Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« May 2012 | Main | July 2012 »

June 29, 2012

Foul Territory: Time For Cornea Jokes

* You Mean A Man Was Injured in a Fight Involving Chris Brown?, Or the Game Plan Called For Putting a Hand in His Face, Or it's Time For Some Cornea Jokes — Tony Parker said he almost lost his eye in a fight involving Chris Brown and Drake at the W.i.P. club in SoHo on June 15th. Fortunately for Parker, this will make it much easier for him to "eyeball" Rhianna.

* In the Dogg Household, This Would Call For a "Toast" — Cordell Broadus, son of rapper Snoop Dogg and a rising high school sophomore, was offered a football scholarship by UCLA. Here's hoping Broadus can hold out for a scholarship to Michigan, so he can say, "Bow wow wow, yippy yo yippy yay, Cordell Broadus in the mother f'n Big House."

* Apparently, Anderson Silva Speaks "Broken" English, or Portuguese Manifesto of War — Anderson Silva vowed to break Chael Sonnen's arms, legs, and "every one of his teeth" when the two meet at UFC 148 on July 7th. Sonnen defiantly replied that the only thing he'll submit to is a physical.

* The Night the Lights Went On in Georgia — Former Atlanta Falcons running back Jamal Anderson is facing a charge of driving under the influence after being pulled over by an officer in Dekalb County, Georgia early Sunday morning. It was the first stalled drive by a Falcon since Atlanta lost in the NFL playoffs 24-2 to the Giants.

* Hopefully He Won't Let the Money Go to His Head — The Pittsburgh Penguins and Sydney Crosby are finalizing a deal that will be worth $104.4 million over 12 years. Crosby, who missed much of the 2011-12 season due to the effects of a concussion, said, with no hint of irony, that the amount of the contract was "mind-boggling."

* It's a Perfect Way For the Women's Olympic Team to "Gel" — Olympic sprinter Justin Gatlin said Allyson Felix and Jeneba Tarmoh should wrestle in Jell-O to break the tie to determine the third women's representative in the 100-meter dash in London. It would likely be the first time an Olympian is determined on The Howard Stern Show.

* Money Talks, BCS Walks — A four-team playoff to determine a college football champion was approved by a board of university presidents. The system begins in 2014, and a selection committee will choose the four teams. Board members said they felt that a weight had been lifted from their shoulders, albeit only to be shifted to their pockets.

* Club Foot, or the Yankees Just Legged Out a Double — Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte is expected to miss six weeks after breaking his leg when he was hit by a batted ball on Wednesday. The injury came on the same day the Yankees placed C.C. Sabathia on the 15-day disabled list with a strained groin. If the Yankees' pitching staff were running to first, you could say they'd be "out by two feet."

* Spanish in Position — Spain beat Portugal 4-2 on penalty kicks after a scoreless tie to reach the finals of the UEFA Euro 2012 Cup, and will face Italy in Sunday's final. With a win, Spain can become the first team to sandwich two Euro titles around a World Cup championship, which would give them one more goal than they managed against Portugal.

* Matt Finish, or Cup A' Joe — Matt Kenseth will leave Roush Fenway Racing at season's end, but won't say where he'll be in 2013. Speculation is that Kenseth will sign with Joe Gibbs Racing, which is likely the only way the current Gibbs stable can claim ownership of a Sprint Cup championship.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:45 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2012

Come On, Ray

Ray Allen has spent the golden years of his NBA career proving to everyone that, apart from having a deadly jumper, he also is a class act. He has represented the Boston Celtics organization, his teammates, and himself with nothing but the utmost class over the past few years. He seems to the play basketball with respect for his opponents and, more importantly, respect for the game. With all of the positive ammunition he's built up at the end of his likely-Hall-of-Fame career, why would he ruin it by joining the Miami Heat?

First off, let me congratulate the Miami Heat. Despite the fact that their presence in the playoffs made me root harder than ever for teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Celtics, and Thunder, it would behoove me not to acknowledge that Miami was clearly the best team in the league these playoffs. There were no lucky breaks: they won fair and square.

Last week, only days after the Heat clinched the title, it was reported that Ray Allen had interest in leaving Boston to play for the Miami Heat. I'm not going to pretend that I don't understand the allure of joining the Heat. They just won a championship and appear to be firing on all cylinders, ready to win more. They also have the current best basketball player in the world. Regardless of your personal feelings about LeBron James, I suppose that — as an athlete — it would be nice to play alongside him before the curtains close on your career.

However, I still can't help but feel like Ray Allen is going against nearly everything he has stood for as an NBA player by considering signing a contract to play for Miami. Let's consider this.

On the positive side, joining the Heat would likely help Allen highlight the best parts of his own game. He has lost a step in his later years, so giving LeBron another outside jumper to utilize would help pad his own stats until his retirement.

Also, all-too-often players prioritize money or personal glory over winning as a team. Making this decision would prove that Ray Allen's priority is team glory — not personal accolades.

That's where the pros end, though.

On the other hand, joining this team would be surrendering. As a former athlete myself, I always despised the, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality. When a team ousted me, I never felt like joining them. I just wanted to beat them even more. By leaving Boston to join Miami, Ray Allen is holding up a white flag and taking the easy road.

This decision would also greatly alter the public perception of Allen. The importance of winning aside, he would end his career — much like Karl Malone — as that guy. What I'm referring to is his career will forever have the asterisk that comes with players who gave up and tried to take a shortcut to victory. What's so puzzling about this to me as that Allen has already won! If he was without a ring, this might make sense, but as it stands I can't fully respect the leap to the Heat.

Lastly though — and most importantly — by switching to the Heat, Ray Allen is forever etching in stone that he is a 2012-type NBA player, not one who respects the old-school elements of the league. Would anyone say that Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Reggie Miller — and so many others — were quitters? They all played over a decade in the NBA without earning a ring. Do you think that the Bulls or the Rockets would've welcomed them onto their respective rosters during title runs? Of course! But that's not how the game works.

Professional sports shouldn't be about allegiances and collusion. They shouldn't feature players who "team up" to win titles because it's not as interesting as watching rivalries bud. Can you imagine how boring the NBA would have been in the late-80s if Larry Bird or Magic Johnson had said, "You know what? I bet we could win more titles if we played together." What a terrible tragedy it would have been to lose out on those matchups!

Michael Jordan was heavily courted by Patrick Ewing and the Knicks in the early '90s. Had he left the Bulls, forget the six titles, but worse — forget those amazing games against the Knicks. So many of those games have become a part of Jordan's legacy. He would have lost out on those pieces if he wore the blue and orange.

My point is simple: if Ray Allen wants to end his career with a championship, I can't blame him — just do it the right way. There are several teams that are close to beating Miami. Wouldn't it be more fun to complement Kevin Durant/Michael Westbrook, Danny Granger, and company, or even Derrick Rose and dethrone Miami during your ride off into the sunset?

None of these would be a guarantee, but nobody would fault Ray Allen for trying. Nobody his going to remember his career by saying, "He could've won more." Rather, by joining the Heat, people might end their praise of him by saying, "His last title was with the Heat, though."

Perhaps it's just my bitterness at watching shortcuts work. For the Heat, it took one more year than expected, but their team ultimately took a shortcut that would have been frowned upon in NBA years' past. All I'm saying is that I hope Ray Allen does not contribute to this current Facebook trend of "friending" your conquerors and, instead, takes it upon himself to make the effort to go out on top the right way.

Posted by Louie Centanni at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2012

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 16

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson posted his eighth top-five finish of the year with a fifth in the Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Sonoma. He is fourth in the standings, 25 out of first.

"Clint Bowyer was solid in the 5-Hour Energy Toyota," Johnson said. "But does that necessarily make him a contender for the Sprint Cup title? What's more impressive? Doing it five times, or for '5 Hours?'

"There's a lot of drivers, Bowyer included, who have a single victory this year. They're just a drop in the bucket. If five-straight Cup titles is a 'reign,' then one win is merely a drop of reign."

2. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth held on to the Sprint Cup points lead with a 13th at Sonoma. With 10 races left until the Chase For the Cup, he leads Greg Biffle by 11.

"As you know," Kenseth said, "I'm leaving Roush Fenway Racing at season's end. However, I'm not at liberty to discuss my contract situation. And that's sad, because the one time I have something to talk about, I'm not able to.

"In any case, when I do sign a new contract, it will be the first time I've been paid for my autograph in ages."

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — After snapping a 143-race winless streak with a victory at Michigan on June 17th, Earnhardt followed with a disappointing 23rd in the Toyota/Save Mart 350. Earnhardt was running 13th when he spun on the final lap. He is now third in the point standings, 14 out of first.

"I can't be too upset for not winning at Sonoma," Earnhardt said. "No, not because I just won at Michigan, but because Junior Nation would never forgive me for drinking wine."

4. Tony Stewart — Stewart passed Kurt Busch with one lap to go to take the runner-up spot at Sonoma. Stewart chased Clint Bowyer to the checkered flags, but finished .829 behind, and is now eighth in the point standings, 74 out of first.

"The hard part was getting around Busch," Stewart said. "He's never easy to overtake, unless it's in a test of mental stability. I know Kurt is struggling to find sponsorship, but I think now is the time for Planter's to get back into sport. What better sponsor for Busch than 'nuts?'"

5. Greg Biffle — Biffle's No. 16 3M Fusion was the first Ford across the line at Sonoma, finishing seventh for his ninth top-10 of the year. He remained third in the point standings, and trails Matt Kenseth by 17.

"I'm just happy I didn't have a confrontation with Boris Said," Biffle said. "I surely don't want to wake with 'Said Head' almost as much as I don't want to wake up with a 'Said Head.' His fans are crazy, and not even my type.

"But I finished seventh, while Boris finished 29th. And Boris, of all people, knows a 'whuppin'' when he sees one."

6. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer dominated at Sonoma, leading 71 of 112 laps for his first win of the year. Bowyer pulled away from Kurt Busch on the green-white-checkered finish, and held off Tony Stewart down the stretch. Bowyer is ninth in the point standings, 84 out of first.

"I'm proud to give Michael Waltrip Racing its first win," Bowyer said. "You can best believe Michael won't stop talking about this, ever. Now I can say I've won one for the 'gabber.'

7. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin suffered difficult day at Sonoma, spinning on lap 94 after contact with Joe Gibbs teammate Joey Logano, and finishing 35th after a DNF due to suspension failure. Hamlin tumbled three places to eighth in the point standings, 73 out of first.

"Logano wrecked me," Hamlin said. "By the way, he's still in negotiations for a new contract with JGR. If he's back with Gibbs, that will be two of us resigned — Joey re-signed to a new contract, and me resigned to being his teammate for longer."

8. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex led 15 laps in the Toyota/Save Mart 350 before fading to finish 22nd. He remained seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, 68 out of first.

"First," Truex said, "Dale Earnhardt, Jr. wins at Michigan. Then, Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. gets a ride at Roush Fenway Racing. It appears I'll be the final 'Junior' to achieve glory in NASCAR. As 'Junior's' go, they should start calling me 'Martin Truex, III.'"

9. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished 16th in the Toyota/Save Mart 350 after running out of gas midway through the race, costing him several positions. Harvick and the No. 29 Rheem team salvaged a decent finish thanks to the Lucky Dog free pass on lap 83. He now sits sixth in the point standings, 64 out of first.

"This is shaping up to be a forgettable season," Harvick said. "Of course, when I say this could be the worst nine months of my life, I guess I should clarify that it's me talking and not my pregnant wife DeLana."

10. Jeff Gordon — Despite running out of gas on lap 73, Gordon battled back to record a sixth-place finish at Sonoma. NASCAR's all-time road course win leader posted his second consecutive sixth-place result as he tries to make a move towards a berth in the Chase.

"I hear Matt Kenseth is leaving Roush Fenway Racing at season's end," Gordon said. "It's unclear whether Matt is leaving under his own accord or was pushed out. Knowing Matt as I do, I'm almost positive he was pushed."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:49 PM | Comments (0)

Schilling's Rhode Island Hoodwink Now Bust

"There can be no question our country is in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes … It falls on us, the individuals, to find a way out of our own personal crisis." — Curt Schilling, February 2011

For all of the Johnny-come-lately types who are just now learning about the debacle of 38 Studios, LLC, the video gaming entity belonging to former MLB pitcher Curt Schilling, well, it is now official. Its ill-fated future now resides in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, as of May 24, 2012.

It is important to note that there were those journalists in the electronic media who covered the story when it broke, such as this reporter, back in September 2010.

And it was my article titled "Curt Schilling's Rhode Island Hoodwink," which actually riled many a fan of 38 Studios, as well as those MLB fans who admired Curt Schilling's baseball career and saw it as a hit piece.

But if you read the report, you will learn in great detail the machinations of the financing deal that took place and was finalized on July 26, 2010 by Mr. Schilling and the state of Rhode Island. It is not an article about personal aspersion, but rather a real-life story about what could potentially happen when a non-business person of celebrity joins forces with a state government that tries to morph itself into a Wall Street venture capital investment firm.

It was a bad plan from the beginning. The Rhode Island governor at the time, Donald L. Carcieri, even said it was a definite risk, but he was enamored with the idea of Rhode Island becoming involved in the video gaming industry.

This report, however, is more about the losers in this deal — which the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (EDC) made with Curt Schilling on behalf of the state — other than Governor Carcieri, present Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, state lawmakers, and one Curt Schilling.

The real losers are the taxpayers of Rhode Island and the former employees of 38 Studios, located in Providence, Rhode Island and its subsidiary, Big Huge Games, located in Timonium, Maryland.

A couple of things have changed since 38 Studios moved from Maynard, Massachusetts to Providence, Rhode Island back in 2010.

Rhode Island now enjoys the second highest unemployment rate in the entire United States at 11%, while Nevada still carries the torch for the highest rate at 11.7%. In 2010, Rhode Island was fourth highest in unemployment.

And in 2010, there were only 70 employees at 38 Studios with less than 100 at Big Huge Games. By May 2012, 38 Studios had a total of 413 employees and was to have paid for many of them to relocate not only from Massachusetts, but localities from all over the country.

The original amount of the loan guarantee to 38 Studios, LLC was for $75 million, through Rhode Island's Job Creation Guarantee program, created in 2010, for small businesses to get a leg up with loans between $2-4 million in value.

In fact, after Schilling learned about this very new program, he approached Governor Carcieri at a fundraiser for his re-election campaign, after having been rejected by venture capitalists for funding for his company. Yet the program was not necessarily structured for the funding he needed.

Initially, the program called for a total of $60 million for distribution amongst many entities. But state lawmakers somehow came up with another $65 million, for a total of $125 million, in order to curry favor with Schilling, who promised 450 well-paying jobs for the state.

And based upon a wing and a prayer, the state of Rhode Island rushed this deal through so quickly that it did not even properly vet it, either intentionally by the governor and the state, or due to negligence.

And now that the state of Rhode Island is governed by a different administration, with the election of Lincoln Chaffee in November 2010, it presents even more confusion, anger and unaccountability amongst residents, investors and lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle.

This is a cautionary tale, and not about laying blame, but about accountability, as Schilling himself was quoted, and for all parties involved. To lay this at the feet of the politics-as-usual crowd, without resolution or preventive measures is a different kind of waste that begs for lessons learned.

But in fairness, Mr. Schilling has decided that he shares no blame in the bankruptcy of his company, but rather, like a politician, is blaming a politician; the current governor of Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee.

So therefore we need to at least briefly shed light on the labor problems and families left at risk by the likes of Curt Schilling himself, specific to the day-to-day management of his company. For example, without notice to his employees in mid-May 2012, he simply stopped depositing paychecks into his employees' bank accounts. Little did they know that they were never to be paid again.

Employees were told they would be paid and to be patient, but it became too late, as the company folded with no notice to staff as of May 24th. And at such time all health insurance was also immediately terminated; unbeknownst to most of the families.

Schilling had hoped to make the initial $1.25 million repayment due to the state, but he issued a check in mid-May that bounced, and therefore could not make payroll at that time. He said that he ran out of time, but eventually made the payment with private funds that he raised by the third week of May.

Is Schilling not making payroll someone else's fault, too? By that point, the state had already loaned Schilling $55 million according to the terms of the initial agreement. But all of it was gone by May 2012.

And Schilling now claims, after changing his story from just months ago, that he invested $55 million of his personal savings into the company since 2006; not his previously quoted amount of $30 million. And Schilling also claims that he and his family are now completely broke, too.

Having earned $114 million over the course of his MLB career means he blew through $114 million. And whose fault is that?

Additionally, relocation moving expenses for many employees were to have been covered and paid for by 38 Studios months before, but 38 Studios never paid Atlas Van Lines, as promised, and therefore left those employees who re-located via Atlas holding the bag for thousands of dollars in moving costs.

The fine print apparently read that should 38 Studios fail to pay the Atlas bill, over a set period of time, the employees would be liable for moving costs. That was the deal Schilling had made with Atlas.

Most of the employees thought the moving costs had been handled upon their moves months earlier and now most will need to move again in addition to the original costs.

The health insurance plans for employees were immediately terminated on May 24, 2012. Unlike a Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy, whereby it calls for a reorganization of corporate assets, Chapter 7 is a done deal. No more paychecks, health insurance, or retirement plans investment.

The employees are not entitled to a Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) plan, which extends employee health insurance benefits, even if they can afford its extremely high premium rates, since the company no longer is in business.

So families with expectant mothers or cancer patients have been left high and dry by 38 Studios. With regard to back wages which were unpaid for the month of May, 2012, each employee must file claims with the U.S. Bankruptcy court to have any hope of being fairly compensated; as the state labor department only recoups unpaid wages of those companies still in business. Schilling owes close to $3 million in back wages alone for May 2012.

And any required notice to the employees of the company's fate will be determined most likely in a court of law as to whether Mr. Schilling's company violated federal law by not giving at least a 60-day notice of an impending bankruptcy or a mass layoff of employees. At first glance, it would appear that 38 Studios would fall under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), a federal statute.

While details in this report are not nearly as captivating as Massively Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) for game enthusiasts, which was to be 38 Studios specialty, or about the potential for Curt Schilling's enshrinement into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, they remain important.

Schilling did indeed release 38 Studios initial game, ironically in February 2012, albeit months later than its initial release date. And 90 days later upon its release it was in Chapter 7. The game's title, Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning, was distributed by Electronic Arts, Inc. There has even been controversy about the accuracy of its sales figures and even its supposed popularity.

