Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« January 2013 | Main | March 2013 »

February 28, 2013

Disliked Mike

On February 17, Michael Jordan turned 50. In a barren sports week, many media outlets used the milestone to remember and reevaluate Jordan's half century (and I guess fill time, too).

The coverage continued a narrative that has grown since Jordan retired one last time in 2003, exponentially so following his 2009 Hall of Fame induction speech. After two decades of adulation for unequaled on-court performance, the media have reimagined the world's greatest basketball player as the scorched remnants of a once great house, gutted by a competitive fire that spared neither friend nor foe.

To hear some tell it, Jordan is Daniel Day-Lewis' There Will Be Blood antihero, Daniel Plainview, a personification of ego and the offspring of extreme ambition and capitalism. Like Plainview, Jordan's drive to self-realization alienated family and friends along the way.

These depictions of Jordan miss the point. To fixate on the sad solitude in Jordan's present is to recklessly ignore why he achieved greatness in his glory days. The narrative of 50-year-old Jordan's malaise suggests he should want to change something in his past to reinvent his present and future. But why should he?

The stories of Jordan's maniacal post-practice shooting games and golf wagers spinning out of hand are legendary. But they are inseparable symptoms of the chronic competitiveness that drove Jordan. And that drive is just as inseparable from his achievements.

Oh sure, we would like to believe that malicious personality traits do not reward athletes for seemingly ill-gotten gains. At least we tell our kids that. But the system is not designed this way.

In reality, sports are one of the purest forms of zero sum competitions. There are only a few thousand major college basketball scholarships available at any given time. There are only a few hundred NBA roster spots. There are only a couple dozen All-Star nominations annually. And there is only one championship each year. None of these rewards can be shared, so any edge to help win them appeals to players, costs be damned.

You see, hidden behind the "over-competitive" Jordan mythology lies another way in which he differs from the rest of us. Michael Jordan was more committed to winning NBA titles than most of us are to anything else.

The vast majority of us bring an exit strategy into any endeavor as a trusty sidekick, a means by which we can salvage something before reaching complete devastation and failure. But at some point in his basketball life, Jordan disabled his ejector seat. When quitting is off the table, there are no limits to how intensely someone will fight. A few bad impressions or hurt feelings certainly seemed like a bargain to a championship-bent Jordan.

This self-destructive level of commitment is not unique, however. Consider the endless collection of performance-enhancing-drug-using athletes so committed to excelling at their sport that they disregard their futures. Jordan's willingness to sacrifice relationships to win is no different than an athlete sacrificing his longevity to higher peak performance with PEDs.

But the harm of these choices is not solely caused by some alpha males with misplaced priorities and a lack of perspective. We adore sports for somewhat basic primal reasons.

One irresistible part of sports is their spectacle. As much as analysis or tradition enhance these games, athletic competition appeals to use because it suggests the best man can achieve with 100% dedication and pits two potentially equal sides against each other to demonstrate it.

Athletes, along with celebrities, are our royalty. They receive the wealth and glamor to prove it, so there should be no surprise when these high stakes games attract those willing to combine good genes with unyielding self-sacrifice, whether their costs be physical or emotional pain.

A more likeable Jordan, one who didn't trade in outright nastiness, wouldn't have won six titles and defined the NBA. We might not like his personality or we might pity the pains he goes through rebuilding his personal life, but we all got what we bargained for.

Today, the boom of cheap cameras and social media have made our athletes more human. These people now resemble, well, people instead of pictures on a television or numbers in a box score. The iconic Jordan of the 1980s and '90s was a cartoon from Madison Avenue. We never really knew the real man away from the red 23 jersey.

But strip away the games, and we only have the man to consider. Without his armor, the gladiator's scars aren't pretty; they only remind us both of what his victories cost him. You can fault Jordan for his flaws, but realize it's your own guilt speaking.

Were we not entertained?

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 5:28 PM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2013

Has Season Already Ended For Some?

In general, the passing of the calendar year marks a turning point in the NHL season. While it's usually when fans are shaking off the holiday doldrums and the media focuses on the Winter Classic, it generally provides a breaking point for teams with playoff aspirations and those that should start thinking about the draft. There's no exact science to this, but by looking at the rough midpoint of the year, this timeframe marks the point when teams slipping away (those hovering below .500) can pack it in.

Of course, with a compacted schedule due to the lockout, the formula gets tweaked. And as most teams look at the rough one-third point in their 48-game schedule, the point of no return may be closer than many people think.

Consider this: the magic .500 mark used in the traditional calendar has more to do with staying within striking distance than actual playoff plans. In a typical NHL season, being .500 come New Year's Day means that you're only a handful of points outside of the 8th spot. That stature also means that one hot streak over a week or two could take big steps to leaping over the competition.

For this year's shortened schedule, though, several other variables some into play that create a bit of bias to the equation. Teams aren't playing opposing conferences, which means that there are no throwaway games — every win, loss, and overtime extra point goes directly into the records of a team's record. (bwin Ice Hockey is a good place to bet on hockey.)

Three-point games — which have been plentiful — can fattening the glut of teams in the middle. With this out-of-the-ordinary point distribution, it makes it more difficult for teams at the bottom to gain ground. It's not just about getting on a hot streak, it's about hitting that stride while hoping that competing teams produce as few three-point games as possible.

So, take one shortened schedule, add in conference-only play, then stir in 3-point games, and you'll wind up with slower-than-usual movement up and down the rankings. Remember, while the goal is to hoard as many points as possible, you're also stuck with the reality of leapfrogging opponents. Because of this, there's no linear correlation between an 82-game pace and a 48-game pace. The first dozen or so games were critical in terms of placement, and the next batch were about establishing any movement from there (good or bad). The 20-game mark does feel to be the logical breaking point for the season — that is, if you're hovering around .500 (within two or three points) at that time, there's still hope.

There are exceptions to the rule; a team that's been considered dead has enough time to put together 10-game points streak, but how many teams can do that? Teams with lowly records are often their for a reason, so barring a miracle, it's pretty safe to count Buffalo and Columbus as the first teams to start thinking about next season. And depending on how the rest of the week plays out, Washington and Florida might be next.

It's definitely not fun as a fan to think that your team is out only 20 games into the schedule. But there is one silver lining to the lockout-shortened season — at least next season, along with all the hope it carries, isn't that far away.

Posted by Mike Chen at 4:48 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 1

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson won his second Daytona 500, leading the final 10 laps and holding off a late charge from Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"It was a historic day at Daytona," Johnson said, "especially for women. Danica Patrick pocketed $357,464 in prize money, while Erin Andrews lost 50 Cents.

"It's great to win my second Daytona 500, and first for Chad Knaus. As you may recall, Chad was suspended for my first 500 in 2006, but he was with me there in spirit, and in my rear window."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt's last-lap charge gave him his second consecutive Daytona 500 runner-up finish, and third in four years, as Hendrick teammate Jimmie Johnson took the win.

"I was a day late and a dollar short," Earnhardt said, "as opposed to a certain rapper, who was a half-dollar short.

"Finishing second at Daytona, followed by a disappointing result in the Chase, has been the story of my career. It's a case of 'so close, yet so far away.'"

3. Brad Keselowski — NASCAR's defending champion overcame early damage after being collected in an early crash and battle back to finish fourth in the Daytona 500. Keselowski led 13 laps on the day, and trails Jimmie Johnson by six points.

"As you may have heard," Keselowski said, "I was called to speak to NASCAR brass about some comments I made critical of NASCAR. I was politely told to keep my foot on the pedal and out of my mouth."

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle qualified fifth and finished sixth at Daytona, the top finisher among the Roush Fenway Racing trio, as Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. finished 12th and Carl Edwards finished 33rd.

"Stenhouse is dating the hottest driver in NASCAR," Biffle said, "while Edwards is the coldest driver in NASCAR."

5. Regan Smith — Smith, in the No. 51 Phoenix Racing Chevrolet, finished a strong seventh in the Daytona 500, leading one lap.

"50 Cent says 'He doesn't see black people,'" Smith said. "If memory serves me, there once was a wrapper named '6 Cents' who also didn't see black people, but did see dead people.

"As the driver of the car once piloted by Kurt Busch, I'm proud to say that Phoenix Racing no longer sees crazy people."

6. Mark Martin — Martin finished third in the Daytona 500, moving up with a late charge while pushing Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to a second-place finish.

"I'm now 0-29 at Daytona," Martin said, "so finishing third is nothing special. It's like 'kissing a sister,' and I want to do that about as much as Erin Andrews wants to kiss a 'brother.'

"My man 50 Cent said he didn't see any black people at Daytona. I say, look, Fitty, it's Sunday at Daytona. There's only one 'race.'"

7. Danica Patrick — Patrick started on the pole at Daytona and became the first female driver to lead a lap in the iconic NASCAR event. She eventually finished eighth, by far her best Sprint Cup finish.

"The No. 10 GoDaddy.Com Chevrolet not only had horsepower," Patrick said, "it had girl power.

"Kudos to Erin Andrews for rejecting the advances of 50 Cent. What kind of man complains about the lack of black people, then goes in for a kiss on the girl in the white 'wrapper?'

"I guess I silenced most of my critics with my performance, but not all of them. There are some creeps still monitoring the GoDaddy.com website who wish I'd show more of myself."

8. Ryan Newman — With Tony Stewart knocked out early, Newman led the charge for Stewart-Haas Racing, leading three laps and finishing fifth at Daytona.

"I hate it for Tony," Newman said. "His run of bad luck continued in the 500. Tony can't catch a break, unlike the Daytona catchfence, which catches brakes, tires, and engines. You've got to hand it to NASCAR fans for coming to the race on Sunday despite what happened on Saturday. Those fans have a commendable 'debris de corps.'"

9. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished 11th in the Daytona 500, one of only two Toyotas in the top 11.

"Judging by what happened early in the race," Bowyer said, "Jimmie Johnson was not the Hendrick driver I expected to win the race. After the race, I felt like I was back at Phoenix when I kept asking, 'Where's Jeff Gordon?'

"I'm just pleased my Toyota engine didn't blow up like those of the Joe Gibbs Racing cars. Those JGR engines are like milk — that expiration date will sneak up on you."

10. Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. — Stenhouse, in the No. 17 Roush Fenway Ford, finished 12th at Daytona after starting 28th, joining teammate Greg Biffle in the top 12.

"It looks like Danica Patrick and I have taken our driving to another level," Stenhouse said. "It remains to be seen whether our relationship will follow. I sure hope so. Until then, though, Danica and I will collectively be known as 'Hot and Bothered.'

"I hold a unique position among NASCAR drivers. I'm the only driver who can say he's dating a 'fellow' driver and still retain his manhood."

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

February 26, 2013

Ronda Rousey, Jon Fitch, and UFC Rankings

Five Quick Hits

* The UFC cut 16 fighters last week, including Jon Fitch, Jacob Volkmann, Vladimir Matyushenko, Terry Etim, and Ulysses Gomez. If you follow MMA at all, you've read about this already and you probably have strong feelings about it. I won't miss most of the guys who got cut, but I don't agree with dropping Fitch and Gomez in particular. Fitch lends significant credibility wherever he signs, and the UFC shouldn't be cutting flyweights right now.

* If you missed Bellator 90 last Thursday on Spike, well, you need to find a way to see it. Sensational card. This season of Bellator has been very strong. The influx of Russian fighters has served the promotion well.

* You know what would be great? Eddie Alvarez vs. Gilbert Melendez. I like Bellator, but this contract dispute and lawsuit with Alvarez is not good for the company. In retrospect, I also wish the UFC, rather than offering Alvarez a standard contract with pay-per-view bonuses and such, had just blown him away with a cash offer Bellator wouldn't match.

* I am not as impressed with Melendez as most MMA journalists seem to be. He got very lucky in his questionable decision win over Josh Thomson last May, and he's been ducking fights ever since waiting for Strikeforce to fold. His quality of competition hasn't been the same caliber as the UFC's top 10, and I would have liked to see him win a fight against someone like Jim Miller before he battles for UFC gold.

* Toughest remaining test for Ronda Rousey at 135 pounds? Maybe Marloes Coenen, who has a nifty grappling game of her own.

Ronda Rousey vs. Liz Carmouche

Ronda Rousey brought women's mixed martial arts to the UFC, and on Saturday night, she won the first women's bout in UFC history. Rousey is a judo Olympian with the nastiest armbars in MMA. She's 7-0 in MMA, and all seven wins were first-round armbars. Giva Santana is nicknamed "The Arm Collector", and 13 of his 18 wins are by armbar, but I give Rousey the edge. She's kind of a one-trick pony, actually: judo throw, armbar, tap tap tap. So far, no one can stop her.

Carmouche actually came closest, taking Rousey's back and locking on a rear naked choke that turned into a nasty neck crank. Even when Rousey locked on her famous armbar, Carmouche held on and nearly made it out of the first round. It was a game effort, and a great advertisement for women in the UFC. Rousey is very attractive, and that's a huge part of her appeal, but she can fight.

Elsewhere on the UFC 157 card, Lyoto Machida edged Dan Henderson in an uneventful top contender match at 205, and Urijah Faber showed again why he keeps getting title shots. Robbie Lawler won with a mildly controversial knockout of Josh Koscheck, Court McGee looked good in a decision over Josh Neer, and Dennis Bermudez vs. Matt Grice won Fight of the Night, largely on the strength of a third round that looks like the early favorite for Round of the Year. It was a solid night of fights, but it will be remembered for Rousey's win and the Bermudez/Grice battle.

February 2013 UFC Rankings

The rankings below are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Michael Chandler or Alexander Shlemenko on these lists. These rankings do not count as part of the UFC's official rankings.

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

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

Make It Happen: Josh Barnett in the UFC

Barnett has been coy about the details that are holding up his deal with Zuffa, and Dana White has yet to go on a profanity-laced tirade about Barnett's demands. But it's hard to understand how this isn't the best direction for both parties. The UFC wants the best fighters in the world, and Barnett presumably wants to prove he's still one of them.

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

The two best heavyweight strikers in MMA. The UFC originally wanted to do JDS and Barnett, but I like this even better.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

1. Jon Jones
2. Lyoto Machida
3. Dan Henderson
4. Alexander Gustafsson
5. Mauricio Rua
6. Chael Sonnen
7. Glover Texeira
8. Rashad Evans
9. Phil Davis
10. Antonio Rogerio Nogueira

Make It Happen: winner of Jones-Sonnen vs. Machida

Sonnen's title shot has royally screwed up the matchmaking in this weight class, with a backlog of qualified contenders. Title shots have been promised to both Machida and to Gustaffson, the latter on the condition that he beats Gegard Mousasi this April. But then again, the UFC had guaranteed Henderson and Machida title fights already, and they were both passed over in favor of a middleweight on a losing streak. Machida scored a devastating knockout against Ryan Bader, beat the top-ranked contender in Henderson, and gave Jon Jones more trouble than anyone else he's faced in the UFC. Machida's next fight should be for the belt.

I'd also like to see Henderson or Rua vs. Evans.

Thank You, UFC, For: Davis vs. Vinny Magalhaes

Magalhaes is really nowhere near the top 10, but the jiu-jitsu champion is an interesting matchup for a wrestler like Davis. My one fear is that Davis doesn't want to take Magalhaes down, and Vinny can't get Davis to the floor, so this ends up as a dull striking contest between two grapplers.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Chris Weidman
3. Vitor Belfort
4. Michael Bisping
5. Yushin Okami
6. Luke Rockhold
7. Alan Belcher
8. Hector Lombard
9. Jacare Souza
10. Brian Stann

In last week's official UFC rankings, Costa Philippou placed as the #5 contender and Mark Muñoz as #6, the equivalents of 6th and 7th on my list. I have no problem ranking either fighter in the top 10, but here's why I didn't: neither has beaten anyone in the top 10. Philippou knocked out Tim Boetsch, and Muñoz won a decision over current welterweight Demian Maia, but those are their best wins.

The same criticism (no top-10 wins) applies to Belcher, Stann, Lombard, and Souza. If you wanted to flip one or two of them with Muñoz and/or Philippou, I'd have no problem with that. But Belcher and Souza have shown me more, and Lombard's all-around game gives him greater potential. Stann, I admit, is more or less a coin flip over the other two.

Thank You, UFC, For: Philippou vs. Jacare

This fight has been announced for May 18. It's an interesting striker-vs-grappler matchup, and Philippou is one of several middleweights on the periphery of the top 10. He could easily be on the list, and in this fight, he can prove it.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Carlos Condit
3. Johny Hendricks
4. Nick Diaz
5. Rory MacDonald
6. Demian Maia
7. Martin Kampmann
8. Jake Ellenberger
9. * pours one out for Jon Fitch*
10. Tarec Saffiedine

Make It Happen: Mike Pierce vs. Tyron Woodley

Both are around that 10-15 range, and this fight should push one into the top 10.

Thank You, UFC, For: Hendricks vs. Condit

I don't understand why the UFC refuses to put Hendricks in a title fight, but if he beats Condit, they kind of have to. The downside is that if Condit wins and GSP defends the belt against Diaz, we might get St-Pierre vs. Maia, which is less exciting.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. Ben Henderson
2. Anthony Pettis
3. Gray Maynard
4. Gilbert Melendez
5. Nate Diaz
6. Jim Miller
7. Donald Cerrone
8. Joe Lauzon
9. T.J. Grant
10. Jamie Varner

I know Pettis is dropping to 145 to fight Jose Aldo, but I already have enough lightweights ranked at 145, and it's not clear where Pettis' future is.

Make It Happen: Varner vs. Rafael Dos Anjos

I couldn't decide whether to rank Varner or Dos Anjos 10th. This fight would clear things up.

Thank You, UFC, For: Diego Sanchez vs. Takanori Gomi

This probably won't have much impact on the title picture, but it's a matchup of two veterans who can bring it. And honestly, the rest of the match-making in this division leaves something to be desired.

Featherweight (136-145)

1. Jose Aldo
2. Frankie Edgar
3. Ricardo Lamas
4. Chan Sung Jung
5. Chad Mendes
6. Cub Swanson
7. Erik Koch
8. Dustin Poirier
9. Dennis Siver
10. Clay Guida

Make It Happen: Lamas vs. Jung

Obvious title-eliminator. Any other booking, for either fighter, is just bad match-making. I also like Edgar-Swanson, which Frankie has suggested.

Thank You, UFC, For: Aldo vs. Anthony Pettis

This matchup may not be as secure as it seemed a week or two ago: Aldo's camp reportedly doesn't want the fight, but Dana White insists the fight will happen. "[Aldo] is gonna fight Pettis. That fight's on. He's going to fight Pettis, or he's not going to like how this is going to turn out."

