first to allow both amateurs and professionals) was the U.S. Open of 1968. You know who won the inaugural open? Yep, Arthur Ashe.

These are all great accomplishments, but they clearly don't make someone cool. What made Ashe so cool was his demeanor. The way he went about his day to day life in a sport known as exclusive to white players, and how he continued to push for reform on all levels of the sport without ever losing his cool. Ashe didn't like that so many tournaments were shafting the top professionals, noting that the tournaments made big money because of them. So he banded together with a few others and led the formation of the Association of Tennis Professionals, or as we know it know, the ATP Tour.

As the number one player in the world, he applied for a visa to play in the South African Open, a tournament in the then apartheid following country. His visa was denied. Ashe didn't just take it. He began a systematic discussion and called for the removal of South Africa from the Davis Cup and the professional tennis tours. And he was immediately successful. Little did he realize it then, but his stance also was a large impetus for the changes that would eventually end apartheid in South Africa and wind up freeing Nelson Mandela.

But if that wasn't cool enough, he then decided, at the age of 31, to re-dedicate his tennis career. Focusing on exercise and training, including using the coolest 10-speed bicycle and the new Head Comp Arthur Ashe tennis racquet (the first real composite racquet used in top-tier play), he quickly zoomed to the final of the 1975 Wimbledon championships. In the final, he faced then-Ni, 1 and dominant James Scott Connors. Everyone thought that Ashe would get creamed.

Calmly, on the day of the final, Ashe came out on his game. Having done the coolest thing a player could do, use his brain, he systematically took apart and nullified all of Connors' weapons. He forced Connors to the net, where he never really excelled. He forced Connors to reach every ball low, hit a lot of short, soft shots that made it nearly impossible for Connors to hit powerful shots. Ashe dismantled Connors in one of the most unlikely upsets of the Open era, regaining the No. 1 world ranking. And through it all, he did it with grace and style. In a word, cool.

I think what made Ashe so cool was how he ended his career and life. After suffering heart attacks in 1979 and 1983, he underwent heart surgery. While getting blood transfusions for the surgery, Ashe contracted the AIDS virus. With a coolness only Ashe could muster, the news was going to be leaked, so he decided to have a worldwide press conference and announce to the world that he had AIDS. AIDS had then been the largest stigma, being known as a disease of the homosexual community. Ashe strode boldly to the podium and announced his diagnosis, described how he had contracted AIDS, and asked for the world to not focus on his bad luck, but instead on moving forward with a cure and also in continuing to support all the causes he had fostered before.

In so many ways, Ashe and Borg were, literally, polar opposites. Ashe, with his continental-style forehand and one-handed backhand, Borg, with his super topspin western forehand and two-handed backhand. Ashe, the king of the service, Borg, the king of ground strokes. One man quiet and icy, the other calm and passionate. In so many ways, they were literally the same. And in this case, they are the same.

Borg and Ashe. Just plain cool.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 2:05 PM | Comments (0)

Henderson, Welterweights, and March UFC Rankings

Over the last week, the three largest mixed martial arts promotions in North America all held important events. The UFC alone has put on two shows in the past 10 days. So there's a lot to talk about. Let's start with Dan Henderson.

On Saturday night, Hendo, a star in PRIDE and the UFC, won the Strikeforce light heavyweight title by knocking out Rafael "Feijao" Cavalcante in the third round. Henderson is 40 years old, making him the second 40-year-old champion of a major MMA organization. Most people peak physically around their mid-20s, so it's tempting to look at a 40-year-old champ and think that reflects poorly on MMA.

But Henderson has something in common with Randy Couture, who was a UFC heavyweight champion at age 44. They're small for the weight class, unusually strong, with Olympic-caliber wrestling credentials. It seems plausible to me that this specific combination of attributes allows fighters to remain competitive at the highest level late in their careers. Henderson fought mostly at 185 lbs. in the UFC, and he's small at 205, but his wrestling and his strength prevent him from being thrown around, and he has a quickness advantage because he's really a middleweight who doesn't have to dehydrate himself for weigh-ins.

Henderson's punching power is incredible, and he throws with bad intentions. The win over Feijao wasn't as dramatic as his knockout of Michael Bisping at UFC 100, but not many fighters have a killer instinct to match Henderson's. He impressively put the fight away once Cavalcante was hurt, slamming punches into the side of Feijao's dome. Henderson becomes the fifth Strikeforce light heavyweight belt-holder in the last five fights. That's Babalu Sobral, Gegard Mousasi, King Mo Lawal, Feijao, and now Henderson.

The other title fight saw Marloes Coenen win a dramatic come-from-behind victory over challenger Liz Carmouche. After spending most of the second and third rounds on the wrong side of Carmouche's mount, and clearly behind on the judge's scorecards, Coenen caught the challenger in a triangle and forced a tap in the fourth round. People are comparing it to Anderson Silva's win over Chael Sonnen, and there's certainly a parallel to be drawn. Coenen, charming at the microphone and dangerous from any position, has got to be one of the most likable fighters around.

UFC and Bellator stuff a little later, but for now let's do rankings.

March 2011 UFC Rankings

The rankings below are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Henderson or Hector Lombard on these lists.

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

1. Cain Velasquez
2. Junior Dos Santos
3. Brock Lesnar
4. Shane Carwin
5. Roy Nelson
6. Frank Mir
7. Brendan Schaub
8. Ben Rothwell
9. Stefan Struve
10. Matt Mitrione

It is my policy not to rank people who haven't fought in over a year and are not scheduled to fight, so Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira is not listed above, though he's presumably top-10 if he's healthy.

Make it Happen: Carwin vs. Rothwell

The UFC's shallow heavyweight pool makes Carwin vs. Rothwell a good matchup if both men are ever able to fight at the same time. There are Carwin-vs-Cheick-Kongo rumors afoot, and I guess that's better than nothing, but it seems kind of pointless to me. Kongo and Mitrione sounds more interesting.

Thank You, UFC, For: Dos Santos vs. Lesnar

Velasquez's shoulder injury is a bummer, but at least JDS isn't just on the shelf for a year, waiting for the champ to get healthy.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

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

Make it Happen: Griffin vs. winner of Machida/Couture

Griffin should be facing top-10 opponents, not Tito Ortiz. The man with the giant head hasn't won since 2006, and hasn't had an impressive win since 2001, which is a freaking decade ago. All his victories since September '01 were against Ken Shamrock, or split decisions, plus one UD over Patrick Côté, who was fighting in the wrong weight class. Tito, who pulled out of a fight with Little Nog because he needed stitches, says he wants Griffin instead. Too bad. Forrest has better things to do.

Thank You, UFC, For: Rua vs. Jones

This is one exciting matchup.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Yushin Okami
3. Jorge Santiago
4. Demian Maia
5. Nate Marquardt
6. Vitor Belfort
7. Michael Bisping
8. Mark Muñoz
9. Alan Belcher
10. Rousimar Palhares

Until I'm absolutely certain that Chael Sonnen is not going to jail in the near future, I'm not listing him. Apparently the UFC, which has suspended Sonnen indefinitely, feels the same way. Wanderlei Silva, who has fought once in the last 20 months, needs to get a fight on his calendar, if for no other reason than so that I can hear "Sandstorm" more than once a year.

Make it Happen: Bisping vs. Muñoz

Why does everyone want Bisping to fight Sonnen? Seriously, do you live on an exclusive diet of trash talk? If I wanted to watch WWE, I would.