While the taxpayers' loan-guarantee to 38 Studios was in the amount of $75 million, it has now risen to over $115 million to date with accrued interest and fees. Looking on the bright side, however, even though the arrangement made with Rhode Island was that the state would be on the hook should the company fail, the bonds that were floated for the loan were "moral obligation" bonds versus "general obligation" bonds.

That means there is no legally binding obligation for the state to make good on payment of them, but the determination of what exactly is owed by the state is being investigated by no less than the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, the Rhode Island State Police, the FBI, the U.S. Office of the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Labor in order to sort out where the money went, and the possibility of violations of federal and state law.

One could say that the moral of the story is that once again it is the "little people" that are potentially hurt when it comes to arrogance, extravagance, irresponsibility, unaccountability, and possible violations of state and federal law. Or simply that in the business world Curt Schilling never had the command he had on the pitcher's mound.

If Schilling was a victim, as he has been saying for the past couple of weeks, as a state film tax credit fund was denied him by Governor Chafee — which would not have kept his company afloat anyway — it was not from being unfairly treated.

Schilling was perhaps a victim of his own hubris, which may have worked in the major leagues, but in business, he was clearly out of his league.

And Governor Carcieri also deserves no slack, either. His actions mirrored that of a reckless, impulsive frat boy; let alone the negligence in overseeing the best interests of over one million state residents left in his charge.

Curt Schilling's out-pitch this time not only failed himself and his family, but now has had a profound impact on hundreds of families and business associates, who may never fully recover.

Let us hope that at least his day of reckoning is on deck.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 1:09 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2012

Clay Guida Dances to Infamy

Five Quick Hits

* Last week, Fëdor Emelianenko knocked out former UFC Heavyweight Champion Pedro Rizzo in 84 seconds, then announced his retirement. It's a shame we seldom got to see Fëdor test himself against the best in recent years, but he wrote a decisive final chapter for his legendary career.

* Strikeforce Heavyweight Grand Prix champion Daniel Cormier is contractually obligated for another fight on Showtime. Former UFC title-holder Tim Sylvia, who has won seven of his last eight fights, has been suggested as an opponent. To the extent that any non-UFC fight works for Cormier, Sylvia makes sense.

* In the third round of Friday night's main event, FightMetric credited Clay Guida with landing four punches. Unbelievably, some people scored the round for Guida.

* With so many fighters getting TRT exemptions, I have a hard time getting fired up about guys like Feijao taking it without an exemption.

* I have a really hard time getting fired up about Nick Diaz smoking weed. It's tough to take the NSAC seriously.

Maynard vs. Guida

I am amazed that anyone thinks Kalib Starnes Clay Guida won Friday's "fight" against Gray Maynard. I know many fans were raving about Guida's gameplan, about his footwork and elusiveness. But the event on Friday night was a fight, and Guida wasn't striking or grappling; he was just running around.

Not getting hit is a great part of a smart gameplan. Lyoto Machida exemplifies that style, and he's one of my favorite fighters. But Machida engages: he darts in and out, landing powerful strikes and moving out of range before his opponent knows what happened. Guida's gameplan didn't include any engagement. He continually moved out of range before his opponent could connect, and did so very effectively, but he was so busy staying out of range that he never generated any offense of his own.

Legions of Guida fans — and I'm amazed they still exist after Friday night — are comparing Maynard vs. Guida to Carlos Condit vs. Nick Diaz, which to me shows a shocking misunderstanding of mixed martial arts. Condit used movement effectively to avoid standing toe-to-toe with a dangerous opponent who prefers that style, but he was still landing strikes, dozens more than Guida landed. Guida's strategy was most comparable to Kalib Starnes against Nate Quarry, or Houston Alexander vs. Kimbo Slice and Anderson Silva in the later rounds of his fight against Demian Maia.

MMA bouts are scored on effective striking, grappling, aggression, and cage control. Maynard outstruck Guida, out-grappled him, and was in a different stratosphere of aggression. I suppose you could argue that Guida dictated cage control, but that also depends on how you interpret the term: it usually refers to grappling results like top position or pinning your opponent against the fence. Maynard had the fight's only takedown and its only submission attempt, and fight stats showed him ahead in strikes landed. He was far ahead in power shots. The only significant strike Guida landed all fight came when Maynard dropped his hands and literally let Guida punch him in the face, plus Maynard almost immediately turned it into a dangerous choke. I scored the fight 49-46 Maynard.

June 2012 UFC Rankings

The rankings below are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Gilbert Melendez or Pat Curran on these lists.

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

1. Junior Dos Santos
2. Cain Velasquez
3. Alistair Overeem
4. Fabricio Werdum
5. Frank Mir
6. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
7. Roy Nelson
8. Travis Browne
9. Mark Hunt
10. Stefan Struve

Make it Happen: Mir vs. Hunt

Let's see if Mir's striking has improved as much as he thinks, and whether Hunt can keep a fight standing against someone who should be desperate to get it to the ground. Alternatively, either Mir or Hunt could be a logical next opponent for Fabricio Werdum.

Thank You, UFC, For: Not cutting Overeem

Okay, we all know Ubereem didn't add 50 pounds of muscle by eating horsemeat. But he's an exciting fighter, and the sport's more fun with him in it. Here's hoping he gets cleared to fight in December.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

1. Jon Jones
t2. Rashad Evans
t2. Dan Henderson
t2. Lyoto Machida
t2. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua
6. Alexander Gustafsson
7. Phil Davis
8. Ryan Bader
9. Forrest Griffin
10. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson

Absolutely nothing has happened at the top of this division in the last two months. I explained the four-way tie for second in April.

Make it Happen: Evans vs. Gustafsson

The top 10 in this weight class are so far above the rest of the division, it's tough to do any match-making that doesn't involve rematches. Good fighters like Mark Muñoz, Tim Boetsch, Rich Franklin, and Wanderlei Silva have all abandoned 205 for middleweight, leaving the stable so empty that Rua has a main-event fight against Brandon Vera next month. Most of the top 10 are spoken for, other than these two. If The Mauler can beat up Evans, he'll prove he's ready for a shot at Jon Jones and the belt. Besides, who else is Rashad going to fight? Please don't say a rematch with Rampage.

Thank You, UFC, For: Machida vs. Bader

Machida faces a powerful wrestler, and Bader gets a chance to prove he can hang with the top of the division.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Chael Sonnen
3. Michael Bisping
4. Vitor Belfort
5. Yushin Okami
6. Hector Lombard
7. Alan Belcher
8. Brian Stann
9. Mark Muñoz
10. Rich Franklin

Make it Happen: Belcher vs. Franklin

With Franklin moving back to 185, the UFC's middleweight division is stacked with talent. Tim Boetsch, Ed Herman, Rousimar Palhares, Jake Shields, and Chris Weidman all could argue that they should be considered top-10. Lombard is likely to get a title shot if he beats Boetsch, so the UFC can effectively set up a four-man tournament to determine the next contender. Belcher vs. Franklin would be a nice complement to Muñoz/Weidman, and/or whatever happens with Bisping, Belfort, and Stann. In any case, Franklin deserves a path back to the title, and this is a logical step in that direction.

Thank You, UFC, For: Lombard vs. Boetsch

Lombard's original opponent (Stann) dropped out of their fight with an injury, and Boetsch's original opponent (Bisping) did the same. This is sensible match-making at a time when it seems like many elite fighters are having trouble staying healthy.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Carlos Condit
3. Johny Hendricks
4. Jon Fitch
5. Martin Kampmann
6. Jake Ellenberger
7. Rory MacDonald
8. Josh Koscheck
9. Diego Sanchez
10. Erick Silva

Nick Diaz is obviously a top-level welterweight, but given his claim to be retired and his absurdly long suspension for marijuana metabolites, he's not listed right now.

Make it Happen: Koscheck vs. Sanchez

Come on, we all want to see a rematch.

Thank You, UFC, For: Hendricks vs. Kampmann

I think it's really pathetic that Carlos Condit is ducking all challengers until St-Pierre's knee heals. I've liked Condit since the WEC days, but this is unacceptable. I'll never cheer for him again (unless he fights Koscheck). Hendricks and Kampmann both have good arguments for a shot at the interim title, and this is making the best of a bad situation. The matchup is expected for UFC 154 in November, and hopefully that holds up. Whoever ends up as the number one contender after GSP/Condit certainly will have earned it.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. Ben Henderson
2. Frankie Edgar
3. Gray Maynard
4. Anthony Pettis
5. Nate Diaz
6. Jim Miller
7. Donald Cerrone
8. Evan Dunham
9. Clay Guida
10. Joe Lauzon

Make it Happen: Miller vs. Dunham

Also, Maynard vs. Cerrone.

Thank You, UFC, For: Lauzon vs. Terry Etim

Two high-level fighters who won't just dance around for half an hour.

Featherweight (136-145)

1. Jose Aldo
2. Chan Sung Jung
3. Erik Koch
4. Chad Mendes
5. Dustin Poirier
6. Robert Peralta
7. Dennis Siver
8. Diego Nunes
9. Darren Elkins
10. Hatsu Hioki

Make it Happen: another fight in Japan for Hioki

Count me among the MMA fans who believe West-to-East travel is a major reason Japanese superstars have underachieved in the UFC. Hioki looked like a contender against Bart Palaszewski in Japan, and a nobody against Ricardo Lamas and George Roop in the U.S.

Thank You, UFC, For: Mendes vs. Cody McKenzie

It has always appeared that Mendes has nothing but takedowns and top control. What will he do when faced with the nastiest guillotine in MMA?

Bantamweight (126-135)

1. Dominick Cruz
2. Urijah Faber
3. Renan "Barão" Pegado
4. Brian Bowles
5. Michael McDonald
6. Miguel Torres
7. Eddie Wineland
8. Brad Pickett
9. Scott Jorgensen
10. Ivan Menjivar

Make it Happen: McDonald vs. winner of Menjivar/Mike Easton

Top contender's match. Bowles and Torres are coming off losses, Wineland's lost two of his last three, and Pickett already has another fight lined up. The winner of Menjivar/Easton will be a legit opponent for McDonald, albeit as a heavy underdog.

Thank You, UFC, For: Faber vs. Barão

There were rumors and shadows about the interim title contender being Menjivar, McDonald, or Pickett. Barão was the right choice.

Flyweight (116-125)

I'm not ranking this division until it has more fighters, but I expect Joseph Benavidez to become the first UFC flyweight champion.

UFC 148: Silva vs. Sonnen

Anderson Silva is a huge favorite, about -265 at most books. I know he's a long-reigning champion with a consistent record of success, but he lost 22 of 23 minutes in his first fight against Sonnen, and he's 37 now. Unless he gets a first-round knockout, I don't think Anderson is likely to win, and the odds on Sonnen (+200 or better) are very tempting.

These are two of the most polarizing figures in MMA. Some people love Anderson Silva for his highlight-reel knockouts and his many titles defenses. Others loathe him for his performances against Thales Leites and Demian Maia, events in which he disrespected both his opponents and the fans. Some fight fans love Chael Sonnen's bombastic, over-the-top, pro wrestling heel routine. Others can't get past his PED suspension, felony fraud conviction, and racist and xenophobic remarks about Brazilians.

In any case, it's an interesting matchup, and it's hard to know what to expect. The rest of the card is fine, but the main event alone makes it the most anticipated UFC event of 2012.

Insane but lucrative parlay: Chael Sonnen + Cody McKenzie + Demian Maia

Sonnen is undervalued (about +225), and although odds haven't been posted yet on McKenzie vs. Chad Mendes, Cody will be a substantial underdog, probably better than +300. He's a tough style matchup for Mendes, though, and probably is worth a small gamble at the odds you'll get. Maia is a slight underdog (about +120) against Dong Hyun Kim, but Maia has improved his striking, and presumably remains a terrifying grappling adversary. I see the fight more as a pick 'em.

This parlay is a lottery ticket. It probably won't pay off, but if it does, you'll get a windfall. If McKenzie comes in around +350 — and he easily could be closer to +400 or +500 — a $100 bet would yield around $3,100. Is there a 1-in-31 chance this parlay hits? Oh yeah. If you have some spare money to gamble on a risky parlay, there are some appealing underdogs on this card.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:20 AM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2012

Falling Down Just to Stand Up

Over the last 20 years or so in the NBA, there's a fascinating trend that has developed: rarely do the league's biggest stars immediately find championship success on their first trip to the Finals or a grand, high-pressure stage. In that time period, Tim Duncan is the superstar to have won a championship within a year or two of his rookie campaign and in his first major appearance on a big stage. Gone are the days where stars like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson can reach the ultimate pinnacle for the first time in their careers without first suffering a high-profile playoff loss or two.

Shaq won several Finals after first being embarrassed by Hakeem Olajuwon, running into Michael Jordan's iconic 1996 Bulls team and falling short of the Finals in his first few L.A. seasons. Kobe Bryant won his first Finals, but shared those Lakers disappointments with Shaq and dealt with the pressure of "Kobe can't win as the main guy" that was said after Shaq's departure until 2009. Dirk Nowitzki failed to step up against the Heat in 2006. Even Dwyane Wade, who won his first Finals over Dirk's Mavs, lost to the Pistons in 2005 after Miami was one of the leading contenders for the title.

Never before has this pattern been more visible than in the wake of the 2012 Finals, where LeBron James, easily the best player in the world, finally won a championship after a multitude of well-known and oft-discussed stumbles. Furthermore, the way in which he performed in the Finals left no doubt about who the go-to guy on the team was. In the wake of "The Decision," any titles LeBron won were supposed to be overshadowed by Wade's identity as a clutch performer and a career-long Miami stalwart. Clearly, that wasn't the case in Miami's title run.

It's tough to say anything about LeBron that hasn't already been said to this point. But the most insightful thing said about one of the world's most polarizing athletes came from James' teammate, Shane Battier.

"He sneezes and it's a trending topic on Twitter. He is a fascinating study because he's really the first and most seminal sports figure in the information age, where everything he does is reported and dissected and second-guessed many times over and he handles everything with an amazing grace and patience that I don't know if other superstars from other areas would have been able to handle."

Goodness knows LeBron has made his fair share of missteps. "The Decision" will forever be known as one of the most unfortunate hours in the history of sports media and public relations. James' steadfast refusal for months thereafter to recognize the way he had gone about his choice was hurtful to many will always leave a bad taste in the mouths of many former fans and sympathetic observers. For lovers of an NBA time gone by, the fact that he teamed up with two other stars in the 2010 free agent class and his hubris thereafter still make him a persona non grata.

But for me, there came a time in these playoffs where I became decidedly more less hostile about my opinion of LeBron: the first quarter of Game 6 against Boston. There's few games I've watched in any sport where one player was on a singular, you've-got-no-chance-tonight mission to dominate the other team in a way that made every single person critical of that player shut up, at least for a few hours.

In sports, I don't think there are many neutral observers who don't want to see the best players give it their all and do so in a way that takes advantage of their potential. LeBron had been doing that a lot of that since midway through the Indiana series, but he took it to a completely different stratosphere when the Heat were facing elimination. Now, I'd be lying if I said I was cheering for the Heat to win any of their series besides their first round against New York, but I enjoyed watching LeBron dominate because I love the game of basketball and enjoy it being mastered in a way that hasn't been seen in the history of the league.

The present NBA theme of failing today to reach the top of the mountain tomorrow eventually might not be restricted to the victorious Heat. Oklahoma City has now had back-to-back years of losing five-game series to the eventual defending champions. In each series, a couple of plays in each unsuccessful game were the difference between a short series and a much more competitive one. As I've written before, there's a linear progression the Thunder are on that might reach a championship-winning zenith as soon as next year. To be sure, there is some work to be done. James Harden will obviously have to perform better in a hypothetical future Finals, but Kevin Durant should ideally improve his defense and add some muscle.

The hot topic with Oklahoma City has been and might always be Russell Westbrook's shot-taking proclivity, which nearly won the Thunder Game 4 against Miami, but comes at the cost of potential shots for Durant. I've read and heard opinions that Westbrook can't be reformed, and that his confidence with the ball is both his greatest weakness and most valuable strength. I don't buy it. In the wake of these Finals you can't lose sight of the fact that Durant and Westbrook are 23-years-old, and Harden 22. Since most players change their games in their 20s due to the desire to add or change skills (see LeBron's improved post game this year), or because of physical limitations/injuries, you can't say that Westbrook will continue to be his same gung-ho self in the future.

Nonetheless, if and when Durant and Westbrook win a title, it will have come after tasting bitter disappointment on the NBA's biggest stage. As LeBron can attest, nothing in today's NBA helps motivate stars quite like the desire to overcome the final hurdle.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 4:47 PM | Comments (0)

A Tale of Two APR Casualties

It's a situation where Jim Calhoun can't win, yet Tod Kowalcyzk should.

The NCAA tournament will go on as scheduled in March 2013. Connecticut will not be there. Neither will nine other schools that the NCAA announced failed to meet Academic Progress Ratings standards. The APR, which call for a two year average score of 930 and a four-year average score of 900, seem to work for most athletic programs.

However, men's basketball continues to take a beating when it comes to the NCAA's academic standards. Two-thirds of the postseason bans handed out were men's basketball teams (three FCS football schools, one men's soccer team and one men's wrestling team are banned from postseason play). And, while debates can be held about how to fix the problem, there is one quick fix that the NCAA needs to address.

Notably, Connecticut and Toledo appealed vehemently to the NCAA. Though their situations were quite different, their pleas were identical in that they want the NCAA to evaluate programs on the most recent of academic years.

One team has a point. The other? Nope.

Toledo has a legitimate gripe. Despite a miserable APR score of 869 over four years, the Rocket program has improved drastically under the guidance of second year coach Kowalczyk. Though Toledo barely missed the two year benchmark, the noted improvement should have kept them from being banned from postseason play.

"I fully support the NCAA and its efforts to improve academic integrity, but I don't believe coaches and student-athletes who are doing the right thing should be penalized like this," Kowalczyk said in reference to Toledo's appeal to the NCAA being denied.

Kowalczyk is right. The APR should hold players and coaches accountable. If a coaching staff neglects to guide his players academically, they should be punished accordingly. However, when a new coaching staff is installed, the APR should reset for the coach. If there is noted improvement in a two year period, such as the case with Toledo, the NCAA should cut some slack and award the Rockets a chance for postseason play, although with watchful eyes. However, the new staff should be given four years to bring the numbers back to APR standards. If they fail to do so, even upon entering a bad situation, they should accept buyer's remorse and take the medicine.

