Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« February 2013 | Main | April 2013 »

March 28, 2013

The Kyrie Irving Experience

Remember in July 2010, when LeBron James infamously took his talents to South Beach, leaving the city of Cleveland in a state of irrelevance? How about the regrettable response to "The Decision" by Cavaliers' owner Dan Gilbert, who guaranteed that Cleveland would win an NBA title before LeBron and the Miami Heat?

Gilbert wasn't exactly Nostradamus in his prediction, as his Cavaliers have still failed to reach the playoffs in the nearly three years since LeBron's departure. Meanwhile, the Heat are in the midst of the second longest winning streak in NBA history and are the clear favorites to win their second consecutive championship. Still, the future of the Cavaliers seems to be looking up with the emergence of Kyrie Irving, the second year stud out of Duke who was picked first in the 2011 NBA draft.

Kyrie has been absolutely phenomenal since joining the Cavaliers — drawing statistical comparisons to Chris Paul and Derrick Rose during their first two seasons and surpassing the rookie and sophomore campaigns of Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, Tony Parker, and Jrue Holliday. He is even being mentioned in the same sentence as all-time greats such as Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, and Jerry West. He's not there yet, but Kyrie has the legitimate potential to not only be the best point guard in the game in a few years, but one of the greatest of all-time. And with the right talent surrounding him, the Cavaliers could be competing for a championship sooner than later. With each passing day, it is becoming clearer that nobody could stop Kyrie Irving. Well, except Kyrie Irving.

I'll be the first to admit I was a little skeptical of Irving when he came out of Duke. He only played in 11 games for the Blue Devils, as he was forced to sit on the sideline for the majority of the 2010-2011 season with what was described as a "freak" ligament injury to his big toe. Irving did return for the NCAA tournament, scoring 28 points in a losing effort against Derrick Williams and Arizona in what was his last game with Duke. It was obvious that Irving had talent, but I wasn't sure if he had enough experience to make the leap to the NBA. Besides, Duke players had generally been only average or slightly above-average pros, but were never superstars. Irving has proven to be no Average Joe, however.

Irving started his rookie year on a tear, and although he missed 15 games in the shortened season, he was named Rookie of the Year at only 20 years of age. He was also the MVP of the Rising Stars Challenge during All-Star Weekend. Irving averaged 18.5 ppg, 5.4 apg, 3.7 rpg, and 1.1 spg. Chris Paul averaged 16.1, 7.8, 5.1, and 2.2 and Isiah Thomas averaged 17 and 7.8 as rookies respectively.

Irving was on much less talented teams than Paul and Thomas, so he was forced to put more of the scoring load on his shoulders, which explains the smaller assist totals, but the numbers are comparable regardless. Besides, his player efficiency rating was better than LeBron's in Cleveland his rookie year. Irving's smooth yo-yo like handle, unpredictable quickness, and shiftiness make him almost an impossible cover in the open court, and his poise is unparalleled. He wants the ball in crunch-time and usually delivers, making everything seem so easy. That's because, for Kyrie, it is easy.

His jump shot isn't too bad, either. In his second season, Irving became the first true point guard since Mark Price in 1993 to win the Three-Point Competition scoring 23 points in the final round to defeat Matt Bonner. I thought point guards weren't supposed to be the best shooters on the court; they were supposed to be passing to them. Kyrie could do either. He averaged 23 ppg and 5.7 apg this year, and was named to his first All-Star Game. With the selection, he joined an elite list of under-21 all-stars along with Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James.

Yeah, this isn't just your regular talent. Irving is something special, the complete package. He can take you to the rim and finish, or simply knock down a jump shot in your face. He's a one-man press break, a one-man fast break, and a one-man show, but still finds a way to make his teammates better. He's likable, laid back, and well spoken. And when he turned 21 at midnight on March 23, he was most likely taking shots at the gym — not the bar.

Athletes with this sort of potential only come around once every so often, and that's why Irving scares me. Following his toe injury at Duke, which caused him to miss most of his freshman year, Irving has missed 35 of 135 games due to injuries to his head, shoulder, and knee during his first two seasons in the NBA. He also broke his jaw this year and a bone in his right hand this summer, although he didn't miss any games due to them. The sprained shoulder he received on March 10 against the Toronto Raptors could possibly end the current season for the Cavaliers point guard.