I know a lot of fans are upset about lightweights cutting in line and getting title shots in this division, but this is an exciting matchup, and the Lamas-Jung winner gets contender credibility that neither one has really established yet.

Bantamweight (126-135)

1. Renan Barão
2. Michael McDonald
3. Urijah Faber
4. Eddie Wineland
5. Brad Pickett
6. Raphael Assunçao
7. Mike Easton
8. Scott Jorgensen
9. Ivan Menjivar
10. T.J. Dillashaw

Dominick Cruz hasn't fought in almost a year and a half, and he's not yet scheduled to return. When he does, he'll obviously be at or near the top of this list. I just hope he doesn't rush his recovery. Brian Bowles, also inactive for over a year, is unlisted for the same reason.

Make It Happen: Barão vs. Wineland

I don't think this is likely to be a very competitive fight, but Barao has to fight someone, and I think it will be a while before Cruz is ready. I understand why the UFC wants Cruz vs. Barao as soon as possible. It's a more intriguing fight, it's a title unifier, and it gives the rest of the division time to produce another contender. Wineland or Assunçao could really solidify their cases with another win over a top-10 opponent. But if Dana White likes Cruz as much as he says, he'll make sure the champ has time to fully recover and put in a complete training camp. This makes the best of a bad situation in the meantime.

Thank You, UFC, For: Pickett vs. Easton

Both lost their last fights, but they're both top-10, and this matchup makes sense.

Flyweight (116-125) and Women's Bantamweight (126-135)

I'm not ranking these divisions until they have more fighters. The flyweight division is awfully thin (no pun intended!) so far.

UFC 158: St-Pierre vs. Diaz

Wanderlei Silva vs. Brian Stann, at Saitama Super Arena in Japan, comes first — next weekend — but let's start with the big one. Georges St. Pierre hasn't lost in about six years. Not only that, he's only lost two rounds in six years. He's won 11 in a row, against top contenders like Matt Hughes, Jon Fitch, B.J. Penn, and Carlos Condit. He hasn't been seriously challenged in any of those fights.

Nick Diaz went four years without a loss, including his own 11-0 win streak, before a controversial decision against Condit. He's a fascinating matchup for GSP, because he's got top-notch striking and a dangerous guard game, one of the best in MMA. He can threaten St. Pierre on the feet, and he can threaten off his back if Georges takes him down. Diaz hasn't fought in over a year, and even claimed to be retired from MMA, but GSP has never faced anyone with his combination of skills, except for maybe B.J. Penn.

St. Pierre is a substantial betting favorite, about 4 to 1. I like GSP straight up, but if I were betting, I might lay some small action on Diaz and roll the dice. There is a small chance that this fight will be scrapped because Diaz continues to miss his press obligations, reportedly costing the UFC over $50,000. It's happened before, but only three weeks out, I'd bet against it at this point.

That card also features Condit vs. Johny Hendricks, potentially with a title shot on the line. The matchup was shuffled last week when Condit's original opponent, Rory MacDonald, pulled out with an injury, and odds for the new fight aren't posted yet, but I'd say it's close to a pick 'em. Hendricks has won five in a row, including decisions over Mike Pierce and Josh Koscheck, as well as impressive first-round knockouts of Jon Fitch and Martin Kampmann. His only career loss came on a questionable judges' decision. Condit beat five straight high-level opponents before his loss to St. Pierre, and he looked good even in defeat. Both are dangerous strikers, with Hendricks a far better wrestler and Condit getting the submissions edge. I lean slightly toward Hendricks.

The only other big fight on the card, also at welterweight, features Hendricks' original opponent, Jake Ellenberger, against injury replacement Nate Marquardt. I think Ellenberger's hype has gotten ahead of his résumé. His most impressive wins came against Jake Shields and Diego Sanchez. Shields has not performed well in the UFC, and that fight was the week his dad died; most fans assume distraction played some role in the outcome. The decision over Sanchez was widely viewed as wrong.

I suppose I lean towards Ellenberger, but when the lines come out, I bet Marquardt will be in the neighborhood of +250, and I'll take a shot on the underdog at that price.

Insane but lucrative parlay: the UFC's nightmare, Nick Diaz + Carlos Condit + Nate Marquardt. If the odds come out the way I expect, a $100 bet would win over $3000. If company man GSP loses to the flaky Diaz, Condit defeats top contender Hendricks, and TRT posterboy Marquardt upsets Ellenberger, Dana White will probably have an aneurysm. I guess the UFC would book a rematch between Diaz and either St. Pierre or Condit, with the other getting a title eliminator against Rory MacDonald or Demian Maia.

Silva vs. Stann

For a Fuel card, this is pretty stacked. The headliner is just a striker's brawl for the fans, and Wandy is still a very big name in Japan. But we also get an important heavyweight match between Stefan Struve and Mark Hunt, Diego Sanchez's return to lightweight, and a top-10 contenders' bout at 185, with Yushin Okami against Hector Lombard.

I love Wanderlei (we all do, right?), and it's a best-case opportunity for him to prove he's still relevant: fighting in Japan and facing another striker. But he's a substantial underdog (about +200), and I'm picking Stann. I also like fellow favorites Struve, Sanchez, and Okami. Hunt hasn't fought in over a year, Takanori Gomi can't grapple with Sanchez, and Okami should use his size and wrestling to neutralize Lombard in what is not likely to be a real interesting fight.

Entertainment-purposes only parlay: Stann + Struve + Okami. You never know when Sanchez might flake out, and he's a really heavy favorite (roughly -325, depending on where you look), not worth the risk. I might actually skip the parlay and just bet on Stann.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:16 PM | Comments (0)

Spurs of the Moment

As of February 25th, the San Antonio Spurs have posted an overall record of 45-13 — three games better than both the Oklahoma City Thunder and the defending champion Miami Heat. If the playoffs were to start today, the Spurs would be the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference for the third consecutive year and would have earned homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs. Still, it seems as if nobody is giving them a legitimate shot to win it all, and quite frankly, I can't blame them.

A common misconception is that the Spurs are boring. Sure, Tim Duncan is about as exciting as laundry day and Gregg Popovich looks like he's been forced to sit through a Scrubs marathon, but the Spurs are far from lackluster. Anyone who truly understands the art of basketball can appreciate the pass-happy, high-movement motion offense that Popovich has implemented, which seemingly always ends up with an open three or an uncontested layup. In an increasingly isolation-driven league, the Spurs have stuck to their roots, allowing them to average the fourth most points per game this season despite their patient offensive sets. The best part is, they are doing it without a legitimate superstar.

Maybe that's just it, though. Now before you throw your laptops at me, I am not denying the fact that Tony Parker is an elite point guard who is possibly playing the best basketball of his career and should at least be considered in the MVP discussion. However, he is no way a superstar in the same class as LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony, and Kobe Bryant. With the evolution of the game accompanied by the heightened intensity and pressure of the playoffs, sometimes it's nice to be able to toss your best guy the ball and say, "Hey, umm ... can you go win the game for us?" Besides, the Finals MVP hasn't averaged less than 27 points per game in the playoffs since Paul Pierce in 2008. Do you really think Parker can put up similar numbers for an entire playoff run?

Perhaps it's their age. Tim Duncan is 36, and while still performing at a reasonably high level, he is not getting any younger. Manu Ginobili is 35 and coming off of a tedious Olympic run this past summer while having to fight numerous injuries to his quad, hamstring, back, and thigh this season. Stephen Jackson is 34 and even Tony Parker has hit the 30 mark with injuries starting to compile. At some point, a veteran team just becomes, well ... old. And while I commend Coach Popovich on metaphorically telling Commissioner David Stern to "shove it" by resting Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Danny Green on a nationally televised game against Miami in November, he may as well have found the nearest megaphone and proclaimed, "Is this thing on? Yeah, we're all pretty tired, so I think we are just going to sit this one out. Now, does anybody have any Advil?"

The Spurs are one of the best run organizations in the league, have arguably the best power forward in league history in their lineup, and a coach who deserves to be on the Mount Rushmore of NBA coaches. They have captured four NBA titles under Popovich, the last being in 2007, and their impressive regular season up to this point is no accident. Nonetheless, the playoffs are a different animal, and one which this team may be too old to wrestle with.

I'm just saying, if the Lakers were 45-13, we would already be penciling them in the Finals. But it's the Spurs, so were just not convinced.

I guess it's their recent playoff failures. In 2011, the Spurs lost in the first round to the eight seed Memphis Grizzlies in six games after a 60-win regular season. Last year, up 2-0 in the Conference Finals, they lost four straight to the Oklahoma City Thunder and looked noticeably worn out and unable to keep up with the youth of OKC.

I know what you are thinking, 2007 wasn't that long ago. Still, for a team who is built around the same three core players as in '07 and are now all over 30, those six years since their last championship seems like an eternity.

Let's flashback to 2007, why don't we. In their championship run, the Spurs swept the unbelievably talented, but unproven LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals. LeBron was only in his fourth NBA season and was surrounded by a group who gave the term supporting cast a new meaning. Drew Gooden? Larry Hughes? Zydrunas Ilgauskas? Yeah, LeBron's supporting cast was about as helpful as Aquaman on land. They avoided the Lakers and Kobe Bryant, who was playing some of the best individual basketball of his career, but was too accompanied by a roster that would have made even Sylvester Stallone cry for him (and subsequently mumble an anecdote that could only be understood with subtitles). Oh yeah, and they were yet to be introduced to a man named Kevin Durant.

Fast-forward to the present day. LeBron James has cemented himself as the best player in the league alongside two additional all-stars in Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, and a group that is hungry for their second consecutive title together. Durant is the purest shooter in the NBA who took over last year's Western Conference Finals, and if the Lakers are able to squeeze in the playoffs, they could potentially be looking at a first-round matchup with the Spurs. This year, though, Kwame Brown isn't their starting center.

Maybe I'll be wrong. Tony Parker will continue his miraculous season through the playoffs. Tim Duncan will find the fountain of youth for one last run. Manu Ginobili will bounce back from his up-and-down season and return to prime form. Still, no matter how hard I try, I just can't envision the Spurs hoisting the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy this June.

The San Antonio Spurs have had their run. It only seems right for them to walk to the finish line.

Posted by Robert Campbell at 11:56 AM | Comments (2)

February 22, 2013

Foul Territory: Fast Women and Old Men

* When You Mention "Draft" to Manti T'eo, He Gets Nervous, Because Wind is Invisible, Too — Manti T'eo told a newspaper that the much-publicized girlfriend hoax won't affect his draft standing. The draft is scheduled for April 25th, and Te'o said that's one "date" he plans to attend in person.

* And When He Laughed, His Belly Shook Like a Bowl Full of Petroleum Jelly, or Are You Sir-ious? — Karl Malone revealed that, while in the NBA, Charles Barkley kept Vaseline in his navel to apply to his lips. It was not the first time Barkley had admitted to receiving "lip service."

* In "Play Defense," "Play" is an Adjective, Not a Verb — The West defeated the East 143-138 in Sunday's NBA All-Star Game, and the Los Angeles Clippers Chris Paul was named the game's Most Valuable Player. When asked about the high-scoring affair, Paul quoted Delonte West and explained that true NBA defense is for the courtroom, and not he court.

* (Gray) Hair Jordan — Michael Jordan turned 50 on Sunday, fittingly on the same day as the NBA All-Star Game. Jordan celebrated by taking calls from the likes of Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, while making sure to answer on the sixth ring.

* Unfortunately, Expectations Are Harder to Outrun Than Men, or "Q1" Up For the Ladies, or Babe of the Day(tona) — Danica Patrick won the pole for the Daytona 500 on Sunday with a lap of 196.434 miles per hour, outpointing Jeff Gordon. Patrick set women ahead 10 years, and set men back one qualifying position.

* Don't Play the Hater — Tim Tebow will speak on April 28th at the First Baptist Church of Dallas, whose pastor, Rev. Robert Jeffress, has been accused of pushing an anti-Semitic and homophobic agenda. Finally, Tebow can perform in front of a large group of people that believe in him.

* "Hole" That Tiger, or He Was Packing Heat — Tampa Bay's Da'Quan Bowers was arrested on Monday at Laguardia Airport after police found a loaded .40 caliber handgun in his luggage. Bowers was jailed, but felt right at home, because New York cops, much like the Clemson marching band, were playing "Hold That Tiger."

* Hand Check, or When Push Comes to Shame — The Pac-12 reprimanded California coach Mike Montgomery for shoving his own player, Allen Crabbe, on Sunday night. After initially downplaying the incident, Montgomery later apologized, then tossed a chair, choked a player, punched a Puerto Rican cop, and promised it would never happen again.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 2:50 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2013

The Strangest Foods at MLB Stadia (Pt. 3)

Also see: The Strangest Foods at MLB Stadia (Pt. 1) and Pt. 2

Try to contain your excitement: it's time for the season finale of the Slant Pattern's look at the most unusual culinary options in the MLB, with a look at the NL Central and NL West.

Great American Ball Park — Here, they like to fry things. Fried bologna sandwiches, which are good. Fried kool-aid. I don't even understand this as a concept. They also have a "hand-slapped burger," which doesn't sound like much of an accomplishment, although I grant it sounds better than "spatula-slapped burger." There's also the "hot mett," which is a apparently a spicy-ish kielbasa-esque dog made with a German meat you've never heard of, mettwurst. It has a hard casing, and I want one. I want their hot dog topped with pork rinds, too. I'm an Indians fan and therefore do not like the Reds, but I must say this is the most fun menu I've come across in the course of this project.

Busch Stadium — Here, we have fried cannelloni, spicy corn nuggets (which are probably about the same going out as they are coming in), and a Food Network-approved Red Hot topped with Provel and and barbecue sauce. "Meh," I say.

Miller Park — The namesake Miller Brewing company does not allow food to be served in the stadium so everyone can enjoy their selection of beers more fully.

But seriously folks, almost every stadium has batting helmet ice cream, but Miller Park has batting helmet cheese curds. Clearly, a ballpark after my pre-diabetic heart. Obviously they take their cheese seriously in Wisconsin, and they also have a cart devoted to different types of grilled cheese sandwiches. Plenty of sections offer chorizo sausage, for some reason.

PNC Park — The Pirates sort of gave vague, advertisey descriptions of their vendors rather than listing many foods. I do commend them for having an in-stadium Quaker Steak and Lube, which is a great restaurant, and the ballpark location focuses on wings (with sauces like Arizona Ranch and Louisiana Lickin') which by my lights is the greatest sports food. You can also get a gyro salad at the park. Why haven't we thought of gyro meat in salads before?

Wrigley Field — Tired of beef or pork hot dogs? How about a bison dog? Or get a hot dog with Fritos on it. They serve many, many things in cups at Wrigley Field, including a cup of vegetables called the "Veg Out Cup," in case you were feeling guilty for eating healthy. They also have a malt cup, for when you are feeling retro.

AT&T Park — The great thing about AT&T Park is if you don't like the concessions, you can just go fishing in the bay and hope for a breed of fish you like. If you think of San Francisco as being a bit yuppie, you probably won't be impressed that they have wine carts to supplement their beer carts ("GETCHER ZINFANDEL HEEEEERE!") and lemon chicken. Not a lot of interesting options here.

Chase Field — I don't have the biggest sweet tooth, but I do like turtles and I wish the candy-bar sized variety didn't contain just two pitiful ones. So props to Chase field for selling oversized turtles. They also try to out-yuppie San Francisco with spicy scallop and calamari martinis, but on the other hand there are macaroni hot dogs (which we've covered in this series before) which have french fries on them (which we haven't).

Coors Field — Loaded tater tots, minestrone, a Denver cheesesteak (I couldn't find a description of this), and not much else except for a couple of disappointments: Not one menu item called "The Mile High ____," and either Coors Field is in the process of transitioning their vendors, or they decided to name half their stands and restaurants from an "English For Beginners" textbook ("Bar," "Potato," "Salad," "Nacho," etc).

Petco Park — Another snoozer, unless you like tuna sandwiches. If you do, you have several options. They also have carne asada, which I'm surprisingly not seeing much of considering how many ballparks cater to Latino tastes. Not even the Eater website could make this park sound interesting, although through them I learn they also have a Food Network signature item (a steak sandwich with blue cheese and "Peppadew pepper mayonnaise") and that one park bar has "lots of cougars on the prowl." Sure, your food options are boring, but will you care when Diane from Chula Vista is going to town on you?

Dodger Stadium — I guess if you make the famous Dodger Dogs, you can sort of rest on your laurels, as the Dodgers adhere to the NL West dictum of boring ballpark food. However! They do have an all-you-can-eat buffet! For $24, you can have access to all the hot dogs and ballpark-esque snacks (peanuts, nachos, etc.) your heart desires. Apparently, in 2010, they had pretzels the size of a standard pizza, but I couldn't verify whether or not they still do.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)

2013 NASCAR Predictions

* At the Country Music Awards in Las Vegas on April 7th, Jeff Gordon challenges mortal enemy Clint Bowyer not to a duel, but a duet, and the two take the stage for a rendition of Garth Brooks' 1991 dud "We Bury the Hatchet."

The following week at Texas, Bowyer and Gordon tangle, and Bowyer, true to his sponsor obligations, first opens up a 2-ounce 5-Hour Energy bottle, then opens a comparable-sized can of whoop ass. True to post-1979 NASCAR fist fights form, no punches are thrown, as Gordon is taken down by four Bowyer crewmen, two of which ask for Gordon's autograph.

* Juan Montoya's run of bad luck at Daytona continues, as he trips over his wife's hair dryer in the couple's RV parked in the Daytona infield, sparking an electrical fire that wipes out power and delays the start of the Daytona 500.

After a two-hour delay, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. emerges with the win after blowing by Kevin Harvick on the final turn. In a post-race media session, Earnhardt calls his win the "start of something big," a characterization that turns out to be correct, as Junior then embarks on the longest winless streak of his career.

* After Zac Brown and his band rock the Daytona infield prior to the February 24th race, NASCAR chief executive officer Brian France, reinforcing his reputation as a clueless leader, tells Brown that "I loved you in The Hangover." Brown, in turn, tells France, that his "language is offensive."

Later that year, Brown suggests to France that Zach Galifianakis serve as Grand Marshall at Indianapolis. France takes Browns' advice, and while at Indy, compliments Galifianakis on his concert at Daytona.