Meanwhile, UConn's story centers around their legendary coach. Calhoun, while admitting he wasn't as watchful in the past as he should've been, stressed that the NCAA should weigh on a two year scale so that current, not former players, affect the postseason ban of the team. And, while Calhoun has a point, UConn's postseason ban is certainly justifiable.

Calhoun knew the rules. He's led the Huskies program for decades. He dropped the ball. His bosses let it continue and didn't come close to dousing the flames. And, while some of his past players have affected things for the current team, the burden lies squarely on Calhoun's shoulders. The drop in academic progress was completely under his watch.

The APR isn't perfect by any means but it also isn't going anywhere. And, while it might take some time to get most all the kinks straightened out, the NCAA should address the progress of new leadership and place it under serious consideration when passing out scholarship cuts or postseason bans. It's one thing to pass it to a program whose coaching staff helped bring it on themselves. It's another to hand it to a coach who was willing to plug the holes in a sinking ship.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 10:27 AM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2012

Boys Will Be Boys

Roger Clemens gets off the hook on a perjury rap because either the House Committee for the Sending of Swell Messages to Kids, the actual prosecution, or the original Mitchell Report bungled its way across the sticky wickets of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances. It induces something of a giant sucking yawn, with only an occasional bleat against putting the Rocket into the Hall of Fame.

Joel Peralta, Tampa Bay Rays setup man, gets tossed before throwing a single pitch against the Washington Nationals, his former team, when a little pine tar is found in his glove, at the instigation of his former manager Davey Johnson. And it's hail, old school chicanery, complete with exhuming a lot of classic observations (Claude Osteen, one-time Los Angeles Dodgers rotation mainstay, once observed so many 1950s pitchers were doing things to their balls that it should have been called the decade of the spitter) and derring-do. (It's said that Ford Frick, one of baseball's arguable worst commissioners, actually supported re-legalizing the spitter in the Decade of the Spitter.)

Ah, the memories. The late Preacher Roe, Brooklyn Dodgers left-hander, and as elegant a competitor as ever took the mound, put paid to his career by giving a major magazine a story confessing that the outlaw pitch was his money pitch. His teammate, Carl Furillo, right fielder, swore to Roger Kahn (while writing The Boys of Summer) that the rest of the team knew when Roe was going to throw a loaded pitch: "When Preach touched the bill of his cap with two fingers, that was the signal. That's when we knew it was coming. When he did it with one finger, we knew he was faking."

Roe may have had a crosstown rival for chicanery, Eddie Lopat, the Yankee left-hander whose trademark lack of power pitching once earned him the nickname Slow, Slower, Slowest. Sure enough, Roe and Lopat tangled in a couple of World Series games. "Those two fellas certainly make baseball look like a simple game, don't they?" Casey Stengel, who had a ringside seat managing the Yankees, observed after watching and admiring the two of them going at it. "It makes you wonder. You pay all that money to great big fellas with a lot of muscles and straight stomachs who go up there and start swinging. And [Lopat and Roe] give 'em a little of this and a little of that and swindle 'em."

You think every so often there's a small swell of insistence that Gaylord Perry got into the Hall of Fame by subterfuge? Well, now. Whitey Ford may have gotten there in something of the same way. Well, at least, the stories go that he began picking up Lopat's mantle in the twilight of his own career, looking for any way to endure the elbow troubles that began to dog him in the 1960s. The Ford mud ball is almost as deep a legend as the Ford Mustang. Except that it wasn't always Ford who profited from the pitch, which involved either Ford or catcher Elston Howard getting a little patch of field mud on the ball after the grounds crew wet down the dirt. Bo Belinsky, the rakish Los Angeles Angels lefty, once said that if Ford ended an inning with a strikeout and Howard would roll the ball back toward the mound as the sides changed, "I had two outs waiting for me right there." If not, Belinsky said, "I was dead."

Phil Regan came almost out of nowhere in 1966 to emerge as the game's craftiest and deadliest relief pitcher that season. (Sandy Koufax, noticing Regan's eagerness for the ball when games got a little dicey, nicknamed Regan the Vulture.) For several years nobody could figure out what Regan was or wasn't doing with the ball until, a few years later, toiling for the Cubs, someone noticed his propensity to sweat heavily. Turned out that Regan, who never wore anything under his uniform jersey but a short-sleeved t-shirt would let the sweat run down his arm and onto the ball.

They went nuts when Kenny Rogers had the postseason of his life in 2006, allowing no runs in three virtuoso starts, and a FOX Sports camera caught that brown smudge on the heel of his thumb. Rogers dutifully if puckishly washed his hand, but nobody else did much with him, which you couldn't say about the rest of the Detroit staff in that World Series. On the other hand, once upon a time, the late Lew Burdette beat the Yankees in all three of his World Series starts to put the only rings on the fingers of a Milwaukee team to date. Burdette, a notorious mound fidget, was thought to be building himself a toxic waste puddle from his chewing tobacco and, when bending over to adjust his cleats yet again, scooping up a little of the sludge.

Don Sutton's another Hall of Famer who's thought to have gotten there the old-fashioned way—with anything he could get away with, even if he didn't have half of Gaylord Perry's inverse charisma. Sutton was merely wittier. He's said to have had notes tucked in his gloves if the umpires thought about frisking him. "You're getting warmer," said once such note. "But it isn't here."

Sutton, said one-time longtime Oriole pitching coach Ray Miller, "has set such a fine example of defiance, that someday I expect to see a pitcher walk out to the mound ... [and] throw a ball to the plate with bolts attached to it."

You can imagine the fun those who were there had the day Sutton, with the California Angels, squared off against Tommy John, then with the Yankees, and carrying likewise a reputation for using wile, guile, and anything else he could think of. Yankee manager Lou Piniella had to talk owner George Steinbrenner out of his demand to have Sutton frisked, arraigned, and if necessary prosecuted: "Whatever they're doing out there," Piniella said, knowing full well his own man was liable to be read his rights in such a situation, "TJ's doing it better. So let's leave it alone." When the Yankees won the game, a scout in the press box is said to have purred, "Tommy John versus Don Sutton? If anyone can find one smooth ball from that game, he ought to send it to Cooperstown."

On the other hand, even the umpires developed a perverse sense of humor about Perry's subterfuge. One ump who had Perry all but strip-searched on the mound bumped into the right-hander on the street the next day. They exchanged some pleasantries (Perry had a reputation for being very friendly with umpires off the field) and the conversation turned to the ump's son, a pitcher, whose Little League team was getting clobbered routinely. "Gaylord," the ump's said to have asked, "can you teach him to throw that thing?"

The late Mike Flanagan once drew Thomas Boswell, baseball's Montaigne, off to one side during spring training. Flanagan produced a fresh, untouched baseball, and a broken-open coat hanger. Then, the Oriole pitcher cut three perfect gashes into the meat of the hide, and held it up. "Any time I need four new pitches, I got 'em," he said evenly, while going on to say he wasn't going to use them in a game — yet. ("Every pitcher needs an insurance policy.") In the same article that sprang from that encounter, Boswell recorded suspicions, from Flanagan and others, that the legendary Oakland Athletics rotation of 1980-83—the ill-fated Mike Norris, Steve McCatty, Matt Keough, and Rick Langford — "had one kind of spitball or another as soon as Billy Martin could have it taught to them." Usually, this came by way of Martin's preferred pitching coach, Art Fowler, whose own money pitch in his days as a useful reliever (he saved Belinsky's first major league start — and may have given Belinsky early lessons in the load ball himself) wasn't exactly clean and dry.

And before you get your moral outrage on, be advised that George Bamberger — once a formidable major league pitching coach, after a minor league pitching career in which his own money pitch was what he called his Staten Island sinkerball — observed, "A guy who cheats in a friendly game of cards is a cheater. A guy who throws a spitball to support his family is a competitor."

George Frazier, he who once set a sad record by losing three games in a single Series, had a reply to anyone accusing him of using foreign substances: "I don't use foreign substances. Everything I use is made in the U.S. of A." Bill (Spaceman) Lee once admitted he threw loaded balls and would continue throwing them. Mike Scott went from nothing special to never better after learning the split-fingered fastball, but half the National League, especially the 1986 Mets, swore he was doing something other than gripping his pitches. The Mets retrieved several balls from Scott during a National League Championship Series game, all of which had a mark on the same spot, but the league decided not to prosecute.

And, come to think of it, there were those who first thought the split-finger fastball wasn't exactly a kosher pitch. "It's nothing but a legal spitball," Ray Miller once said. "I was looking at my hand, thinking of the ten years I [pitched] in the minors, never getting to the majors and, honest to God, the thought floated up. 'What if, 15 years ago, I'd had my middle finger amputated? I'd bet I'd have had one hell of a split-finger fastball."

"Any man who would consider cutting off a finger to make the major leagues," Boswell wrote in retort, "will certainly cheat to stay there. Always has, always will."

When Peralta got bagged, the pitcher rather understandably denied all. He must never have read from the gospel of Miller, who once had a run-in with Kansas City's Dennis Leonard over a quote taken out of context in which Miller seemed to say Leonard had a good spitter. "Dennis," Miller told the pitcher, "you should thank me. Nobody can do a pitcher a bigger favour than saying they've got a hell of a spitter." Translation: Spitter on the brain — the one they only think you're going to throw — is going to clip their batting averages even more than the one you might really serve.

It's a point Peralta's manager, Joe Maddon, might have missed. Maddon steamed because Johnson called for a check on Peralta's glove, knowing damn well that Johnson had managed his man recently and was trading, essentially, in inside information. "That's a pu$$y move," Maddon fumed, a comment that isn't half as likely to go as viral — and as far as the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, for that matter — as Bryan Harper's "That's a clown question, dude." All Madden had to do was keep his mouth shut, let his man take his comeuppance like a man, and he'd have guaranteed the next time Peralta took the mound the enemy hitters would have a fair chance of surrendering a little more readily even if Peralta took the mound clean as the proverbial hound's tooth.

Gaylord Perry exploited that for years. You remember Perry's famous between-pitch routine? He'd stroke the bill of his cap both ways, with both hands, then brush his sideburns, then brush the breast of his jersey, then tap his belt twice. That's the routine he'd go to when he wanted hitters to think he was greasing. And he made no bones about it. "I just leave a lotta evidence lyin' around," he once crowed. On the other hand, when Perry spent a spell with the Cleveland Indians, it was thought — courtesy of Detroit pitcher Milt Wilcox, who told the story to umpire-turned-raconteur Ron Luciano — that Ray Fosse's catcher's mitt had such a ring of Vaseline around the pocket nobody knew whether it was a byproduct of Perry's infamous servings or whether Fosse put it there himself to keep Perry from getting cuffed and stuffed.

In fact, it won't always be the pitcher loading one up for delivery. Perry is far from the only one who may have had partners in crime. Preacher Roe once admitted he got occasional help from Hall of Fame shortstop Pee Wee Reese and infield partner Billy Cox, once a formidable defensive third baseman. "Once in awhile," Roe told a reporter, "after the ball had been tossed around the infield, Pee Wee or my buddy Billy would come up to the mound and drop the ball easy in my glove and say, 'Okay, give us a good pitch now.'"

The mud ball wasn't Whitey Ford's only technique. He threw a ring ball concurrently; he had a rasp in his wedding ring that gave him what amounted to "my own tool bench out there." At least, it did until an ump ordered him to remove the ring. Then Elston Howard devised a new tack, no pun in tended: he'd scrape the ball on the buckles of his shin guard before throwing it back to Ford. "The buckle ball," Jim Bouton once said, "sang four choruses of Aida."

So while it's rather pleasant to emerge from the sense and nonsense of the Clemens trial into an old-fashioned chat about cheating the old-fashioned way, let it never be said that the innocent don't suffer. Once upon a time, according to Boswell, Ford also used an extremely sticky compound for, he said, a better grip on his curve ball. He kept the goo in a hollowed-out roll-on deodorant tube. Knowing that Yogi Berra mooched personal products almost by habit, Mickey Mantle — who never met a practical joke opportunity he couldn't exploit — left Ford's stickum on a shelf in Ford's locker, making it look like a real deodorant tube. And Yogi fell for it, hook, line, and Staten Island sinker.

Two minutes later, the next sound in the Yankee clubhouse was Berra screaming blue murder as he ran into the trainer's room. He had to be shaved free when his arms got stuck to his sides.

Maybe we've hit on the real difference between actual or alleged PEDs and the Houdinis of the hill. There wasn't a lot of room for punking the juicers. There's plenty of room for punking the scuffers, who prove themselves that boys will be boys. Always have been. Always will.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 4:34 PM | Comments (0)

2012 CFL Preview

Hooray! Football is back in just another week!

The summer is hard for us football fans. Some people throw themselves into other sports (God knows I do). Some watch that awful miscarriage of basketball with helmets, Arena Football. But I grit my teeth and wait until summer when the closest variant of the real beautiful game (nothing against soccer, which I love) the CFL, comes into play.

I believe this is my third time writing a CFL preview on this site. I won't go into long details about the differences between the Canadian and American games like I have before, but I will highlight the important ones.

1. A touchback gives the other team a point. Ever seen a CFL score be something like 36-1 and wonder how that could have happened? Now you know. You get the ball at the 35 though.

2. The field is 110 yards long rather than 100, so midfield is the 55.

3. The end zones are 20 yards deep instead of 10, and the uprights are at the goal line rather than the end line, meaning you're pretty much in field goal range if you're in your opponents territory. This never stops looking strange to me and is my least favorite difference.

4. You get three downs, not four. This has two basic effects: a) teams pass a lot more, because they are more often in a fit-or-fold situation, and b) this in turn makes running more effective. a 4.5 ypg average would be very good in the NFL, but not in the CFL.

Onto the teams for 2012:

HAMILTON TIGER-CATS

Last year: 8-10, lost in Eastern Conference division final.

Names you may recognize: Former Bears QB Henry Burris, former Boston College QB Quinton Porter, former West Virginia RB Avon Cobourne.

The Ti-Cats are sort of the hapless Los Angeles Clippers of the CFL, but like the Clippers, they have turned things around of late, with three straight playoff berths. Their trade for Henry Burris was a good one. He's 37, but is just a year removed from being the CFL's Most Outstanding Player, and three removed from being Grey Cup MVP. While I don't exprect a breakout year from Hamilton, I do expect a winning record and for them to return to the playoffs again.

MONTREAL ALOUETTES

Last year: 10-8, lost in division semifinals.

Names you may recognize: Former Florida State QB Adrian McPherson, former Nebraska RB Dahrran Diedrick, former Northern Illinois and Bears RB Garrett Wolfe.

The Als took a step backward last year, failing to make the Grey Cup for the first time since 2007. As the owner of every meaningful quarterbacking record in the CFL, Montreal goes as far as Anthony Calvillo takes them. He'll turn 40 during the season but is still playing well enough to be named an All-Star last year, with 32 touchdowns against 8 interceptions. It's hard to know when he'll stop being effective and hang it up, but no reason to do so now, and no reason to think he can't have another great season. I expect at least one more last hurrah from this team.

TORONTO ARGONAUTS

Last year: 6-12, missed playoffs.

Names you may recognize: Former Notre Dame QB Jarious Jackson, former South Carolina RB Cory Boyd, former Tennessee RB Gerald Riggs, Jr.

Like their rivals Hamilton, Toronto seriously upgraded at QB by trading for all-everything signal caller Ricky Ray from Edmonton. He will be a big improvement over another name you may recognize, former Dolphins QB Cleo Lemon, who has disappointed and been drummed out of the league. They are also breaking in a new head coach, Scott Milanovich, who has assembled a new coaching staff, as well. With these adjustments, Hamilton improving, and Montreal continuing to look good, it's hard to see them returning to the playoffs this year.

WINNIPEG BLUE BOMERS

Last year: 10-8, lost Grey Cup.

Names you may recognize: Former Georgia RB Terrence Edwards, former Colts RB Chad Simpson, former Washington State QB Alex Brink.

It was a worst-to-first season for Winnipeg, who went from 4-14 to division champs and a Grey Cup appearance, thanks to perhaps the best coach in the league, Paul LaPolice, who found success despite having a non-star-studded roster.

He'll have to work some magic again, because this team actually went 3-7 to close out the regular season last year and lost a lot more than they gained in free agency. Staying healthy, which they did not do last year, will be key.

BC LIONS

Last year: 11-7, won Grey Cup.

Names you may recognize: Former Nebraska G Patrick Kabongo, former Vikings DT Eric Taylor, former Miami DB Anthony Reddick.

It seems like there is nowhere to go but down for BC after coming out of the far-tougher Western Conference and winning the Grey Cup, but BC actually improved during the offseason. They picked up two of Toronto's better defensive backs in the offseason, Byron Parker and Lin-J Shell, and while the league's great quarterbacks are fast becoming greybeards, the Lions are guided by reigning CFL Most Outstanding Player, Travis Lulay, who is only 28. They have a new head coach, but only because the legendary Wally Buono, he of nine Grey Cup appearances in 21 years as a head coach the league, kicked himself upstairs and will likely still be very involved in the day-to-day running of this team. This is a very, very good football team.

CALGARY STAMPEDERS

Last year: 11-7, lost in division semifinal.

Names you may recognize: Former Iowa QB Drew Tate, former Ohio State WR Ken-Yon Rambo, former Tennessee DT Demonte' Bolden.

Calgary has acquired some serious bad mojo. First, they jettisoned Henry Burris after a shaky mid-season last year, and released their legendary RB Joffrey Reynolds. While they had to go back to Burris in the playoffs, it was too little too late and now they move forward without him. With no proven commodities to replace the skill position stars they cut, expect a big leap backwards for the Stamps this year.

EDMONTON ESKIMOS

Last year: 11-7, lost in division final.

Names you may recognize: Former Oregon and Mississippi QB Jeremiah Masoli, former Florida State WR Greg Carr, former Georgia DL Marcus Howard.

This is another team stung by free agency. After letting Ricky Ray go to Toronto, they will have two former Argonaut signal-callers, Steven Jyles and Kerry Joseph, battling to replace him. In difference circumstances, the offseason would indicate a step down for the Esks, but since Calgary looks to have fared even worse and Saskatchewan is starting over from scratch, Edmonton should still compete, and that's appropriate for the team that is not only the most storied in CFL history, but a team that is very clearly the Packers of the CFL (same history of success, same cold-tundra reputation, same colors, similar helmet logo).

SASKATCHEWAN ROUGHRIDERS

Last year: 5-13, missed playoffs.

Names you may recognize: Former North Carolina QB Darian Durant, former 49ers and Bengals QB (and Kissing Suzy Kolber favorite) J.T. O'Sullivan, former Florida RB DeShawn Wynn.