Thank You, UFC, For: Santiago vs. Brian Stann

I actually don't think this is a sensational matchup, but Santiago's addition to the UFC immediately re-energizes the lackluster middleweight division. If the UFC can add both Santiago and Georges St-Pierre to this weight class in 2011, all of a sudden 185 is full of compelling matchups.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Jon Fitch
3. Jake Shields
4. Thiago Alves
5. B.J. Penn
6. Carlos Condit
7. Josh Koscheck
8. Martin Kampmann
9. Diego Sanchez
10. Dong Hyun Kim

Make it Happen: Condit vs. Sanchez

Fight of the Night, seriously.

Thank You, UFC, For: Dan Hardy vs. Anthony "Rumble" Johnson

The winner of this fight is back in the mix at welterweight. It's a matchup that makes sense, between two guys who both need a win, though it amazes me that Johnson is still trying to cut to 170. He's bigger than most middleweights.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. Frankie Edgar
2. Gray Maynard
3. Jim Miller
4. Sean Sherk
5. Anthony Pettis
6. George Sotiropoulos
7. Ben Henderson
8. Clay Guida
9. Melvin Guillard
10. Dennis Siver

Make it Happen: Guillard vs. Siver

Forget this "classic striker vs. grappler" stuff. How about a terrifying "striker vs. striker" throwdown?

Thank You, UFC, For: Henderson vs. Mark Bocek

This is intriguing on several levels. It features longtime WEC lightweight champ Henderson against a tough foe in his first UFC bout, and it will be interesting to see Henderson's gameplan against a submission specialist like Bocek. I would love to see the winner of this one take on Sotiropoulos.

Featherweight (136-145)

1. Jose Aldo
2. Mark Hominick
3. Manny Gamburyan
4. Diego Nunes
5. Kenny Florian
6. Chad Mendes
7. Dustin Poirier
8. Josh Grispi
9. Raphael Assunção
10. Michihiro Omigawa

Make it Happen: Mendes vs. winner of winner of Assunção/Erik Koch

Mendes is obviously being groomed for a shot at the belt, but he's maybe the most one-dimensional athlete in the UFC — a wrestler whose other skills are in question — and he needs another test.

Thank You, UFC, For: Nunes vs. Florian

This is a perfect choice for Florian's first bout at featherweight. The underrated Nunes poses a legitimate challenge, and this will be another indicator of how the WEC talent compares to established UFC contenders.

Bantamweight (126-135)

1. Dominick Cruz
2. Urijah Faber
3. Joseph Benavidez
4. Brian Bowles
5. Miguel Torres
6. Scott Jorgensen
7. Eddie Wineland
8. Brad Pickett
9. Demetrious Johnson
10. Takeya Mizugaki

Make it Happen: Bowles vs. Winner of Benavidez/Ian Loveland

Bowles against the winner of Torres/Pickett sounds good, too, but the timing works better for this.

Thank You, UFC, For: Faber vs. Wineland

There's a reason Faber is a fan favorite. He always puts on a great show, and Wineland is on a four-fight win streak.

UFC 127 and UFC on Versus 3

Another draw. On the heels of Edgar/Maynard II, a title fight with no winner, UFC 127 gave us another main event — this one for a shot at the welterweight belt — in which no one got his hand raised. I scored the fight for Jon Fitch, but a draw was actually pretty reasonable, and for once I'll give the judges credit. The real problem in this fight wasn't the judges, it was the scoring system. Why do we score round-by-round in a fight that only has three of them? Let's do this PRIDE-style and just declare a winner at the end. That way, you don't need to figure out whether a close round and a dominant round are both 10-9, you just say, "Hey, this guy did better." Problem solved.

This event also featured Michael Bisping's win over Jorge Rivera (which I don't want to get into), substantial upsets at 155 (Siver over Sotiropoulos) and 170 (Brian Ebersole over Chris Lytle), horrendous judging (Nick Ring over Riki Fukuda), and a Mark Hunt sighting. More recently, Diego Sanchez earned a controversial decision over Martin Kampmann. Everyone agrees that Kampmann won the first round. I thought Diego took both of the next two, but they were close. It's this 10-point must thing again. I didn't have a problem with the decision, but certainly we can understand why Kampmann thought he should have won after what he did to Diego's face.

UFC 128

Two weeks from now, UFC 128 features at least six pretty important fights. The obvious one is the light heavyweight title fight between Shogun Rua and Jonny "Bones" Jones. Can Rua derail another unstoppable star, as he did to Lyoto Machida? Jones looks unstoppable, but so did Machida until he met Shogun. I have repeatedly advised against doubting Jones, but in a strictly non-monetary way, I'm leaning towards Rua. Oddsmakers have Jones, the challenger, as a 2-1 favorite.

The card also features Faber/Wineland (take Faber), presumably for a coaching stint on TUF 14 and a shot at the bantamweight belt. Jim Miller and Joseph Benavidez will be heavily favored in their respective bouts, but each is top-10 in his weight class and well worth watching. Raphael Assunção is probably one impressive victory from landing a marquee fight at 145, and Brendan Schaub will remind us all again how much we wish Mirko Cro Cop had retired already. Meanwhile, Nate Marquardt and Yoshihiro Akiyama desperately try to prove they're still relevant.

Very unofficial Sports Central parlay: Faber + Benavidez + Marquardt + Schaub

Bellator Season Four

Bellator is clearly the third-best U.S.-based MMA promotion, but Saturday's Season Four debut on MTV2 featured a strong welterweight division that is probably behind only the UFC. Bellator doesn't have anyone as good as Nick Diaz, but it does have half a dozen fighters who could compete in the UFC, which Strikeforce probably does not. Unfortunately, the tournament kicked off with some controversy, most notably a bad stoppage by referee Josh Rosenthal.

I think everyone recognizes that Rosenthal stopped the Jay Hieron/Anthony Lapsley fight too early, but let's be real: Hieron was dominating, and he almost certainly would have won anyway. Fighter safety is paramount, and it always should be, but refs have got to get better at recognizing when a fighter has and has not lost consciousness. Remember Mac Danzig at UFC 115? Also, fighters need to stop letting themselves get choked unconscious. It's stupid. Yes, Damacio Page, this means you. Going out doesn't make you a badass, it makes you a moron. If you're going to sleep, tap. There's no dignity in napping in public.

The opening fight on the televised Bellator card also drew some criticism, as underdog Brent Weedman won a decision over Dan Hornbuckle, prompting boos from the crowd. I had Hornbuckle ahead, too, but it was a close fight. In other action, Lyman Good won an easy victory over Chris Lozano and Olympic judoka Rick Hawn struck his way to a decision over Judo Jim Wallhead. The second round will pit Good vs. Hawn and Hieron vs. Weedman. I could see Hawn using his grappling to beat Good the same way Ben Askren did last year, but I would love to see Good and Hieron face off for a shot at Askren's belt.

Regarding this season's lightweight tournament, which begins next week, let's be honest. There's no one here who's going to challenge Eddie Alvarez for the title. The biggest names in the tournament are perpetual runner-up Toby Imada and has-been Rob McCullough, whose last impressive fight was in 2007. I'm looking forward to the rest of the welterweight tournament, though. I'd like to see Hornbuckle fight Lapsley, with the winner as injury replacement for the rest of the tourney.