At such a young age and with injuries already beginning to compile, Irving's fear-nobody, relentless playing style could continue to be hazardous for his career. While his injuries could be considered fluky or bad luck, the fact remains that Irving has had trouble staying on the court, and these fluke injuries could quickly turn into something more serious if his body keeps repeatedly taking shots.

I want Kyrie to be Chris Paul. I want him to be Isiah Thomas or Jerry West. I don't want him to be Baron Davis or Stephon Marbury. Now don't get me wrong, Davis and Marbury were both respectable NBA players for many years, but I doubt I'm ever going to sit my future kids down and tell them my favorite Marbury moment. Irving could be different. I want him to be different. Irving could be the face of the league within three years, or he could be another good player that just couldn't stay healthy.

The city of Cleveland needs him to be healthy. Next year, Irving's third season, will be extremely critical. The Cavaliers, along with regaining Irving from injury, will also bring back Anderson Varejao who was in the midst of a career year before getting hurt. They have Dion Waiters, possibly the second most productive rookie this year behind Damian Lillard, as Irving's backcourt mate and will receive another lottery pick in the upcoming draft. Cleveland will have some talent on their roster, but it is Irving who is still practically single-handedly making Cleveland relevant again. And while they still won't be championship-caliber team, making the playoffs would certainly not be a reach.

I don't think anybody thought Cleveland would return to the playoffs this century after LeBron left.

Kyrie Irving still has a long way to go if he wants to be mentioned with the greats, but the sky is the limit for the 21-year-old. He has the potential, talent, and drive to be an all-star for the next 12 to 14 seasons, and if he remains healthy, is a possible Hall of Famer in my mind.

Kyrie Irving is a must-watch when he's on the court. Let's just hope he can stay there.

Posted by Robert Campbell at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2013

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 5

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt posted his third top-five result of the year with the runner-up in the Auto Club 400 and took over the top spot in the Sprint Cup point standings. He leads Brad Keselowski by 12.

"I'm keeping this in perspective," Earnhardt said. "We're only making one t-shirt design commemorating this moment. Sales will be brisk, and much like me atop the rankings, they should be gone in a week."

2. Kyle Busch — Busch avoided the Denny Hamlin-Joey Logano disaster in front of him on the last lap and drove to the win in the Auto Club 400. Busch is now sixth in the point standings, 36 out of first.

"For those that don't think I know how to avoid controversy," Busch said, "take that. I went right around it. Thanks are in order to my former teammate Logano. In this case, he gave me a going-away present."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished 12th at California as the Joey Logano/Denny Hamlin wreck unfolded in front of him on the final lap. Johnson remained third in the point standings, and trails Hendrick teammate Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 16.

"Obviously," Johnson said, "Logano and Hamlin have some history. And Tony Stewart and Logano have some 'language.' And I'm sure all three will be summoned to the NASCAR hauler for social studies."

4. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski struggled late at Fontana 1.5-mile oval, finishing a disappointing 23rd in the Auto Club 400. He dropped out of the lead in the point standings and is now second, 12 behind Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"Joey Logano is quickly becoming the most-hated driver in NASCAR," Keselowski said. "It seems that everybody wants a piece of 'Sliced Bread.' I have millions of followers on Twitter. Logano has only one follower — controversy."

5. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished fourth in the Auto Club 400, earning his third top-five finish of the year. He improved three places in the point standings to fourth, 35 out of first.

"I hear Kyle Busch is scheduled to appear on 'Anger Management' with Charlie Sheen," Edwards said. "I'll tell you who needs anger management — Tim Richmond, because he's not alive today to hang out with Sheen. Let's hope Sheen doesn't pressure Busch into snorting cocaine off the hood of the No. 18 Toyota. That would be called an 'engine blow.'"

6. Greg Biffle — Biffle's No. 16 Fusion was one of three Fords in the top 10 at California, recording a sixth in the Auto Club 400. He is now fourth in the point standings, 35 out of first.

"I think Tony Stewart was wrong to go after Joey Logano," Biffle said. "How dare he attack someone nearly 1/2 his age, and nearly 1/3 his weight."