France taps Alabama native Evander Holyfield to serve as Grand Marshall at Talladega in October, where tells the former champ that he loved him in The Hangover, as well.

* Brad Keselowski wins at Bristol in March after leading 298 of 500 laps at the Bullring, passing Jimmie Johnson late for the win. Afterwards in Victory Lane, Keselowski knocks back a six-pack of Miller Lite, and sends Johnson a six-pack of his own with the message "This is the only 'six' you'll see this year."

Upon leaving the track, the defending champ is stopped by a police officer for erratic driving. Keselowski passes a battery of field sobriety tests, and immediately takes to Twitter, where he tweets 140 dashes, proving that he can Tweet and walk a straight line.

* After two years without a Sprint Cup championship, Jimmie Johnson rededicates himself to capturing the 2013 title. Not one to miss an endorsement opportunity, Lowe's, in conjunction with Kobalt Tools, introduces a new multi-task implement which hammers, screws, and strikes fear into opponents. The "Attitude Adjustment" retails for $19.95.

Crew chief Chad Knaus is the first to buy the tool, and finds it just as useful in doctoring chassis and rear wings, as well as grooming the head of a middle-aged balding man.

* Kyle Busch wins three of the season's first 10 races, including a win at Talladega on May 5th, and establishes himself as an early favorite for the 2013 Sprint Cup. The following week at Darlington, the bottom falls out, as the engine in Busch's No. 18 Toyota blows.

Busch finishes 20th or worse in his next 10 races, and his frustration culminates when he takes a swing at crew chief Dave Rogers at Pocono in August. Busch is suspended by the team, and M&M's yanks sponsorship. Brad Keselowski taunts Busch on Twitter, tweeting "That's like taking candy from a baby."

Busch starts the Chase For the Cup in tenth and finishes in sixth, 46 out of first.

* After blowing a fuse following a poor finish at Darlington, Kurt Busch hires a sports psychologist to help improve his attitude and demeanor. After several weeks in therapy, Busch notices a difference in his state of mind, while Furniture Row sees a spike in sales after introducing the "Kurt Busch Psychiatrist's Couch" product line.

Busch wins the Toyota/Save Mart 300 at Sonoma on June 23 and credits his psychiatrist, noting that "it's the first time someone's encouraged me to tell them how I really feel."

* Matt Kenseth wins at California on March 24, capturing his first win as a member of Joe Gibbs Racing. Kenseth thanks Deny Hamlin and Kyle Busch for being great teammates, and gives props to Carl Edwards, as well, calling him the best former teammate he could ask for.

Kenseth nabs three wins on the season, and finishes fourth in the Chase.

* In the FOX booth at Dover on a sweltering June 2nd Sunday, Larry McReynolds is overcome by heat exhaustion and vomits, forcing Darrell Waltrip into quick action to sidestep the mess. Later in the broadcast, Waltrip notes that it was the first time he's done the "Ickey Shuffle" since winning at Daytona in 1989.

* Jeremy Mayfield's rotten luck takes a turn for the better when, after a positive screen test, he lands a recurring role on AMC's "Breaking Bad" as a meth-running courier. Mayfield's character, "Jeremy Mayfield," is written out of the show after he is arrested, ironically, for "speeding" on the way to the set in June.

* In July, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un announces plans to field a NASCAR team in 2014. The team, bizarrely title "Yin and Pyong Yang Racing," never makes it past the planning stages, as Un loses interest and instead turns his attention to developing jet fuel with Michael Waltrip.

* In an interview on national television prior to the Texas 500 on April 13th, Danica Patrick identifies Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. as her "stiffest competition" for NASCAR's Rookie of the Year.

Later in the year, NASCAR's glamour couple deal with a pregnancy scare, and NASCAR rumor-mongers erroneously report that Patrick's pregnancy test can be viewed on the website "NoDaddy.com."

Patrick edges Stenhouse for the ROY award, posting six top-10 finishes to Stenhouse's four.

* Carl Edwards snaps an 81-race winless streak with a victory in the Coca-Cola 600 at Charlotte. Edwards customary post-win back flip goes awry when he under-rotates and lands on his head, knocking himself unconscious.

NASCAR's new concussion testing procedures are put to the test, and Edwards fails, as, for the second straight year, quips, "I forgot what it's like to win."

Edwards recovers after sitting out a race, and wins again at Homestead in the season finale, but eschews a celebratory back flip for a simpler fist pump, which, unfortunately and accidentally, connects win the chin of Miss Sprint Cup, knocking her out cold.

Edwards finishes seventh in the Chase For the Cup.

* In an attempt to get into Brad Keselowski's head, Jimmie Johnson tries on the reigning champ and current points leader's helmet at a Keselowski promotional appearance at a Ford dealership in Lansing, Michigan in August. The ploy works, as an irate Keselowski later tries unsuccessfully to wreck Johnson at Michigan on August 18th, taking himself out of the race in the process.

Keselowski never recovers, and loses the points lead two weeks later at Atlanta. Johnson starts the Chase as the leader and clinches the Cup at Phoenix, wining his sixth championship.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:05 AM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2013

The Season to Expect the Unexpected

As a college basketball fan, I can't begin to keep track of the number of times someone has told me, "The regular season doesn't mean anything. I'm just waiting for the tournament to start."

No, I would always say or think. Of the 340-odd teams in Division I, only 68 make the NCAA tournament. The fact that only 20 percent of teams make the field means that it's a more selective field than any of the four major professional sports' playoffs. But most of all, teams with disappointing, middling or even merely "good" regular seasons rarely go on to have championship-winning success. For every one of the last 24 NCAA tournaments, the national champion has been a No. 1, 2 or 3 seed. And since seeding began in 1979, only three times has the national champion been outside of the top 12 teams in America as deemed by the selection committee.

But the 2012-13 season stands to possibly change all that. Not only is there not a "great" team as was the case with Kentucky a year ago, it's a struggle to find too many teams that would even earn the "very good" label. For this season at least, those regular season skeptics may be exactly on target.

Currently, only one team, Gonzaga, has two losses. Seven teams have three, and 10 more have four. At this time a year ago, we were talking about No. 1 Kentucky, No. 2 Syracuse, each with one loss, and an undefeated Murray State team.

It's almost always a trite and boring expression in sports to say things like "anybody can beat anybody," especially in college athletics, where talent levels and budgets can be widely disparate, even among top conferences. But is anybody going to be too surprised if something happens along the lines of last year's first round (come at me, NCAA), when two No. 15 seeds beat No. 2 seeds happens again?

Go ahead and take a look at The Bracket Matrix website, which aggregates how the 77 "bracketologists" see the tournament lining up if the season ended today.

The top three seed lines feature a Miami team that lost to Florida Gulf Coast, a Kansas team that lost to the worst major conference team in America (TCU) and an Arizona team that seems intent on being perhaps the most underwhelming No. 3 (or maybe even No. 2) seed in recent memory. More teams thought to be in the upper echelon of college basketball seem to be losing more frequently and to worse teams than ever before.

Now, if forced to pick a favorite for this puzzling campaign, myself and several other observers would go with Florida. The Gators have been among the nation's best offensively and defensively all season, and have, with the exception of a no-show at Arkansas two weeks ago, unequivocally taken care of business since the calendar turned to 2013.

Yet, Florida has done so in an SEC that features no other elite teams and may only feature one other tournament team, especially after Nerlens Noel's awful injury in Gainesville put a significant dent in the defending champions' hopes of merely returning to the field of 68. Key bench player Will Yeguete is still out for the Gators and may not return until the SEC or NCAA tournament. Billy Donovan's team also struggles immensely at getting to the line, making it vulnerable to an NCAA game where the team's jumpers aren't falling.

But the same sort of analysis could be done with any of a number of contenders. Miami has repeatedly had luck on its side. Indiana suffers from occasional defensive lapses. Louisville can have the opposite problem on offense. Duke hasn't looked the same since Ryan Kelly's injury. Kansas doesn't have a point guard. Gonzaga's only tests since the Butler loss are against not-as-good-as-yesteryear BYU and St. Mary's teams.

It might be the case that this is a season where tournament success will come to those teams that were tested through the regular season. In a year where more major conferences than usual (see: ACC, SEC, Pac-12) are down, teams from the Big Ten, Big East, and to a lesser extent, the Big 12 and Mountain West who have to deal with schedules where they may play multiple tourney teams in a row should stand to benefit from such a weird season.

Go back and look at The Bracket Matrix. If that streak of No. 1, 2 or 3 seeds winning the title ends, it seems very possible that it could be a team like Marquette, Pitt, Wisconsin or Ohio State — a good, but hardly perfect team that has been tested throughout the season that puts together a string of wins against vulnerable opposition (which even the No. 1 seeds will qualify as this year).

It's an incredible historical anomaly that, at this point in the season, there are thought to be so few truly elite teams and so many teams that have a less-than-zero chance of winning the title. Of course, things change rapidly in a single-elimination tournament once the NCAAs start — no one thought Butler and VCU would play in the Final Four two years ago. Whether the presence of such parity at the top of the sport is a good thing is up to the fans, but a year so hard to figure out may result in a most crazy tail end of the season.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2013

The Best Young Quarterbacks

Young quarterbacks in the NFL have more impact now than at any other point in modern history. With so many promising young players on the field in 2012, who are the best young QBs in the NFL?

To define "young QB," I looked at both age and experience — I didn't want a definition that would exclude 29-year-old rookie Brandon Weeden. The group includes 17 players who meet all of three conditions:

1. At least 50 pass attempts in 2012
2. At least 200 career pass attempts
3. Combined age (as of Feb 3, 2013) + years of experience less than or equal to 30

Thus, we're not including Kirk Cousins or Ryan Lindley or Terrelle Pryor, because we just haven't seen enough of them in the NFL to really evaluate those guys. And we're not looking at established 30-and-under QBs like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and Aaron Rodgers. Those guys are known quantities, and we're really looking at players who are still prospects. Also, Tim Tebow isn't included, because he only threw 8 passes in 2012 and doesn't appear to have a future at quarterback in the NFL. If you can't get ahead of Mark Sanchez and Greg McElroy on the depth chart, you don't belong on any "best of" list.

All stats show combined passing, rushing, and sacks, except NY/A, net yards per attempt, which includes passing and sacks but excludes rushing. Turnovers include interceptions, lost fumbles, and safeties.

17. John Skelton
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 3.
2012 Stats: 1,039 yards, 4.8 NY/A, 55.4 rating, 2 TDs, 11 turnovers
Career Stats: 3,564 yards, 5.2 NY/A, 63.0 rating, 15 TDs, 31 turnovers

This may be a little unfair. The Cardinals' offense has been a horror show ever since Kurt Warner retired and Anquan Boldin went to Baltimore. Over those seasons, Arizona is 18-30 and ranks an average of 27th in both yardage and scoring. The teams' other QBs combine for 4.96 NY/A and a 67.1 passer rating, about the same as Skelton's 5.21 N/YA and 63.0 rating. In fact, Skelton is 8-9 as starter, compared to 10-21 for Derek Anderson, Max Hall, Kevin Kolb, Ryan Lindley, and Brian Hoyer.

But the bottom line is that Skelton has failed to deliver, and last season his performance dropped from mediocre to utterly unplayable. Skelton and his fellow QBs have done what opposing defenses never could: make wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald irrelevant.

16. Blaine Gabbert
Age: 23; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 1,560 yards, 5.0 NY/A, 77.4 rating, 9 TDs, 9 turnovers
Career Stats: 3,579 yards, 4.5 NY/A, 70.2 rating, 21 TDs, 26 turnovers

The Jaguars haven't given Gabbert much to work with, but neither has Gabbert delivered on his potential. At no point in the first year and a half of his NFL career has he looked like an NFL quarterback. On nearly every play, he's guessing. In 2010, David Garrard had a 90.8 passer rating and the Jaguar offense was average (15th in yards, 18th in points). In each of Gabbert's two seasons, Jacksonville ranked among the bottom five in both categories and won fewer games combined (7-25) than in Garrard's last season (8-8). We can attribute some of Gabbert's struggles to his subpar supporting cast, but Garrard isn't exactly Peyton Manning, and he did just fine with most of the same players.

Gabbert is ranked ahead of Skelton solely on potential. He has the physical tools to succeed.

15. Mark Sanchez
Age: 26; NFL Seasons: 4.
2012 Stats: 2,702 yards, 5.5 NY/A, 66.9 rating, 13 TDs, 27 turnovers
Career Stats: 11,616 yards, 5.7 NY/A, 71.7 rating, 80 TDs, 91 turnovers

Look, Mark Sanchez has done some good things. He's 4-2 in the playoffs, including two AFC Championship Game appearances. He was kind of okay in the 2010 and '11 regular seasons, with over 3,000 passing yards, more TDs than INTs, and passer ratings over 75. The bad news is that after four years in the league, those are his best seasons.

Sanchez isn't accurate, he's not a play-maker, and he makes too many mistakes. In fairness to Sanchez, both the Jets and the media have done pretty much everything in their power to undermine his confidence. On another team and with a little less pressure, maybe his play would finally begin to develop. Right now, though, we're looking at a first-round bust who isn't very good and isn't getting any better.

14. Christian Ponder
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 3,004 yards, 5.3 NY/A, 81.2 rating, 20 TDs, 17 turnovers
Career Stats: 5,912 yards, 5.3 NY/A, 77.1 rating, 33 TDs, 32 turnovers

The Vikings made the playoffs last season, and Ponder played a little better than as a rookie. He also didn't have much of a receiving corps after Percy Harvin's injury, and that makes it difficult to evaluate a quarterback fairly. But Ponder did have the best running back in the NFL to take pressure off him. When opponents focus on stopping the run, that creates opportunities in the passing game, and Ponder seldom took advantage. Only once last season did he pass for 300 yards in a game, and only once did he pass for 3 TDs.

He needs to start taking some chances. A statistic that's not shown above, yards per completion, works as a rough measure for degree of difficulty. Anyone can throw a bunch of five yard screens, but great QBs separate themselves by completing long passes, or hitting the receiver in stride so he can gain yardage after the catch. A quarterback with low yardage per completion doesn't stretch the field, doesn't hit big plays, settles for the check-down too often, and gains four yards on 3rd-and-9. Among the top 32 passers in the NFL, here are last year's bottom five in yards per completion:

28. Matt Cassel, 11.2
29. Andy Dalton, 11.2
30. Ryan Fitzpatrick, 11.1
31. Philip Rivers, 10.7
32. Christian Ponder, 9.8

Ponder is the King of the Checkdowns, perhaps the least exciting full-time starter in the NFL last year. He did seem to improve later in the season, and it's appropriate for the team to give him another year to justify his draft status and starting position. But if Ponder doesn't show substantial progress in 2013, Minnesota will look for another option to lead the team before Adrian Peterson declines.

13. Brandon Weeden
Age: 29; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 3,310 yards, 5.9 NY/A, 72.6 rating, 14 TDs, 18 turnovers

Colt McCoy only threw 17 passes last year, so he's not eligible for this exercise, but McCoy's passer rating in 2011 (74.6) was better than Weeden's in 2012 (72.6), and the 25-year-old McCoy is significantly younger, as well. Like most of the quarterbacks on this end of the list, Weeden doesn't have a lot to work with. He's not surrounded by great players in Cleveland, and in particular, he's not surrounded by good receivers. But he didn't have an impressive rookie season, and he'll turn 30 in October.

Weeden brings some good things to the table. With a little more NFL experience and better players around him, he'd be an interesting player. But his ceiling is low. Does anyone believe Weeden will ever be a top-10 QB? His best case scenario is probably to settle in as an average starter for four or five years, then shift to a veteran backup-type player.

12. Jake Locker
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 2,316 yards, 6.0 NY/A, 74.0 rating, 11 TDs, 15 turnovers
Career Stats: 2,877 yards, 6.2 NY/A, 78.4 rating, 16 TDs, 15 turnovers

Locker's backup, Matt Hasselbeck, 2012 stats: 1,302 yards, 5.4 NY/A, 81.0 rating, 7 TDs, 6 turnovers. Hasselbeck is 37 and well past his prime, but his stats come out roughly equal to Locker's, and Hasselbeck went 2-3 as starter (.400), about the same as Locker's 4-7 (.364). With Locker replacing Hasselbeck as starter in 2012, both Kenny Britt and Nate Washington fell off the map, while first-round pick Kendall Wright failed to develop.

This was Locker's first season as a starter, and there's every reason to believe he can improve, but with so many young QBs showing signs of greatness immediately, Locker has yet to join them.

11. Nick Foles
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 1,610 yards, 5.5 NY/A, 79.1 rating, 7 TDs, 8 turnovers

When Nick Foles replaced the injured Michael Vick as starting QB, the Eagles were 3-7 and had just lost their fifth game in a row. Foles didn't get to throw to DeSean Jackson, who went on injured reserve after just two games with Foles. Compared to Vick, Foles was generally a little less successful across the board, especially as a rusher, but he did throw significantly fewer interceptions.

Statistically, what jumps out is that Foles could not find the end zone. His 2.26% touchdown percentage was roughly half the league average. It was about 2/3 of Vick's TD% (3.42%); fellow rookie Russell Wilson checked in at 6.62%, and Aaron Rodgers led the league at 7.07%. Altogether, 15 players who threw at least 200 passes more than doubled Foles' TD%. Cutting down on Vick's mistakes, especially in the red zone, was critical, but if Foles starts in 2013, he'll need to do a better job of putting points on the board.

10. Ryan Tannehill
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 3,271 yards, 5.9 NY/A, 76.1 rating, 14 TDs, 17 turnovers

Like Foles, Ryan Tannehill struggled to turn passes into points. He had the misfortune to take over quarterbacking duties on a team that had just (inexplicably) traded Brandon Marshall for a pair of third-round draft picks, and good luck finding a rookie QB who will succeed with Brian Hartline as his top target. It will be difficult to properly evaluate Tannehill until he gets to play with a credible deep threat. That will create big-play opportunities, and it should open up some passing lanes underneath as well.

9. Sam Bradford
Age: 25; NFL Seasons: 3.
2012 Stats: 3,596 yards, 5.9 NY/A, 82.6 rating, 22 TDs, 14 turnovers
Career Stats: 8,869 yards, 5.4 NY/A, 77.3 rating, 47 TDs, 44 turnovers

In Week 9 of last season, I asked rhetorically "If you were making a list of the best young quarterbacks in the NFL, would Sam Bradford crack the top 8?" Evidently my answer is still no, though just barely.