Speaking of matches to make, Dan Henderson vs. Fëdor Emelianenko. Yes, please.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 6:52 AM | Comments (0)

March 7, 2011

'Melo Out, Knicks Fans

It has become the most celebrated moment in the past 10 years of obscure, meaningless, lost Knicks history. The trade of Carmelo Anthony to New York instantly seemed to signify a return to relevance for one of the NBA's (allegedly) most significant franchises, even if they remain somewhere behind the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, and 76ers in that category.

Right away, MSG network and the New York Knicks married the trade to a sensitive, comforting musical chorus by Skylar Gray from a P. Diddy song called "Coming Home" in tv commercials, as well as the lineup introductions to hype up the coming games. Cell phone cameras filled the Garden seats when Anthony finally was introduced in a moment like few others.

In fact, Knicks analyst Walt "Clyde" Frazier, in a moment of mind-boggling basketball blasphemy, even proclaimed that to be a greater "fan moment" than the reaction to Willis Reed coming out to play Game 7 of the 1970 Finals, a game in which Frazier himself dominated and won his first title in.

Suddenly, fans who had given up on Knicks basketball for the better part of a decade began watching every game with the same passion and intensity once known to them during the Patrick Ewing era of the 1980s and '90s. Before that time, the Knicks had played 54 games this season with moderately heightened interest due to the preseason acquisition of Amar'e Stoudemire. Since that time, they have played 7 games in a bubbling cauldron of Big Apple buzz.

So let's take a closer look and break down both incarnations of the 2010-2011 New York Knicks.

The pre-'Melo Knicks had a record of 28-26, good for sixth-best in the Eastern Conference. They figured to be a playoff team regardless of whether or not the trade would happen, just not a top playoff team. This team had impressed with an 8-game winning streak, as well as wins over the Heat, Spurs, and two over the Bulls. They had also lost games to the likes of the Clippers, Cavaliers, Kings, and Timberwolves, and had suffered two separate 6-game losing streaks.

This team had Ronny Turiaf at center, Amar'e Stoudemire at forward alongside Danilo Gallinari, and a backcourt of rookie Landry Fields and emerging star Raymond Felton. Wilson Chandler also saw 30 starts at forward. They had greater depth and more role players who appeared to play well together, but were also an enigma as the above numbers suggest. At just 2 games above .500, they were mercurial and exciting, but still little more than mediocre.

The post-'Melo Knicks have gone 4-3 and remain in sixth place in the East. They still expect to be a playoff team, but now many speculate them to move a few spots up in the East before all is said and done. After all, they now have two (actually, it appears to be three) elite players in their starting lineup, right? This was now a team capable of setting the league on fire with its dripping talent. It was also a team trading away two and a half starters (Chandler being the half) with the new acquisitions struggling to gel with teammates they get few chances to practice with.

This team on paper included Turiaf at center, Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony at the forwards, with Fields and Chauncey Billups at guard, with Toney Douglas frequently coming off the bench to relieve the aging Billups and provide a youthful spark of energy. The surprise was that while Anthony has not disappointed, he has not taken a game over yet or scored 30 yet.

Meanwhile, Chauncey Billups has scored 30 in a Knicks uniform and has been a godsend to the orange and blue thus far. While the team figured to suffer at the position due to losing Raymond Felton, Billups has shown his championship pedigree, veteran guile, and ability to step up and make big threes throughout all of his games. He has also gotten to the line 50 times in his 4 games, making 45 of his free throws.

Yet for all the pluses mentioned in these paragraphs, the Knicks have little to show for it. They have won no more than 1 in a row, as they repeat the tedious process of taking one step forward, then one step back. Their wins have reached great heights, such as convincing double-digit wins over solid New Orleans and Atlanta teams, and a dramatic victory in Miami punctuated by an Amare Stoudemire block on LeBron James in the final seconds.

In this time, they have also managed the staggering task of losing twice to the Cleveland Cavaliers, James' old team and the laughingstock of the league, the last time at Madison Square Garden. Their 4-3 record, when you consider those 2 losses to Cleveland (0-3 this season against the Cavs), is both inexcusable and alarming.

While Toney Douglas has played well starting in place of Billups over the last 3 games in which Billups has suffered a bruised thigh, the team's play overall remains an enigma. At 32-29, in sixth place in the East, the Knicks remain mercurial and exciting, but still little more than mediocre. Thus far, little has changed for the Knicks, despite the acquisition of one of the league's superstar forwards and excitement and anticipation surrounding every game.

Far from Willis Reed-like status, eh, Clyde?

Posted by Bill Hazell at 1:15 PM | Comments (0)

The St. Louis Cards Are Not All Right

When you're a fan of a baseball team, spring training should be a time for hope. Whether you actually believe your team will win the World Series or not is besides the point — they could win the World Series. And that could is good enough.

And then stuff starts happening, stuff that chisels away at the facade of could and uses the broken pieces of promise to build a nice little castle of doubt.

Such has been the headline of St. Louis Cardinals spring training 2011.

It started with the interminable Albert Pujols extension negotiations. Without knowing the exact details of the proposals from each side, it basically comes down to Pujols wanting Alex Rodriguez-Plus and the Cardinals offering Ryan Howard-Minus. The fact there was no agreement by the "deadline" was bad. The follow-up stories about him landing with the Cubs was worse.

(How bad would that suck? Imagine your spouse is everything you ever wanted — hot, great cook, great in bed, great sense of humor, makes big money. Now imagine that spouse left your ass for your worst enemy in the whole world. And now imagine that your enemy works with you and you will have to see your awesome ex-spouse 19 times a year at work functions, and he/she will be draped all over your enemy's arm. Oh, and your kids like your enemy better than you, too. That's how much it would suck.)

So that was bad, but we Cards fans could get around that. Sure, it was a distraction, but Pujols is still on the team this year, and that's what matters. We'll worry about next year in November.

And then Adam Wainwright tore up his elbow and went down for the year. Now we're talking some serious trouble.

I know Waino gets recognition outside of St. Louis, as well he should given his recent success (29-19, 2.53 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 8.3 k/9 last two years). But he is straight revered here in St. Louis. In fact, if you asked all Cardinals fans who their favorite player is, my bet is Waino beats Albert. A little of that is because St. Louis is racist and likes white people better, but still. Wainwright going down is a big freaking deal.

So we're down two strikes, but two strikes isn't out. It just means you've lost all your room for error. If we can get through the rest of spring without another disaster, hopes of another NL Central Division crown and deep trip into the postseason are still alive.

Except the chances of us making it very far without another disaster seem pretty slim. Consider:

* Chris Carpenter already had to leave a start with hamstring soreness. He should be fine, but he's still about to turn 36 and only once in his career has he pitched more than 200 innings in a season and not gotten hurt the next year. He pitched 235 innings in 2010.

* Without Wainwright, it's doubly important that 2010 rookie phenom Jaime Garcia match or surpass his freshman totals. Except he pitched 163 innings last year, up 110 from the 53 he pitched in 2009 coming off of Tommy John surgery. If I'm not mistaken, there's some pretty strong anecdotal evidence to suggest young pitchers who make dramatic jumps in innings pitched tend to regress the next year.

* The rest of the starting pitching staff consists of Jake Westbrook (career record of 73-75 with a 4.29 ERA), Kyle Lohse (88-98, 4.79) and probably Kyle McClellan (last start in 2007 as a 23-year-old with Palm Beach of the Florida State League). I know Dave Duncan is a guru of lemons-to-lemonade, but we're asking for a lot here, no?