7. Paul Menard — Menard led the Richard Childress Racing charge at California, finishing eighth as teammates Kevin Harvick and Jeff Burton finished outside the top 10.

"Ho hum," Menard said. "Another NASCAR 'fight' in which no meaningful punches were landed. Punches in NASCAR fights are like spoilers — they catch air."

8. Joey Logano — Logano led 41 laps at California, but not the last one, as he and former teammate Denny Hamlin scrapped in Turn 4, sending Hamlin hard into the inside wall while Kyle Busch slipped by for the win. Logano survived to finish third, his first top-five of the year.

"Don't forget," Logano said, "I also tangled with Tony Stewart after the race. He claimed I blocked him on the restart. And I guess if Tony Stewart says you blocked, then you blocked. I may only be only 22, but Stewart seems to be the immature one. That's why I tossed a water bottle at him — I was giving him a 'baby' shower."

9. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin finished 25th in the Auto Club 400 after his last-lap tangle with Joey Logano that send Hamlin's No. 11 Toyota hard into the infield wall. He suffered a compression fracture of his L1 vertebrae.

"Mark my words," Hamlin said, "I'll be 'back.' And once I return, Logano should 'brace' for retaliation."

10. Kurt Busch — With brother Kyle scoring a dramatic win, Kurt took fifth in the Auto Club 400, his second top-five result of the season.

"I can relate to what Joey Logano must be feeling," Busch said. "I know exactly what it's like to be attacked by Tony Stewart. My advice is to turn the other cheek. Why? Because you have two of them, just like that 'ass.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2013

Injuries, Freak Injuries, Desperation Signings

Customarily, the approach to Opening Day involves looking at last-minute roster moves, a few last game tune-ups by promising rookies, intriguing new blood, and assorted veterans of various statures. This spring, it almost seems to be a crash course in emergency medicine, among other things:

St. Elsewhere, Yankee Stadium

It was one thing for Hal Steinbrenner to admit going in that this didn't exactly look like the New York Yankees' year, considering that among every cliché you've ever known about the Yankees the most truthful is that they don't like to lose, but married to the fact that the Steinbrenners are bent on bringing the Yankee payroll below luxury tax thresholds.

But it was something else again for the Yankees to graduate, seemingly in a blizzard, to baseball's early answer to St. Elsewhere:

Mark Teixiera — Strained wrist; expected to be out until May at minimum.

Curtis Granderson — Broken right arm when hit by a pitch; expected to be out until late April or early May.

Alex Rodriguez — Offseason hip surgery; a potential that he might miss time through the All-Star Break and, possibly, most or all of the season.

Michael Pineda — Right shoulder surgery last May; rehabbing slowly but steadily; not expected to re-join the team until the All-Star Break at least.

Derek Jeter — Aggravated his surgically-repaired left ankle; could land on the disabled list and not return until well after Opening Day.

Phil Hughes — Has missed most of spring training with back trouble.

Brian Cashman — The general manager has managed to get himself injured ... skydiving. He jumped out of a plane, had a hard landing, and ended up with a broken fibula and a dislocated ankle. Sounds like he's qualified to play the Yankee infield this year.

That indifferent-seeming Yankee offseason, in which signing Kevin Youkilis was the biggest splash, is beginning to look a little more like it's going to kick them in the rear if they're not careful. When they take on a third of what's left of Vernon Wells's contract (did you ever think the Los Angeles Angels would find anyone to take that albatross off their hands?) and pick Brennan Boesch off the Detroit scrap pile, while refusing to trust a small but promising looking pack of prospects to step in and up, the Yankees themselves could be put on a kind of disabled list.

Then, again, this is the Empire Emeritus. And the second truest cliché about the Yankees is that they thrive on delivering the predictably unexpected. Or is that the unexpectedly predictable?

And You Thought The Yankees Had Medical Problems...

Freak injuries are as much a part of professional sports as season tickets and drug scandals, and baseball this spring has seen enough to inspire a prequel to House, M.D.:

Michael Taylor (Oakland Athletics; OF) — Depending on your point of view, Taylor either sliced or chewed his way back to the minors ... when he sliced a finger while tossing out his gum during a spring game. Not that he was expected to make the big club out of spring training, anyway, but surely the defending American League West champions thought they'd better take a bite out of potential in-game indifference early and often.