The good news is that Bradford seems to be improving. 2012 was his best season statistically, with career-highs in most significant categories, including yards, TDs, and passer rating. The bad news is that after three years and 42 games, you expect a player to be developed and near his best. Most great — or even very good — QBs make a Pro Bowl within their first three seasons as starter. Bradford doesn't look like he's ever going to be in that top tier of quarterbacks, but he does appear to be a legit starter, maybe even above-average if he continues to develop or gets some more help from the Rams' personnel department.

8. Matthew Stafford
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 4.
2012 Stats: 4,881 yards, 6.3 NY/A, 79.8 rating, 24 TDs, 21 turnovers
Career Stats: 12,456 yards, 6.2 NY/A, 82.8 rating, 87 TDs, 63 turnovers

The inexperienced players are the toughest ones to rate here, because we haven't gotten a chance to see very much of them in the NFL, or observe their development as pros. But among the guys who have been playing, Stafford is absolutely the toughest to rank, and I originally had him higher than this. Stafford is so tough to evaluate for three reasons:

1. He throws a ton, so his numbers are big.
2. He plays with Calvin Johnson, the greatest wide receiver of this era.
3. 2011 was an outlier, and it's hard to know whether or not that's the real Stafford.

In 2012, Stafford broke the single-season record for pass attempts (727), but he did not have a great season. He completed under 60% of his passes (barely), he threw less than half as many TDs (20) as the previous year (41), and the disappointing Lions fell to 4-12. If you took away Megatron, would Stafford look like Weeden and Gabbert? On the other hand, if you gave the Lions a respectable running game to take some pressure off Stafford and Johnson, how much easier would the quarterback's job become?

Right now, it's obvious that Stafford has a big arm and he can do some good things, but he really needs to improve the mental aspects of his game: reading defenses and making good decisions. Also, and this is partly on the front office, he needs someone to throw to in the red zone when Johnson is double- or triple-teamed.

7. Josh Freeman
Age: 25; NFL Seasons: 4.
2012 Stats: 4,043 yards, 6.7 NY/A, 81.6 rating, 27 TDs, 19 turnovers
Career Stats: 13,243 yards, 6.2 NY/A, 79.8 rating, 82 TDs, 75 turnovers

Josh Freeman can be a great quarterback. He had a charmed 2010 season (25 TD, 6 INT, 95.9 rating), and went on a brilliant five-game run in 2012 (4-1 record, 13 TD, 1 INT, 115.9 rating). In all five games, Freeman passed for multiple touchdowns and a passer rating over 100. Through Week 10, Freeman had a 98.2 passer rating and the Buccaneers had the 3rd-best scoring offense in the NFL (28.9 ppg).

Unfortunately, Freeman posted a passer rating below 80 in six of the last seven games, and Tampa Bay went 1-5 down the stretch, including two 4-INT games by Freeman. That said, Freeman still set career-bests for yardage and touchdowns, and he's still young, younger than Colin Kaepernick. He's a good runner — not in the same class as Kaepernick or Cam Newton or RG3, but he can run — and he can throw deep. All his problems are correctable, and his biggest issue is just inconsistency. In the short term, Freeman needs to work on his accuracy and do a better job of locating his secondary targets. I love deep passes, but I think sometimes Freeman was too locked in on Vincent Jackson, and he needs to get through his reads a little better to find the check-down.

6. Andy Dalton
Age: 25; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 3,560 yards, 6.0 NY/A, 87.4 rating, 31 TDs, 20 turnovers
Career Stats: 6,950 yards, 6.0 NY/A, 83.9 rating, 52 TDs, 35 turnovers

In Andy Dalton's first two years, the Bengals reached the postseason back-to-back for the first time since 1981-82. They never made consecutive playoff appearances with Boomer Esiason or Jeff Blake or Carson Palmer, but Dalton's done it immediately. Granted, he's had a lot help. Cincinnati has a very good defense, and A.J. Green makes Dalton's life a lot easier. That said, it's really rare to see a young player come into the NFL and succeed so quickly. Dalton has done a particularly good job of limiting mistakes.

Most inexperienced QBs either commit too many turnovers, or they're too cautious and they don't generate enough positive plays. Over time, successful passers learn to find a balance. Dalton skipped past the "over time" phase and found his balance almost immediately. He needs to keep improving — more positive plays, fewer turnovers — because right now he's still a pretty average quarterback. But to reach that level so early in his career has to make Dalton and Bengals fans pretty happy.

5. Andrew Luck
Age: 23; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 4,383 yards, 6.2 NY/A, 76.5 rating, 28 TDs, 23 turnovers

Maybe the ranking I'm least comfortable with. Despite the consistent hype to the contrary, Andrew Luck did not play well as a rookie. He was not terrible, but he was certainly not great — more like average. Luck completed 54.1% of his passes, posted a subpar 76.5 passer rating, and threw as many interceptions as Robert Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, and Russell Wilson combined. And he did all that against the easiest schedule in the NFL.

Luck is ranked here, rather than 10th or so, because he reminds me of his predecessor, Peyton Manning, who showed flashes of promise through a mostly unsuccessful rookie season but quickly delivered on the potential that made him a top overall draft pick. This rank is pure projection: I think Luck is going to be a very good quarterback. But I also suspect he's in for a rough 2013 season, as Indianapolis faces a tougher schedule and very likely has to deal with more injuries.

4. Colin Kaepernick
Age: 25; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 2,117 yards, 7.3 NY/A, 98.3 rating, 15 TDs, 6 turnovers
Career Stats: 2,150 yards, 7.3 NY/A, 97.9 rating, 15 TDs, 6 turnovers

There's a strong argument to be made for ranking Kaepernick higher than this, maybe #1. He's here on lack of experience. He's only started 7 games in the regular season, 10 if you count postseason. He hasn't really played enough games for fans (or opposing defenses) to be sure what his weaknesses are. Even mediocre QBs can look great for half a season, especially before defenses have gotten a chance to adjust.

I don't believe Kaepernick is mediocre. Again, you could rank him at the top of the list and I wouldn't have a problem with it. He's a dynamic player who can make all the throws and threaten defenses with his speed. I would point out, though, that in 2012, Kaepernick did not significantly out-perform Alex Smith. Coincidentally, they both threw 218 passes last season:

CK: 136 completions, 1,814 yards, 10 TD, 3 INT, 98.3 rating
AS: 153 completions, 1,737 yards, 13 TD, 5 INT, 104.1 rating

That doesn't include sacks or rushing, which are both advantages for Kaepernick, but even considering those, it's reasonably close. Smith has been in the NFL for 8 seasons, and he's never been a great quarterback. If he can post a 104.1 rating with those coaches and receivers, Kaepernick's 98.3 looks less outstanding. Let's see how both players fare down the line before we fawn over Kaepernick any more than we already have.

3. Russell Wilson
Age: 24; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 3,404 yards, 6.8 NY/A, 100.0 rating, 30 TDs, 13 turnovers

Wilson beat high-priced free agent Matt Flynn to win a starting job I thought was hopeless. In April, I named the Seahawks a draft-weekend loser and wrote, "I don't understand how Matt Flynn, or anyone else, is going to succeed with those receivers and that offensive line." I was wrong about the line, and Seattle's top receivers made some nice plays late in the season, but this offense thrived on Marshawn Lynch and Wilson. Only two Seahawks topped 400 receiving yards, and no one reached 750.

Perhaps most encouraging for Seattle supporters was Wilson's consistent progress:

September: 2-2, 151 yds/gm, 4 TD, 4 INT, 73.5 rating
October: 2-2, 224 yds/gm, 6 TD, 4 INT, 90.4 rating
November: 2-1, 217 yds/gm, 7 TD, 0 INT, 128.6 rating
December: 5-0, 252 yds/gm, 13 TD, 2 INT, 115.2 rating

The Seahawks began the year as a perfectly solid team, with a good defense and a strong running game. As Wilson developed and earned the confidence of his coaches and teammates, Seattle became one of the most dangerous teams in the league. People worry about Wilson because he's short for the position, but he's only an inch behind Drew Brees. Wilson is smart, he's accurate, he's a dangerous runner, and he's getting better.

2. Cam Newton
Age: 23; NFL Seasons: 2.
2012 Stats: 4,366 yards, 7.0 NY/A, 86.2 rating, 27 TDs, 16 turnovers
Career Stats: 8,863 yards, 6.9 NY/A, 85.3 rating, 62 TDs, 35 turnovers

I'm sure some readers will see this ranking as too high. Newton got off to a shaky start in 2012, and Carolina finished a disappointing 7-9. But keep in mind how we raved about Newton in 2011. Last year, he had fewer turnovers, a better passer rating, and more rushing yards. Over the last two months of the season, Newton averaged 275 yards per game, with 19 TDs, 4 INTs, and a 94.7 passer rating, as the Panthers won their last four games in a row. After just two seasons, he's +27 in touchdown/turnover differential, the best of any quarterback listed here.

Seven of Carolina's nine losses were by less than 7 points, and the defense deserves at least as much blame (and probably more) than Newton. Cam seemed disturbingly bummed out by the close losses last season; no one wants a player who's okay with losing, but the mopey press conferences were odd and worrisome. As long as he keeps his head on straight, though, there's every reason to forecast a bright future for Newton. He's a fantastic physical specimen: big, strong, and fast. He's a good passer and a good runner, and he knows when to do which. He's already one of the better QBs in the league, and he's still just 23, younger than Kaepernick or Tannehill or Russell Wilson. It's incumbent now on the Panthers to provide him with a stronger receiving corps.

1. Robert Griffin III
Age: 22; NFL Seasons: 1.
2012 Stats: 3,798 yards, 7.1 NY/A, 102.4 rating, 27 TDs, 7 turnovers

None of us know how Griffin will look when he returns from knee surgery. Maybe he'll never be the same player, a modern Greg Cook, a one-year wonder, a what-if story. But based on what he accomplished as a rookie, Robert Griffin III tops the list of the best young QBs in the NFL.

As a passer, Griffin threw four times as many TDs (20) as interceptions (5), broke the rookie record for passer rating, and led all qualified passers in yards per attempt (8.14). As a runner, he ranked in the top 20 in the NFL in rushing yards (815) and TDs (7). He passed for a higher rating than Tom Brady or Matt Ryan. He rushed for more yards than Michael Turner or DeAngelo Williams. His interception percentage (1.3%) was the best in the NFL, tied with Brady, and another rookie record, shattering the mark set by Charlie Batch in 1998 (2.0%). Griffin rushed for more TDs than Jamaal Charles, C.J. Spiller, or Matt Forte.

Keep in mind that Griffin did this with a receiving corps led by Pierre Garçon, 33-year-old Santana Moss, and someone named Leonard Hankerson. You might also remember that injuries (knee and head) caused Griffin to miss part or all of three games, and he basically put up all those numbers in a 14-game season. Simply as a football fan, I hope RG3 comes back healthy. The game is more interesting with him in it.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2013

Seven NBA Stories You'll Never See

As the symbolic halfway point of the 2012-13 NBA season is upon us, most self-respecting basketball devotee knows what's coming. Team beat writers cross the country and contributors to that four-letter sports-only network (that have, coincidentally, made careers restating the obvious to the masses) will be inundating their respective web blogs, column sites, and magazine editors with fluff pieces highlighting top storylines-to-be that my second-grade daughter could have presupposed had she been afforded some NBA TV face time and access to her Daddy's favorites link on the family internet browser.

Yes, Mr. Broussard, we are aware that the contenders will be scavenging the rosters of the non-contenders in search of the trade that will push them over the top. Absolutely, Mr. Stein, we are well aware that the underachieving Lakers are poised to make a run at the playoffs. Marc Berman, we are all acutely familiar with the risk the Knicks run over the long haul trotting out their geriatric roster. It's all so predictable yet year in and year out this is the sort of "hard-hitting" journalism we are subjected to.

I'm happy to say that trend ends here (or at least that trend deviates slightly from the norm here as I'm just as likely to follow this piece up with a missive that similarly lives up to the "states-the-obvious" standards made legendary by those aforementioned contributors, but I digress). Without further explanation, and in no particular order, I present for your reading pleasure the seven storylines for the second half of the NBA season that you are sure not to see as post-All-Star Break play resumes.

1. David Stern, Citing International Pressure, Decides to Stay Onboard as NBA Commish

Aside from Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili, Arvydas Sabonis, Andrew Bogut, Steve Nash, Nene Hilario, Rick Fox, Wang Zhizhi, Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, Dikembe Mutombo, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, James Donaldson, Olden Polynice, Vitaly Potapenko, Manute Bol, Ricky Rubio, Vlade Divac, Andrei Kirilenko, Georghe Muresan, Michael Olowokandi, Rumeal Robinson, and my personal favorite, Uwe Blab, nobody has done more for international basketball than Stern.

Upon learning of Stern's intent to retire from his post while watching the only American basketball the international community actually pays attention to — the All-Star Weekend Events — Stern's cell phone was blown up by such visionaries as Turkish Basketball Federation chairman Turgay Demirel and Chinese Basketball Association Commissioner Wang Du. The latter threatened to "compel" Chinese legend and larger-than-life ex-Rocket Yao Ming to return to the mother land (Stern didn't have the stones to tell him he's been hiding the now retired star in his basement, paying him 20 cents an hour to glue soles on Nike shoes since July), while the former reminded him about the agreement they made under the table to provide gainful employment opportunities to the likes of Allen Iverson (to keep him out of the American basketball scene). Needless to say, Stern caved.

2. Jordan Cedes Title of "Greatest Ever" to LeBron James … Willingly

In somewhat of an upset, ex-Bull and one time "world's greatest athlete" Michael Jordan filed the necessary paperwork with the league office renouncing his rights to the title of "Best Basketball Player to Ever Live." In a press release, Jordan insisted, "Frankly, it was getting tiring anyway. I did some soul-searching and decided the mainstream basketball media was right, it really wasn't fair for me to make King James earn the moniker. Hell, remember Harold Miner?! I damn near gave him the title back in the day for similar reasons … anyway, I have my hands filled running this Charlotte franchise into the ground so it's pretty much a non-issue." Speaking on condition of anonymity, a person close to Jordan also claims that M.J. is considering relinquishing his title as "God in Basketball Shoes," but that report is as yet unconfirmed.

3. "Birdman" Undergoes Radical Operation

Miami Heat backup center/forward Chris Anderson, a.k.a. "Birdman", is in stable condition following a ground-breaking new procedure aimed at removal of the colorful player's many tattoos. It had grown increasingly clear that the tattoos were a distraction both on and off the court as Anderson's production had been on a steady decline since the All-Star Break. Anderson stated, "At some point, you realize that another multi-year drug suspension could come from the league office anytime, and there is no way that the losers I run with will ever take me seriously with all these crazy tats if I'm no longer a celebrity." Anderson goes on, "You learn early in life that there is a very fine line between eccentric and insane, and typically that line is best defined by one's ability to 'make it rain' in a strip club, if you know what I mean. No NBA means no cash and no cash means this body art would create a perception of crazy around me that I just couldn't overcome."

Teammate LeBron James, when asked for a comment, interjected, "Tats are trendy, tats are cool, tats allow you to appeal to a wider audience and allow you to connect with the inner-city, even for those of us who grew up living large and way above the poverty line. But Birdman, he just took it a bit too far … I mean, not even the hardest core gang-banger wants to see some lily-white dude sporting so much color. Not only that, his ink was beginning to draw far too much attention for my taste. There's just so much attention that can go around, see, there's just not enough for everyone."

4. Experts Find Link Between Lens-less Glasses and Brick Laying

A recent study completed by MIT has found a definitive link between those silly prop glasses that have infiltrated pop culture and a shocking drop in NBA players' ability to shoot. "The medical term is 'Acute Corneal Retardation,'" explains Dr. Richard Head of MIT, "and it is a symptom of a larger problem we call 'Trendyus Assenineia' that has infected the young and wealthy, particularly in the rock music and professional athletics disciplines." Dr. Head continues, "The brain recognize the large, gaudy rims and in turn instructs the cornea to shape itself in a way more conducive to viewing the world through a glass lens. But since no glass lens is presence, the cornea's now elongated structure creates a false perception of what it is viewing.

This condition manifests itself in many ways and, oddly enough, these manifestations vary largely between professions. For instance, individuals in the music industry tend to become far less picky about their potential female companions (a condition similar to "beer goggle-itis"), whereas in professional basketball, it becomes more difficult to make a mid- to long-range jump shot."

Dr. Head did add that typically the effects may not be seen for a long time, but noted the early-warning signs. "The first sign that something may be wrong and a person may be suffering from Acute Corneal Retardation is a wild variation in effectiveness on the court. Someone like Russell Westbrook, for example, who is prone to wild deviations in his shooting percentage both within games and from one game to the next is a textbook example of a person whose symptoms are consistent with one who suffers from ACR." It's clear, through this report, that the Kevin Durant's of the world need to do a stylistic U-turn if they wish to maintain their status as elite shooters … let's hope players like K.D. take heed.

5. Lawsuit Filed Against Jeremy Lin, James Harden

Recent documents were uncovered in a Houston, Texas court house confirming an earlier report that a lawsuit has indeed been filed naming Lin and Harden as co-defendants, citing both for copyright infringement. While the presence of the suit was previously identified by Houston newsman and blogger Isiah Carey, many wondered about the specifics of the lawsuit including who the complainant was. It turns out that the suit is for the use of the term "Beard-sanity," a moniker that local basketball fans have used as a show of affection for their two new high profile Rockets.

Harden, a.k.a. "The Beard", and Lin, who was responsible for the "Lin-sanity" craze that was in full throat during the 2011-12 season, became teammates late in the 2012 preseason and immediately the fan base and media outlets came to combine the two nicknames, thinking they had created a creative new word. However, this lawsuit contends otherwise and, more interestingly, was filed from an unexpected locale, the Supermax Prison Facility in Florence, Colorado. The suit states, "There has been and always will be only one 'Beard-sanity', combining the class and elegance of the beard with the unpredictability and excitement of insanity. These two man being paid to play a child's game are mere ants on the farm that is planet earth, and their insignificance is quite undeserving of any kind of fancy nickname, much less one already claimed quite capably by a man of my stature and fame." The complainant associated with that lawsuit? None other than Mr. Ted Kaczynski (you may remember him as the Unibomber), the original and undisputed "Beard-sanity."