* With such a shaky starting staff, the bullpen had better be nails. Too bad they had to pull one of their best relievers in McClellan out of the 'pen to take over a starting role, and their closer, Ryan Franklin, is 38. That's not to say Mitchell Boggs can't step in for McClellan and Jason Motte can't step in for Franklin if need be, but there's still too much uncertainty considering the state of the starting staff.

* The new right fielder is supposed to be 35-year-old Lance Berkman. The last time he played the outfield on a regular basis was 2004. The last time he played the outfield at all was 2007. He's already missed time this spring with soreness in his elbow (because he's not used to long throws) and calf (because he's old and his nickname is Fat Elvis). What are we putting the over/under on DL stints? Three? Four? Seven?

* The best young player on the roster is Colby Rasmus, who clashes with manager Tony La Russa and still wants to be a home run hero instead of just nailing line drives all over the park. He's young, but he's got to stop running to daddy any time the skipper tells him something he doesn't like. There's just a little bit too much J.D. Drew potential there for my liking.

* I like the transition from Brendan Ryan to Ryan Theriot, basically because Ryan was a spaz whose bat made David Eckstein look like Mark McGwire. Still, Theriot has already reached his career ceiling and it's right around a .275 batting average and .320 on-base percentage. I love scrappy as much as the next guy, but there's a reason scrappy guys are known for being scrappy — because they don't have the talent to be known for anything else.

* While the Cardinals lost Wainwright after a failed winter of playing contract chicken with the best player the franchise has seen since Stan Musial, the Brewers added Shawn Marcum and Zack Greinke, the Cubs added Matt Garza and Carlos Pena, and the Reds returned everybody from last year's division championship team. Fourth place is not out of the question here.

So there you have it. The Cards have a great one-two with Pujols and Matt Holliday, and Carpenter is a true gamer, but only a fool would put money on St. Louis as the favorites for the NL Central, let alone with World Series. And so while the Cards may still have hope, it's more a Pirates kind of hope than the normal Yankees kind of hope, and that's not cool. That's not cool at all.

Play ball.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 11:41 AM | Comments (11)

March 4, 2011

Sports Q&A: Wonderlic Powers, Activate!

The NFL Combine is behind us, and overshadowed by all the sprints, jumps, pumped iron, and Cam Newton sightings was Greg McElroy's impressive 48 out of 50 on the Wonderlic test. Should incredible scores like McElroy's be glamorized just as much as a record 40-yard dash time or other impressive physical feats?

Sure, the Wonderlic is the red-headed stepchild of tests used to measure the supposed readiness of an NFL prospect. While we are bombarded statistically with 40-yard dash times, broad jumps, cone drills, and 225-pound bench presses, Wonderlic scores are often not even reported, and are guarded closely by the NFL.

Why does the NFL choose to keep Wonderlic scores close to the vest? Who knows? I'd venture a guess to say it's because Wonderlic scores have absolutely no correlation to a player's success in the NFL, and that's the little secret shared by the league and Wonderlic. By shrouding the scores in mystery, the NFL keeps those hidden scores relevant, and thereby maintains the relevance of the Wonderlic test itself. Let's face it. If not for the NFL, the "Wonderlic test" would not be in the everyday vernacular of sports fans.

Yes, the Wonderlic test gets plenty of publicity, but often, it's negative publicity, because the appetites of sports fan are whetted more by low scores than high.

But Wonderlic scores like McElroy's should be celebrated, and freely reported, just as Chris Johnson's 4.24 40-yard dash in 2008 was. Johnson was deified for his achievement, while McElroy's was practically just mentioned in passing. While a 48 on the Wonderlic is no more a guarantee of NFL stardom than a sub-4.30 40, it's as impressive as a sub-4.30 40. Why the difference in coverage? Johnson's run was seen on television, and replayed thousands of times. McElroy's test was never given a chance.

That needs to change. Here's how.

Wonderlic scores should not only be public, the test itself should be televised as part of the broadcast of the NFL Combine. It's likely the last great bastion of televised "sports" that has yet to be conquered, now that chess and poker have fallen.

The Wonderlic is a 12-minute, 50-question test used to assess aptitude and problem-solving skills in a range of occupations, not just football, although results often indicate that a subject is likely capable of only playing football. McElroy nearly aced the test, with his score of 48 matching those of NFL players Ryan Fitzpatrick, Kevin Curtis, and Benjamin Watson as legendary in the annals of the test. Only one player, Harvard graduate Pat McInally, boasts the only confirmed score of 50.

Due to the secretive nature of test results, and the rise of Internet rumors, some results are wildly exaggerated, such as Vince Young's 1, or Mark Sanchez's 69. No, Young didn't score a 1, and no, the "skunk rule" wasn't invoked during his allotted time. Young actually scored a 6, but rumor and hearsay led to the inaccuracies.

Televised testing would put an end to false reports and speculation of scores. The results would be right there on the screen for viewers to see. More importantly, viewers could play along, testing their skill against their soon-to-be heroes.

The format of the test couldn't be better suited for televison. The 12-minute test would allow for at least one commercial break, making mid-test interviews with test-takers a possibility. Add a roving reporter to complement play-by-play and color analysts, and you've got success.

Of course, if Wonderlic tests are to be televised, the questions would have to be revised to appeal to television audiences, and invoke situations athletes can well relate to. Below are proposed questions for the new, televised Wonderlic test.

* If Mark Sanchez wipes a booger on his 17-year-old cousin, whom he just slept with, how many questionable acts has he committed?

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 0, as long as the Jets make the playoffs.

* Antonio Cromartie has fathered nine children with eight different women. Which of the following statements is most true:

A. Cromartie would score well on the "broad" jump.
B. Cromartie likes "pump-and-run" coverage.
C. Cromartie family reunions are well-attended.
D. All of the above.

* If Brett Favre sends a text message picture of his penis to a cell phone with a 2"x2" screen, and his penis covers 20% of the screen, what is the area (in square inches) of Favre's penis?

A. Tiny
B. .8
C. 4
D. About the size of a postage stamp.

* Use the following words in a sentence: Tiger Woods, stroke, shaft, hole, wood, swing, grip, lip. Now, use the following words in a sentence without mentioning "golf."

* The Dallas Cowboys sold 106,132 tickets to the Super Bowl. Attendance was listed as 102,987. How many ticket-holders are eligible to file a class-action lawsuit?

A. 3,541
B. 3,451
C. 3,145
D. None

* Fill in the blank. Roger Clemens stands before a grand jury. He is most likely to ________ himself.

A. incriminate
B. perjure
C. inject
D. misremember

* A train carrying Jim Calhoun leaves Storrs, Connecticut at 55 miles per hour heading south. Another train carrying Bruce Pearl leaves Knoxville, Tennessee at 45 miles per hour heading east. Where will the two trains meet?

A. At a cookout in Richmond, Virginia.
B. At NCAA offices in Indianapolis.
C. At a dark alley in Washington, DC, home of a top-10 recruit.
D. At a rave hosted by Pat Summit and Carrot Top.

* St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa sits in his car at a stoplight. The stoplight cycles every 60 seconds. If LaRussa's blood alcohol content is .26, and decreases .01 every 10 minutes, what will his BAC be after 50 stoplight cycles?