Joel Peralta (Tampa Bay Rays, RP) — Injured his neck while ... stepping out of his car in the parking lot of a Cuban Taste restaurant. The stiff neck took Peralta out of the World Baseball Classic, left him unable to throw for four days, and left him further at the mercy of smart-ass sportswriters.

Elvis Andrus (Texas Rangers, SS) — It's one thing to want an elaborate tattoo in honor of your late father, and for four years, yet. It's something else again to spend nine hours in two days undergoing the procedure only to discover your arm is on fire (his words, not mine) and you've got to be shut down a few days while your hunka-hunka burnin' love simmers down.

Doug Melvin (Milwaukee Brewers, manager) — Don't think only players are prone to dumb, freak, unexpected, or surrealistic injuries. Ask Sir Galahad Melvin: his wife squeaked when she spotted a "bug" while the couple were dining, Melvin leaped to exterminate the predator ... and suffered a nasty sting from an Arizona bark scorpion. He spent several hours in the emergency room and, apparently, promised that, the next time the Melvins need an immediate exterminator, he'll have his wife swat the varmint with a shoe.

Marc Rzepczynski (St. Louis Cardinals, RP) — Usually, pitchers and golf are a marriage made in heaven. Usually, but not always. Once in awhile the two games don't see eye to eye. In Rzepczynski's case, this took on a literal dimension when, on his second swing of a golf outing with three teammates, some debris got into his eye — causing enough irritation to shut him down for a week and a half and compel his doctor to order him to sleep standing up, like a horse.

David Robertson (Yankees, P) — As if the Yankees didn't have enough trouble with baseball-related injuries, Robertson — who made last spring's list of transdimensional medical problems with a foot sprain carrying boxes downstairs — managed to go a week and a half without spring game appearances because of a sore shoulder ... incurred when he slept on it "wrong."

Jhonny Peralta (Detroit Tigers, SS) — Peralta missed a spring game thanks to not losing his lunch: he suffered an allergic reaction to a pre-game bowl of clam chowder and had to be scratched. I'm not sure I want to know the tacky nicknames his teammates are likely to hang upon him this season.

Casey Kotchman (Miami Marlins, multiple position) — The one-time Angel had a devil of a time with an early spring drill: he crashed into the pop-up machine while chasing a pop fly. He actually survived the crash, but then he tried grabbing the machine before it hit the ground and put gashes into two fingers on his right hand. It got him four stitches and, reportedly, had a few teammates in stitches. I realize the Marlins these days aren't exactly renowned for brains, but hasn't anyone told these people there are such things as coaches with fungo bats?

The Last of the Free Agent Mohicans

It took damn near until the end of spring training, but Kyle Lohse has a new employer: the Brewers, who signed him this past weekend for three years and $33 million. The last of the free agents considered among the top tier (he went 16-3 with a 2.86 ERA for the National League Central-winning St. Louis Cardinals in 2012), Lohse ran into a ticklish offseason market because clubs didn't want to give up high draft picks to land him.

The main reason Lohse came under the Brewers' eye: their plan to go with youth atop the rotation got scotched when Wily Peralta, Mike Fiers, and Mark Rogers posted a combined 6.48 ERA in spring training pitching.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 3:51 PM | Comments (0)

What to Expect at the NHL Trade Deadline

If this were a normal NHL season, teams would be just under halfway done with the season at the 30-some game marker. In this context, much of the furor — positive or negative — would be negated. For example, the Columbus Blue Jackets, Washington Capitals, and Buffalo Sabres overcame hideous starts to battle back around .500. In fact, if you looked at the Capitals and Alex Ovechkin, subtract out the first two weeks of the season (equivalent to preseason games) and they'd actually be doing quite well thanks to an adjustment period under new coach Adam Oates.

But the reality of the situation is that there's simply not a lot of time to assess things normally. The standings are what they are, and the trade deadline is just about a week away. Forward-thinking GMs will probably resist giant rebuild projects because of this reduced sample size. However, the truth is plain as day: you simply can't stop the turning of the calendar — players age and contracts expire.