6. NBA Slam Dunk Participants Poised for Big Second Half of Season

With all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds the NBA's All-Star Weekend, the Sprite Slam Dunk Contest is always a crowd favorite and is billed as the main event on All-Star Saturday. After those festivities end, few can question the sheer athletic brilliance of the participants. In past seasons, big dunk contest performances have bled through the All-Star Break, carrying stars such as Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, and Blake Griffin on to huge post-break performances. 2013 will be no different, as this year's contest features Gerald Green, James "Flight" White, Terrence Ross, Kenneth Faried, and Eric Bledsoe, names sure to be on the tip of the collective tongue of the NBA's marketing machine.

Who can forget the one time, in a 25-point blowout, that White swooped along the baseline to dunk over Charlotte's Jeff Adrien? Or what about Green's season high 21-point performance against Utah in a 20-point win? And then there was 2013 Slam Dunk Champion Terrence Ross' season high 7-game stretch of playing 18 minutes or more per game in late January; memorable moments indeed. Additional intrigue about this year's contest centers around a statistical rarity … this year's competition features more past champions (2) than it does double-digit scorers (1)!

We can only hope that next year's event will bring together mediocrity, athletic ability, and an innate ability to miss several dunk attempts without tiring the way this year's did. Any way you look at it, one thing is abundantly clear: the six young men who wowed the crowds with their high wire acts on All-Star Saturday are poised to dwarf their first half production.

7. NBA Community Shocked by Revelation in Cleveland

What started as a clever marketing campaign has grown into a scandal that has rocked the NBA landscape. Cavs guard Kyrie Irving, the 2011-12 NBA Rookie of the Year and the 2013 Three-Point Shoot Out Champion, provided some levity to his reputation as a hard-nosed basketball star-in-waiting through his portrayal of Uncle Drew in Pepsi commercials … or so we thought. After a confusing tweet from a 65-year-old woman claiming to be Uncle Drew's long-lost love went public, Irving surprised the world when he not only failed to deny the claim, but called a press conference during which he wept alongside the woman and let loose a bombshell of his own. Kyrie Irving is actually the non-existent alter ego of Uncle Drew — or Drew Douglas Benjamin Franklin Jones as his birth certificate identifies him — and the old man with exceptional athleticism has fooled us all in pretending to be the younger Irving!

"It all started as a way to get into college," Jones explains. "I found my life and career as a paralegal quite unfulfilling and I recognized I needed to go back to school but couldn't afford it. So my lady here to my left and I came up with a plan to get a scholarship. We read about this kid named Kyrie Irving who was a star player at Montclair Kimberley Academy. After his sophomore year, we arranged to meet Irving and shortly thereafter he was arrested for grand theft auto and attempted murder. As a paralegal, I was able to work the system to arrange for his extradition to Australia, where he is currently serving time for his crimes."

Jones wouldn't comment on whether or not he or his love were involved in framing Irving for the crimes for which he was charged, but he did go on to give more detail on the ruse. "As soon as we saw that Irving was sent out of the country, I took on his name and Irving "transferred" to St. Patrick High School, where I was able to earn a scholarship to Duke, a dream come true for me. Sadly, Coach K was beginning to question some of my background during my freshman year, so I had no choice but to go pro after that one season. I never meant any harm to anyone.
This thing just got out of hand and I didn't know how to get off the ride. The commercials were sort of a catharsis for me, allowing me to be myself, even if just for a brief moment of time."

Jones ended the press conference by expressing his one true regret in the whole situation, saying that, "having to abandon the love of my life, the one supporter who was always there for me, was the one thing about this that I'd change if I had it to do over again. But at the time, I couldn't justify why a young man would be dating a woman 40 years his senior, so I had to let her go. That she didn't come out with this sooner proves the kind of woman she is and the manner of love we have for one another."

Posted by Matt Thomas at 3:43 PM | Comments (0)

Five Questions With Pat Cash

For most tennis fans, Pat Cash, the 1987 Wimbledon winner, member of multiple Australian Davis Cup teams in the 1980s, and former top-five player, needs no introduction. Before I ever had the pleasure of meeting the legendary Australian tennis star, I wrote an article back in October of 2004 rating his autobiography entitled "Uncovered" (2002) as the best tennis-related book that I have ever read. Since then, other books have been published, notably those by Tim Henman, James Blake, and Andre Agassi. Unfortunately, I have only read a chapter of Agassi's book, and I am hopelessly falling behind on my tennis literature in the last few years.

Nevertheless, I would recommend "Uncovered" to any avid tennis fan. Pat also maintains a blog in which he recently finished a fascinating five-part-long "Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time" series.

I would like to thank Pat for taking the time to do the following Q&A with me.

Sports Central — Pat, it seems that we had a great era in men's tennis starting with late '70s, through the '80s, into the early part of the '90s, one in which you played a part, as well. Then men's tennis staggered through the rest of the '90s and early '00s. Then Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal came around and from that point on men's tennis found the spotlight again. Now it seems we are in the middle of a golden era again. Logic says that it will go into stagnation again once the top four go into decline in a few years. Do you believe that is inevitable? Or does it simply depend on the generation of players? What picture do you see five to ten years into the future in this context?

Pat Cash — Unfortunately, as a purist, I see men's tennis going in to a boring stage. There will always be superb athletes and tough competitors of course, but the complete and utter lack of foresight from either the ATP or ITF have inadvertently created tennis players with little or no variety in their game. When Federer leaves the tour, there will be only a few players on tour with any style of flash about them with any variety. We already have a tennis world dominated by two-handed backhands and big forehands following up from big serves. Ventures to the net will be to shake hands and that's about it.

When the Grand Slams started slowing down the game in the mid '90s by introducing slower courts and balls, they had little foresight in making decisions on things such as technology advances or decision on court speeds and surfaces. They changed the game that was initially for the better, but as we see it now, quickly becoming mundane, unfortunately.

There must be a committee of ex-top tour players who can discuss the game and what may be the correct decisions as far as technology or court surface speeds and if it is a good decision to change or not change things. String technology must be outlawed if we are ever to see a serve and volley player near the top of the game ever again. You must look at what surfaces favor what styles. Clay and any hard court favors the baseline player no matter what speed the courts may be (unless it's an extremely fast old indoor court). Only grass favors the volleyer or attacking player, but over the past 15 years, the grass courts at Wimbledon have become so hard that a good volley will bounce high just like a hard court and this again favors the baseliner.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching Nadal vs. Federer and some of the other battles we have seen over the last five or six years, as they are just incredible, but we must reward good attacking shots and net play as well as baseline battles. It is very clear that the court surfaces balls and strings do not do that at all.

Sports Central — Some of the players from your competitive years have gone into coaching and have had considerable success, including coaching some of the top players on the tour. Let's imagine for a moment that there is one particular young talent who is succeeding extremely well in the juniors and you feel that he is ready to make the jump to the next level. Let's also say that one day he comes to you for advice on whom to hire as a coach. Assuming that, for one reason or another, you are unable to be his coach at that particular time, whom would you recommend and why? What sets that particular coach apart from others in your opinion?

Pat Cash — I think the main thing for a coach is to identify what can be improved and how, but sometimes it means some issue shouldn't be changed. That could mean technically. For instance, I would do some work on Federer's volley technique, which has become a weak point in his game and only works well from time to time. What shouldn't be touched? I wouldn't touch much else of any of the top players (other than volleys, which are now an afterthought in junior coaching, hence the poor volleying) as this may require a period of going backwards and ranking loss, so therefore you can work on tactics and/or perhaps the physical part of the player. What would you change in David Ferrer's game? He has just about maximized his ability. His backhand technique limits his power, but to fix that may require several months, perhaps a year, to get it better, and at 31, this is not something I would do.

So the question really is, what coach can do all of these? I don't know any. The best thing a coach can do is to get a team around him as I did in 1986. I had a fitness trainer, a sports psychologist, and a coach all traveling with me. This was unheard of in 1986, but I realized that no one coach could do everything well, so I got experts from different fields to help make me a better player all over. This is common place now with the Centre Court player's box full of people.

Towards the end of my career, I used sport biomechanist Brad Langevad, a body movement specialist, who worked to correct some long-standing technique problems, but also to help some existing injuries, and then prevent new ones. This was good timing for me as I had many injuries, so I had time to rebuild my serve in order for it to have more power, and it also helped my back. Last year, I served equal to my fastest serve ever at 47 years of age. With some practice, I can consistently serve harder than I ever did on tour in the '80s and '90s, and it's not about the strings, as I can't use a full racquet with modern polyester strings because they have no feel on the volley.

Sports Central — It has been over a decade now since your excellent autobiographical book "Uncovered" was published. As you well know, I called it the best tennis book that I have ever read in one of my articles before we ever met. The last chapter is entitled "So what comes next?" and you speculate on many things regarding your future career, possible endeavors, and your personal life. Do you ever take a look at that chapter now and smile reading what you were thinking 11 years ago and what has transpired since?

Pat Cash — I can't remember what I wrote back then. As you know, I decided to be very open about my life outside of the sporting arena which, up to that stage, had not been done in a sports book. I'm glad Andre Agassi did the same thing and I know he enjoyed my book. Perhaps it gave him the confidence to be candid, as well. I sometimes wonder how I am managing to play tennis at a good level after all the injuries I have had and I surprise myself when I write "tennis player" in the form at passport control when I arrive in to another country.

I don't really see myself as a tennis player anymore, though I do to some level. I'm more of an entertainer now, but in the end, that's what all tennis players are to the public. My life is ever evolving and I think I will move away from just tennis at some stage as there are lots to do beyond tennis. As I continue to enjoy many parts of it still, I will continue to coach, commentate, and write.

Sports Central — As you know, Brad Drewett is unfortunately stepping down as ATP's Executive Chairman to deal with his illness. Is there anyone that you would like to see replace him? If not, what qualities are important for the top position of the ATP? Or do people make too much of it, in other words, at the end of the day, does the ATP Executive Chairman have as much authority on issues as the title would suggest?

Pat Cash — I have known Brad for many years and played Davis Cup with him. He was a very good player winning events on all surfaces. The difference between him and other CEOs at the ATP is that he was a player and understands what players need, so that brought a different dimension to the tour. He made sure that after 30 years of debate players finally had extra weeks off, though I did laugh to myself when I saw Federer and Djokovic racing all over the world playing exhibition matches over those new free weeks. Some were charity fundraisers, which I admire.

The point of having a chairman or CEO is that they lead the company in the right direction. I think, given time, he would realize that men's tennis needs some hard issues looked at. It's easy to get bogged down in politics and finance, but if the product is no good, there will be a problem in the end, either that or the marketing better be very good, and this is what tennis is doing well. For instance, you watch TV or read magazine and you believe the article of food you see is a good product, but in reality it's just a chewy bit of old cardboard that has been marketed well enough to attract attention and people buy into it. In the end, it's just cardboard, but if cardboard is all you ever had, it's pretty tasty and that's what the younger generations are eating.

Women's tennis is much the same. The WTA slogan "strong is beautiful" with shots of the players hitting tennis balls dressed up in night club dresses and ball gowns, what the hell is that all about? It doesn't exactly promote tennis as a high quality sport, does it? It did attract attention, so perhaps that's not a bad thing. The problem arises again when the product isn't great and at the moment much of that attention goes to two of the top players who are the noisiest grunters in the sport putting spectators off in their thousands.

Sports Central — Outside of Bernard Tomic and Marinko Matosevic, there are no top-100 Australian Men in the ATP. Does Australian tennis need a change in the system, or an overhaul of the system, or is this simply a phase like one that any other country goes through at times? Where do you see the next 10 years in terms of Australian tennis' future?

Pat Cash — That's a long conversation. The basic reality is that tennis in Australia is a small sport compared to many. It's hard to believe considering the champions we have had over the years, but it has struggled for various reasons to capture the interest of children and families to pick it up as a playing sport.

Tennis Australia has done a very poor job of promoting tennis at a grass roots level for many years and is still hiding behind the fact that the Australian Open is a big financial success. The Open is a big corporate event that brings needed money in to player development. Where and how the money is spend is spent is up for debate and conjecture. Tennis Australia has aimed to take control over all things in tennis and I do not believe that is a healthy situation to have. It needs some diversity and non-tennis Australia ideas, but they are not welcome and that creates tension amongst coaches, families, and the association.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2013

Pepper Paire-Davis, RIP: In a League of Her Own

If you saw A League of Their Own, you remember among other things the All-American Girls' Professional Baseball League's anthem, still warbled whenever surviving members gather at periodic reunions. The anthem's co-author, catcher Pepper Paire-Davis, who finished her league career fifth on its all-time runs batted in list, died February 2 at 88. She was considered the primary model for the film's Dottie Hinson (Geena Davis), though she often suggested another player, Dorothy Kaminshek.

You may also remember seeing the rear end of the Racine Belles' team bus emblazoned with the team's motto, "Dirt in the Skirt." The phrase became the title of Paire-Davis's 2009 memoir, in which she debunked much of the mythology portrayed in the film but did so with affection and an unapologetic recollection that — much the way Stillwell remembered his mother during the ceremony opening the league's permanent exhibit at the Hall of Fame — playing baseball was the happiest time of her life.

Ah, Hollywood. In its twentieth anniversary year, last year, I couldn't resist putting A League of Their Own into the DVD deck. For the most part, the film composited the first season of the AAGPBL, 1943, respectfully enough and with reasonably questionable accuracy.

Oops. The Racine Belles did win the league's first World Series. But the Rockford Peaches weren't their victims, as the film depicted. The Peaches finished dead last in the original four-team league; the Belles beat the Kenosha Comets in the Series.

Well, now. A quick review of the league, courtesy of their Website, informs that the Peaches proved the Biblical admonition about the last becoming first. The Peaches would become the New York Yankees of the AAGPBL: they won the most league playoff championships — four (1945, 1948-50). The Belles would win one more championship in 1946. The Milwaukee Chicks won the title in 1944 and, after moving to Grand Rapids, in 1953. The South Bend Blue Sox won back-to-back league championships in 1952-53; the Kalamazoo Lassies, who'd moved there from Muskegon during the 1950 season, won the last title in 1954.

Paire-Davis played for four pennant winners in the life of the league, while playing for the Belles, the Chicks, and the Fort Wayne Daisies.

It's almost too fitting that the Peaches and the Blue Sox should have been the only AAGPBL teams to win consecutive league playoff titles. The Peaches and the Blue Sox were also the only AAGPBL teams to stay the entire twelve-season course of the league. Three years ago, the Peaches' home field, Beyer Stadium, was restored and rededicated in their honor; in the rededicated park, the Peaches' original ticket booth still stands. When the league went from a hybrid of softball/baseball pitching to all-baseball pitching, Peaches pitcher Lois Florreich turned out as the league's best pitcher.

Come to think of it, the Peaches had the AAGPBL's first batting champion: Gladys Davis, batting .331 with 155 total bases, also leading the league. Another Peach, Dorothy Kamenshek, won the batting titles in 1946 and 1947.

A League of Their Own depicts the Peaches, and implies the rest of the league, playing as theatrically as possible, the better to draw out the family entertainment spending critical to assuring the league's early survival. Yet it seems that only the Peaches among the league's teams took it to full flower. "If God meant for us to play baseball," said Eileen Burmeister, an eight-position Peach (the only thing she didn't do was pitch), "He would've made us any good at it."

Any good at it? Yet another Peach, Olive Little, won 20 games for the inaugural edition and threw in a no-hitter for good measure. She also struck out 151 batters. She took 1944 off, returned in 1945 to win 22 games, retired after going 14-17 in 1946, and added three more no-hitters to her resume while compiling a lifetime 2.23 ERA. She became a bona-fide Hall of Famer — the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame — but she died a year before the AAGPBL was inducted as a league (in 1988) into Cooperstown. As a no-hit pitcher she was the league's Sandy Koufax (first in Show to throw four no-no's), a decade and a half before Koufax became Koufax.

The filmmakers, including director Penny Marshall (whose daughter, Tracy Reiner, portrayed outfielder/pitcher Betty Horn in the film), were trying to show the whole, overall spirit, of what made the league tick, within reason, even if the ladies weren't even half as randy for real as were the celluloid Peaches — ducking their disabled bus for a night at the roadhouse, getting one shy and homely teammate into a makeover that included a dress and a gross of booze (under which influence she serenaded, if that's the proper word, the man who became her husband, to the visible consternation of the house saxophonist), an occasional brawl, and clubhouse bawdiness enough to rival the 1986 Mets — were presented to have been.

If you haven't seen A League of Their Own,even once, the film begins with slightly rivalrous siblings Dorothy Hinson (Geena Davis) and Kit Keller (Lori Petty) going from roughhouse local women's league to a train heading for the original AAGPBL tryouts, after a particularly, shall we say, blunt league scout (Jon Lovitz) agrees to let Kit join the tryouts if she can get her more comely sister to join. It continues with the tryouts at Wrigley Field (called Harvey Field; chewing gum magnate Phil Wrigley, the Chicago Cubs owner who instigated the AAGPBL, was fictionalized as a candy manufacturer), at which the sisters meet and impress the roughhouse Doris Murphy (Rosie O'Donnell) and Mae (All the Way Mae) Mordabito (Madonna) before the teams are chosen. It progresses with a so-awkward-it's-almost-comical depiction of the charm school to which the league organizers sent the original players, the better to buff and polish them for public presentation, at least until the actual league discontinued the school in the mid-1940s.

During the season, the film Peaches meet and are befuddled by their booze-sotted manager Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), an apparent stand-in for Hall of Famer Jimmie Foxx, who actually did manage in the AAGPBL ... in 1952, for the Fort Wayne Daisies. On film, Dugan managed to rediscover his bearings, act like a manager and not a bombed half mascot, and lead the Peaches to the league World Series. In actuality, Foxx managed the Daisies to round one of the playoffs, where the Daisies got their skirts knocked off by the real Peaches in three games, and never managed in the league again.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, neither did Foxx chew out an errant player to the point of tears and then bellow that there was no crying in baseball. It might have produced one of the most memorable, quotable, and paraphrasable lines in film history. But to the best of anyone's further knowledge, Dugan bellowing there was no crying in baseball was lying through his teeth. Of course, considering his character background, he might have missed Lou Gehrig's tear as he proclaimed himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. But he surely didn't live to see a tear stream down Wade Boggs' cheek when the 1986 Mets wrenched out that World Series win. Or in Mike Schimdt's eye when he announced his retirement. Or in Bill Mazeroski's, when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The rivalrous Peach siblings' rivalry hit the breaking point on film when Hinson, fed up with kid sister Kit's blaming her for, well, just about everything short of the Pearl Harbor attacks (the wick that lit the powder keg: Hinson joining Dugan at the mound, telling the skipper little sis had lost her stuff: "She's throwing grapefruits up there"), asks for a trade ... and a trade is made — kid sister Kit going to Racine, then the sisters squaring off in the elimination game of the World Series, then kid sister Kit blasting through big sister Dottie at the plate to score (O Hollywood!) the winning run.