A. Below the Mendoza Line
B. .21
C. .24
D. π

* An ESPN personality is on fire. This is an example of:

A. Erin Andrews is Smoking
B. Tony Kornheiser is Cooking
C. Jim Rome is Burning
D. A horrible accident when Stephen A. Smith interviews Richard Pryor on "Quite Frankly"

* Henry Aaron likes his coffee with sugar. Using Bill James' formula for "runs created," and assuming a constant rate of the expansion of the universe, it can be determined that Barry Bonds likes his coffee with:

A. Cream
B. Clear
C. Victor Conte
D. H.G.H. Wells

* Wilt Chamberlain liked women. Michael Jordan likes gambling and golf. Using those facts, in conjunction with simple logic and deductive reasoning, determine what shoes Rex Ryan wears on the golf course.

A. Flip-flops
B. Etonic
C. Foot-Joy
D. Open-toed pumps

* Match the fight with its famous tag-line.

A. Evander Holyfield/Mike Tyson II
B. Sugar Ray Leonard/Roberto Duran II
C. Bobby Knight/Puerton Rican police officer
D. Nolan Ryan/Robin Ventura

1. "No Mas"
2. "No Contest"
3. "No Ear"
4. "No More"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:06 PM | Comments (0)

March 3, 2011

Here We Go Again

Duke Blue Devils "earn" another one-seed.

Let me start by saying that the Blue Devils are not a bad team. As a matter of fact, they're well above-average. But just like last year, they're also ranked entirely too high. All season long, they've beaten only three teams that are locks for the tournament (North Carolina, Kansas State, and Temple) — and that's it.

Given that, one might be left wondering why Duke would even be considered for a top-seed. I can think of two reasons that the Blue Devils will find themselves atop another regional bracket, and quite frankly, both of them make me sick every year around this time.

The first reason is that they're Duke. You may not like it (personally, I hate it), but it doesn't matter to the money-crazed Selection Committee. They see a team that will draw a bigger audience, and in turn fill the pockets of the higher-ups in college basketball and so before the season is even over, some of them have decided that, with rare exception, teams like Duke must be penciled-in as the one-seeds.

Last year's Duke team almost undoubtedly wouldn't have even made it to the Final Four, let alone won a national championship, had they been in any other regional bracket. Don't expect this year's version of the Blue Devils to have a more difficult road than that group did. The Selection Committee is smart enough to realize that there's just not enough money in it if they do.

The second reason they'll get an undeservedly easy path to the Final Four is that the Selection Committee won't bother to look at the schedule Duke has faced. Believe it or not, the ACC has a lower Conference RPI than the MWC. So it's a given that BYU and San Diego State will get higher seeds than Duke in the tournament, right?

If you think the answer to that question is yes, you have way too much faith in the intelligence of the Selection Committee. It stands to reason that teams who not only have a better record, but have amassed that record against better top-to-bottom competition, would be considered the better teams. But when have the powers that be in college basketball ever been accused of standing for reason?

Another mid-major shocks the world by beating a one-seed early in the tournament.

To begin with, I'd like to clarify something about this headline.

I'm not talking about a BYU-type mid-major, or any other team that everyone has had their eyes one for some time now. I'm talking about a team like last year's Northern Iowa team that some said was ranked too high as a nine-seed. I'm talking about a team that comes out of nowhere to shock the world.

The stage is set for another crazy, surprise-filled tournament. There isn't a single team that looks like they should be able to run away with it. Even the teams that have stayed in the top-five all year long haven't dominated even the bottom-feeding teams in their own conference.

Given the relative weakness of the top of the field this year, we may even have more than one Northern Iowa-type Cinderella team dominating headlines in this tournament. So to clarify on this prediction, I'm saying a one-seed will lose to a team currently not in the top 25 sometime before the party moves to Indianapolis.

No Big East teams reach the Final Four.

Is the Big East the best conference in the nation? Absolutely. Could there conceivably be 11 Big East teams in the tournament? Sure. But even the top of the conference is anything but a sure bet against quality opponents.

The four highest ranked Big East teams (Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Louisville, and Syracuse) have played a combined total of one road game against out-of-conference opponents. That came when Louisville beat Western Kentucky convincingly three days before Christmas — and eight days after losing a home game to Drexel. Along the same lines, the Big East teams currently ranked in the top-25 are winning 57% of their road games overall. Ranked Big Ten teams are winning 68% of their road games and ranked Big 12 teams are winning 60% of their road games.

Again, I'm not saying the Big East is a bad conference, or even denying that it's by far the best top-to-bottom conference in the nation. But I don't like the chances of a Big East team against elite competition away from their own home court.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

March 2, 2011

Their "Middle" Name is Danger

We're less the ten days from finding out if, and where, our favorite teams will be set up in the field of 68 (man, it's weird even thinking that). For the juggernauts in the field (your Ohio States, your Texases, your Pittsburghs), they're ready to figure out their paths to Houston. But beware. Hidden amongst the partygoers ready to cheer their Regional Prom Kings are spies. These squads look to use their James Bond-esque skills to not only disband the royal court, but get their chance to squash the tournament life of the highest of the high. Watch out for these groups to oust one, or more, of their well-known foes.

Temple Owls

Last year, Fran Dunphy got the short end of the stick when drawing Ivy League champ and Sweet 16 participant Cornell. So far, Juan Fernandez, Lavoy Allen, and company have been going near the pace of last year. They've defeated Georgetown, Maryland, and Georgia, while losing close against Texas A&M and Villanova.

However, the tournament projection puts the Owls a lower seed than the 5 they had last year. It actually may be to their benefit. Instead of taking on that dreaded 5-12 matchup, they may get a 10th seed in the first round. With their defense, athleticism, and discipline, they're the type of squad that could take out a 2-seed during the first weekend of the tourney.

Upset potential: Elite 8

Xavier Musketeers

This version of the Queen City team doesn't include swingman Jordan Crawford or big man Jason Love, yet they are still in position to win the A-10 title outright this season. Thing is, I don't think that the X-Men have as much potential to go further than their scintillating Sweet 16 run a year ago.

Don't get me wrong. Tu Holloway, Jordan Latham, Dante Jackson, and the bunch will be out to prove me wrong. But I'm not as high on them with the missed chances to get those nice out-of-conference notches. Even though they paid Butler back for the controversial win in Indianapolis, the Musketeers lost to Old Dominion, Gonzaga, Florida, and Cincinnati. Maybe the trend will warm up with the weather, but I'm not betting on it.

Upset potential: Second round

Belmont Bruins

The Nashville-based university put itself on the map in March of 2008, when the Bruins were within seconds of knocking off second-seeded Duke. Now, the team is looking at a return to the Big Dance. They're the overwhelming favorite to get the Atlantic Sun bid after going 19-1 in-conference.

If the Bruins get another opportunity to make waves, they'll look to a strength one of the power teams doesn't want to face ... depth. Ten players have played in every game this season. Eleven players average more than ten minutes a game. Belmont might not have the height of other squads (two tallest kids are 6'10" and 6'9"), but they have the bodies to throw at you.

Upset potential: Sweet 16

George Mason Patriots

The season wasn't looking too great for the Patriots when they lost at Old Dominion to drop to 10-5 overall and 2-2 in the Colonial Conference. Then they flipped the switch and haven't lost since. Jim Larranaga's squad finished the regular season on a 15-game winning streak that might have GMU in the tournament even before they take the court in Richmond for the league's tournament.

Now, can the Patriots reproduce the magic that led them to the Final Four in 2006? There are a couple similarities between these two Mason teams. The '05-'06 squad essentially had a rotation of seven players, five double-figure scorers, and a heavy presence of upperclassmen in that rotation. This season's team has a rotation of six players, four double-digit scorers, and (again) a good presence of experience. Could GMU repeat the results? No. Could they make some noise? Yes.