First, the good news. This is the only team where I really had to choose which three players I would highlight for "names you might recognize." Lots of former college stars and NFL journeymen on this roster. Besides the ones named above, there's also Dallas Baker and Sinorice Moss.

The bad news is, this is a team coming off a 5-13 record that just absolutely cleaned house in the offseason, including their coach, so it's hard to know what to expect this year,especially since many of the signees do not have CFL experience. The offensive line in particular will almost entirely brand new. The Riders rolled the dice in the offseason and hope their USA College All-Star team will mesh quickly in the CFL. But it's hard to actually predict that.

Predicted order of finish:

EAST
Montreal
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Toronto

WEST
BC
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatchewant

GREY CUP
BC over Montreal

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:55 AM | Comments (1)

June 20, 2012

Half a Century Ago at Wimbledon...

Tradition and tennis are two words that seem to get associated more often at Wimbledon than at any other tennis event in the world. All aspects related to the history of Wimbledon from the beginnings of the strawberries and cream tradition to the rule about players having to wear white outfits have been studied, commented on, and cherished, as well as criticized. Wimbledon officials themselves, proud of its tradition and selling power, have made every effort to keep accurate records of past tournaments and honor those who have contributed to the tournament, from past groundskeepers to ball boys and girls who have worked on the grounds.

Having said that, I felt that when I embarked myself on a learning journey back to 50 years ago (thus the title of this article) to the 1962 Wimbledon Championships, I would have very little trouble finding tiny tidbits of information and interesting anecdotes about the men's and women's singles champions of that year. However, what I encountered was a vast gap between how much the men's champion has been revered over the years and how little is known about the women's champion.

I was guilty of it myself, knowing from the top of my head that Rod Laver won the 1962 men's title (after all, it was his first of two Grand Slam years, a historical accomplishment, and he is still considered by many to be the greatest tennis player in history) and having no idea who won the women's title. I tried to guess before I looked it up: could it have been the legendary Billie Jean King or the iconic Margaret Smith Court? Perhaps Maria Bueno? Even Lesley Turner, who has never even reached the finals of Wimbledon, crossed my mind.

When I finally looked up the name, I was invaded with feelings of shame as the name Karen Hantze Susman appeared on the winners spot; I admit that the only thing I knew about her was that she was the doubles partner of Billie Jean King in the early 1960s. I had absolutely no idea that she was the winner of a Slam tournament, let alone Wimbledon. So the reality that I did not know the history of the game that I love as well as I thought I did slapped me in the face and I decided that I needed to educate myself better on this enigmatic character from San Diego, California.

Unfortunately, what little I could find left me unsatisfied and only contributed to aggravate my curiosity about this mysterious champion. I learned that Wimbledon 1962 was the only singles Slam title that she holds and that she has not even reached the semifinals at any other time in any other Slam tournament. I learned that she won three Slam titles in doubles with Billie Jean King. I learned that in 1960, two years before she won her only Slam singles title, she also won the juniors title at Wimbledon — one of only four women in the history of Wimbledon to accomplish this feat with Martina Hingis (1994 and 1997), Ann Haydon-Jones (1956 and 1969), and Amelie Mauresmo (1996 and 2006). But other anecdotes about her were far more intriguing.

Her career in the Slams extended over 22 years! She reached the U.S. Championships third round in 1958 in her first Slam tournament, and her last Slam was also the U.S. Open in 1980, where she also reached the third round. We are talking about a time period that starts with Althea Gibson winning Slams to the times of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova collecting Slam trophies like a kid collects candy during Halloween. Ironically, the enigma around Susman's career was less in her accomplishments during this period of 22 years than in her absence during that time period!

First of all, she has never participated in a single Australian Open. Furthermore, she only participated in the French Open once, in 1964, reaching the quarterfinals. She played Wimbledon only five times (1960-62, 64, 77). She did not show up in 1963 to defend her title, and threw in a gap of 13 years after 1964 before playing it again one last time in 1977. She did not just show up either on those five years, always winning at least one round in each appearance. She did participate in the U.S. Championships/Open 10 times, losing in the first round only twice, with plenty of no-shows in between those years. In 22 years of competition in Slams, she averaged barely above one Slam per year! This was truly a unique career in terms of Slam performances in the history of women's tennis. When I tried to research the reasons for it, it felt like I hit a brick wall.

Susman was considered an extremely promising junior. According to a Sports Illustrated article in 1962, she won the U.S. girls (under 18) championships at the age of 14. I tried to find out if this was a record, but my efforts were fruitless; I am betting, however, that she may hold the record as the youngest girl to win that title. The same article, published within two months of her title at Wimbledon, also portrays Susman as a teenager who does not seem to care too much about tennis, and who is ready to dedicate her life at the time to her husband, and "the house and the cookbooks."

Rod Susman and his wife fell in love and married as teenagers, despite strong resistance from their immediate surroundings. Susman got pregnant soon after and only returned to regular competition in 1964. There is speculation that her marriage to Susman impeded the fulfillment of her promising career (Nancy Richey allegedly speculated that her husband made her change her forehand ,which had negative results). There is speculation that she simply did not care about tennis that much, not even bothering to show up for the Wimbledon Centenary celebrations in 1984 when all of her peers were there.

But why then would Susman make a return to the WTA Tour in the late 1970s and play five Slams, including a doubles appearance with her old partner King in the 1977 Wimbledon? She clearly cared enough about tennis to make a full-fledged comeback after being absent from any action through the first half of the decade.

There is a contentious anecdote in 1965 with the USTA — then known as United States Lawn Tennis Association — when she was unseeded due to her lack of play and she drew Margaret Smith in the first round. She simply withdrew and did not make the trip to Forest Hills. She was allegedly unhappy with not being seeded despite her past accomplishments. Did the USLTA resent her for choosing "cookbooks and the house"instead of dedicating to tennis? There is also another alleged incident with Ann Jones in Wimbledon 1962, where she complained about Susman taking too much time between points, something that Susman apparently had built a reputation of doing. Was she not liked by her contemporaries and could that be the source of her unpopularity?

In any case, concrete information remains very hard to find on this little-known Wimbledon champion from half a century ago, and the more I tried to learn about her career the more questions seemed easier to come by than answers. Unfortunately, I am neither an investigative reporter nor a professional journalist, or else I would have put some time and effort into getting in touch with her and clear up these speculations and the vagueness surrounding the available information. She is still alive and living in her native town of San Diego. I am hoping that this article will motivate someone to do so. Who knows, it may even result in the International Tennis Hall of Fame to consider inducting Karen Hatnze Susman to its membership. Far less accomplished individuals have been inducted, and Susman certainly deserves the consideration.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 11:02 AM | Comments (3)

June 19, 2012

Tomlinson and the Best All-Purpose RBs

LaDainian Tomlinson announced his retirement on Monday, signing a one-day contract to end his career with the San Diego Chargers, who drafted him fifth overall in 2001. Tomlinson will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, a cinch for pro football's greatest honor.

Tomlinson rushed for 13,684 yards (5th all-time) and 145 touchdowns (2nd all-time). He also caught 624 passes, 3rd-most of any RB, and 2nd-most of any real RB (we'll count Marshall Faulk, but Larry Centers did not play the same position as Tomlinson). He was so dominant a player that other than a few bitter Giants fans, no one really minded that he appropriated the nickname L.T., once reserved for legendary linebacker Lawrence Taylor. Besides, the guy had a seven-syllable, difficult-to-spell name, and he was going by his initials. Give him a break. It isn't like he wanted to be called Sweetness or The King or The Juice. Speaking of which, if a good player like Ottis Anderson can be O.J., let's cut a great player like Tomlinson some slack for being L.T.

Tomlinson rushed for 1,000 yards eight times, tied for the 4th-most ever, and his 162 TDs rank 3rd all-time, behind only Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith. L.T. led the NFL in rushing yardage twice, in rushing TDs three times, and in yards from scrimmage once. He rushed for 1,400 yards five times, trailing only Barry Sanders and Walter Payton.

Tomlinson is distinguished by two particularly extraordinary seasons. In 2003, he rushed for 1,645 yards, with a 5.3 average, scored 17 touchdowns, and caught 100 passes. For a 4-12 team. It is my contention that without L.T., the Chargers would not have won a game that season.

They got their first win in Week 7, beating the Browns 26-20. Tomlinson rushed for 200 yards, with a 7.7 average. If he'd only rushed for say, 150, San Diego probably loses that game. When the Chargers beat Miami 42-28, L.T. had 162 rushing yards, 45 receiving yards, and 2 TDs. In Week 14: 88 rushing yards, plus 9 catches for 148 yards and 2 TDs, in a 14-7 victory. Week 17, 21-14 over the Raiders: 243 rushing, 7.8 average, 2 TDs. He was the difference between 4-12 or 0-16.

Three years later, Tomlinson won the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award, and NFL MVP. He rushed for 1,815 yards, averaged 5.2 per carry, gained over 500 yards as a receiver, and scored 31 TDs. That single-season touchdown record will probably never fall in a 16-game season. Based on two legendary seasons, several other great years, and his consistent production as both a runner and receiver, I rank L.T. as the 5th- or 6th-best running back in history, trailing only Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and perhaps Marshall Faulk.

SI's Peter King has written that Tomlinson was the 2nd-best all-purpose back of the last 30 years, behind Faulk. I would probably agree with that, but just to be argumentative, here's the case for L.T. being number one:

1. Tomlinson was a much more accomplished rusher. He had more yards (13,684) than Faulk (12,279), with the same rushing average (both 4.3), and many more touchdowns (145-100). Tomlinson had more 1,000-yard seasons and more double-digit TD seasons, and five times rushed for more yards in a season than Faulk's career high (1,382).

2. Tomlinson was a great receiver. Everyone knows Faulk was a great receiver, and everyone acknowledges that he was better than L.T. Faulk probably could have been a Pro Bowl wideout. But Tomlinson had more 50-reception seasons, and his 100 catches in '03 were far more than Faulk's career high (87). Among true RBs, only Faulk himself had more receptions than L.T. Tomlinson was such a good ball-carrier that it overshadowed his receiving, and he was seldom credited as a great receiver out of the backfield.

If you're looking for a versatile, all-around back, I would concede that Faulk should be your top choice. But L.T. was also extremely valuable as both a rusher and receiver, and I believe it's an open question which was the better player. Anyway, King ranked Tomlinson as the 2nd-best all-purpose back of the last 30 years. Here's his list of the top five:

1. Marshall Faulk
2. LaDainian Tomlinson
3. Thurman Thomas
4. Darren Sproles
5. Marcus Allen

Okay, does anyone else notice a name that doesn't fit?

I've always liked Darren Sproles. He was so productive at Kansas State, I couldn't understand why NFL teams were convinced his size would be a problem at the pro level. He was valuable in San Diego, and he was sensational last year for the Saints. But he's not one of the top 20 all-purpose backs of the last 30 years, much less the top four. Actually, this is a chance to get something useful out of an otherwise meaningless formula that has been sitting on my computer for a couple of years: the best rushing/receiving RBs in history.

The formula is somewhat complicated, but it is similar to a power-speed rating in baseball, finding the harmonic mean between a rushing score based on yardage, efficiency, and TDs, and a receiving score based on yardage and scoring. It also accounts for peak performance, using a player's three best seasons. Here are the top 10 from 1982-2011:

1. Marshall Faulk
2. Marcus Allen
3. LaDainian Tomlinson
4. Thurman Thomas
5. Tiki Barber
6. Priest Holmes
7. Roger Craig
8. Herschel Walker
9. Edgerrin James
10. Charlie Garner

I think that's a pretty intuitive list, one that most fans would agree is a reasonably accurate depiction of the best all-around RBs in recent history. And I suspect that no one except Peter King and maybe Jon Gruden would argue for Darren Sproles to displace anyone on that list.

Let's take Charlie Garner. In his career, Garner rushed for 7,097 yards and 39 TDs. He caught 419 passes for 3,711 yards and 12 TDs. Sproles, so far, has rushed for 1,757 yards and 8 TDs, with 232 catches for 2,110 yards and 18 TDs. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's not clear to me how Sproles +6 advantage in receiving TDs makes him a better all-purpose back than Garner's advantages of 5,340 rushing yards, 31 rushing TDs, 113 receptions, and 1,601 receiving yards. I realize there's a lot more to football than stats, but these two don't even belong in the same sentence, and it's Garner who's clearly ahead.

Look, Sproles had a great season in 2011, a truly great season. He rushed for 603 yards, added 710 receiving, gained almost 1,400 return yards, and scored 10 TDs. But is that better than Garner in 2002? He gained 962 yards rushing and 941 receiving, with 11 TDs. And while Sproles has never had another season like 2011, Garner had several other very good years. In Sproles' 2nd-best seasons to date, he gained 343 rushing yards and 520 receiving yards, respectively. Garner rushed for more than 343 yards 10 times, and gained more than 520 receiving four times. And we're only talking about Charlie Garner, not Edgerrin James or Roger Craig or Tiki Barber.

Here are a few others:

Look, I'm above pointing out that Peter King apparently forgot Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes, and Roger Craig (no, I'm not). But it's not clear to me that Sproles measures up yet to John L. Williams and Eric Metcalf, much less Marcus Allen.

Allen rushed for more yards in 1985 than Sproles has in his entire seven-year career. That same season, Allen caught 67 passes for 555 yards and 3 TDs. He was named NFL MVP. Allen's career-high in receiving yardage (758) is higher than Sproles' (710). King ranked Sproles ahead because "Allen wasn't as explosive," which is a weird thing to write about someone with 144 career touchdowns and more yards per reception (9.2) than Sproles (9.1).

What about Brian Westbrook? Like Sproles, he was a very good returner, but he was a better receiver, and he was light years ahead as a ball-carrier. Westbrook in 2007 had one of the most dynamic and valuable seasons I've ever seen from a running back.

Really, "best all-purpose backs of the last 30 years" is kind of a canard. Would we truly take Craig or Garner or Watters ahead of Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders just because they were more active receivers? Of course not, a thousand times no. LaDainian Tomlinson is one of the 10 greatest running backs in NFL history, maybe top-five. He doesn't need some phony category to elevate him or demonstrate his greatness.

Tomlinson seems to me a little underrated, because he didn't excel at one obvious thing like Faulk (receiving) or Earl Campbell (power) or Gale Sayers (breaking defenders' ankles). But there was nothing L.T. didn't do well. He wasn't the speediest back in the league, but he was fast. He wasn't the strongest, but he wouldn't go down on the first hit. He was agile, with great cuts and very quick acceleration; that change of direction and acceleration out of the break really separated him from the rest of the league. He was the best in the game at reading the hole and following his blocks. He was a superb receiver out of the backfield. After his rookie year, he seldom fumbled. And like Marcus Allen, he seemed to get even better in goal-to-go situations.

Tomlinson was the unquestioned star RB of his generation, a standout who combined a sensational peak with a reasonably long career. He really was a versatile and valuable all-purpose back, but we don't need a classification like that to appreciate his greatness. My rushing/receiving formula? That's just a screwing-around project, something that's interesting but not really meaningful.

Having said that, I'll leave you with the formula's all-time top 30. This is a mathematical computation, not necessarily representative of my opinion. I realize I haven't explained what the numbers mean, but they'll give you an idea how players compare to one another. I think the formula does a reasonably good job of balancing longevity with peak performance, so that players who stuck around forever and caught 30 passes every year aren't ranked ahead of great receivers with shorter careers.

1. Marshall Faulk, 1145
2. Marcus Allen, 963
3. LaDainian Tomlinson, 960
4. Thurman Thomas, 883
5. Tiki Barber, 882
6. Priest Holmes, 839
7. Walter Payton, 833
8. Roger Craig, 831
9. Herschel Walker, 829
10. Edgerrin James, 824
11. Lenny Moore, 820
12. Jim Brown, 776
13. Charlie Garner, 769
14. Ricky Watters, 769
15. Steven Jackson, 762
16. Brian Westbrook, 758
17. Ahman Green, 758
18. Chuck Foreman, 738
19. Emmitt Smith, 734
20. William Andrews, 734
21. Barry Sanders, 726
22. James Brooks, 725
23. Lydell Mitchell, 725
24. Abner Haynes, 715
25. Clem Daniels, 695
26. Frank Gore, 693
27. Tony Dorsett, 686
28. Ottis Anderson, 678
29. Frank Gifford, 675
30. Curtis Martin, 669

Sproles' score will rise as his career continues, but right now he's at 377.

Bobby Mitchell, a Hall of Fame wide receiver who probably could have been a Hall of Fame running back, rates at 593, because he became a full-time WR and ended up with a low career rushing score. He obviously was one of the five or so best rusher-receivers in history.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)

Horse Racing Industry Saddled With Financial Meltdown

The 2010 thoroughbred horse racing season has seen its Triple Crown races pass, yet thoroughbred racing fans can still look ahead to some key summer races such as the Travers Stakes at Saratoga Race Track in upstate NY this August, and of course the Breeder's Cup World Championships in the first weekend of November, to be held for the first time in back-to-back years at Churchill Downs, in both 2010 and 2011.

So, we will now see the end of the 2010 thoroughbred racing season in the same venue in which it began, for a historic first.

This year's Triple Crown races, however, not only did not produce a Triple Crown champion again, leaving 1978 champion, Affirmed, as the last to do so, but what was most unsettling was the fact that each leg was won by a different horse; with Super Saver winning the 136th Kentucky Derby, Lookin' At Lucky wining the 135th running of the Preakness Stakes, and Drosselmeyer prevailing in the 142nd running of the Belmont Stakes.

And the contending Triple Crown horses' trainers and owners had no small part in creating a Triple Crown drought. Both the Kentucky Derby winner, Super Saver, as well as Preakness Stakes winner, Lookin' At Lucky, were not even entered in the Belmont Stakes. And at a time when the horse racing industry is in a seemingly fiscal free-fall, if ever there was a time necessary to create interest for the casual fan, it is now.

In fact, just days before the very running of this year's Preakness, its future to remain in Maryland was in serious doubt. And equally remarkable, the third leg of the Triple Crown, the 142nd running of the Belmont Stakes, coming up June 5, 2010 at Belmont Park, in Elmont, NY, also remains in a fiscal crisis. It was loaned $25 million by the state of New York just days before the running of the Belmont, in order for it to remain open for the rest of the 2010 racing season.

And it is with the Triple Crown races, still clearly in mind, that it is worth exploring the present state of the thoroughbred industry's challenges away from the track, especially in those states now hurting, that once could be counted on to provide the essential businesses necessary to support those horses we get to see on race day.