In actuality, the players in the AAGPBL contracted to the league, rather than their teams. This might have helped assure the league retaining a semblance of competitive balance, but only a semblance, considering that in twelve seasons the Peaches and the Chicks held seven of the league's 12 playoff championships. The Kenosha Comets (1943-51), the Minneapolis Millerettes (1944), the Fort Wayne Daisies (1945-54; the Millerettes changed their name when moving to Fort Wayne), the Peoria Redwings (1946-51), the Chicago Colleens (1948), and the Springfield Sallies (1948), never got to win one.

But the league ran into two critical problems after the war. First, the advent of televised major league baseball meant families beginning to stay home to watch the big leaguers rather than spend quite what they'd been spending to watch the ladies during and right after the war years. Second, when the team directors bought out the league in 1950, they proved unable to match the centralized league publicity machinery that helped keep the league going. (Max Carey, the Hall of Fame outfielder who also managed in the AAGPBL, was the league's president at the time of the buyout; he resigned after the buyout.) They also couldn't match the centralized player procurement and development apparatus. The league survived exactly four more years.

It took another AAGPBL pitcher/first baseman, June Peppas (she was, I assure you, a better first baseman and hitter than a pitcher), to resurrect the memory of the AAGPBL beyond the women who played the game and those who saw them play. As a player, she was a latecomer to the league, joining the Daisies in 1948, playing two seasons with them before moving on to the Belles (1949-51, including the team's move to Battle Creek) and the Lassies (1951-54). But in 1980, Peppas launched an insiders' newsletter in 1980, leading to the formation of the AAGPBL Players' Association, which restored their story to the public eye.

Two years later, the surviving members of the league held their first reunion, in Chicago. Five years after that, what Peppas had launched culminated in a documentary, 1987′s A League of Their Own, written by one of the sons of 1945 batting champion (.299) Helen Callaghan (Daisies), Kelly Candaele. (One of Callaghan's other sons, Casey, played major league baseball in the 1980s and 1990s.)

So who were the league's best players? Perhaps it's better to note their all-time leaders. The top five RBI women were, from fifth to first, Pepper Paire, Lib Mahon, Eleanor Callow, Inez Voyce, and Dorothy Schroeder. Joanne Weaver, who won the league batting title in each of its last three seasons, holds the league single-season record for hitting a whopping .429 in the final league season. (Weaver's sister Betty Foss, in fact, won the league's previous two consecutive batting titles. Tragically, both sisters eventually died of Lou Gehrig's disease.) Lois Florreich of the 1949 Peaches holds the league single-season ERA record — with 0.67, also going 22-9. The league even boasts two 30-game winners: Helen Nicol (31-8 in 1943, for the Comets), and Connie Wisniewski (the Chicks), who did it in back-to-back seasons. (32-11 in 1945; 33-9 in 1946; her ERA over those two seasons: 0.86.) Nicol, often known as Nickie Fox during her playing days, is also the league all-time strikeout leader (1,076) and had the most wins (163).

It might have been wonderful if Marshall and her crew had made room in A League of Their Own for some of those achievements, at least Nicol's 31-win season. Or, Olive Little's first no-hitter. As it was, the film did introduce a few harrowing realities, perhaps none more so than the likelihood that some of the league's players stood at very real risk of receiving the dread telegram from the War Department.

Unfortunately, the film is described best, perhaps, in the words of former AAGPBL player Doris Sams (Lassies outfielder/pitcher): "I thought it was 30 percent truth and 70 percent Hollywood." When Dottie and Kit play in that local league contest, Dottie warns Kit about a huge hole on the second base side and suggests she pull. Good one, Dottie — Kit was a right-handed hitter, and pulling it would have meant her hitting 'em where they is. She would have been a dead duck. When Madonna's racy All the Way Mae slides headfirst into third, the move didn't come from anywhere in the AAGPBL playbook: "I never, ever remember anybody sliding in head first" — Shirley Burkovich, former Peach. And did you notice all the games in the film were played in the sunny afternoon? Surprise: the bulk of the AAGPBL's games were played at night.

By the way, that clever little flick of the cap Madonna used to snag a fly ball for an out? In the real AAGPBL, the batter would have been safe: the league's rules of play specified that outs had to be made with glove or hand. "Stuff like that never went on," RBI queen Schroeder would say of Madonna's cap catch. There were a few outright entertainers in the league, however: outfielder Faye Dancer (Millerettes, Redwings), a girlhood friend of Pepper Paire-Davis, cartwheeled and back-flipped to her position a decade before Ozzie Smith was even born. Nobody cartwheeled or backflipped to position in the film, alas.

And, unfortunately, the scene in which a black woman throws an errant ball hard and straight to Dottie Hinson — whose similar barehanded catch of a point-blank bullet throw from Doris Murphy at the tryouts broke the ice between the two — dropped the sole unpleasant hint about the AAGPBL: the league would not admit black players, even after the major leagues integrated.

You can still watch A League of Their Own, the film, for entertainment value and go unharmed for the experience. Mostly. (A League of Their Own, the documentary, is even more fun for its factualities.) Four years before the film was released, the AAGPBL was granted a permanent and splendid display in the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, the film's closing sequence, with the now-elder players visiting the exhibit (and Dottie and Kit reuniting during their tour), allows a small implication that the women themselves were inducted full-fledged into the Hall of Fame.

(Fair disclosure: Five of the AAGPBL ladies are members of the National Women's Baseball Hall of Fame: Claire Schillace, Faye Dancer, Dorothy Ferguson, Joanne Winter, and Dorothy Kamenshek.)

They weren't. But they didn't have to be, either. "I can't honestly tell you I knew the history we were making back then," Paire-Davis once told the Virginian-Pilot. "I can tell you we knew we were doing something special."

That something special, the life of their league, and the impact of their league — proving women could play professional team sports without being any less women, without obstructing or abrogating what their men happened to do — endures.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 4:18 PM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2013

The Scandal That Never Was

Between the end of the college football season and the start of spring workouts, not much goes on besides signing day and ... well, that's about it. So in an entertainment-driven world, and in a period of time where we are starving for something to talk about, enter the Manti Te'o scandal, or what I will refer to as the "Manti GF Hoax."

Wait … scandal? What scandal? The last time I heard the word "scandal" used regarding a college football player, coach, or program, it involved someone having sex with young boys in a locker room shower. Other times I've heard the word used in conjunction with college football involved boosters paying players, dads of recruits paying coaches, point-shaving and the like. Those are scandals. A guy getting royally punked by a friend, no matter how bizarre it is, is not a scandal.

The dictionary defines "scandal" as: An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. Using this definition, I don't think any details of the Manti GF Hoax were morally or legally wrong – well, maybe morally since it involved lying and deception. Sure, Te'o was led to believe that some (fake) girl he was (falsely) in love with died (bogusly) of leukemia, but no money changed hands, no one did anything either unethical or illegal, and no one was morally violated.

And the public wasn't generally outraged about it, either. Granted, some fans were a little upset and embarrassed that they too had been duped, but I heard people mainly say that they felt sorry for Te'o. How could such a fine young man get the wool pulled over his eyes to that extreme? Nevertheless, the mainstream media jumped on the Manti GF Hoax and started calling it a scandal.

The sad thing about this whole incident is that it goes to show how the media will take something fairly insignificant and sensationalize it to the point where it is "scandal." I know the time between mid-January and April for college football is quiet and media outlets are looking for anything to report about; but calling a prank a "scandal," pasting Te'o's face all over TV for four straight days, and interviewing scores of "experts" about everything from his leadership to his draft status is ridiculous.

Manti Te'o did nothing wrong, except to demonstrate poor judgment. He didn't check his sources, he didn't demand a face-to-face meeting with this girl, and … hmmm, this is beginning to sound like what the media didn't do, either, despite their commitment to journalistic integrity. However, in the wake of learning that the original story was false, it just goes to show that the media will go to any length to get a story, even if it means embellishing something small and expanding it into national headline news.

In my view, the only thing that could be contrived as scandalous about the Manti GF Hoax is if it acted as a performance enhancing substance. For instance, the emotion and drive with which he played the Michigan State and Michigan games were directly based on the report that his girlfriend had passed away (MSU) and the subsequent funeral (UM).

Then, after Te'o fessed up to his coaches 10 days before the BCS Championship game, he did a pretty good impression himself of Lennay Kekua against Alabama – he was practically nonexistent. Once he stopped believing the lie, even the pure emotion of playing for a national title couldn't motivate him to turn in a good game. Therefore, the hoax could be viewed as a performance-enhancing substance. If so, then Notre Dame should be forced to forfeit all its games between Sept. 15 and the BCS game based on his ineligibility from using a PES during that period.

Of course I'm joking, but if the mainstream media were to treat his revved up season as the result of inspiration from the death of a made-up girlfriend, they would be lobbying heavily for Notre Dame to absorb those forfeits and be banned from a bowl game next year. All kidding aside, though, it should be the media that is banned from reporting on such heart-warming (or heart-wrenching) stories like this until they fact-check all their sources before saying a word – and then running with a sensationalized "scandal" story once they find out they've been had.

Posted by Adam Russell at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2013

Most Accomplished Postseason QBs

Evaluating NFL players exclusively by statistics is silly. It can be fun and interesting, but it's silly. Evaluating players exclusively by team success is even sillier. And yet, that's what I'm doing here.

In fact, I'm doing it three times. I set out to create a very basic rating system of quarterbacks' postseason success, based on team wins in the playoffs and Super Bowl. I looked only at active QBs, so you won't find Hall of Famers like Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana on these lists. I came up with a system that seemed reasonable, but I wanted something that would reflect conventional wisdom a bit more, so I tweaked it and eventually ended up with three lists. None of them reflect my own opinion on the best postseason quarterbacks; I've already written about that. These lists are silly, but hopefully they're interesting.

The first is designed to most closely reflect popular opinion. This list doesn't tell you anything new; it's just a way of quantifying what most fans already feel. It awards one point for a playoff win, three points for a Super Bowl win, and minus one for a playoff or Super Bowl loss. Only active QBs with at least three playoff games are listed.

1. Tom Brady, +15
2. Ben Roethlisberger, +10
3. Eli Manning, +9
4. Joe Flacco, +7
5. Aaron Rodgers, +4
6. Drew Brees, +3
7. Mark Sanchez, +2
8. Colin Kaepernick, +1
t9. Rex Grossman, 0
t9. Peyton Manning, 0
t11. Matt Hasselbeck, -1
t11. Philip Rivers, -1
t11. Michael Vick, -1
14. Tony Romo, -2
15. Matt Ryan, -3

I think most fans would find that list roughly mirrors their perceptions of how these players have performed in the postseason. The top six are all Super Bowl winners, and none of the others are, except for Peyton Manning, whom a lot of fans still perceive as a choker or playoff underachiever. One interesting point ... if you broke Tom Brady into two players — 2001-04 and 2005-12 — the 01-04 Brady would rate +14 and Brady from the last eight seasons would rate +1, tied with Kaepernick.

I believe that ranking does what it's designed to do: reflect conventional wisdom. But most playoff teams lose eventually, and a lot of our perceptions are shaped by expectations. Losing a playoff home game — when you're probably the better team and you get homefield advantage — is seen as a choke job, where losing on the road usually is not. A QB with a lot of road games will be underrated by the system above. Another issue is that you face higher-quality opponents late in the playoffs, and a first-round bye deprives good teams of the opportunity for an easy +1 win in the wild card round.

Thus, the formula for the next list is a little more complicated. A first-round bye is +1 (QB must have thrown at least 2/3 of his team's passes during the regular season), all postseason wins — including the Super Bowl — are +2, road losses and Super Bowl losses are -1, and home losses are -2. That may seem to underrate winning a championship, but a Super Bowl-winning QB gets +7 or +8 for that one season, depending on whether he had a wild card win or a first-round bye.

1. Tom Brady, +29
2. Ben Roethlisberger, +17
3. Joe Flacco, +15
4. Eli Manning, +12
t5. Drew Brees, +7
t5. Peyton Manning, +7
t5. Aaron Rodgers, +7
8. Mark Sanchez, +6
9. Matt Hasselbeck, +4
10. Colin Kaepernick, +3
t11. Rex Grossman, +2
t11. Philip Rivers, +2
13. Michael Vick, +1
14. Tony Romo, -1
15. Matt Ryan, -2

That's a similar order, of course, the difference mostly that this one rewards playoff experience. Look at Peyton Manning, the player most affected by the changes. He's now less penalized for all those road losses, and he benefits from the bonus for first-round byes. I think most fans would agree that if the Colts had a first-round game in '05 or '07 or '09, they probably would have won, and likewise for the Broncos in 2012. A +1 bonus for automatically reaching the second round seems conservative to replace the +2 for winning a wild card game to reach the second round.

The final list, the one I think is most detached from popular perception but most fair to the players being rated, awards +1 for a bye or a home win, +2 for a win on the road or in the Super Bowl, -1 for a loss on the road or in the Super Bowl, and -2 for a loss at home. It's basically the same as the previous system, except that home wins are only +1 (instead of +2). This actually makes a big difference for some players.

1. Tom Brady, +18
2. Joe Flacco, +13
3. Ben Roethlisberger, +12
4. Eli Manning, +11
t5. Aaron Rodgers, +6
t5. Mark Sanchez, +6
7. Drew Brees, +3
8. Colin Kaepernick, +2
9. Peyton Manning, +1
t10. Rex Grossman, 0
t10. Philip Rivers, 0
t10. Michael Vick, 0
13. Matt Hasselbeck, -1
14. Tony Romo, -2
15. Matt Ryan, -3

The problem with all these lists — apart from the fundamental inanity of rating individual players by the results of their whole teams — is the quick-rise, slow-fall nature of the rankings. For instance, Eli Manning has two terrific postseasons, both featuring three wins followed by a Super Bowl victory. That's +15 on this list, just for two seasons. You could add 16 seasons losing his first playoff game, and Eli would still rank ahead of poor Tony Romo, who is 1-3 in the postseason.

You'll note, too, that Eli is -4 in his other seasons. The Giants lost their first playoff game in 2005, 2006, and 2008, two of them at home. Eli has lost his first playoff game more frequently than he has won it, but he's effectively immune to a negative rating just from a pair of hot streaks. The same applies to Ben Roethlisberger, who didn't play particularly well in either of his team's Super Bowl wins, and to Brady, who's been coasting on early glory for years now.

These rankings need about a hundred different disclaimers, and they're just a messing-around exercise for those of us who already miss football. I actually find myself going back to the list at the top, which I think is least fair to the players but most closely reflects the way they're perceived, effectively quantifying popular opinion. Maybe there's a certain value in that.

By the way, you can't really do math with these figures, but it is interesting to think of Flacco as Aaron Rodgers + Drew Brees.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 9:37 AM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2013

In This Boom-or-Bust Season, Arizona Fits Right In

The developing narrative of this year's college basketball season is that there are no great teams. Anybody can be beat by almost anybody (see: TCU over Kansas), and that's going to put an extra dose of madness into your March bracket projections.

The lack of greatness is particularly apparent in the Pac-12, where somehow a very flawed Arizona team is tied at the top of the league standings with an Oregon team that somehow can't manage the absence of its freshman point guard and a UCLA team that has two wins over top-10 teams (Arizona and Missouri), but also lost to Cal Poly.

(Ben Howland's coaching peculiarities went so far as to make Bruins legend and hipster dufus Bill Walton call for his ouster. Say what you will about Walton's "I may or may not be extremely drunk and/or having an acid flashback right now" commentary style, his points about Howland's substitution patterns and use of timeouts is not without merit.)

Arizona is a particularly frustrating case to watch. If you just look at the resume, they're a solid top-three seed come March. They are 20-3, ranked in the top 10 and have wins over Florida, Miami, and San Diego State. Add to that they are one of the few teams with experience on the floor and the Wildcats should be above the kind of performances they've put out the past few weeks.

Arizona's issues can be traced to the man who most often finds himself the center of the action, senior Mark Lyons. On the season, Lyons has 70 assists to 66 turnovers. He leads the team in field goal attempts, but he shoots the lowest percentage of any starter (43%). The transfer from Xavier is money in the final five minutes, but oftentimes it's his carelessness throughout the first 35 minutes that requires the clutch performance. He's like a firefighter who sets the blaze on purpose, then comes to the rescue to play the hero.

In Arizona's home loss to California on Saturday night, their second home conference loss of the season, Lyons made just five of his 14 attempts, and the pattern he's set emerged again. Incredibly ineffective for most of the game, Lyons was out front as Arizona tried to once again recover from a late deficit. He drove the lane and got fouled. He set up Brandon Ashley for a layup. He made a three.

But just like the glory-hounding pyro of two paragraphs ago, it's a losing strategy in the long run. Sometimes that guy gets burned, and burned badly. In this game, Cal's Allen Crabbe and Justin Cobbs didn't wilt under the pressure of the McKale Center crowd. In this game, Lyons missed the three pointer that would have cut the lead down to two with 38 seconds left, and the Bears went back to California with a crucial conference road victory.

The good news for the Wildcats is that no other team seems to have figured out how to play consistently either. Of everybody playing hot right now, Indiana and Miami are the two teams I would most trust in a Final Four game. And Indiana just lost to Illinois, and Miami has losses to Indiana State and Florida Gulf Coast on its resume.

Can Arizona play with those guys? Of course. They already beat the Hurricanes by 19 (although the U was without Reggie Johnson). But Sean Miller's team needs to stop spotting opponents 10-to-15 point leads and assuming they can come back. They need to start playing some perimeter defense (only Southern Cal has given up a higher percentage of opponent three pointers than Arizona).

Most importantly, though, Arizona needs Lyons to play much more consistently, even if that does limit his opportunities to play the hero at the end. In the Wildcats' 73-66 win over Stanford last Wednesday, Lyons played arguably his best game of the year. Twenty-five points. Six assists. Nine-of-13 from the field with just 2 turnovers. Miller said he thought Lyons was turning the corner. It looked like he finally figured out how to lead rather than just dominate.

Then Sunday came about, and it was the same old Lyons.

Arizona's future over the next eight weeks will be entirely determined by which Lyons shows up in March. If it's guy who played against Stanford, Arizona is a legitimate Final Four contender. But if it's the guy who played against California, Arizona could just as easily join the ranks of Lehigh/Duke or Norfolk State/Missouri.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 8:47 PM | Comments (0)

February 7, 2013

Sports Q&A: Super Bowl XLVII Edition

How will Super Bowl XLVII go down in history?