Upset potential: Sweet 16

Old Dominion Monarchs

The Monarchs were a fairly trendy pick to make the tourney early in the season. Now, they'll have to catch up, so to speak, with George Mason winning the league title. If seedings hold, ODU gets their rubber match against the Patriots for a guaranteed spot in the NCAAs. I believe they'll get that rematch and take full advantage of that chance.

If they should make the tournament, keep an eye on them. The Monarchs have already taken down tournament hopefuls Clemson, Xavier, and Richmond. ODU also lost a one-possession game to Georgetown in the season opener. They have a nice one-two punch with Frank Hassell and Kent Bazemore, plus experience throughout the roster.

Upset potential: Second round

Harvard Crimson

Could this be the 2011 version of Cornell? Eh, probably not. The Crimson do have nice wins over Colorado and Boston College, but I don't believe that compares to how the Big Red scared the bejeezus out of Kansas early last year. Still, whoever comes out of the Ivy League could have another shot at taking down a big gun. Harvard is pretty guard-oriented, meaning a lack of height in the frontcourt. That could do them in against bigger teams.

I do like Tommy Amaker on the bench, though. He seems to have found his fit with the smart jocks. And I wouldn't put it past him to pull out one shocker, that is, if they can beat out Princeton for the league title. It'll be real fun to watch the Crimson and Tigers in two years (both teams are loaded with underclassmen). For now, the Crimson will leave the field with a taste of what's to come.

Upset potential: Second round

Oakland Golden Grizzlies

Just like Belmont, the Golden Grizzlies run away with their league (the Summit). Just like the Bruins, Oakland made a trip to Thompson-Boling Arena to take on Tennessee. Unlike Belmont, Greg Kampe's team walked out with a win. The Grizzlies' signature win came amid a brutal non-conference schedule that rivaled Gonzaga (including West Virginia and seemingly the top half of the Big Ten, save Wisconsin). That schedule set up Oakland to burn through the Summit and, likely, the league tourney.

These guys like to run and score. They're the third-highest scoring team in the country, with four players scoring in double figures, and another just on the short side (Larry Wright at 9.9 ppg). Plus, this team has a lot of length and athleticism. I don't think the situation will set up for them to get to the Regionals, but for anyone other than the top six or seven teams ... watch your back for bears.

Upset potential: Second round

Utah State Aggies

In the race for representation among the lesser-known west coast schools, I'll choose to reside in Logan for the minute. Once again, Stu Morrill has his team headed into the postseason with an impressive (even gaudy) record. Like last year, the Aggies non-conference schedule wasn't terribly impressive. This year, there was one "Power Conference" opponent on the entire schedule (a loss to Georgetown). And that's more than there was last season.

If USU returns to the main tournament for a third straight time, they'll have quite a bit of experience leading the way (six seniors, four juniors). That could provide a problem for some of these more mainstream teams that haven't had a chance to see Utah State. However, any surprise factor from the first round should wear off by Saturday or Sunday.

Upset potential: Second round

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 5:12 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 2

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kyle Busch — With wins in the Camping World and Nationwide series already logged, Busch fell just short of the triple, finishing second to Jeff Gordon in the Subway Fresh Fit 500. Busch took the lead at Phoenix on lap 291 and held on until lap 304, when Gordon muscled by him for the lead. Busch now leads the Sprint Cup point standings with a 3-point edge over older brother Kurt.

"Natalie Portman dazzled with her Oscar-winning role in Black Swan," Busch said. "Next up for Ms. Portman? Playing the lead role in the story of Teresa Earnhardt, in a film entitled White Loon."

"There may be room for only one black swan in 'Swan Lake,' but in the Busch family, everyone, relatives, and competitors alike, will tell you there's room for two 'black sheep.'"

2. Jeff Gordon — Gordon snapped his 66-race winless streak, capping a dominating day in Phoenix by passing Kyle Busch with 8 laps to go and cruising to the victory. Gordon tied Cale Yarbrough for fifth on the all-time wins list, with 83, and ended a near two-year run of frustration.

"In the spirit of Aron Ralston, subject of the Oscar-nominated movie 127 Hours," Gordon said, "I'd like to have my left arm raised in victory as opposed to my right. Ralston showed great courage in the face of a harrowing predicament, just like me, except I did it for nearly two years, as opposed to a measly 127 hours.

"I'm just thankful my winless streak has been halted. It was long and grueling. Now some other famous driver will be known for his winless streak, and I'm thrilled I'll no longer be known for having the 'longest skid' mark."

3. Carl Edwards — Edwards set a track record in Saturday's qualifying in taking the pole, but his opportunity to show off that speed fizzled when he was forced off the track when Kyle Busch's No. 18 Combo's Toyota got loose on lap 60. Edwards' No. 99 Subway Fusion ran over the curb and into the grass, causing serious front-end damage. Repairs cost Edwards 60 laps, and he finished 28th.

"What did they say after the last award was handed out at the Academy Awards?" Edwards asked. "'We just ran out of talent.' That's quite similar to what Kyle Busch said in his apology to me. But seriously, Kyle showed contrition and remorse, so there was no need for a confrontation. I think what we're seeing this year are kinder, gentler versions of both Kyle and I. We both believe we can win the Sprint Cup, and we both realize rash behavior can quickly derail those hopes.

"By no means am I a lover, and I'm definitely not The Fighter, the movie in which Christian Bale earned an Oscar for best supporting actor. On that note, what do you call it when Trevor Bayne goes all the way from winning the Daytona 500 to a 40th in Phoenix? A 'Christian Bail.'"

4. Kurt Busch — Busch started second at Phoenix and posted his second top-10 result of the season, finishing 8th in the Subway Fresh Fit 500. Difficulty in the corners prevented the No. 22 Shell/Pennzoil Dodge from challenging for the win, but Busch headed to Las Vegas content with a solid points-paying day and the knowledge that the Busch brothers occupy to top two spots in the point standings.

"If our parents ever doubted our decisions to race professionally," Busch said, "I'd just like to say to Mom and Dad, 'The Kids Are All Right.' And while we're on the subject of the Academy Awards, I'd like to congratulate Kyle for winning the 'best actor' award at Phoenix, for making his apology to Carl Edwards seem genuine. Now that's acting!"

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart led 59 laps at Phoenix, second only to Jeff Gordon's 138, and finished 7th, joining Stewart-Haas Racing teammate Ryan Newman, who finished 5th, in the top 10. Stewart is 4th in the point standings, 11 out of first.

"Two races into the season," Stewart said, "and we've had a car capable of winning both times. I'm pleased that we've been so competitive early in the season. Usually, I don't get warmed up until Winter's Bone gives way to 'Summer's Boon.'

"As you may know, Winter's Bone tells the story of a meth-addled family in the Ozark's. You may know it by its alternate title, Mayfield's in the Mountains."

6. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson qualified a disappointing 28th on Saturday, but the No. 48 Lowe's team unlocked the speed in Johnson's Impala, courtesy of numerous adjustments and quick work in the pits. Johnson moved up to third on lap 294 and held off Kevin Harvick to post his first top-five of the year.

"I've got to hand it to Chad Knaus for making the right calls," Johnson said. "It's been said that everything Chad touches turns to gold. Once upon a time, that meant everything 'turned to gold' for NASCAR, assuming they converted fines levied against Knaus into gold."