Largely, it comes down to the horse breeding farms and all of the ancillary businesses that have evolved from it and that earn their livelihood by benefit of the horse racing industry, in their respective states, which have taken a big hit over the past two years. However, the global recession has but exacerbated an industry clearly in decline for the past decade.

Yet, the actual running of thoroughbreds is dependent upon the farms and businesses in various support cast roles, in order to remain in business. As such, the entire horse racing industry is intertwined and therefore collectively now faces one of its biggest challenges in its history.

And that most horse racing fans both in attendance at Pimlico on May 15th, as well as bettors across the United States and internationally were unaware that the fate of Pimlico was in peril, was in part done by design by the powers-that-be. An industry already within an ongoing recession cannot afford to suffer any further negative publicity.

It was not until May 7, 2010 that a deal was finalized to keep the Preakness Stakes in Maryland. MI Development, Inc. (MID), a Canadian real estate conglomerate, and Penn National Gaming, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based national racino-casino owner and para-mutuel betting operator, announced a joint-venture to own and operate the Maryland Jockey Club, which conducts Pimlico Race Course thoroughbred racing, as well as Maryland's Laurel Park thoroughbred racing.

The prior owner, Magna Entertainment Corp., a subsidiary of MID, and the largest owner of race tracks throughout North America, also including California's Santa Anita Park, declared bankruptcy in 2009. The MID-Penn National transaction is expected to get approval from the Maryland Racing Association and close by the summer of 2010, after all regulatory matters are met. Prior to the deal being struck, Magna intended to sell Pimlico at auction.

However, although MID's ownership will guarantee that racing remains in Maryland at least for the short-term, over the next few years, a new approach in raising revenues for the industry and counted on by many by way of slot machines at the race tracks remains in doubt.

And also, in light of an aging generation, which once regularly patronized race tracks in the U.S., opportunities to keep a younger generation engaged may have been lost. And with Maryland and New York State both competing for corporate sponsorships and ticket sales, states once flush with certain race track revenues are losing out to other states who subsidize their tracks and racing bonuses with slot machines, video lottery terminals, or video poker machines at track racinos.

So, therefore, there remain the haves and the have-not states. And while state politicians nationwide embrace slot machines as the only answer to keep the racing industry solvent, the industry, too, has largely embraced such.

Maryland's local breeders have seen promises for slot machines as the magic bullet required to sustain their industry in order to continue to compete with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey nearby, in addition to Kentucky and California.

And as the road to slots, through the state legislature of Maryland has failed and a drought in business has ensued, so too has interest in Maryland horse racing. As a result, foals born in Maryland dropped by approximately 38% between 1998 and 2008, according to The Jockey Club, the breed registry for North America.

The underlying problem is that in a struggling economy, were there not other revenue generators in other states, such as racinos, racing would be on even-par, according to many breeders in the field. And as such, some Maryland breeders are now shipping their mares to Pennsylvania, breeding them there while racing their offspring there for larger purses and larger bonuses, specifically reserved for Pennsylvania-bred horses.

Simply put, the larger the purse, the more horses are attracted. So it becomes more cost-effective to cross state lines to at least keep some sense of proprietorship amongst these breeders, not only in Maryland, but in other states, as well.

Likewise, in New York State, its Belmont Stakes' financial woes are being blamed on state politics, with legislators not yet approving slot machine operations there. But it is still difficult to fathom that the oldest of the Triple Crown races, which began in 1867 in Bronx, NY, might be no more, because of a lack of slot machines. Such thinking not only lacks ingenuity, but is unfortunately both lazy and foolish thinking.

After two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and most recently, 9/11, the only time the Belmont Stakes was not successfully run was in 1911 and 1912, when betting was outlawed by the New York state legislature during that time.

And ironically, as gambling is touted as the savior to the horse racing industry, it has also helped to cause its demise. Yet, unless legislated, racinos cannot legally conduct business at race tracks in order to attract more patrons. In turn, race track owners believe that revenue is necessary to attract more horses. Therefore, it is but a Catch-22 where both operations are setup to require dependence upon the other.

Of note is that at one time the only way for bettors to legally wage a bet in U.S. was at the race track itself, with the exception of the state of Nevada. (Grand National Odds is a good place to place a bet online.) But state lotteries soon started to infringe upon the guaranteed racing revenues. Added to that around the same time, in 1970, New York State approved an off-track para-mutuel betting system, which became a national phenomenon.

And with evolving computer technologies, the writing was long ago on the wall and that race tracks and the horse racing industry at large should have been well prepared for changes. For the industry to hitch its horse to one wagon, so to speak, in solely banking only on slot machines as a revenue generator, is at best short-sighted.

However, unaccountability must come into play, as well. As state legislatures such as New York State, which now runs New York City Off Track Betting (NYCOTB) as a state entity, as well as over-leveraged multi-national holding companies without any racing industry ties now operating race tracks, they must be held to a higher standard in conducting their business responsibly.

The New York Racing Association (NYRA), with its oversight of the Belmont Park Race Track, the Saratoga Race Course, and Aqueduct Race Track, amongst others, has found investors harder to come by. Amounts of breeding awards are dwindling and purses for races are shrinking. Thus, New York breeders and thoroughbred owners are also being forced out of business.

And astoundingly not immune to the declining fiscal health of the horse breeding industry is Kentucky. And as a result, most of Kentucky's race tracks, too, are toiling. Again, with smaller purses and fewer race dates, trainers are defecting to other states. And contrary to popular belief, most horse farms are not necessarily owned by the extremely wealthy, but rather by many smaller proprietors, collectively.

And like Maryland, in spite of deep connections to Kentucky, horse owners will continue to send their horses out of state to breed, without the necessary incentives in order to remain. Kentucky's history boasts the first-bred Kentucky Derby winner in 1872. And even though Kentucky outpaces horse breeding by a wide margin over any other state, it too believes that expanding gaming is its only answer to keep racing in Kentucky.

But the question remains. In a global recession, with bankruptcies continuing in every industry in the U.S., while many of its states, including the once-great racing state of California headed towards its own bankruptcy, will slot machines save the day?

Missing from any discussion by the horse racing industry, however, during the worst recession in 70 years, is the issue of consumers failing to part with their discretionary income, unlike when they did in the earlier part of the decade. And as evidenced by the revenues in casino gambling, having taken a big hit in the past two years from Las Vegas to Atlantic City to the race track, with a decent recovery not expected for another two years, such spending could remain flat, thereafter, for a good while.

Meanwhile, after a period of four or five years, discretionary spending habits may have changed enough that the gambling industry, and in particular the horse racing industry, may have been irreparably harmed by then. Let us hope not. Giddy up!

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)

June 18, 2012

The Lessons of 2010

It has been nearly two years since the Summer of 2010's dramatic denouement when LeBron James and Chris Bosh appeared alongside Dwyane Wade to plant a flag in the NBA's near future. And while the experiment will continue to run, at least for the remainder of these NBA Finals, we have enough data to begin drawing some conclusions.

This summer, Steve Nash, Derron Williams, and kinda-sorta Dwight Howard will make major decisions on their playing futures. Here are the rules they should have learned by watching the MIami Three swirl in their two-year crucible.

1. Don't turn your decision into a Decision. Ask any selection of LeBron-hating NBA fans where James went wrong, and you'll get a gumbo of squishily undefined answers. Some will point to his willingness to accept help in chasing a title, while others will say he quit on his hometown franchise. But they all will use the phrase "the way he did it" at least once.

(Incidentally, I've always found this phrase a little overdramatic. Let's recall that the last time the way someone "did it" was in the sports zeitgeist, it was a suspected multi-murderer writing a stunningly ill-conceived book about how he would have "done it." The dangerous power of pronouns, illustrated.)

Hubris isn't a mortal sin. We all feel a little puffy in the chest now and again. But when you are in a zero-sum business where success and failure are so clearly defined, hubris is a reckless parlay on top of an already difficult challenge. While free agency is a moment of great power and control for a star, it is a crossroads on the journey to a championship, not a destination. Make your decision, break the hearts you must privately, and start working toward the on-court tasks ahead while the rest of the world digests your choice through more stomachs than a herd of cattle.

2. If you decide to team up with another star, make sure you're clearly No. 1. The response to the Wade/James "who's team is this?" debate is very strange in the context of the NBA's previous couple of decades. After all, several stars made free agency decisions in the name of getting more shots, scoring more points, and generally being as big a fish as possible regardless of pond size. For all of the critics of players wanting to be The Man, James + Wade should have been a refreshing change.

But instead, in the 24 months since the duo paired in Miami, each has been derisively labeled as the other's sidekick in turn. This creates a lose-lose scenario where the perceived No. 2 gets little credit when the Heat win but retain plenty of blame in its losses for that perception.

What is especially difficult for Wade and James is that while each is definitively talented, their talents overlap. For all of their world-class skills, there is only one ball on the court, a limited resource each requires to bear the fruit of his abilities. With the microscope incessantly on the pair, schadenfreude-ist scorekeepers will gladly announce which of the two had the lion's share of touches, and it follows, who is No. 1.

3. If you decide to team up with other stars, for the love of James Naismith, make sure you're not No. 3. Pity Chris Bosh. Really. All the guy wanted was to be great by association, even if his inclusion in the Summer of 2010 Rat Pack was a little Lawford-esque. Now Bosh gets thrown into the pool of past-expiration names that surround James and Wade like inherited vases.

If Bosh had been honest with himself, he should have known his skills were not suited to supporting his new teammates. As the lone star in Toronto, Bosh could use his combination of athleticism and size to take advantage of matchups and be a low-post scorer. But in Miami, Bosh doesn't get the touches that had allowed him to get his own shots, and his wiry frame makes him a merely average rebounder and screener.

At this point, Bosh's name is thrown around as trade fodder for a better fitting-teammate for James and Wade. Just two years after a summer of stardom, he is a sad backup singer touring with a famous act. It seems unlikely he will ever realize the personal glory he came to Miami to find.

So, class of 2012, what have we learned? Consider this: the personal nightmares described here have come in two seasons where the Heat have reached the NBA Finals. In both years of their current construction, Miami will have played in the last game of the season. But through their own doing, both seasons have been virtually unwinnable. At some point, simply winning was no longer enough to sate the majority. In fact, their challenge of winning respect is most likely impossible.

The leaders of the free agent class of 2010 made a glaring mistake. They believed their own hype and allowed expectations to grow beyond an achievable scale. When you announce on your first day on the job that you're going to win championships by the half dozen, winning one a year is a dangerously slow pace.

Hubris is no mortal sin, but it is a popular material for building personal hells.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 12:47 PM | Comments (0)

A Golden Age For Golf

Webb Simpson is the U.S. Open Champion. For a little while, it looked as though the Northern Irish would cling on to it for a third successive year, as Graeme McDowell looked strong going into the last few holes, but after a mixed round of 73, he falters and takes only a par on the final hole to gift Webb his first major title.

Golf seems to be wide-open at the moment. This win makes Webb the ninth consecutive first-time champion at a major since Phil Mickelson's Masters triumph in 2010, and the 15th different major winner in a row. Can't anyone win another?

So does this mean golf is in a sorry state? Well, some may argue it does — there is no outstanding individual capable of dominating. Others might argue it makes it more interesting, as anyone is in with a chance.

I'm inclined to agree with those of the second opinion. The final day was enthralling, as one shot here or there made all the difference. Simpson, with an earlier tee-off time, shot an impressive 2-under-par 68 to set the target of 1 over.

He had started the day four shots behind leaders McDowell and Jim Furyk, but four birdies in five holes at the tail end of the front nine put him in with a real shout. Furyk and McDowell played a poor final day, scoring 74 and 73 respectively.

They were still in with a shout on the 18th, where a birdie from either would have forced a play-off. Furyk hit a bunker and finished off with a bogey, and McDowell missed a 24 yard putt for birdie, finishing up on a solid par. It won't be much consolidation though, considering he'd been joint leader on the final day. And he's won it before.

Simpson is now the third American major winner in a row, spelling good news for the Ryder Cup team this September. Better for them, it will be a home match this time around, as the Medinah Country Club in Medinah, IL hosts the event for the first time.

Simpson will not be looking at the Ryder Cup for the moment, though, and will have his eyes fixed on the Open Championships next month. Will he win it? I have my doubts. Though he showed a lot of quality in his U.S. Open victory, a longer and potentially easier links course at the Royal Lytham & St. Anne's Golf Club in Lancashire, England could see more competitors joining the fray.

Last time the Open was played here saw David Duval win his first major with a 10 under par, 274. Before that was Tom Lehman, where he won his first major, too. So it doesn't bode well for Simpson that of the 10 times the Open has been held at the Royal Lytham, there have been six first-time winners of majors. And one of those winners won it twice.

He will be facing very stiff opposition. Padraig Harrington of Ireland matched Simpson's final day score of 68, only to finish tied third after bogeying on the last hole. He's regained a lot of his form recently, and will be looking to add to his tally of three majors.

Graeme McDowell, who had victory in his sights on the final day, is playing better than he has in nearly two years. He has that steely glint in his eyes that says, "I am back." He didn't take home the U.S. Open trophy for the second time, but he will be looking to take home the British Open trophy next month.

With Simpson's win, and McDowell and Harrington returning to form, golf just got a little more interesting. It might not be a golden age yet, but if this year's U.S. Open mesmerizing finish is anything to go by, one is fast approaching.

* * *

Are you thinking of placing a bet on an upcoming golf fixture? Make sure you come and check out all of the latest betting odds on golf at betfair.com.

Posted by Angus Saul at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2012

Coming of Age

It's been four years in the making. They received some time to learn the process. There might have been a couple rough patches, but their comfort level grew with each game. They've shown the resolve to withstand any questions of credibility. Now, in a short period of time, they're getting the chance to display their worthiness on the NBA's biggest stage.

Wait a minute ... you thought I was talking about the Oklahoma City Thunder? Close, but not quite. I'm describing Oklahoma City, the city. When the Sonics organization moved east in 2008, their young core of players weren't the only ones being ushered into the Association. The capital of our 46th state finally got a shot at being home to a professional franchise in one of our "Big Four" leagues.

While there have been moments to showcase the city over the last couple of years (first playoff series and last year's run to the Conference Finals), having the NBA Finals in your front yard is a whole 'nother level of attention. All the eyes of the basketball world (along with others) are focused on your fans, your highlights, and even your flaws. It's just as much a chance to trip on your on feet as it is to put your best foot forward.

In my lifetime, OKC has become the eighth metropolitan area that has introduced pro sports into its city's historical profile. The first time actually involved a team I could have possibly become a season ticket holder for. In 1985, the Kansas City Kings headed out to Cali and settled in Sacramento. The next introductions came three and four years later, respectively. In the second and third rounds of NBA expansion during the 1980s, Charlotte and Orlando had their chances to enter the world of pro sports cities.

The NFL got in on the act in the mid-'90s. After birthing the Jacksonville Jaguars during the expansion of 1995, the league oversaw the Houston Oilers' move to Nashville (now the Tennessee Titans) in 1997, beating the NHL's Predators by one year. "The only game in town" would be put on ice in 1997. The Hartford Whalers had been in the league for nearly two decades. However, with the last shift in a mid-decade relocation string, the Whalers slid down the Eastern Seaboard to the hockey hotbed of ... Raleigh, NC. And thus, the Hurricanes were adopted.

Three years later, hockey was at it again. Columbus OH is more widely known for that university that stresses using "the" in front of it, and they also had a pro franchise in the MLS' Crew. However, when referring to those main four sports, the Blue Jackets would draw first blood. In 2001, the NBA put their stamp on another city looking for a pro identity. Although there were previous ABA and USFL franchises in town, Memphis didn't get their chance in the more established groups until 2001, when the Grizzlies moved in from Vancouver.

Through all the shifting and growing the last 30-plus years have offered, each team has shown some modicum of success. Every one of the organizations has at least made the postseason in their particular sport. Jacksonville played in two AFC Championship games in four years (hosting the game in 2000). Sacramento fell short to the L.A. Lakers in the classic 2002 Western Conference Finals.

Going a step further, Orlando has been to two NBA Finals (1995 and 2009). The Magic couldn't overcome Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon and Kobe Bryant in their two respective tries at the title. Meanwhile, after defeating the Jags in the 200 AFC Championship, the Nashville-based Titans came up a yard short of tying the Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV.

However, the benchmark for the this group of franchises was set in 2006, when the Hurricanes stunned the hockey world by lifting the Stanley Cup (only less stunning than if they lost to the eighth-seeded Edmonton Oilers). The Thunder will try to match that achievement and bring home the second title amongst this group of teams.

There is a difference, though, between the Thunder and the other seven teams I mentioned. According to most, this year is opening of the window. With the core of this team consisting of sub-24 years olds, we could expect this area to turn into the new San Antonio of the Association. That would only mean more bright lights on the place "where the winds come sweeping down the Plain."

In hearing an ESPN feature story on the squad's connection to this city earlier this season, I rediscovered something. If you take the history of the state/territory, you don't find overwhelming positives. From the Trial of Tears, to the Dust Bowl, to the 1995 Bombing, this area has had its share of infamy.

I actually visited Oklahoma a little over 10 years ago with a group of my college classmates. While in the area, we stopped by the site of the Oklahoma City National Memorial. I remember the still air on that early spring day giving the site an air of gravity that could encapsulate you.

Now it's OKC's turn to give the country a taste of their better side. The exposure mainly appeared through the Thunder's efforts, but the team won't be the only item the city can offer viewers. That could help even more in the long run. Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Serge Ibaka can't play forever. But the impression that they leave could turn into something that improves the city's profile for years to come.

Until the time comes for the next generation of Thunder to roll into town, all I can say to the fanbase is, "Congratulations on your call-up. Welcome to the big time."

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 5:28 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2012

Sharapova, Errani, and the French Open

Maria Sharapova completed a career Grand Slam on Saturday. Two or three years ago, I never would have believed it.

Sharapova won Wimbledon in 2004 and finished that year ranked in the top 10. She eventually assumed the number one ranking, added wins in the Australian Open and US Open, and remained in the top 10 through 2008. But then her career faltered. Tennis players tend to peak early anyway, plus Sharapova had some injury problems, and with the constantly changing nature of the game, it seemed to pass her by. Anyway, if she ever won another Slam, it would obviously come on hard courts or grass. At Roland Garros, she had never advanced beyond the semifinals.