So with the trade deadline fast approaching and still many teams within striking distance of a playoff spot, GMs have to keep one eye on the race and one on the future. A move like the Dallas Stars made with captain Brendan Morrow makes sense. The Stars aren't considered a Cup contender, but they're hanging around. At the same time, Morrow is a UFA, and theoretically, he can be brought back if the price and fit are right.

With that in mind, it seems like the going rate for support soon-to-be UFAs is quite high. Look at the heady price Pittsburgh paid for an aging, slow No. 4 defenseman in Douglas Murray. While there may yet be a few blockbuster moves , it will take a lot for teams to get rid of top players if they're still sniffing a playoff spot. Because of that, it makes sense that trade activity will focus on second-tier players, though the possibility of a blockbuster move is still on the radar — the price just has to be right.

Considering those circumstances, let's take a look at some of the higher-profile names out there. These players can make a difference on new teams, and some are impending UFAs while some are not. Some of these players have no-movement clauses, but as we've seen in the past, if you want to move an asset, there are certainly ways to get that done.

Jarome Iginla, Calgary Flames — Will the long-time Calgary captain approve a move in the final year of his contract? Iginla's best days are behind him, but the rugged power forward can still be an elite difference maker in the rough-and-tumble playoffs.

Dan Boyle, San Jose Sharks — A puck-moving defenseman is probably the hardest role to fulfill for any squad. And while Boyle isn't the same player he was five years ago, he's still a crafty minute-muncher capable of running a power play or delivering an outlet pass. There aren't a lot of players available with his skills and he's still signed through next season, which means the going rate for him will have to be high.

Mike Ribiero, Washington Capitals — During Washington's awful start, Ribiero was generally their best player night in and night out. Though the Caps have found some measure of consistency under Adam Oates now, Ribiero is still a free agent after this year, which means that his playmaking skills will be in demand.

Jaromir Jagr, Dallas Stars — It was weird enough seeing Jagr in a Stars jersey, but now the future Hall of Famer may be on the move again. He's done well for himself in Dallas, which means his skills will certainly solicit interest in the hours leading up to the trade deadline. As a support player, Jagr was credited with making the difference for Philadelphia's Claude Giroux; can he do the same for a Cup contender this season?

Brad Boyes, New York Islanders — Signed on the cheap, Boyes has had a year of redemption with the Islanders. He may never return to his days as a 40-goal scorer (yes, he really did that), but there's still plenty of offensive life left in Boyes. With no contract for next year, Boyes is the perfect top-six complementary player.

Jay Bouwmeester, Calgary Flames — Things haven't worked out for Bouwmeester in Calgary, but the blue-liner is only 25, which means that in the right situation he could still live up to his potential. With a $6.68 million cap hit, it's a hard contract to swallow but the new CBA allows for trading of up to 50% of the salary, opening up flexibility for a move.

Posted by Mike Chen at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2013

Winning the March Lottery

Listen closely, loyal reader. Your clicks on this website are about to pay off.

I have some lottery numbers guaranteed to make somebody millions of dollars. How can I be so sure? Because these same numbers do so every year. Write these down: 1, 68, 2, 16, and 4.

You see, every March, a few college basketball coaches parlay Cinderella tournament runs into much better jobs. They start by being 1 of the 68 teams in the NCAA tournament. From there, they win 2 games in a weekend to get into the Sweet 16. And then, during the 4 days after the tournament's first weekend, when the dust settles, bigger schools take notice.

This strange process condenses years of work into one winner-take-millions judgment. Coaches spend years toiling as assistants, months recruiting players, and weeks grinding in preparation during each season, but the biggest breaks in their careers fall out from two games sous vide into a weekend in March.

Of course, the goal of sports is to win. But the narrative surrounding single-game performances are comically over-wrought with meaning. In 2010, Butler's Gordon Hayward nearly won the national championship game with a half-court heave, the shot only careening off the rim by a few slices of Spalding. And yet, had that shot gone in, we would remember that game so differently. Duke and Mike Krzyzewski would still be known for their championship drought and the tournament would have had its first true small conference winner in the 64+-team era. Should one near-miss really have that kind of influence on history?