Well, they can't call it "Black Sunday," because there's already been a Super Bowl movie made under that title.

It was a great game between two equally-matched teams. Fittingly, it was a "power" struggle.

This Super Bowl had everything, except lead changes, and consistent electricity. But that doesn't diminish its ability to match other Super Bowls for excitement. There were enormous swings in momentum, long touchdown plays, big hits, questionable calls, even more questionable no-calls, and a blackout. Plus, it was Harbaugh vs. Harbaugh, and Ray Lewis' final game.

Had the 49ers scored and completed the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history (or, if one of the Harbaugh's had wedgied the other after the game), then the game could have been classified as the best ever.

Did Jimmy Smith interfere with Michael Crabtree on the 49ers' fourth down play?

Let's just say there was more contact between Crabtree and Smith than there was at the post-game handshake between the Harbaugh brothers.

Smith and the Ravens benefitted from an officiating crew that called few penalties, and allowed much of the physical play to go unchecked. Smith definitely held Crabtree, but Crabtree had a hand on Smith, as well. But Smith fell down, and although he probably tripped, the officials probably assumed that he was pushed down. Had Crabtree fallen as well, Smith likely would have been flagged.

In any case, an interference call would have been equally as controversial as the no call.

How would you rate Joe Flacco's performance?

I give Flacco an "F," for "F'n awesome." Flacco is obviously more aware of cornerbacks and safeties that he is of microphones. Expect an endorsement deal with Orbit chewing gum to follow, because he's got a dirty mouth.

How did the third quarter blackout affect both teams?

Obviously, the 49ers benefitted from the long delay, probably because they weren't on the field.

As for the Ravens, the blackout served as the catalyst for a huge momentum swing. Apparently, Ray Lewis' post-blackout speech wasn't nearly as effective as his pre-game speech.

Reportedly, Lewis suffered a disturbing flashback when he heard the words "time to kill" when it looked like the blackout would last for awhile.

What was the best thing about the blackout? The worst?

The best thing? More analysis from the CBS's Shannon Sharpe.

The worst thing? Sharpe's comments weren't subtitled.

And another thing about Sharpe: he obviously believes everything Ray Lewis tells him. Phil Simms commented that Lewis' legacy is "complex," to which Sharpe replied, "how so?" There's no argument that Lewis' legacy is complex. If it needs to be explained to Sharpe why a man (who is arguably the league's greatest linebacker and who may have killed someone and flaunts his religious conviction like Sharpe flaunts his Super Bowl rings) has a complex legacy, then Sharpe is just stupid.

Speaking of Ray Lewis, did he have any impact on the game?

Lewis himself has been a suspect; now, it's his ability that's suspect.

Lewis' impact was minimal. He had only four tackles, and seemed a step slow. Lewis was guilty, of being unable to cover Vernon Davis. Indeed, Lewis is slowing, and the weeks leading up to the big game verified that, because even Lewis' past is catching up to him.

How was the halftime show?

Beyonce's performance was a lot like a dose of deer antler spray — it made me horny.

Was John Harbaugh's decision to take a safety as opposed to punting from the end zone the right move to make?

Given the outcome of last year's AFC championship game, it was surprising to see Harbaugh place his faith in a kicker. Of course, this time, Harbaugh's faith in a kicker involved not kicking. Jacoby Jones had the most memorable moves of the night, but punter Sam Koch showed some nifty footwork himself, avoiding the 49ers while ten uncalled holding penalties unfolded around him.

Given that Koch had shanked a previous punt, it was wise not to have him kick from the end zone. With what would have been good field position, the 49ers would likely have been able to run two plays. That's assuming the punt wasn't returned for a touchdown. As we saw in Denver, Baltimore's kick coverage can be very shaky.

Interesting fact that may, in fact, not be a fact: the Ravens became the first team in history to run a failed fake field goal and surrender a safety and still win the Super Bowl.

What was the Super Bowl's most memorable commercial?

As for shock value, GoDaddy.com's ad with supermodel Bar Refaeli swapping spit with a young Jonah Hill took the prize. Oh, that wasn't Jonah Hill? That commercial gave aspiring nerds hope, and aspiring supermodels second thoughts.

Hyundai's commercial that featured their Turbo passing an RV transporting two slobbering dogs may have been considered gross by some (I hear it made notorious spittle-launcher Bill "Cowher"), but it was effective and witty.

The least memorable?

Budweiser Black Crown. I'm not sure whom Budweiser was targeting with this ad. Black Crown's slogan should be "This Bud's for who?"

On the awkwardness scale, how would you rate the post-game handshake between the Brothers Harbaugh?

It was awkward all right, so awkward that Bill Belichick had to look away. Luckily, John didn't slap Jim on the back. However, it was clear John wanted more affection. I'm sure he wanted to say "hold me" to his brother, but wisely thought better of it.

Will Ray Lewis make a good television analyst?

Of course. If you meld "television" with "analyst" and bad spelling, you can get "tel-evangelist." Ray still gets to preach on Sundays, and as far as I know, there's no rules regulating PEDs for television personalities.

Will either the 49ers or Ravens return to the Super Bowl next year?

Super Bowl XLVIII: 49ers vs. Broncos.

What will happen if San Francisco loses?

Jim Harbaugh will angrily remove his baseball cap and run his fingers through his hair until he has none left.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

The Strangest Foods at MLB Stadia (Pt. 2)

Also see: The Strangest Foods at MLB Stadia (Pt. 1)

For this installment of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern, or rather, Kevin Beane, we'll be looking at the AL West and NL East.

Angel Stadium of Anaheim — Nothing too weird here, but two things that had me scrambling for Google: monkey bread, which is that sweet, sticky bread that you pick at, and onion cranks, which I was unable to determine anything about.

Minute Maid Park — I don't know what "chopped BBQ potatoes" are (although they can be guessed at easily enough), but damn, they sound good, and I demand to know why they aren't more of a thing. The Five Seven Grill features some of "Craig (Biggio) and Jeff's (Bagwell) favorites," without saying what those favorites are. What if they're fish eyes?

O.co Coliseum — The A's seem to be content to let the Raiders website handle all the stadium stuff, and they don't do a very good job. But man, apparently they have 14 varieties of hot dogs scattered throughout the stadium, including a chicken parmesan dog, and a linguica dog, so all is forgiven.

Rangers Ballpark in Arlington — Had to find food information from third party sources, but there's some very cool stuff here, and again, they are mostly hot-dog related. There is "the boomstick," which is a two-foot-long hot dog (and it's only $26!), the "waffle dog," which is exactly what it sounds like, and the Yu Dog, available only when Yu Darvish pitches, which is a dog wrapped in a fried wanton and topped with beef teriyaki, wasabi mayo, seaweed, and sesame seeds.

Safeco Field — Well, of course there is sushi, it's Seattle. Other items I'm not seeing in other ballparks include paninis, bagels (didn't see these at Yankee Stadium), four different types of tortas, a salmon hoagie, and both sweet and savory crepes.

Citi Field — Citi seems to be trying to carving out a niche as the international food capital of the ballparks, as they have not only a Mexican section with options far, far beyond tacos and nachos (Chicken Mole Pipian, anyone?) But an entire section called the "World's Fare Market," with Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Italian stands.

Citizens Bank Park — I was expecting every other stand to offer a Philly Cheesesteak, but they don't. They do have mac and cheese, pierogis, eggplant fries (eww), and the "Schmitter Sandwich," which is the worst name for a food in the history of mankind. It's sort of like a cheesesteak, but in sandwich form with higher quality beef (allegedly), salami, and secret sauce. That's right, secret Schnitter sauce. I don't want to know.

Marlins Park — Not much going on here. Unsurprisingly lots of Cuban fare, also churros, which I haven't seen elsewhere. Here's my favorite blurb from the concessions section of their website: "Burger 305 – Section 13, 19, 40 (burgers, hot dogs, chicken tenders, French fries, chicken sandwich). In addition, Burger 305 at Section 19 would also offer signature food items representing the visiting team."

OH WOULD THEY? "Would" is such a lovely word to use there. "Hi, I'd like to know what you have special with Milwaukee here in town?" "Nuthin'." "But it says you would offer foods representing the visiting team." "Yeah, we WOULD, but we don't. Ever."

Nationals Park — Oh, hell yes! Ben's Chili Bowl has a presence at Nationals Park. That is a DC institution famous for their "half-smoke," which is a big spicy sort of sausage. I've been there ... so good. So, so good. Also, "frito macs" (I assume that's mac and cheese with fritos), W-shaped pretzels (another idea that seems obvious for all ballparks), and falafel.

Turner Field — The "755 Club" offers something called "Backdoor Sliders," which I am guessing is a food that John Rocker pointedly never tried. You can also get boiled peanuts (which are delicious), deep-fried Oreos, and not much else. Did not find any peach pie offerings, which surprised me.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 9:31 AM | Comments (0)

February 6, 2013

The Miami Miracle

Take a look at the latest edition of the AP top 25.

Indiana is at the top spot. Well deserved, as the Hoosiers would be my pick to win it all in March at the moment. Why not? It's the year of the Harbaugh family, after all.

Scroll down the list. Duke? Yep. Arizona? Absolutely. Miami?

Definitely. But how in the name of Luther Campbell have the Hurricanes done it this year?

Like many, I was somewhat surprised when Jim Larranaga left George Mason, where he made history by taking the Patriots to their first Final Four, for Coral Gables. While it is a program in a hoops-crazy conference, it's still The U. When you think of the U, you think of football. You think of the showy, cocky teams of the '80s and '90s. You think of the scandal and the showboating and the old Orange Bowl stadium. You don't think about hoops.

So when Larranaga took a job at a true football school like Miami, it was stunning. This is a school that "loved" its former coach, Frank Haith, so much that it handed him to Mizzou with no buyout required. This was anything but a final fitting stop for a coach who had already etched his name into the NCAA record books.

But now we've figured it out: Larranaga is the Bill Snyder of college basketball. He goes to places that aren't supposed to make waves on the national scale, programs with little to no basketball history, and lo and behold, look what the man can do. Miami sits at 9-0 in conference play and a stunning 18-3 overall.

There are still doubters about the 'Canes, and to a degree, rightfully so. Is the ACC down? Yes. Duke is strong, yet looks vulnerable at times, especially when Miami blew them out by 27 earlier in the year. North Carolina, even though 6-3 in the conference, is mediocre at best. NC State has so far been overrated. The Canes lost to Florida Gulf Coast. They also lost to Indiana State and were blown out by Arizona.

However, the 'Canes are growing. They've won 10 in a row, including a nice out-of-conference win over a solid La Salle team. They've got a nice win over Michigan State to pad their resume. They're learning to win the close games on the road, as they took down NC State on Reggie Johnson's tip. They've got a solid interior presence with Johnson and Kenny Kadji and a fantastic guard duo in Durand Scott and Shane Larkin.

And they have Larranaga, the calm, yet tough captain, steering the 'Canes a la Bill Snyder, pulling the upsets out with clean, efficient play. He's had Tom Izzo's number at GMU and The U. He's got Roy Williams's number in the same fashion. During the Miami rout, instead of jumping and shouting frantically, he acted so calm that one wondered if he knew what was coming all along. His teams are fundamentally sound, don't get too deep in foul trouble and don't shoot themselves in the foot. In his first year, Larranaga flew quietly under the radar. This year, not so much, as he's sitting on top by two games over Duke.

With a schedule that seems mostly winnable (trips to Duke and Florida State could be tricky), the 'Canes will be assured a great seed heading into March. And what teams are deadly come the dance? Ones with great inside-outside threats, veteran guard leadership, confidence from lots of winning and coaches who know how to get their teams to peak at the right times.

Luther Campbell might need to grab a basketball. LeBron and D-Wade might have to take a step back for once. Miami is moving into the basketball elite. And it doesn't look like they'll go away anytime soon.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)

February 5, 2013

Super Bowl XLVII Recap

Super Bowl XLVII
February 3, 2013
New Orleans, Louisiana
Baltimore Ravens 34, San Francisco 49ers 31

The 49ers had one of the league's best defenses in 2012, ranking 2nd in fewest points allowed (17.1/game). But they began to crack late in the season, yielding 34 to the Patriots (Week 15), 42 to the Seahawks (Week 16), 31 to the Packers (divisional playoff), and finally 34 to the Ravens.

Baltimore, meanwhile, averaged just 25 points per game, but caught fire in the postseason, with their third- and fourth-highest scores of the season coming against the Broncos (38) and 49ers (34). On the other side of the coin, Super Bowl XLVII was just the fourth time this season that an opponent topped 30 points against the Ravens. San Francisco's 17 straight points in the second half tied the most consecutive points by a losing team in Super Bowl history, and a San Francisco victory after falling behind 28-6 would have doubled the largest comeback in Super Bowl history (10 pts).

Why the Ravens Won

Third down percentage and red zone efficiency. The 49ers outgained Baltimore by over 100 yards (468-367), but the Ravens put drives together and scored touchdowns when they got close, while San Francisco too often thrived in spurts and ran out of gas near the goal line. Baltimore went 9/16 on third downs (56%), compared to 2/9 (22%) for the Niners. The 49ers had only two drives last more than 3:00 — one went 3:06 and the other stalled into a field goal.

The 49ers reached the red zone six times, scoring only two touchdowns on those drives. They kicked three short field goals and lost the ball on downs in the game's final minutes. If even one of those field goals had been a touchdown, San Francisco probably would have won or gone into overtime.

San Francisco also lost a fumble at the Baltimore 24, and you expect to put points on the board once you're that close. The fumble interests me, because it highlights something it seems like teams should teach, and no one does. When a runner gets trapped deep in the back field, he should throw the ball out of bounds. I've seen running backs (and receivers on end arounds) take losses of more than five yards when they had easy opportunities to get rid of the ball. They're eligible passers. LaMichael James actually got back to the line of scrimmage, and that was a nice effort, but his lost fumble might have been the difference in the Super Bowl.

Noteworthy

Jerome Boger's officiating crew did not handle this game well. Although they called a penalty (illegal formation) on the first play from scrimmage, they were terribly lax the rest of the game, with very few flags on judgement calls. No one wants a mountain of yellow flags to bog down the Super Bowl or unduly influence the game, but you've also got to keep the players honest, and Boger's crew failed to do that.

They repeatedly let borderline offsides calls slide, most notably Ed Reed's blitz on a crucial two-point conversion attempt. And they kept their flags to themselves on pass interference and illegal contact. Near the end of the game, Jim Harbaugh screamed bloody murder looking for a holding call on Jimmy Smith's physical defense of Michael Crabtree, but the no-call was consistent with the previous officiating.

If I were a 49er fan, the play that would have me fuming was the safety in the final minute. There was a clear, 100%, undeniable and blatant hold on Baltimore, and it was never called. The hold happened in the end zone, so it was a safety either way, but it probably cost the Niners about four seconds, enough that they could have attempted a Hail Mary after the change of possession. The refs blew that one, big time. You have to make that call.

What Happened

The 49ers had no offensive rhythm in the first half. They went 1/5 on third downs and 0/2 in the red zone, with two promising drives stalling once they got close. A formation they obviously thought would be successful — Randy Moss and Michael Crabtree lined up to the left side of the line, with no one on the right, yielded little. San Francisco's first-half drives produced: punt, field goal, fumble, interception, punt, field goal.

Their defensive performance was just as bad, with the Ravens connecting on the big plays they've been so successful with all postseason. Anquan Boldin scored four TDs this postseason, as many as he had in the whole regular season. Jacoby Jones scored more receiving TDs in the playoffs and Super Bowl (2) than he did during the regular season (1). I don't understand what Chris Culliver (who drew nationwide attention for homophobic remarks last week) was doing on Jones' TD.

The second half began with a terrible line drive kickoff and a 108-yard return TD, giving Baltimore a 28-6 lead. Just when San Francisco approached necessary panic, the lights went out. Literally. When play resumed, Colin Kaepernick looked like the dynamic dual-threat who captained the Niners in the playoffs, rather than the nervous second-year player who couldn't find his rhythm in the first half. San Francisco scored 23 points on its next four possessions, three TDs and a field goal, and with 5:00 left in the game the Ravens' lead had shrunk to 31-29.

A Baltimore field goal with 4:19 remaining put the Niners down by 5 and needing a touchdown. Sure enough, their offensive momentum continued, and less than two minutes later, they had a first down at the Ravens' 7-yard line. What happened next can only be described as a momentum-killing two-minute warning. The 49ers sensibly let the clock run down, assuming they would score a touchdown and wanting the Ravens to have as little time as possible. But after the break, Kaepernick threw three straight incompletions. Actually, he threw an incompletion, wasted a timeout, and then threw two more incompletions.

San Francisco's timeout management in the second half was disastrous. In the middle of the third quarter, Kaepernick called timeout on a 1st-and-10, after 39 seconds had run off the game clock. In the final two minutes, when the 49ers had a third down and it was becoming clear they might need their timeouts on defense, Kaepernick lost track of the play clock and Jim Harbaugh had to call time to save five critical yards.

The consequence was that when Kaepernick's last pass was incomplete, Baltimore took over with 1:46 and the Niners only had one timeout left. With three, or even two, it seems likely they could've gotten into scoring range before time expired. Instead, the Ravens ran the clock down to :12, took off another 8 seconds on the safety, and watched the clock run out during Ted Ginn's return.

Who Turned Out the Lights?

Less than two minutes into the second half, the Super Bowl was interrupted by a power surge that turned off about half the lights and cut off announcer Phil Simms in mid-sentence. Play was delayed for nearly 35 minutes, and the outage came so soon after the extended halftime show that Baltimore's offense and San Francisco's defense went 84 minutes — nearly an hour and a half — without playing a snap.

The power loss seemed to favor the 49ers, who fell behind 28-6, but scored 17 straight points once play resumed. Quarterback Colin Kaepernick, in particular, seemed to benefit from having some time to collect himself and almost start over. Raven fans across the country surely had their conspiracy theories ready, and I don't blame them, but I have two questions.

1) Why did the power go out? Organizers have to be pretty embarrassed that the lights went out on the most widely-watched broadcast in North America. And we've known the date and location of this game for years, so there's no excuse for being unprepared. Details are still spotty as of this writing, but Entergy New Orleans, Inc., the Superdome's power provider, tweeted: "Power issue at the Super Dome appears to be in the customer's side. Entergy is providing power to the Dome."