Sharapova finished 2010 ranked 18th, still a good player, but no longer really a force, certainly not on clay. But she rebounded to end 2011 back in the top five, and worked hard to improve her clay skills specifically. A friendly draw and a couple of upsets meant that at Roland Garros, she only faced two top-20 opponents, and only one (Petra Kvitova) in the top 10. In the finals, Sharapova found herself facing a 24th-ranked player who had never before reached even the semifinals of a Grand Slam, and whose weaknesses played into Sharapova's strengths. She won in straight sets, completing a remarkable comeback and doing wonders for her own legacy in the sport.

Sharapova and Serena Williams are the only women in the last 20 years to complete a career Grand Slam (Steffi Graf, 1988). Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport never won at Roland Garros. Monica Seles and Justine Henin never won Wimbledon. Venus Williams never won the Australian Open or the French.

If she can stay healthy, there's no reason Maria can't continue to be a major presence in the WTA for years to come. As my colleague Mert Ertunga and others have pointed out, age has been less of a barrier to success in recent years. Sharapova is almost six years younger than Serena Williams, and Serena's still a threat to anyone when she brings her A-game. If Maria can dominate on clay, she certainly can compete for Slams on hard courts and grass.

As significant as Sharapova's achievement was, the bigger story last weekend arguably was her opponent. Sara Errani did not come out of nowhere. But her dramatic run at Roland Garros was the story of the tournament. Generously listed at 5'4½", the Italian's improbable fortnight included four wins over top-20 opponents, an appearance in the singles final, and winning the women's doubles title.

Errani is the same age (25) as Sharapova — they are only 10 days apart. But whereas Sharapova won Wimbledon eight years ago and on Monday will take over the world number one ranking for the fifth time, Errani's success has all been more recent. When Maria won Wimbledon, Errani was ranked about 500th. Errani won her first singles title, a Tier IV, just a few months before Sharapova won her third Grand Slam. From 2008-11, Errani finished every year ranked in the 40s. It seemed she had settled in as a mid-level player who would never contend at the highest level.

This year has been different. Not a lot different, but there were signs Errani was emerging as something more than a journeyman. At the beginning of the year, Errani changed rackets, returning a $30,000 endorsement fee but adding some power to her unimposing serve. She won three tournaments, all on clay, and in Australia reached the quarter-finals of a Grand Slam for the first time. She began the French Open ranked 23rd in singles. As viewers were reminded often in the closing days of the tournament, Errani has won more matches on clay this year than anyone else on the WTA tour. So no, Sara Errani did not come out of nowhere.

A top-25 player, showing the best tennis of her career and playing on her favorite surface, should be expected to perform well at Roland Garros. But Errani exceeded all expectations, with a two-week whirlwind of success. She defeated former French Open champions Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova, 10th-ranked Angelique Kerber, and world number six Samantha Stosur. She was no less successful in doubles, winning the French with her partner Roberta Vinci.

The feeling around tennis seems to be that Errani's run at Roland Garros was a fluke. Her height and her weak serve certainly support that idea. But this is not just a player whom Fate has smiled upon for two weeks. Errani has improved noticeably and dramatically this year. Her performance at the French Open has moved her into the WTA top 10, a remarkable achievement considering that two weeks ago she had never beaten a top-10 opponent. Although few clay tournaments remain on the calendar, there's every reason to believe Errani will improve upon her performances from late 2011, and I guess she will finish this year ranked higher than 10th. I'd also take bets that she and Vinci win at least one more doubles title before the year is out.

Errani's underdog story certainly captured the hearts of the French fans, who cheered her enthusiastically during Saturday's final. Of course, tennis crowds tend to cheer the underdog, as their reward is longer sets and more tennis, but I think Errani brought a special appeal, as a player so clearly punching above her weight. Her journey through the draw obviously didn't melt every heart, though.

John McEnroe is often a very good commentator, but his work in the final was hard to listen to at times. McEnroe was so effusive in his praise of Sharapova, and so dismissive of Errani, that it was distasteful, especially coming from a neutral commentator. McEnroe wasn't wrong — the match played out almost exactly as he expected and described — but I hope he might dial that sort of thing back in the future. It came across, to me anyway, as unprofessionally gushy towards Sharapova, and disrespectful of Errani.

As I write this, the men's final has been postponed by rain. Rafael Nadal has already established himself as a player of historical stature, and his opponent Novak Djokovic is well on his way to a similar legacy. On Monday, one of them will (or already has, by the time you read this) add to an already glowing résumé. But between Sharapova's improbable win on clay, and Errani's equally unforeseen brilliance in both singles and doubles, the women captured the spotlight at this year's French Open.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 6:40 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 14

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished fourth at Pocono, posting his 10th top-10 result of the year. He remained fifth in the Spring Cup point standings, 30 out of first.

"Pit road speeding penalties were the story at Pocono," Johnson said. "I got nabbed twice myself. There are so many speed traps on pit road, I apparently wasn't the only '5-timer' at Pocono.

"I got 'busted twice.' And I'm so good, they'll be saying that again at my Hall of Fame induction ceremony."

2. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished seventh in the Pocono 400, and, with the struggles of Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle, is the new points leader. Kenseth holds a 10-point lead over Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"It's one thing to lead the point standings now," Kenseth said. "It's another to lead at season's end. And, as The Fixx once eloquently stated, let's hope 'One Thing Leads to Another.'"

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt led 36 laps at Pocono, second only to Joey Logano's 49, but settled for an eighth-place finish, his third-straight top 10 and seventh in the last eight races. Earnhardt improved one place in the Sprint Cup point standings and trails Matt Kenseth by 10.

"We had the car to win the race," Earnhardt said, "but, as a 143-race winless streak would seem to suggest, not the driver.

"We had to play it safe and pit for fuel late in the race. I know Junior Nation wanted me to go for the win, but if they could just picture alcohol in the place of fuel, I think they'd understand."

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle led 19 early laps in the Pocono 400 before mechanical issues dropped him to a finish of 24th, his worst result of the season. After leading the point standings for 11 consecutive weeks, Biffle fell to third, and now trails Matt Kenseth by 10.

"Up until Pocono," Biffle said, "our engines have been pretty reliable. Usually, when there's talk of 'mechanical issues' around here, it's a comment on Kenseth's personality."

5. Denny Hamlin — Perennial Pocono favorite Hamlin started and finished fifth in the Pocono 400, as Joe Gibbs Racing teammate Joey Logano took the victory. Hamlin is fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 19 out of first.

"Logano ran a heck of a race," Hamlin said. "He was awesome. So awesome, in fact, that Joey was the only driver his father confronted after the race."

6. Kevin Harvick — Karvick finished 14th at Pocono, one of several drivers slowed by a record 22 pit road speeding penalties administered by NASCAR during Sunday's race. Harvick moved up one place in the point standings to sixth, 53 out of first.

"I was one of several drivers penalized for speeding on pit lane," Harvick said. "I have to question NASCAR's methods. Normally, when you say 'speed trap' in NASCAR circles, everyone assumes you're talking about a member of the Mayfield clan getting busted for buying meth from an undercover cop. Not anymore.

"Obviously, the timing mechanisms at Pocono need reviewing. That would make everyone happy. In other words, it's time to 'calibrate, good times.'"

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart broke a streak of two consecutive 25th-place finishes with a strong third in the Pocono 400, his fifth top-five of the year. He remained eighth in the point standings, where he trails leader Matt Kenseth by 75.

"As you know," Stewart said, "Kyle Busch won my charity Prelude To A Dream race at Eldora Speedway. So, Kyle's name is 'dirt' while his brother Kurt's name is 'mud.'"

8. Kyle Busch — Busch finished 30th after a blown engine ended his day on lap 76. He fell three places to 12th in the Sprint Cup point standings, 21 ahead of Paul Menard in 13th.

"Off all people," Busch said, "I was one who didn't get a speeding penalty.

"It's old news that my brother Kurt was sent home for the weekend. Funny thing is, 'home' doesn't want him around either."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards was caught up in a lap 1 incident at Pocono that left him at the back of the field. But the No. 99 Kellogg's/Cheez It team battled back, and Edwards bagged a solid 11th, and improved one spot to 11th in the point standings.

"I bringing up the rear in the point standings among Roush Fenway drivers," Edwards said. "My teammates, Matt Kenseth and Greg Biffle, are still quite supportive. They greatly appreciate the distance I've put between us."

10. Joey Logano — Logano started on pole and led a race-high 49 laps at Pocono, but needed a late pass of Mark Martin to capture his first win since 2009. In a contract year, Logano made a strong case for Joe Gibbs Racing to resign NASCAR's youngest Sprint Cup driver.

"How about that bump I gave Martin before I slipped past him?" Logano said. "I kicked the old guard old school. If Mark's upset, I'm sure I could get a note from my father excusing me.

"My win should go a long way in getting a new deal with JGR. I'm expecting to get paid. Soon, there will be more 'bread' in 'Sliced Bread.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2012

The Kings' Cup

Throughout the 2011-12 regular season, the Los Angeles Kings did one thing very well: play defense. Their 2.1 goals against was second in the NHL and Jonathan Quick, the team's main goal tender, managed 1.95 goals allowed per game, second best in the NHL. Despite that impressive statistic, Quick only managed to go 35-21-13, and while the NHL awards points for losing in overtime or a shoot out, the reality is that Quick won 35 games and lost 34 games.

That's not exactly a season's resume that I'd put a ton of confidence in heading into the playoffs. But statistics never lie and Quick's 1.95 goals against in the regular season foreshadowed the amazing playoff run the Kings were able to make.

The struggle for the Kings was the fact that their offense was as bad as their defense was good. Scoring 2.3 points per game, the Kings offense was the second worst in the NHL. If the Dallas Stars hadn't been terrible in the last 12 games — going 3-9-0 — the Kings might have not even made the playoffs.

But they did make the playoffs ... and they won the Stanley Cup ... how did this happen?

As the eighth seed in the Western Conference, the Kings had the privilege of playing the best team in the NHL's regular season and the defending Western Conference champions from 2010-11: the Vancouver Canucks. Fortunately for the Kings, the curse of the President's Cup continued as the Canucks only managed to win one playoff game against the Kings.

As a reward for beating the best team in the NHL, the underdog Kings were rewarded by facing the second best team in the Western Conference — a team many considered more dangerous than the Canucks in the St. Louis Blues — whose 1.9 goals against was the only team better than the Kings in the regular season. But in the playoffs, Jonathan Quick outplayed the Blues' Brian Elliott and the Kings offense woke up after a winter of hibernation — scoring 15 goals on Elliott in a four-game sweep of the Blues.

And so after knocking off numbers one and two in the West, the Kings met the Phoenix Coyotes — the third best team in the Western Conference. Quick didn't let up, helping the Kings knock off the Coyotes in five games and giving the Kings a berth into the Stanley Cup Finals.

Heading into New Jersey for the first two games of the series, the Kings managed to win both of the first two games in overtime, both by the score of 2-1. Then they headed home, up 2-0 and Quick shutout the Devils pushing them to the brink, forcing the Devils to win on the road to stay alive in game four. The Devils managed to prolong the series and the series went back to New Jersey for game five, a game that proved to be the only road game in the entirety of the playoffs that the Kings lost.

In the regular season, the Kings went 18-13-10 on the road. In the playoffs, they went 10-1 on the road. That road domination, and the domination of the Kings in general can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Conn Smythe winner Jonathan Quick who only allowed 8 goals in the six-game series with the Devils. In the playoffs as a whole, Quick allowed 28 goals in 20 games.

Quick played better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season, but where did the offense come from for the Kings? Anze Kopitar was an obvious leader with 8 goals and 12 assists in 20 playoff games, but that's not terribly different than the regular season Kopitar had, recording 76 points in 82 games.

No seriously, how did this happen? Sure the Kings had better numbers on offense in the playoffs, but they weren't staggeringly better.

The lowest seed to ever win the Stanley Cup had been fifth and the last time a team won the Stanley Cup from the fifth seed in their conference was 1995 when the New Jersey Devils won hockey's top prize after a severely shortened season due to a lockout. There had never been a six-, seven-, or eight-seed win the Cup — until Monday night.

The question I've (obviously) been asking is: how did this happen? How did a team who could have easily missed the playoffs not only win the Stanley Cup, but dominate on the way, playing worse opponents every round on the way to taking turns getting to hoist the cup of cups?

But maybe the more applicable question is: does this change everything?

Low seeds have had decent success in the playoffs in recent years. In 2010, the seventh-seeded Philadelphia Flyers lost in the Stanley Cup Finals to the Chicago Blackhawks. In the same season, the eighth-seeded Montreal Canadiens were in the Eastern Conference Finals and lost to the Flyers.

Are we seeing a trend where higher seeds have absolutely no advantage over lower seeded teams? It was rather obvious from the playoffs of 2012 that home ice advantage doesn't exist at all. Should the NHL be looking at giving a further advantage to high seeded teams so they can actually be rewarded for their far superior seasons? Should the NHL be thinking about reducing the number of the teams who make the playoffs so it isn't more than 50% of the league?

In my opinion, this doesn't change anything, there is a trend to higher seeds having less of an advantage, and the NHL doesn't need to do anything about it.

How did the Kings win the Stanley Cup? Because they played better defense and had better goaltending than every team in the NHL in the playoffs. That's it. That's nothing new. "Defense wins championships" is true in many sports. The Kings didn't invent some new formula to make a run in the playoffs. They simply upped their game at the right time and had a great goaltender who played better than great in the playoffs. Not much mystery there.

The only advantage that top seeds really need is that they won more games in the regular season so they should be better than the low-seeded teams. I've thought about the possibility of giving more home games to the higher-seeded teams, but after 2012's playoffs, I don't even know if that would be an advantage or a disadvantage. Perhaps a safer advantage would be to give the higher-seeded team the chance to choose which games are played at home and which games are played away. It would be a logistical nightmare perhaps, but I think if there were three options (Home, Home, Away, Away Away, Home, Home OR Home, Home, Away, Away, Home, Away, Home OR Away Away, Home, Home, Away, Home, Home) maybe teams could decide what's best for their own rhythm.

But as far as reduction, I don't think there's any way to do reduction of the NHL playoffs without major difficulties. Only two possibilities exist in my mind. The first is to switch to the new MLB system of a one game playoff for non division winners and I think that sort of system — changing from 16 teams to 10 teams — would be too much of a reduction for the NHL. The second possibility would be to use something similar to NFL system of giving byes to the top two seeds in each conference and having 12 teams in the playoffs. It could possibly work if the opening series was only three games, but it would have to be played in five days or the rest period would be too long for teams with byes.

The only reason I see for reduction is the fact that the playoffs ended this year on June 11. Most kids in the United States are out of school for summer break. Hockey is played on ice and you know, is a winter sport. I just wish it would end in April.

In the end, the NHL playoffs are working just fine. It was a fantastic year for the NHL playoffs. Lots of exciting series, many upsets, numerous overtime games, and an unlikely champion. There's no need to fix what isn't broken.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 1:27 PM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2012

Bringing a Championship to South Beach

Anyone who has read my articles here with any great regularity knows I hold a respectful, but not awestruck view of LeBron James. I recognize his singular basketball talent that places him in a class all his own, but I also realize that as great as LeBron James the player is, LeBron James the person has a great deal of growing to do.

His interviews in light of childish tiffs on the court are indicative of a man who hasn't grown all that much since "The Decision "That being said, he has done growing in some key areas, perhaps most importantly his ability to ignore the asinine accusation that he isn't clutch (even though the numbers indicate he's more clutch than Kobe Bryant), and simply make good decisions at the end of games.

His Game 6 performance was simply amazing. He wasn't the just providing a push for the Heat in key situations, he was the driving force behind nearly every good thing that happened in the game, and yet he's not the biggest reason I think the Hear will win it all this year.

The push for a championship will be successful this time because the Heat have realized something as a team that teams like the Boston Celtics and San Antonio Spurs (ironically the two teams that lost in the conference finals) realized long ago. They realized that leaving some in the tank for the championship run is crucial for a team, no matter how young or stuffed with talent the roster may be.

That's why there were times this year that the Heat turned on autopilot for three quarters, and then blew the doors straight off of some top-tier teams in the final period. It's also why they seemed to struggle against some pretty bad teams at times. It wasn't a lack of talent, they were saving their best game for this moment — right now.

Right now, Chris Bosh is healthy enough to contribute. Right now, Dwyane Wade is finding ways to get LeBron James open looks. Right now, LeBron James is doing everything right. Right now, not even Erik Spoelstra's ineptitude can keep the Heat from their destiny.

I mean no disrespect to the Oklahoma City Thunder, but this simply isn't their year. Russell Westbrook takes shots like a player a tier above where he actually is, which will hurt tremendously when the Heat bring it defensively. Kevin Durant is the most talented basketball player in the world not named LeBron James, but even he can't save the Thunder from the onslaught the Heat are going to bring on both ends of the court, and the problems Westbrook's ego will cause.

I'm not saying it will be pretty, and I'm certainly not saying it will be a sweep, but I'd be shocked if LeBron James and company don't bring a championship to South Beach this year.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 7:15 PM | Comments (0)

Pujols Contract Could Cost Angels Trout

With the recent emergence of Albert Pujols from his early-season doldrums, everything seems to be running smoothly for the Los Angeles Angels. They're winning, the Texas Rangers have faltered, and we could well be looking at the first-place Angels by week's end.

The resurgence has coincided with two factors:

1. The Angels (finally) deciding to bring up Mike Trout, the phenom who has raced right past the Rookie of the Year race straight into MVP talk. He's putting up silly numbers right now, hitting homers one day, then stealing second and third on consecutive pitches the next. He's making the game look easy, and his presence atop the Angels' order has put everybody else, Pujols included, into a nice mid-season groove.

2. Mark Trumbo finally started getting regular playing time. After scrapping the plan to have Trumbo play third regularly (they gave his natural position, first base, to Pujols), Trumbo sat out seven of the team's first 19 games. Since then, he has sat out two, and has started every game since May 12, the majority of that time in right field (20 games) and left field (10).

And all was well again in L.A.

The other side of the story is that the Angels, while enjoying the fruits of a Trout/Trumbo/Pujols dominated lineup now, have created a looming payroll quandary that could threaten the long-term competitiveness of the club.

To set the scene, the numbers:

Pujols is making $12 million this year, then will go from $16 million in 2013 to $23 million in 2014, then add $1 million per year until he makes $30 million in 2021.

Trumbo is making $500,000 this year, and will make about the same next year under his third "rookie contract" year. Then, barring a pre-emptive extension like those signed by Evan Longoria and Troy Tulowitzki, Trumbo will enter three years or arbitration eligibility before finally becoming an unrestricted free agent in 2017 at age 31.