"There's a lot of drivers claiming they can win the Sprint Cup championship. But, let's face it, we all know whose name will be called come November. The Academy Awards has one thing NASCAR lacks when the words 'And the winner is...' are spoken: suspense."

7. Kevin Harvick — Harvick rebounded from engine failure at Daytona to finish a solid fourth at Phoenix, leading one lap and collecting a valuable 41 points. The No. 29 Jimmy John's Chevrolet found trouble early, with a slow pit stop followed by a spin triggered by contact in front of him.

"Daytona was hard to swallow," said Harvick, "but our performance at Phoenix gives me confidence that this team is capable of a championship. Much like the themes in the Oscar-nominated film Inception, a 'seed has been planted,' instilling us with the confidence that we can do it. Those who doubt me may very well say 'in your dreams,' but just look on the hood of my car, where the words 'Jimmy John's' appear. How can one say we're not championship material when nearly the entire name of five-time Cup champion Jimmie Johnson is on my hood?"

8. A.J. Allmendinger — Allmendinger validated his 11th in the Daytona 500 with a 9th at Phoenix, sporting Ford's only top-10 finisher. He's third in the Sprint Cup point standings, 11 behind Kyle Busch.

"As the driver of the No. 43 car for Richard Petty Motorsports," Allmendinger said, "a lot is expected of me. And I wouldn't have it any other way. Before every race, I get a pep talk from Petty, and I can tell you first-hand that nothing inspires more than The King's Speech."

9. Mark Martin — Martin overcame slight damage after contact with Kevin Harvick's No. 29 car to pilot the No. 5 GoDaddy.com Chevrolet to a 13th-place finish at Phoenix. It was a banner day for Hendrick Motorsports, as Jeff Gordon won for the first time in 66 races and all four HMS cars placed in the top 13. Martin is now sixth in the point standing, 65 behind Kyle Busch.

"As I very well know," Martin said, "there's no shame in coming in second, or coming in 13th, especially here at Hendrick. As the low man on the totem pole on a team consisting of a five-time champion, a four-time champion, and NASCAR's most popular driver, The Social Network here affords me the chance to rub shoulders with greatness. I'm a popular driver in my own right. Heck, everybody 'likes' me. I expect one day, when I update my status to 'retired' for good, I'll be honored with a lifetime achievement award."

10. Ryan Newman — Newman led 7 laps and finished fifth in the Subway Fresh Fit 500, joining Stewart-Haas teammate Tony Stewart, who finished 7th, in the top 10. Newman improved 13 places in the point standings to 9th, and trails Kyle Busch by 16.

"This is a team to be reckoned with," Newman said. "Tony and I have a great working relationship, unlike the one I had with former teammate Rusty Wallace. That association was abrasive, so abrasive that one could call it True Grit. Rusty and I never saw eye to eye, even when we both were wearing eyepatches."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:09 AM | Comments (0)

March 1, 2011

Can Marlins Compete With No-Name Roster?

It seems like the story is the same each season; the Florida Marlins entering the season with little hype, but loads of talent. mThe Marlins are entering the 2011 season with a roster that may not sound too familiar, but the results will surprise many.

Perhaps the only two nationally recognized players on the Marlins are pitcher Josh Johnson and shortstop Hanley Ramirez. Other than these two, the roster is relatively unknown. mIf you are asking yourself about the whereabouts of Dan Uggla, remember that he was traded to Atlanta during the offseason for reliever Mike Dunn and infielder Omar Infante.

Though Florida will be missing some of Uggla's firepower, his absence will allow for more money to go towards trades and free agents.

The Marlins already have a ton of young firepower, including infielder Gaby Sanchez and outfielder Mike Stanton. Both of these players have the chance to be all-stars this season or in the near future.

Along with a young set of bats, the Marlins should have a steady rotation going into 2011. With Josh Johnson already expected to be an all-star, Ricky Nolasco and Javier Vasquez will provide leadership all the way down the rotation.

While the Marlins will likely get a lot of credit this season for surprising many with a roster full of young talent, it is unclear whether they will compete for the playoffs.

The Phillies, Mets, and Braves always have very strong lineups, both batting and pitching. The Phillies also have one of the best starting rotations in MLB history with Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt, Cliff Lee, and Cole Hamels.

With the Phillies being the favorite in the division, and the entire National League, it is still possible that the Marlins can slip into a wild card spot. The Braves and Mets will both make it difficult for the Marlins to be successful in a talent-rich division, but in the spirit of competitiveness, The Marlins will be up to the challenge.

Since 2008, the Marlins have gotten 80 or more wins each season. Even if they are a few years away from making a serious push, the Marlins will surprise many again this season.

Once the Marlins open up their new ballpark in 2012, it is expected for them to increase their payroll, which will likely be when they will be able to make a big push into the playoffs.

Posted by Jason Clary at 4:37 PM | Comments (0)

The Wisdom of the NHL Draft

The draft is something of extreme importance in the NBA and NFL. Players taken with the first overall pick are expected to produce and produce immediately (unless they're a quarterback, then maybe they can wait a year before they're expected to produce). Players in collegiate basketball and football can elect to leave college early and become professionals, but they are not allowed to be drafted and stay in school.

In baseball, the rules slightly differ and the expectations are vastly different. If a player is drafted, they are not expected to make an appearance for their major league team for at least a year, very often two or three or more, especially if they are drafted out of high school. In baseball, however, a player can be drafted straight out of high school, then elect to play college baseball instead of entering the minor league system and that is okay. The team who drafted that player simply gets that same pick in the subsequent year's draft.

In the NHL, the rules are even more different and dare I say more logical to some extent. The NHL entry draft accepts North American players aged 18-20-years-old. Non-North American players are eligible for the draft at any age. When drafted, a player's rights are owned by that particular NHL club, but that does not mean the player can't go to college or even continue college. A player can be drafted at 18, go to college for four years, then sign a contract with the team that four years previous had drafted them.

If a player wishes to enter the minor league system of their club, they can. I'm sure there is a fair deal of conversation between the NHL organization and the drafted players regarding their decisions before signing contracts. But this draft presents an element of risk that the other drafts do not have and I like that. In the NHL, if you draft a high school senior who then goes to college and for lack of a better word, sucks, you've made a bad investment. In baseball if you do this, the player elects to go to college, you get another pick next year. There is an element of risk with international players in the NBA (think Ricky Rubio), where a player can be drafted and then not go play for the team that drafted them, but the affiliation with collegiate levels is not there, only with other professional organizations.

Obviously, there is a risk that any athlete in any sport won't pan out after making the jump from amateur to professional, but what is the biggest factor in that risk? It may be the difference in level of play from high school/college to the professionals. It may be the length of time expected between draft day and top level debut. But what I like the most about the NHL draft is that it is the only one at the moment that allows a player to be drafted and go to another amateur organization. NHL clubs allow athletes to be coached and mentored by somebody not in the organization and that is pretty risky in my opinion.

I like the NHL draft. I think every sport should adopt some of its ideas, perhaps expanding the age range where appropriate and adjusting for international players where appropriate, as well. I think in the NFL this would certainly be an interesting factor. Perhaps players would be eligible after age 20, then regardless of whether or not they intend to stay in school, they could be drafted and NFL teams would have to take into account such things as will the player leave school early? Is the school they are at trustworthy to continue them on the right path? I honestly think (at least in the NFL) this would cut down on the ridiculous bonuses players are getting for signing a contract and never having played on the NFL stage before.