Recent college basketball history is littered with poor coaching hires that seemed to place too much emphasis on tournament success. The poster child case came in 1999, when Dan Monson famously led Gonzaga to three tournament wins, leading to his hiring at Minnesota. Monson never really elevated the Gophers (who had been to the Final Four just a few years earlier), in large part because of the fallout from his predecessor, Clem Haskins, leaving amid scandal.

Was the Minnesota job especially difficult given the circumstances? Of course. But Minnesota knew the potential turmoil ahead and should have hired someone experienced or capable of handling that adversity instead of trying to bottle Monson's fortune as some kind of cure-all.

Let's be clear: I don't blame Stan Heath for leaving Kent State for an unimpressive stint at Arkansas or Darrin Horn for turning his 2008 run at Western Kentucky into a forgettable shot at South Carolina. The coaching profession is a pyramid scheme, where the right alchemy can precipitate an offer from a major program and the millions of dollars that come with it.

But the schools should know better. Just as Monson wasn't prepared for what awaited him at Minnesota, Horn's struggles at South Carolina should have been foreseeable. Horn spent 11 of his 17 years in college basketball to that point at WKU and another two a few hours away at Morehead State. The Hilltoppers were decent in his five years as head coach, but only won their league twice and prior to their 2008 Sweet 16 run, had not made the NCAA tournament under Horn. And yet, the South Carolina brass fell in love with a really good weekend from his team.

All of which brings us to the case of Florida Gulf Coast head coach Andy Enfield. Enfield's Eagles became the first 15-seed to win two tournament games, and when the tournament is over in a few weeks, Enfield will likely be a popular candidate for more glamorous or lucrative jobs.

Enfield's team had a terrific weekend, one that will be remembered in tournament lore. But to what extent does this run suggest future success on a larger stage?

You might expect me to be as cautious about Butler's Brad Stevens or VCU's Shaka Smart, both of whom led mid-majors into hallowed Final Four ground. And maybe immediately after those runs, I would have had the same hesitations.

But at this point, Stevens and Smart have demonstrated both staying power and method. Both coaches' programs have beaten major competitors outside of their initial Cinderella Marches on a regular basis. But even more so, each understands the disadvantages of his program and embraces unorthodox methods to get around them.

Stevens' roster isn't packed with high school All-Americans? He employs an analytics assistant. Smart's players are big and fast, but not as polished as the top programs'. He employs a variant of Nolan Richardson's 40 Minutes of Hell and schedules surprise SEAL training to prepare for it.

In these cases, tournament wins were nice, tangible exhibits that the two could coach, but the talent that will lead to their success at bigger programs (sorry, Bulldog and Ram fans) was there regardless those outcomes.

The tournament is a blast, and certainly coaching impacts outcomes. But schools looking for an ascending coaching star shouldn't let a few days in March outweigh a lifetime's worth of coaching performance.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 4:47 PM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2013

The Other Tournaments of March

I admit it. While I can't take my eyes off the tube during the NCAA tournament, I switch more often than I should to the (rightfully) ignored other college basketball tournaments for the also-rans. What can I say, I'm a contrarian.

The main one of these, of course, is the NIT, but two more have recently arrived on the slate to ensure that virtually every Division I team with a winning record will playing somewhere with hardware on the line. Let's take a look at each.

NIT

History — The NIT is both older and used to be more prestigious than the NCAA tournament. This is because the finals have always been held in New York City, which counted a lot more for publicity in the 1940s than it does now. Additionally, it was the NIT that gave us the concept of an "at-large bid." In the early days of the NCAA tournament, they would only allow one team per region to participate. This would mean that the second best team in a region could also be the second best team in the country, and not be able to play in the NCAA tourney.

The NIT had no such restrictions, which (besides the NYC location) lent it more prestige. Another reason some teams chose the NIT was more insidious: with the NCAA holding matches at campus sites, and not giving the schools a say to their opponent, a segregated school the South could be made to play a black team.

In addition to some schools choosing the NIT over the NCAA, some schooled played both. In 1950, City College of New York were both NCAA and NIT champions. Following that season, the NCAA ruled that schools could not play in both tournaments, and coupled with the beginnings of the civil rights movement, the NCAA became the premier tournament for good.