The timeline for Trumbo could move up a year if he qualifies as a "Super 2," defined on the Major League Baseball Players Association website as "A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 22 percent (increased from 17 percent in previous agreements) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season."

Trout, who is making $414,000 this year, will follow the same path as Trumbo, with the exception he looks certain to qualify as a Super 2. Without an extension, Trout would get to arbitration in 2014, then free agency in 2017 before his age 26 season.

The first lesson from those numbers is the absurdity of baseball's early-career compensation system. Trout and Trumbo lead the Angels in just about every offensive category there is, yet combined this season they will make about the same as Pujols does in 12 games. I'm all for paying based on a track-record of consistency (as long as you can project that consistency through the life of the contract), but any system that pays one guy 12 times more than your two most productive hitters combined is just a tad out of whack.

The politics of inequality aside, a much more market-based argument that Pujols' contract is a payroll time bomb comes when you project how Trout and Trumbo will fit into the Angels' budget in two years and beyond.

Arbitration is heavily weighted in the players' favor, and Trout would probably set or approach the record if he continues on his current pace. Trumbo likely won't command nearly the same haul as Trout, but he won't come cheap either.

If the Angels just take the arbitration approach without signing either player to a long-term deal, their combined salaries in 2014 could exceed $15 million, more if Trumbo gets Super 2 and is in his second year of arbitration. Combined with Pujols' $23 million, you're looking at close to $40 million for the three. Considering Vernon Wells and Torii Hunter (combined $39 million this year) will be off the books by then, it's that not bad considering.

It's only going to get more expensive from there during the arbitration process, but it's still nothing to be too concerned about. But 2017 is where things get really tricky.

2017 is when Trout and Trumbo (not to mention ace Jered Weaver and C.J Wilson) come due for free agency, and that's where the boated second half of the Pujols deal could really come back to haunt Arte Moreno.

Consider if you're Trout's agent Craig Landis. What advice to you give to your client, who could conceivably hit the open market at 26-years-old? If he's anything like Scott Boras, he's going to make damn sure Trout hits free agency.

Think the New Jersey kid might like the idea of patrolling center field for the Yankees or Phillies (who can get out from under the Ryan Howard deal that season)? And if it came to a bidding war, how high could the Angels go knowing that Pujols was still on the books for $25 million and up each season through 2021?

Will they go to $50 million for two players AND find room in the budget to re-sign Weaver? And you can pretty much guarantee Trumbo, who could have played first for the next decade at much more reasonable rates than Pujols, will find himself squeezed out of L.A.

Of course all of that is irrelevant now. The Angels are back over .500 and enjoying the early days of what could be a very special career for Trout.

Enjoy it now, Angels fans. That bill is going to come due before you know it, and it's going to be a doozy.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 5:19 PM | Comments (2)

June 8, 2012

Is Tiger Woods Back?

After his stunning win at The Memorial last week, is it safe to say that Tiger Woods is back in major form?

What skills can you learn during relationships with multiple strippers? How to tease, and Woods has become a master of stringing us along.

It is easy to utter the words "Tiger Woods is back," unless you are Elin Nordegren. The difficulty arises not when you say "Tiger Woods is back," but when you make a decision on punctuating it. Should you end the sentence with a period, or a question mark? Ask Woods himself, and he'll tell you grammar was never his thing, although he still considers diction his strong suit, albeit a quality that is somewhat out of practice.

No one knows whether Woods is truly "back," and no one will know until he captures that elusive 15th major. Will that come at the U.S. Open in San Francisco on June 14th-17th? Woods' compelling victory at The Memorial last week makes a solid case that the physical and mental aspects of his game are in harmony, with the magic not far behind.

Woods' incredible flop wedge on the 16th at The Memorial was arguably the most dramatic swing of a lofted iron since November 27, 2009, when Nordegren, like Woods on Sunday, took a full swing, and, like Woods, left satisfied and liberated. That fateful day in November marked the end of the "first" Woods era, and left he world's greatest golfer in search of himself, which is likely the first time Woods went looking for someone other than a female.

It was a stage of his life that was buried in the heavy rough, much like Woods' lie at the 16th after his tee shot went long. His exquisite wedge won him the tournament, and may have opened the door to the "second" Woods era, assuming he follows up his Memorial victory with a major in 2012.

Is it fair to judge Woods' resurgence by major wins alone? It is when you consider that Woods himself measures success mainly with majors. And without another major, Woods cannot expect to be labeled, by himself or by others, the equal of the 1997-2009 Tiger.

But let's give Woods credit where credit is due: he's battled his demons, and, at this point, seems to have defeated them. Considering his match play record, he must have beaten his demons in stroke play.

And his demons were substantial: marital indiscretions, dishonesty, and a sex addiction, which I'm sure many would gladly sacrifice their golf games to pursue. But sex addiction is no laughing matter. If it can bring down the world's best golfer, it must be a damaging force.

It's not often a 14-time major winner can overcome a sex addiction to continue pursuit of Jack Nicklaus. This is probably not what Nicklaus had in mind when he fantasized about being chased by a sex addict. But let's not blame Tiger for his addiction. Thanks to his prowess on the course, he spent so many years being called a freak that he finally became one.

But fans can easily forgive such transgressions, especially those of someone who can manufacture shots like that on the 16th at The Memorial. Woods is driven by the positive energy of the fans, much as he is driven by the negative energy of golf experts, fellow professionals, and former swing coaches (there are "tell all" books, and then there are "all tail" books, which, in Woods' case, make much better reads). Woods would like nothing more than throwing it in the face of his detractors. And that would be an ironic turnabout, because Woods spent years having "it" thrown in his face. Not that he complained.

Judging by the energy generated by Woods at The Memorial, most fans want to see him succeed.

But can Woods win his 15th major, and the three more needed to match Nicklaus' total of 18? It may not happen this year, but with at least 10 solid years left on the tour (probably a conservative estimate), it's seems unreasonable to think Woods can't average one major every two or three years.

Woods still has youth on his side. He is only 36, but it's a mature 36. Oh, the things he's witnessed in those 36 years. And oh, the thing's he witnessed since taking his predatory tendencies from the golf course to the sexual carnival that eventually spelled doom in his golf game. Claret's aren't the only jugs he's cradled. He's worn a green jacket on four times, and on countless other occasions, he's worn nothing but a green jacket. His sexual conquests with eager and anxious women throughout America put the "open" in "U.S. Open." He's taken the "PG" out of the "PGA" while adding lots more "A."

Such experience, and the mental toughness gained from such, can only serve him well on the golf course, where avoiding distraction is half the battle.

But before jumping to any rash conclusions and handing him the 2012 U.S. Open title, it's important to realize that Woods' game often leaves as quickly as it returns, something Woods himself was guilty of as a married man. As predictable as Woods was during the 1997-2009 time period, he is as equally unpredictable now. No one would be surprised is Woods won four more majors, just as no one would be surprised if he won none.

Right now, the odds seem to be in his favor, but before we can say Woods is truly "back," we'll need Tiger "proof."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 2:42 PM | Comments (0)

June 7, 2012

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Commissioner David Stern sends a memo announcing a mandatory meeting of his staff, including the league's Board of Governors and the head of officiating. "This is highly confidential," the memo stated. "No cameras, no media. Everyone please be prompt."

"We have two very important things to discuss," he says once everyone is assembled. "The outcome of the postseason, and the draft lottery."

Puzzled looks are exchanged around the room. The playoffs were still going on, so how could the outcome be determined until the Championship Series was over? And please, not another change to the lottery, a system that already has fans and teams alike complaining year after year.

"I cannot stress this enough," Stern continues. "Everything that is discussed here today must not leave this room. This means no talking to the media, players, coaches, team executives … no one, period. Are we clear on this?"

Nods and murmurs of assent come from everyone present. It was obvious the Commish had something big on his mind, not just because of what he was saying, but by the serious, determined look on his face as he addressed the group.

"We made it through the lockout and the compressed regular season without too much damage," Stern says. "The postseason is going along pretty well. But we need something better to completely erase the bad taste the fans have from the lockout. We need to create a buzz, something that will keep them glued to their TV sets until the last game of the Finals is played, and last into the offseason."

He pauses for effect. We've got to find a way to ensure the Miami Heat win the title. They're the New York Yankees of the league these days — you may love them, you may hate them, but you'll watch them either way. Sure, the Celtics are still tough, and have that long-standing tradition. But Miami is our drawing card right now."

He turns to look at the head of officials. "This is where your crew comes in," Stern tells him. "I want your refs to do whatever they can to aid the Heat, without being too obvious about it. Try to get Miami more free throw opportunities than Boston. One night, it can be a difference of 20 free throws, another night five or 10. If Boston starts whining, or getting frustrated, give them technicals. Half a dozen one game, two or three another."

A low murmur of surprise can be heard in the room. "Are you saying you want us to fix the series?" the head of officials asks incredulously. "Have you forgotten Tim Donaghy?"

"No, I haven't forgotten Tim Donaghy," Stern says, referring to the NBA referee who was charged with betting on games over a period of seasons and was sent to prison. "He was careless, plus we're not making bets or deals with any players. Just have your refs show a little favor now and then to the Heat. Don't do it every game, just when it looks like Boston is taking control of the series. Even if people start to wonder, it won't be that cut and dry. Assign one of your lower-grade officials to work a game or two for effect."

"I don't know," the head of officials says dubiously. "Seems mighty risky to me. What if fans and the media smell a fix?"

"If there's no proof, it's all speculation, and that's not a bad thing," Stern says. "Remember, we're looking for buzz, something to get people to keep talking about us even after the games are played. The NFL has been eating our lunch lately with the Saints bounty thing, concussions, Brett Favre, Michael Vick, their own lockout. We need to get more of that spotlight for ourselves. More attention leads to higher TV ratings, more ticket sales, more overall revenue."

A few nods and even a smile or two could be seen among the gathering. "Chew on it for a bit, and we'll discuss it some more before we leave," Stern advises. "Meanwhile, let's turn our attention to the lottery, which is coming up soon."

The Board of Governors shift uncomfortably in their seats, wondering what bombshell was about to drop on them.

"As you probably know, (New Orleans Saints Owner) Tom Benson is close to buying the Hornets," Stern says. "A deal hasn't been finalized yet, but we're getting there. We need to sweeten the pot to ensure he's the one who buys the team."

"You mean financially?" one of the Governors asks.

"No, not financially. Through the lottery," Stern explains. "We need to make sure those lottery balls bounce in favor of the Hornets getting that top pick. When they do, Benson will be swept up in the excitement, with cameras and everything. The Hornets will have some momentum going into next season, Benson agrees to buy the team, the deal will be officially finalized, and everyone will benefit."

"You mean you want Benson to be present at the lottery?" another member of the Board asks.

"Exactly," Stern says with a smile. "Sure, it will turn some heads, but again, where there is no real proof, there's only speculation. The media feeds on speculation. Controversy sells. All the buzz, combined with an exciting postseason, will help us both in the short term and going into next season. Now let's break for lunch and come back in an hour for final discussion. Remember, not a word to anyone about all this."

Did such an encounter really take place? Who knows? Who cares? If controversy and speculation are what Stern was looking for to meet his objective, it's certainly working. Conspiracy theorists are everywhere. In the Celtics' Game 2 loss to Miami in the Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James went to the free throw line 24 times, while the entire Boston team took 29 shots from the charity stripe. Three Celtics fouled out. The Celtics' Rajon Rondo received a Dwyane Wade arm in the face late in overtime with the score tied. No call.

As for the lottery, the Hornets did indeed end up with the top pick, while the pitiful Charlotte Bobcats, owned by none other than Michael Jordan, had to be satisfied with the second pick. Tom Benson was present, as if he knew he was about to hit the jackpot, while Jordan was a conspicuous no-show.

Conspiracy, or coincidence? Well, until there is solid proof either way, it's up to you to decide.

Posted by Stephen Kerr at 6:01 PM | Comments (1)

June 6, 2012

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 13

Note: The quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson dominated at Dover, leading 289 laps, including the final 76, to win for the second time this year and capture his seventh victory at the Monster Mile. Johnson is fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 33 behind Greg Biffle.

"I got a great start when we went green for the last time," Johnson said, "and we left Kevin Harvick and the Jimmy Johns No. 29 in our wake. What's the difference in 'Jimmie Johnson' and 'Jimmy Johns?' Three letters: 'W-I-N.'

"You may have seen wearing a multi-colored wig to promote Madagascar 3. Like me, it's a big wig. Many sports fans see a colored wig and expect to see a 'John 3:16' sign. Not in this case. However, you may see a 'Johnson 6:12' sign, after a capture my sixth Cup title this year."

2. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished third in the FedEx 400, posting his eight top-10 result of the year. He has not finished outside the top 11th since a 16th at California and now trails Greg Biffle by only a single point in the standings.

"Jimmie Johnson certainly was dominant," Kenseth said, "even while wearing a silly wig. The funny thing is, he made everyone else look like a clown."

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished fourth in the FedEx 400 at Dover on a stellar day for Hendrick Motorsports, as Jimmie Johnson's win led the way for three HMS cars in the top 10. Earnhardt is now third in the point standings, 10 behind Greg Biffle.

"Doesn't Jimmie look cool in a wig?" Earnhardt said. "If a narrow win is said to be by a 'hair,' then Jimmie's margin of victory over Kevin Harvick must have been by a 'wig.'

"I can't say I'm not jealous, because after 142 races without a win, I'm dying to 'wig out' myself."

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle finished 11th in the FedEx 400, just missing his ninth top-10 of the year. He narrowly remained atop the Sprint Cup point standings, ahead of Roush Fenway teammate Matt Kenseth by a single point.

"Never underestimate the value of a single point," Biffle said. "Carl Edwards never will.

"I'm hanging on to the points lead by a thread. And, as Kurt Busch has said on countless occasions, "I sure hope I don't lose it."

5. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin led two early laps at Dover, but struggled with handling issues before coming home 18th. He dropped one place in the point standings to fourth, 22 out of first place.

"Jimmie Johnson's win was historic," Hamlin said. "His seven Dover wins tied him with Richard Petty and Bobby Allison. It was truly one for the books. And speaking of 'books,' just call Johnson the 'Librarian,' because he checked out on everyone."

6. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex finished a solid yet disappointing seventh at Dover, posting his eighth top-10 result of the year. He remained sixth in the point standings, 45 out of first.

"Jimmie Johnson whipped the field easily," Truex said. "His lead was so big, he was able to celebrate early. I think that's called a 'whoopee cushion.'"

7. Kevin Harvick — Harvick took the runner-up spot at Dover after Jimmie Johnson ran away from the No. 29 Jimmy Johns Chevy on the final restart with 31 laps to go. It was Harvick's second runner-up finish of the year as he continues to search for the season's first win.

"Close, but no cigar," Harvick said. "But no worries. As an expectant father, I can at least expect one cigar this season."

8. Kyle Busch — Busch's engine expired on lap 205, sending the No. 18 M&Ms Toyota to the garage with a 29th in the FedEx 400. Busch fell one place to 9th in the point standings, where he is 80 behind Greg Biffle.

"What can you say?" Busch said. "I say the same thing about engine failure that my brother Kurt says about his emotions: 'I have no control over it.' Kurt is truly psychotic. His car number shouldn't be '51'; it should be '5150.'"

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart was collected in a lap 10 wreck that involved 12 cars and left his No. 14 Chevrolet with considerable damage. He limped home with a 25th-place finish and is now eighth in the point standings, 79 out of first.

"Kurt Busch has been suspended for one race," Stewart said. "And deservedly so. NASCAR had no recourse but to punish him. Kurt forced their hand, just like he did mine when I punched him."

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer led a strong Michael Waltrip Racing charge at Dover, finishing fifth, as teammates Martin Truex, Jr. and Mark Martin finished 7th and 14th, respectively. Bowyer improved two places to 10th in the Sprint Cup point standings, where he is 81 out of first.

"You probably saw Ryan Newman nearly run over one of my crewmen," Bowyer said. "And that was the only time during the race that the words 'That was close!' were uttered. It was a scary moment, almost as scary as Jimmie Johnson's dominance."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:24 AM | Comments (0)

June 5, 2012

Great Teams and NFL Dynasties

Earlier this year, while working on an article about the greatest wide receivers snubbed by the Hall of Fame, I realized that the 1990s Bills have more Hall of Famers than any of the teams that beat them in the Super Bowl. It made me curious about which great teams are over- and under-represented in Canton. But first, I had to decide which teams to look at.

The analysis of which great teams have too many or too few Hall of Famers is coming in a week or two. Below, however, are the results of my initial research — identifying great teams. I used a purely mathematical formula, a quick-and-dirty method that shouldn't be taken as anything other than a general guide.

The formula is simple. A winning season is worth 1 point. That rises to 2 points if the team finished at least .750, and 3 points if it was over .850. For all seasons, I used the modern system in which a tie counts as ½-win, ½-loss. A championship victory is worth 3 additional points, but a championship appearance is worth 1 even if the team loses. A losing season incurs a -1 penalty, as do all AAFC seasons and all AFL seasons prior to 1966 (beginning of Super Bowl Era).

From 1966-69, the loser of the AFL title game doesn't get the normal 1-point bonus, and starting in '66, only Super Bowl winners get the +3 bonus for league champions. Basically:

We'll break this down by length of dynasty, starting with five years. There are 48 teams with more than 10 "points" over a five-year span, not including overlaps:

Obviously, most of these teams are not true dynasties, but with even with so many teams making the cut, 10 is a competitive standard. It omits the Dan Reeves Broncos (1985-89, 7 pts), the Sid Gillman Chargers (1961-65, 8 pts), the Lou Saban Bills (1962-66, 9 pts), the Donovan McNabb Eagles (2000-04, 9 pts), and any number of other fine teams that dominated their conferences, but not necessarily their leagues. Even multiple champions like the Jim Plunkett Raiders and Tom Coughlin Giants barely meet the cutoff. Certainly I would regard any discussion of the Giants as a dynasty to be premature.

The obvious standout is the Marion Motley Browns, who lost six games in five seasons and won the league championship every year. In the Super Bowl era, the standout is the Steel Curtain, closely followed by the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys, the Tom Brady Patriots, and — somewhat surprisingly, since few people consider them a dynasty — the Paul Warfield Dolphins, who played in three straight Super Bowls and won back-to-back titles.