With the idea that the NHL has one element of risk other drafts do not, do we see very many "draft busts" in the NHL?

It seems most every NFL fan knows the horror stories of Tony Mandarich, Brian Bosworth, Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell. As most NBA fans know, Greg Oden was taken before Kevin Durant in 2007 and Sam Bowie was taken before Michael Jordan in 1984. (Hakeem Olajuwon was taken first, but calling him a bust would be blasphemy.)

But what about the NHL? There are some pretty solid names on the list, including Eric Lindros (1991), Mike Modano (1988), and Mario Lemieux (1984). Below is a listing of the players taken first overall in the last 10 years with grades, stats, and assessment. The impressive names continue.

2010: Taylor Hall, Edmonton Oilers

Hall has played in all 61 games for the dismal Oilers this season. He currently has 19 goals and 21 assists, putting him on pace for 54 points this season, which is nothing to sneeze at. The next few years will tell us if he's as valuable as some of the players a little further down on this list, but considering he's making immediate impact, I'd say the Oilers did pretty well with this pick.

GRADE: B

2009: John Tavares, New York Islanders

Tavares was also an immediate impact guy. He played every game for the Islanders in 2009-2010, scoring 24 goals with 30 assists. In 2010-2011, he's already recorded 23 goals with 29 assists. His 52 points have him in a tie for 22nd in points. Not bad for year number two.

GRADE: B+

2008: Steven Stamkos, Tampa Bay Lightning

Stamkos had a similar first year to the two subsequent overall first picks listed above, but his second season was a major breakout. He scored 51 goals with 44 assists accounting for 95 points, good for fifth best in points and tied for first in goals (with Sidney Crosby). 2010-2011 has been much of the same for Stamkos. He's currently second in points with 77 and first in goals with 41. I dare say, Stamkos seems well on his way to becoming one of the better first picks of all time, not only playing at a high level himself, but advancing the Lightning from mediocre to contenders.

GRADE: A

2007: Patrick Kane, Chicago Blackhawks

Kane has been consistent for the Blackhawks accumulating 72, 70, and 88 points in his first three seasons, in the current season, he's at 51 points. Good numbers, but not overwhelming and of course Kane got the chance to spend a day with Lord Stanley's Cup, which is of course a nice bonus. Kane has one off the ice incident involving misdemeanor charges for punching a taxi driver because he didn't get $1.20 in change. That happened in 2009 and seems to be an isolated incident, so perhaps it shouldn't play too much into my grade.

GRADE: B

2006: Erik Johnson, St. Louis Blues

Johnson is the only player drafted first overall that could even be considered a minor bust at this point, and he still has perhaps 10-plus years ahead of him. He is also the only player to not head straight into the NHL or the NHL's minor league system as he played a year for the Minnesota Golden Gophers before signing with the Blues. He is also the most recent defensemen to be taken first overall. Furthermore, he is only one in the last 10 years to miss an entire season due to injury. Johnson missed the 2008-2009 season with a torn ACL and MCL, an injury he received while driving a golf cart at a team event.

He has recently been traded to the Colorado Avalanche. While Johnson is certainly a serviceable player, his missing a year gives him a rather lower grade than anybody else taken first in the past 10 years. Also consider the three names that followed Johnson in the 2006 draft: Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews, Nicklas Backstrom. Two out of three of those seem to have turned out a touch better than Johnson at this point in time.

GRADE: C-

2005: Sidney Crosby, Pittsburgh Penguins

Crosby has already had a successful career. In his five completed seasons, he notched 100 points four times, failing to do so in 2007-2008 because of a high ankle sprain that kept him out of more than 20 games. He has helped lead the Penguins to one title already and has helped elevate them to an elite level. Although he is missing some time currently, one would be an idiot to not see that he has already been a grade A pick and has the potential to be an elite player for the next decade. He has one Hart Memorial Trophy and has hoisted Lord Stanley's cup once already. Earning those honors two or three more times before he is finished is not unthinkable.

GRADE: A+

2004: Alexander Ovechkin, Washington Capitals

Ovechkin has similar numbers to Crosby, including four out of five seasons with 100 points. The main difference between these two players are Ovechkin scores more goals and is a bit more durable and crazy. Crosby has a championship. Comparing them is much like comparing LeBron James and Kobe Bryant or Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. It mostly comes down to subjective preference as to who is better.

GRADE: A+

2003: Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh Penguins

Fleury is the most recent goaltender to be taken first overall. At 18, he started 20 games in his rookie season and had a few growing pains, going 4-14-2 while allowing 3.64 goals against average. His second season wasn't much better as he went 13-27-6 allowing 3.25 goals against average. His third season (2006-2007) however put him towards stardom as he went 40-16-9. Subsequent seasons have seen Fleury's goals against decrease, but his wins haven't cracked 40 since. 2006-2007 was the only season in which Fleury was in the top five for wins in the NHL.

While he has certainly been a good goaltender, he hasn't put up great numbers in really any category since 2006-2007. He's consistently top-10 in most categories, and by no means a bust. Overall, as a pick for Pittsburgh at the time, I think Fleury was the right choice. The next goaltender taken in the 2003 draft was Corey Crawford, 52nd overall by the Chicago Blackhawks, who, before this season, had played in a grand total of nine NHL games. Taking Fleury first overall as opposed to waiting seven years for Crawford was probably the right choice.

GRADE: B+

2002: Rick Nash, Columbus Blue Jackets

Nash has not been overwhelming with the numbers like Crosby and Ovechkin, even like Stamkos, but he has been a solid force for Columbus, scoring 40 goals twice. In the end, 2002 just wasn't a great year for the NHL draft. Only five players from the 2002 draft have been selected to the All-Star Game ... ever. Compare that to 2003 with 12 in the first round. Well, maybe 2003 was just a good year.

GRADE B-

2001: Ilya Kovalchuk, Atlanta Thrashers

Kovalchuk had some good seasons with the Thrashers, putting up 80 points on four different occasions and scoring 50 goals twice, but he may have already reached the pinnacle of his career and is 2010-2011 is showing us a bit of a down slope. We'll see how many years he has left in the tank, and if 2010-2011 is just a fluke possibly brought on by a change of scenery to the New Jersey Devils, who struggled mightily in the first half of the season, though since their turnaround, he's been very solid. He's a good choice, just not a great choice.

GRADE: B+

Compare that list with one minor bust and three superstars to the NFL's last 10 number one overall picks with at least two busts in JaMarcus Russell and David Carr, not to mention Michael Vick, who spent a goodly amount of time in jail and some true all-stars, but no superstars.

Or the NBA, which boasts certain busts Kwame Brown, Greg Oden, and the not-so-impressive Andrew Bogut and the improving Andrea Bargnani. Those seem to be balanced nicely of course by superstar names like LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Derrick Rose.

Or MLB, where we have the very sad story of Matt Bush (seriously, this kid had some problems), Bryan Bullington, who is now pitching in Japan, and Luke Hochevar, who hasn't shown off too much for the Royals quite yet. The MLB also has some nice stars on its list, including Joe Mauer, Justin Upton, and David Price.

In the end, the NHL, at least in the last 10 years, has been by far the safest draft. It has produced superstars much like the NBA, but it has not given way to the ridiculous busts that have plagued all three other sports.

So what's the secret? I think the draft might have something to do with it.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)