2) Where did Boomer Esiason go? During the delay, CBS filled air time with their desk analysts: James Brown, Dan Marino, Bill Cowher, Shannon Sharpe, and an empty chair. Did Boomer take a long restroom break, or what?

Joe Flacco, MVP

Just last week, I called Joe Flacco an average quarterback. I still don't think he's one of the 10 best QBs in the NFL. But Flacco had a great postseason, and he deserved the MVP Award for this Super Bowl. Flacco finished with 274 net passing yards, 3 TDs, no turnovers, and a 124.2 passer rating, the highest San Francisco allowed all season.

Flacco graduated from Delaware, an FCS (Div I-AA) university, and now he's a Super Bowl MVP and poised for a very big offseason contract. That's quite a journey. I'm convinced that FCS, Division II, Division III, and smaller leagues like the CFL are all under-scouted. Among the few players who reach the NFL from those arenas, a disproportionate number of them are successful. Flacco was projected as a first-round draft pick anyway, but it figures a smart GM like Ozzie Newsome would be the one to turn an FCS quarterback in a Super Bowl champion.

And yes, I know Flacco isn't the first Super Bowl MVP to come from a low-profile college. Also, just as an aside, if even one person says that the ghost of Art Modell had anything to do with Baltimore's victory, I am just going to lose it.

Announcers, Entertainment, and Commercials

The CBS announcing team of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms was inoffensive. Nantz did a pretty nice job, and Simms is fine except that I'd like him to be a little more critical. He's a go-with-the-flow kind of guy who sees the good in every person and every decision. That's a pleasant quality, but in an analyst it seems a little out of place. I don't want Simms to become an ogre, just to be a little more candid and critical in his analysis. The network seemed to handle the power outage as smoothly as possible, and showed a lot of replays, which I like.

I do want to call out Nantz for a pointless falsehood: he claimed Ravens punter Sam Koch was "outstanding at pinning teams" deep in their own territory. In 2012, Koch ranked 20th in percentage of punts down inside the 20. He tied for 6th in touchbacks and ranked 20th in I-20:TB ratio. That's not outstanding, it's below average. And this isn't a one-year thing; he was even worse last season.

Two of Koch's three punts in the Super Bowl went for touchbacks, and the other was a shank, with a long return that set up a 49er touchdown. If Nantz had told the truth at the beginning of the game, that Koch's not a very good punter, it actually would have been more interesting. A good announcer calls attention to details like that: hey, this could be a close game, and Baltimore's punter could be a problem. Nantz could have made himself look wise by noting that Koch is not good at pinning opponents deep, and then pointing out that he failed twice in two tries. This is a long nitpick about something that didn't really bother me that much, but it misled viewers, and it was a missed opportunity for Nantz and CBS.

The halftime show began with an utterly pointless corporate-sponsored countdown, which went from 10 seconds but probably lasted twice that long, and showcased technology that would have been cool 30 years ago. The lighting and effects on the field were better, and while Beyonce's music isn't really my thing, it seemed good enough for what it was, and her fans probably enjoyed it.

If music was one side of the show, however, the other side is the presentation. The obvious: Beyonce is great-looking. But her outfit was distractingly awful. It wasn't even hot, just trashy. Those things sometimes overlap, but not in New Orleans on Sunday. Beyonce doesn't need to dress like a stripper to look sexy, and the show would have been more fun if she'd presented herself a little differently.

The Super Bowl advertisements were forgettable in the first half, and noticeably better in the second half. Over the past five months, I got really tired of the Bud Light "Superstitious" ads, but the new ones for the Super Bowl were fun. The other two I particularly liked were the Beck's Sapphire ad with the trippy fish singing "No Diggity", and another Budweiser spot, the sappy one with "Landslide" and the Clydesdale. Blinked back a tear from that one. And yes, I cry every time I watch Field of Dreams.

Just so I'm not exclusively praising beer commercials, the Progressive ad "Peer Pressure," with Flo as a faux drug dealer, was clever and funny-ish.

Hall of Fame

The Pro Football Hall of Fame announced the Class of 2013 on Saturday: Larry Allen, Cris Carter, Curley Culp, Jonathan Ogden, Bill Parcells, Dave Robinson, and Warren Sapp. At first glance, this might seem like a purist's dream: four linemen, an outside linebacker who wasn't a sack specialist, a coach who spent most of his career rebuilding bad teams, and a long-snubbed receiver.

Upon closer examination, we see both Senior Candidates (Culp and Robinson), two slam-dunk first-year eligible players (Allen and Ogden), a high-profile wide receiver with a job on ESPN, a high-profile coach who had a job on ESPN, and a loudmouth defensive tackle with a job on NFL Network. Basically, the voters chose the four guys they had to, plus three whom they see on television.

That doesn't mean it's a weak class. Allen and Ogden were among the best ever at their respective positions, and I've been pushing strongly for Carter. Culp, widely regarded as pro football's first great nose tackle, is a long-overdue selection, and I don't have a problem with Robinson, a three-time champion with the Vince Lombardi dynasty. Parcells was a successful coach who probably deserves recognition in Canton, a two-time Super Bowl champion who turned around some pretty bad teams in just a few years.

Warren Sapp was a great interior pass rusher, the 1999 Defensive Player of the Year. But Sapp getting in before Michael Strahan is crazy. I have no other words. It's crazy, crazy, crazy. It reflects a real lack of football knowledge among the voters, and it's a crazy decision by crazy people. Also, it's crazy.

Strahan was one of the ten best defensive ends in history, and he'll almost certainly get in next year. I also expect Will Shields to get in eventually, and Tim Brown will probably get in soon now that Carter's out of the way. Sometimes there are logjams at a particular position, and once things get rolling with one player, the others start getting in, too. Andre Reed's chances should improve along with Brown's. I wrote an exhaustive series last year on wide receivers snubbed by the Hall of Fame, and I'm more sympathetic to Brown than to Reed.

Sapp, who had double-digit sacks 4 times, also beat Kevin Greene, who had double-digit sacks 10 times. I realize they played different positions, but Greene is officially the all-time leader in LB sacks, by a wide margin. Greene retired with 160 sacks, compared to 96.5 for Sapp. Greene forced 23 fumbles and recovered 26. Sapp forced 19 fumbles and recovered 12. I don't have a problem with Sapp getting in, but it's frustrating to see him voted in before some of this year's other Finalists.

I also continue to be disappointed that Steve Sabol, whose father Ed was inducted in 2011 and who passed away during the 2012 season, didn't make it to the Finalist round of voting. Sabol did more for football and the NFL than all the players in this year's class combined. Maybe next year.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 4, 2013

NCAA Contenders and Pretenders

As of the week 13 rankings released on January 28, 10 teams have been in the AP top five at one point or another this season: Michigan, Kansas, Indiana, Florida, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, Arizona, Ohio State, and Kentucky. Of those, only Kentucky is currently out of the top 25, while the rest remain in the top 12.

If we expand to teams who have been in the AP top 10 this season, we add Gonzaga, Butler, Oregon, Minnesota, Missouri, Cincinnati, Illinois, North Carolina, and North Carolina State. Of those teams, Illinois and North Carolina aren't in the current top 25.

Other teams have been steadily in the top 25, but not in the top 10, include Creighton, Michigan State, New Mexico, and San Diego State.

That totals 19 teams who have been in the top 10 — three being obvious frauds, plus at least four tough teams who haven't cracked the top 10, but may do so by season's end. That's at least 20 seemingly legitimate contenders for the NCAA crown. And that's awesome.

It has truly been a joy to watch college basketball this season as teams from power conferences and perennial mid-major success stories beat up on each other. Every week, somebody in the top 10 loses, and usually it is to another good team, not a ridiculous upset. I can't recall a year that had so many teams playing at an elite tier level from so many different conferences. The 20 teams that I deem legitimate contenders represent 10 conferences. And there are plenty of other potential conference champs that I would not want to play when the NCAA tournament rolls around, including Louisiana Tech, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, and Stephen F. Austin.

This may end up being the most unpredictable tournament I have ever witnessed. Think about some of the potential matchups you're going to have to pick.

In a first round play-in game — Illinois vs. Arizona State, Florida State vs. Villanova.

In round two — Creighton vs. Memphis, VCU vs. Belmont, Ohio State or Cincinnati vs. Akron, New Mexico vs. Louisiana Tech.

In round three — Duke vs. Wisconsin, Oregon vs. Minnesota, Gonzaga vs. Creighton, Butler vs. Marquette,

In the Sweet 16 — Arizona vs. Michigan State, Indiana vs. Louisville, Syracuse vs. Ohio State

Each list could go on and on, but can you look at any of these games and not change your mind numerous times on any of them? I mean, yeah, I'd take Duke over Wisconsin, but I'd have to think about it. I am going to be more tempted than in any other tournament to predict upsets.

But let's take a look at the 20 teams I labeled potential contenders and sort out who is real from who is pretending.

Contenders

Michigan — The Wolverines have the feeling of a team of destiny. They have a long way to go and will lose games along the way. But they are on, they are on. Tim Hardaway, Jr. and Trey Burke make up a back court that every program would be envious of. I like them in the Final Four. Yeah, they lost at Indiana on Saturday, but I think they are developing the character and poise needed to make a run in the tournament. I'll claim them as my team to win it all.

Kansas — When I started writing this on Thursday, the Jayhawks were one of two teams whose schedule I could look at and say "they might win out in the regular season." Then they lost to Oklahoma State on Saturday. But now they might win out. The Big Ten and Big East are too tough on each other for anyone to escape unscathed in February. Duke has fits of being vulnerable and Florida is overrated. Kansas should be a number one seed without much difficulty. Their ability to make it to the Final Four will depend on the seeds around them. If their region includes a team like Michigan or Indiana, it may be tough, but I think that even with two losses, they'll likely have the top seed overall and will make the Final Four without much trouble.

Indiana — After beating Michigan at home, the Hoosiers will likely be number one this week, but their loss to Butler is one I wonder about. It was on a neutral court against a mid-major. Yeah, the best mid-major program in the past five years, and Butler is in Indiana so the home state rivalry provided some real pressure, but it shows a strange vulnerability. Not to mention it was a loss in overtime. Losing in overtime is not good news if you want to win in the tournament. Indiana's other loss was at home vs. Wisconsin. The Hoosiers have beaten Minnesota, Michigan State, and Michigan but they have a lot more tests to get through. I like their tournament chances, though … a lot. They may come up against a tough matchup to make the Final Four, but I think they'll overcome.

Syracuse — I like Syracuse. I think they have all the tools to be a Final Four team. Michael Carter-Williams has the potential to be Dwyane Wade-esque in the tournament. He can take over games and hit big shots. The problem is their depth. In their loss to Pitt on Saturday they looked tired. They have a long ways to go including the Big East tournament right before the real tournament begins. If they had all their pieces, they'd be my championship pick, but without they are a fringe Elite Eight pick, not Final Four worthy. But I may change my mind by Selection Sunday.

Arizona — The Wildcats are the other team that I thought might win out. They do not play a ranked opponent for the rest of the season. Their toughest test will be at UCLA on March 2. They'll probably lose one along the way, but even with three losses, they could easily garner a one seed this season and I think the Final Four is potentially in their future.

Butler — These Bulldogs have had a rather odd year. They've knocked off some great teams including Indiana and Gonzaga, but they've also lost rather winnable games at La Salle and at St. Louis. I don't think those losses necessarily speak too loudly about Butler's ability to contend for a title, but they will affect their seeding. If Butler could have managed to enter the tournament with two or three losses, I think they'd be a legitimate two seed. They already have four losses and could easily pick up another two before season's end, which puts them closer to a six seed. But Andrew Smith and Chase Stigall both played on the Bulldogs' Final Four teams in 2010 and 2011. Their leadership could mean a lot on a run to the Final Four. I think they'll cruise into the second weekend, but not find their way to the third.

Cincinnati — The Bearcats have a relatively easy stretch of conference games remaining (is there is such a thing in the Big East). Their only non-conference loss was to a tough New Mexico team. They've gone 2-3 in games decided by two points or less. This team feels a bit like Florida State did last season: battle-tested and ready for the tournament. Of course, in 2012, Florida State lost in the second round to Cincinnati and ruined my entire bracket. I think the Bearcats are sleepers much like Michigan State They could make some noise in the tournament, and I'd like to be bold and predict they will make it to the Final Four, but I learned my lesson with Florida State last year.

Michigan State — How stacked is the Big Ten this year? There are five serious contenders and Michigan State is a team a lot of people are sleeping on. The Spartans' only bad loss was to UConn in the opening game of the season. Since then, the Spartans have lost at Miami, at Minnesota, and at Indiana. Meanwhile, they've beaten Kansas and Ohio State. They still have to play Michigan twice, at Ohio State and at home vs. Indiana and Minnesota again — not to mention the Big Ten tournament, but I think Michigan State will quietly be a few points shy of a Final Four berth.

Undecided

Duke — The closest game Duke has had this season is 5 points. This happened three times — each in wins — as they beat Louisville on a neutral court, Ohio State at home, and Wake Forest on the road. Their two losses were to good teams, but the blowout to Miami has some people worried. I'm more worried by their poor performance at Wake Forest. Wake Forest is not going to make the NCAA tournament (barring some miracle run in the ACC tournament). They aren't even going to be considered. They'd be seeded at about 28 or 29 if the tournament held 128 teams. And Duke only managed to win by 5? Duke doesn't seem like they've been tested much. They've either dominated or been dominated. They could certainly be a Final Four team, but I haven't forgotten last year's Lehigh upset. I think we'll see Duke suffer a relatively early exit this year, failing to make it to the Elite Eight. Somebody will have their number.

Gonzaga — I really don't know how to feel about the Bulldogs (yes, the bulldog is their true mascot … not a 'Zag). I like this team, but I feel they are overrated while currently ranked seventh. Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament every year since 1999 when they made their run to the Elite Eight and lost to Connecticut in the regional final. But they have never made it back to the Elite Eight since then. Even if voters are generous enough to give them a two seed, I doubt the Bulldogs can make it past the Sweet 16. The competition is too stiff and they have not been tested enough. They have a lot of wins against mediocre teams in good conferences, but I can't imagine Gonzaga beating a team like Ohio State, Marquette, or Syracuse. They would need a favorable road to advance into the Elite Eight or Final Four. One thing worth noting is that of the 12 players on their roster, five are not from the United States. Their recruiting has been truly smart in recent years.

Creighton — The Bluejays are one of the hardest teams to read this year. They fell asleep twice — losing to Boise State at home and at Drake. (They also lost at Wichita State, but that was a comparable foe.) Creighton hasn't had many opportunities to shine against top clubs. They beat Wisconsin and Arizona State on neutral courts. They won at California and at Nebraska, but they've yet to play a ranked team. (Of course Wichita State is now ranked.) While much attention is given to Creighton's star, Doug McDermott, this is a good team. They have the best field goal % in college basketball and are fourth in the country in assists. Fun fact: when the Bluejays score 71 points or more, they are 18-0. When they score 70 points or fewer, they are 1-3. This team can put points on the board and they've done so against good defenses, if they want to make a run in the tournament that will have to continue. I think they'll make the Sweet 16, but struggle to advance beyond that.

Ohio State — Currently, Ohio State has the 43rd most difficult strength of schedule. By the end of the season, that will not be so low. The Buckeyes are going to be tested often in the next six weeks – playing at Michigan, at Wisconsin, Indiana twice as well as hosting Minnesota, Michigan State, and Illinois — the latter two having already beaten the Buckeyes this season. The road will be tough for the Buckeyes, and they could easily end the season with eight or nine losses. That will make their road all the more difficult considering the teams that they may have to play in their opening round and may very well make them underdogs for a bid to the Sweet 16.

Minnesota — This is a very athletic team, but one that has lacked in discipline. Their first three losses were not worrisome: Duke at a neutral site, at Indiana, at home vs. Michigan. Then they lost at Northwestern … and Wisconsin. Four losses in a row should never happen to a team that wants to win a national title. We'll see if the Golden Gophers can bounce back as their conference schedule still holds at Michigan State, at Ohio State, and at home vs. Indiana. They're probably only the fifth best team in the Big Ten, so I can't put all of them in the Elite Eight, can I? I think they'll manage to make it to the second weekend, but will likely come up against a number one in the Sweet 16 and they'll give them a game, but not a good enough one.

Pretenders

Florida — ESPN and the selection committee always love Florida too much. Truthfully, the SEC is about as weak as it has ever been, despite the addition of Missouri. Florida will probably get a number one seed which will allow them to ease into the Sweet 16, but I truly don't think they can make the Final Four. They have only had two close games all season and they lost them both. That is not good news for them because tournament games will be close, especially in the second weekend. I expect Florida to be overrated and knocked off by a four- or five-seed.

Louisville — I personally don't think this Louisville team is all that good. Well, they are not a championship team at least. They lack a certain clutch attitude, evidenced by each of their losses (especially Syracuse) and their squeaked wins over Northern Iowa, Kentucky, and Pittsburgh. They just seem like they're playing to not lose rather than to win and that won't work in the tournament. I predict the Cardinals will not make the second weekend.

Oregon — I hereby label Oregon the biggest pretenders on this list and will predict they lose in the first round. Yes, Oregon has some impressive wins, but they also have some weak losses. Losing to UTEP in triple overtime just spells trouble to me. Saturday's loss to Cal just solidifies this even more.

Missouri — Meh. Their recent loss to LSU solidifies them as pretenders in my mind. Florida destroyed them and their most impressive win was against underachieving Illinois. I think they'll be easy pickings in the first round.

North Carolina State — The Wolfpack can probably be taken off this list and placed in the same category as Kentucky or Illinois: overrated at the beginning of the season. After beating Duke handily, they have gone 2-4. I think we'll find them seeded in the five-seven range, potentially losing in the first round.

New Mexico — The Lobos look pretty good most of the time, but on January 26 at San Diego State, they only scored 34 points. That's not okay. If New Mexico meets a good defensive team early, they are in a lot of trouble. A Sweet 16 team, but no further.

San Diego State — In 2011, San Diego State got their first NCAA tournament win and made the Sweet 16 in the process. Despite their loss on Saturday to Air Force, which will knock them out of the AP top 25, I expect them to make the second weekend again this season, but no more.

I'm looking forward to the next two months of basketball more than I have ever looked forward to any two months of sports in my life. I think we're in for plenty of thrilling heroics.

To review, my Final Four is Kansas, Arizona, Indiana, and Michigan. What do you think? Who's in your Final Four right now?

Posted by Andrew Jones at 8:51 AM | Comments (0)