At six years, there are 33 teams with at least 13 points, and curiously, all of them have at least 14:

The Browns are joined at the top by the Vince Lombardi Packers and the Steel Curtain, then several very old teams and the Joe Montana 49ers. There are only four teams in history with an .800 winning percentage over six seasons or more: the Manning/Dungy Colts, the Paul Warfield Dolphins, the Sid Luckman Bears, and the Otto Graham Browns, who are at almost .900. It's worth noting that you could easily name two mini-dynasties after Warfield, with the Dolphins joining the 1964-69 Browns, who played in four NFL Championship Games in six years.

Finally, please remember that I haven't listed any overlapping years for the same team, so (for instance) the 2007-11 Patriots and the early years of the Montana/Walsh Dynasty aren't listed at all. Those seasons will reappear as we look at longer time periods.

There are 24 teams with at least 17 "points" over seven years.

Some readers may feel that I am putting insufficient weight on championships. Certainly dynasties are first and foremost about winning titles. At the same time, I'd consider a team that goes 12-4 every year to be more dynastic than one that wins a couple titles and immediately fades away. The Broncos from 1999-02 were 34-30 and only made the playoffs once. Should their two championships in 1997-98 count as more dynastic than seven years of dominating your own conference? Obviously I don't consider a team like the 1969-75 Vikings or the 1966-72 Cowboys a true dynasty, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to rate them ahead of the Terrell Davis Broncos or the Tom Coughlin Giants. Dynasties are the teams other clubs are scared of facing, or excited to test themselves against, year-in, year-out, and throughout the season. Going 9-7 and getting hot in the playoffs is hardly dynastic.

Third place at this level (7 years) features a tie between the Steel Curtain and the Sid Luckman Bears. 1937-43 provides Chicago with maximum points, but the Bears would also qualify for the top ten from 1931-37 (21 pts) and 1938-44 (22 pts), 14 years back to back. The 1967-73 and 1974-80 Raiders nearly did the same thing, with the earlier group netting 15 points in the formula.

Looking at eight-year blocks, there are 21 teams that meet a 19-point standard:

For anyone confused as to how the no-rings Vikings are sticking on the list, look at their winning percentage. It's better than everyone except the Otto Graham Browns and the Sid Luckman Bears. I know they didn't win any Super Bowls, but that was a scary team. Another team that failed to win any Super Bowls, the 1967-74 Raiders (84-21-7, also .781), just missed the list. The Joe Gibbs dynasty has dropped off, as well, though it will be back.

Moving on to nine years, we're under 20 teams, with only 18 rating at least 20 points in the formula.

The early Bears and Packers both maximize their nine-year scores from 1936-44. During those nine seasons, the Bears won the NFL Western Division five times and the Packers won the Western Division four times. It was a similar story in the Eastern Division, dominated by the Redskins (5) and Giants (4). Those were consistently great teams (especially in the West, which won six of the nine titles), but probably less impressive than modern dynasties, which dominate a much larger, much more competitive league.

From 2010-11, the Patriots were 27-5 and lost a Super Bowl. For 2001-02, they won a championship, but went 20-12 and missed the playoffs one year. New England's score is one point better for 2003-11 than 2001-09. Similarly, the 49ers went 3-6 in the strike-shortened '82 season, so 1984-92 actually rates better in the formula than 1981-89, which includes a fourth Super Bowl.

Eighteen teams averaged more than two formula points over 10 seasons. For the most part, these are the greatest dynasties in NFL history.

It's surprising how often historic teams are great at the same time. The Bears, Packers, Redskins, and Giants were the only teams to appear in an NFL Championship Game between 1936-44. The Browns, Lions, and Rams were the only ones from 1950-55. The Packers and Colts in the '60s. The '70s were a decade of dynasties: the Steel Curtain, Roger Staubach Cowboys, Paul Warfield Dolphins, the Vikings, the Raiders — even the Rams, who from 1966-80 had 14 winning seasons in 15 years and won more than two-thirds of their games (149-60-7, .706).

In the 1980s, San Francisco is not strongly distinguished from Washington, and at times the Bill Parcells Giants or Mike Ditka Bears seemed just as dominant. Perhaps most notably, the 2001-10 Patriots and Colts are both listed above. These teams, division opponents only in 2001, when the Colts were awful ("Playoffs! Playoffs?! Don't talk about playoffs!") nonetheless formed the NFL's greatest and most anticipated rivalry over the last decade.

No team really stays together for more than 10 seasons, but just for fun, here are the top five at 12, 15, and 20 years. Twelve:

Okay, actually top six at this level because of a tie between the Lombardi Packers and Belichick Patriots. Something interesting about the Packers is that their .680 winning percentage over these 12 seasons is actually three games worse than the Baltimore Colts (112-47-5, .698) over the same time, 1959-70. Both teams played in the NFL's Western Conference, so their schedules were effectively the same. Baltimore registers 27 "points" during this period.

Other than the Niners with Bill Walsh and George Seifert, all of these teams are identified with a single head coach who sustained success: Paul Brown, George Halas, Curly Lambeau, Vince Lombardi, and Bill Belichick. A reasonable argument could be made that those are the five greatest coaches in history.

The top five after 15 seasons:

The Browns and Bears average better than three points per season even over a decade and a half. Teams just missing the list include the 1957-71 Colts, 1966-80 Raiders, and 1971-85 Dolphins. From 1981-83, the Niners went 26-15. From 1996-98, they were 37-11. Yes, I know this means going with Terrell Owens over Dwight Clark. It's just a stupid formula, okay? Blame math.

The 1966-85 Raiders barely edge the 1966-85 Cowboys (43). Over those 20 years, the teams combined for one losing season (the '81 Raiders were 7-9). For all the praise and attention rightly lavished on the Lombardi Packers and the Steel Curtain and the Montana 49ers, it's surprising (and a shame) how seldom fans and writers mention the Paul Brown years in Cleveland and the Steve Young era in San Francisco. Those were dominant teams. The Browns pretty clearly were the greatest dynasty in history, but because their best years came before football was widely televised, ESPN pretends they didn't exist and no one remembers them.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:02 PM | Comments (0)

June 4, 2012

C'mon, Eddie! Nobody Believes Anymore

If you happened to be in shouting distance of Boston after the Celtics' Game 2 loss to the Heat last Wednesday night, you would have noticed unbridled confidence exuding from fans and talk show hosts as they awaited the weekend arrival of the Eastern Conference Finals to the Hub. This was no "we-can-beat-those-Brits-once-we-toss-their-tea-into-the-harbor" gut feeling, but rather the kind of fait accompli knowledge usually experienced by only pro wrestlers or the party incumbents during North Korea's parliamentary elections.

Such prevailing certainty belies the product Coach Doc Rivers has put on the court this postseason: three aging veterans with all manner of physical ailments, a point guard whose most consistent quality is his petulance, and a rotating cast of journeymen who are as reluctant to stand up in the wake of Avery Bradley's season-ending shoulder surgery as the impostors on an old episode of To Tell the Truth.

Upon closer examination, there was little at work here in the way of Celtic Pride or faith that The Big Three could summon some bottled youth to dig their way out of an 0-2 hole and make one last Finals appearance. Rather, this was a certainty rooted more in the perception of NBA front office corruption. Bostonians accept that the Heat are the Chosen Ones for this year's Finals, but equally believe David Stern would not deem it in the best interests of the league for these teams to take the primetime stage Sunday night in a 3-0 series. It would kill ratings.

Skepticism and downright disbelief now seem to permeate every chink in the once impenetrable honor of the NBA of my youth. From Patrick Ewing earmarked for the Knicks in the first-ever lottery in 1985 and LeBron James for the hometown Cavaliers in 2003, from the Phantom Foul on Bill Laimbeer to every one of Magic Johnson's three-step odysseys to the basket, every bounce of the ping-pong ball or blow of the whistle seems scripted. And not just to Bostonians.

In an ongoing USA Today poll, 54% of the 8,800 respondents to date believe the NBA lottery is fixed, while only 18% dismiss the thought out of hand. The Sacramento Bee places more trust in the word of the Mafia than the results of the lottery. Ebony certified it as "officially and classifiably rigged."

Doubts circulate from within as well. Last May, GM David Khan called it "a pretty incredible story line" when his Timberwolves, with the highest probability of getting the top pick, watched the Cavaliers take that honor less than a year after Lebron fled to South Beach. This spring, Yahoo! Sports reports several unnamed team executives opining that the award of the top pick to the league-owned Hornets was a joke. Of course, it didn't help Stern's cause when Anthony Davis was seen wearing a Hornets cap before the lottery.

In my formative years, a coin flip settled the draft order. It could have been a two-headed coin for all I knew, but only the two most deserving teams had a chance. And it didn't seem to affect any other facet of the game. Once the ball was tossed up, there was integrity in the outcome. Nobody got more than one pivot step. Stars could foul out, even in playoff games. And technical fouls were more scarce than hair strands on the crown of Manu Ginobili's head. The league stayed off the court, and small markets with a paucity of stars that today would not be in Stern's best interests – Portland, Baltimore/Washington, Seattle – won championships.

Then came Bird and Magic and Jordan and Bryant. The Association got its crack fix. Superstars were drawing all the attention and they were aligned with winners. Teams with one of these four pioneers of the new NBA have won 19 of the 32 championships since 1979, when the first of them came into the league. Ratings rose, and 645 Fifth Avenue took notice, defending its coveted with vigor.

Now, when the occasional Insurrection arises, things get barbaric. Take the 2002 Western Finals. In what is surely the Worst Game Ever Called, the dissident Sacramento Kings pushed the favorite-son Lakers to the brink of elimination, but Stern's minions went all Tiananmen Square on them in Game 6. Although officials couldn't put the ball in the basket for the Lakers with any more competence than Bryant and his supporting cast that night, they could call fouls and get Los Angeles to the line, which they did for an astonishing 27 free throw attempts in just the fourth quarter. The Lakers ultimately prevailed in a contest so egregiously officiated that consumer advocate Ralph Nader was prompted to call for an investigation. The Kings' revolt had been suppressed, as was all my faith in NBA officiating.

Which brings us to this past weekend, and my acceptance of the prevailing sentiment sweeping the NBA.

Ousted former ref Tim Donaghy appeared on one of Boston's two major sports radio stations during the past week, telling fans "the referees know what's good for the league, and what's good for them." What's good for the league is an extended series. What's good for them is a paycheck through June.

Donaghy, of course, was relieved of his whistle back in 2007, but has become the prosecution's key witness against Stern & Co., citing numerous instances of the league managing game outcomes through their officials. But he is also the personification of league corruption, and there is unrest over the four technical fouls called against Boston in Game 1 — one given to Rivers by Ed Murray after the Celtics coach complained, "C'mon, Eddie!" and one to Ray Allen for a "No!" he exclaimed as he walked away — all part of the 26-5 advantage in techs Miami enjoys over its opponents this spring. This was exacerbated in Game 2 by the Sacramento-like 31-18 imbalance of fouls called against Boston. The Heat got 18 extra free throw attempts en route to an overtime victory, prompting the other sports station to pan for attendees of Game 3 to wear Tim Donaghy masks in protest.

On Boston airwaves, refs for Celtics games are discussed in more depth than starting pitchers for Red Sox games. That's because there is a genuine belief that refs have more control over an NBA game outcome than do starting pitchers over a MLB game. They're not alone. Here's the line on tonight's game from one of several websites where refs are handicapped like any other game factor. Another website offers up-to-the-minute stats on referee tendencies.

Friday's crew was cause for celebration. Rodney Mott leads the league in home team favorability, while Scott Foster is a Donaghy disciple who cavorted with the game-throwing master several times a week for a six-month period after the latter's dismissal, and could be counted on to tow the company line. Foster on the mound was as good as Cy Young himself to Bostonians on Friday night. In the end, Boston won, due more to their 58 points in the paint than any turning of the tables through hometown calls. Which is part of this crime.

The NBA is far and away the least credible of the four major professional sports leagues, yet it continues to fan these flames. The Heat were winning Game 1 with or without the aid of 4 ticky-tack techs. They are a far more youthful, energetic, and talented team, so why demean that by calling such a disparity of fouls in Game 2, further playing into public mistrust? Boston did what was in the best interests of the league in Games 3 and 4, but you can bet — no really, you should have taken the C's and given the points — there were plenty of safety nets in place this weekend to ensure it. One may have ensnared James when he fouled out during the overtime period of last night's Game 4, which helped the C's to even the series.

The game I fell in love with as a boy is gone. Today's NBA has become more an acronym for Nobody Believes Anymore. If you want entertainment with tamper-proof results, Season 12 of American Idol starts in January. At least, that's the message I get when the auditor from Telescope brings out the official results in a sealed envelope every May. In the meantime, the only way I'll believe any NBA final score is if Ryan Seacrest himself dims the lights and announces the winner to me.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

Top Five Surprises of the MLB Season

Baseball is a funny game in that anything can happen on any day at any moment. At least once a season, we hear a broadcaster or writer or analyst claim that they saw something they've never seen before. With two months of the current MLB season in the books, here are five things that, while maybe they're not that uncommon, are surprising to me.

1. Albert Pujols — As a Seattle Mariners fan, when it was announced that Pujols was coming to the Angels, it took away any sense of hope that the M's could contend for the AL West title. The initial thought was that Texas finally had someone in the division to contend with and that Albert was the one who would make the Angels that team. Well, while the Angels are nipping at the Rangers' heels (only 4.5 games back), it hasn't been Pujols that's been keeping them near the top. His .238 batting average and 8 home runs — all in the month of May — are career lows for him at this juncture of the season. And although it appears he's picking up steam, he has a lot of ground to make up to match the offensive production of past years.

2. Los Angeles Dodgers — Here's a team that was picked to be near the middle or bottom of the NL West, yet they've managed to put together the best record in baseball two months into the season. What's interesting is that this is basically the same roster they had last year when they won only 82 games. Add to that the fact that they've kept up the pace, despite Matt Kemp being on the DL for a couple weeks, and the Dodgers may be the biggest surprise of the National League so far … or are they?

3. NL East — Okay, so either I need to get my eyes checked or I simply need to accept the fact that the Washington Nationals and Miami Marlins are at the top of the division. Last season, the Nats finished a game below .500 and the Marlins were dead last in the division, losing 90 games; but somehow they've both come out strong to start the season. Of course, baseball has a very long season, so anything could happen between now and October, but if they continue to stay atop the standings and both make the playoffs, that would be even more surprising than the Dodgers finishing with the best record in baseball.

4. Philip Humber's Perfect Game — Here's a guy who has been in and out of the minors since breaking in to "The Show" back in 2006, although to be fair his previous two seasons only saw him pitch one game each in the minors. Last year was his best season by far, posting a 9-9 record with a 3.75 ERA. Yet somehow he stymied the Mariners on April 21 to pitch the 21st perfecto in baseball history. But, as I said at the top, baseball is a funny game and its unpredictability is what can place a guy like Humber in the record books with the likes of Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, and Randy Johnson.

5. Three No-Hitters — Okay, so maybe this isn't so surprising. There have been several seasons where three or more no-hitters have been tossed; no-nos seem to come in bunches. But the fact that all three this season were thrown in the first two months (a first) makes me wonder if we'll see a repeat of 2010 when six no-nos were twirled, or 1990 and '91 when seven were thrown in each season. And since no one can predict when a no-hitter will happen, who knows how many we could have the rest of the way? At this pace, we could easily see nine this season — or we could see none.

So, while baseball seems to always be full of surprises, who knows if they will stay this way? Will Pujols get on a tear and pull his numbers up to what most people expect? Will the Dodgers, Nationals, and Marlins be able to continue their current winning paces? Or will we see a flurry of no-hitters and perfect games this season? Only time will tell, and with four months left in the season, there's plenty of time to find out.

Posted by Adam Russell at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)

June 2, 2012

Foul Territory: It's Slammer Time!

* Let's Get Ready to Humble — Floyd Mayweather, Jr. began his 87-day jail term in Las Vegas on Friday for domestic battery charges. Mayweather has won a multitude of belts in his illustrious career, and plans to wear all of them while incarcerated.

* Slim Pickings, or Finally, It's a "Bounty" New Orleans Can Embrace — The New Orleans Hornets won the NBA's draft lottery on Wednesday night, earning the first pick in the June 28th draft, in which they are expected to select Anthony Davis. Davis said he'd like the chance to "stop Kobe Bryant," which probably wouldn't be the first time a 19-year-old has said that.

* French Lick, or Clay Achin', or She Got Served — Serena Williams lost in the first round at the French Open on Monday, her first-ever loss in a Grand Slam opener. Williams lost 4-6, 7-6 (5), 6-3 to 111th-ranked Virginia Razzano of France. In related news, Sir Mixalot lost all interest in the French Open.

* Read it and Weep — The New Orleans Saints had a ledger that tracked bounty earnings according to sources familiar with the NFL's investigation. The league showed portions of the ledger to players who have been investigated in the scandal, making it the second time the NFL has thrown the book at Saints players.

* The Doc is Out, or Roger Clemens is Amazed, That a Pitcher Can Heal Naturally — Roy Halladay is expected to miss 6-8 weeks to recover from a right latissimus dorsi strain, an injury that will not require surgery. In pitching circles, "latissimus dorsi" is a large muscle in the back. In Roger Clemens circles, "Latissimus Dorsi" is a shady Italian doctor willing to testify on Clemens' behalf but who has mysteriously disappeared.

* It's Unclear Who'll Have Higher Ratings, Nielsen or Miami Quarterbacks — The Miami Dolphins agreed to appear on HBO's "Hard Knocks," which will chronicle their 2012 preseason, the first under new head coach Joe Philbin. The first episode airs on August 7th, with four episodes to follow, which means, as many expect, the 'Fins season will be over before it started.

* They Fired Them Some You, or He's Going Deep, and Deeper Into Debt, or He Vowed He Could Sell Tickets, and May Have to — Terrell Owens was released on Monday by the Allen Wranglers of the Indoor Football League, and Owens' ownership stake in the franchise was also terminated because he violated the terms of his contract. It all begs the question: if Owens gives a workout open to the public and no one is watching, does it make a sound?

* The Jordan Rules (Out) — The Charlotte Bobcats will continue their search for a new head coach after owner Michael Jordan told Patrick Ewing he didn't make the cut. Surprisingly, Ewing rejoiced, because everyone knows that when Jordan picks a big man, it leads to certain failure.

* That's a Pay Cut at Some Schools — Steve Spurrier said college football players should be paid $3,500-$4,000 per year to cover expenses. Spurrier's idea is slightly different than "pay to play" programs he administered at other schools, such as the "pay to play dumb," in which players were paid, but said they weren't.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)