2013 — The interesting thing about the NIT and the other consolation tournaments is that you can tell which teams truly do take every game seriously and which teams, having fallen short of their NCAA dreams, just go through the motions. It comes down to coaching. Often, schools will decline the NIT invitation.

This year, two of the teams widely believed to be the last two out of the NCAA field, Tennessee and Kentucky, both lost in the first round, as did UMass. The heavies left include Maryland, Virginia, and Alabama. You can whet your NCAA whistle Saturday with an early start (11AM ET) NIT second round game between St. John's and Virginia on ESPN.

College Basketball Invitational

History — The CBI began in 2008 by The Gazelle Group, who continue to run it. You may not have heard of The Gazelle Group, but you are probably familiar with their work; they run a ton of the early season tournaments like the 2K Sports Classic, The Gothic Classic, and the Legends Classic.

The tournament is one rung below the NIT and includes several high majors each year. One interesting wrinkle to the tournament is that the championship is best-of-three. More cynically, there are no seeds and schools have to pay to host games.

2013 — This year's heavies were Texas and Purdue, although Texas has already lost. Two of the quarterfinals, the semifinals, and finals will be on the AXS channel, which is a DirecTV-exclusive channel that used to be known as HDNet. The teams remaining besides Purdue are Houston, George Mason, Santa Clara, Richmond, Wright State, Western Michigan, and Wyoming. Four of the eight first round matches were decided by a point.

2013 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament

History — This one started in 2009, by, believe it or not, the website CollegeInsider.com.

The CIT is, by rule, major-free. Only mid-major teams on down are eligible, although that includes the Mountain West. They also have the distinction of being the only postseason tournament besides the NCAA to grant an automatic bid to a conference tournament winner. That would be the Great West Conference, which has too few teams, five, to be permitted into NCAA tournament inclusion. With four of those five schools moving on to other conferences, the future of the Great West Conference is in doubt.

If you are looking for a CIT bracket, don't bother. They re-seed after every round and decide who will play who only after each round has been completed.

2013 — The two best teams left in the field are probably Air Force and Weber State, so it's puzzling that tournament organizers have decided to pit them against each other in the second round. Other teams left of note are Tulane, Bradley, and Northern Iowa. Although all games are streamed on the tournament website, only the championship is on television proper, on the CBS Sports Network.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 11:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2013

NCAA Tournament Bracket: Picking and Grinning

Can Rick Pitino lead Louisville to another Final Four?

The Cards are the tournament's No. 1 seed, and it's no secret that Pitino's goal is to win his second national championship. He's laid that card on the table, which is quite different that laying the wife of an equipment manager on the table, which he's also done.

Louisville was rewarded for the overall No. 1 seed with placement in the bracket's toughest region, the Midwest, which boasts Duke, Michigan State, a 30-4 Memphis team, and a Saint Louis team that no one wants to face.

Despite playing in Lexington, home of the Kentucky Wildcats, it won't be "one and done" for the Cardinals. They'll emerge from Lexington and face Saint Louis in the Sweet 16 and narrowly advance, but will fall to Michigan State and Tom "H to the" Izzo in the Midwest Final.

Which No. 1 seed is most vulnerable to an upset?

Gonzaga. It's hard to discount a 31-2 record and a team that features big man Kelly Olynyk, but let's face it, Canadian centers were made for hockey, not basketball. And, if you need more reasoning based on no science or statistics whatsoever, recent history suggests the Bulldogs are more dangerous as a lower seed.

Gonzaga reaches the Sweet 16, but falls to Wisconsin.

Is Duke, the No. 2 seed in the Midwest Region, really that much more dangerous with Ryan Kelly?

As slow, white, good-shooting players go, Kelly is the slowest, whitest, and best-shooting of the tournament. And he is vital to the Blue Devils' championship hopes. Duke lives and dies by the three-pointer, and Kelly only accentuates their prowess in that respect. Also, Kelly's inside presence should take some pressure off of Mason Plumlee, who boasts a total of zero offensive moves in his repertoire. Plumlee does have a promising pro career awaiting, because if there's one thing the NBA needs, it's another Nick Collison.

Duke faces a tough second-round game either against Creighton and scoring machine Doug McDermotte, or a rugged Cincinnati team which finished ninth out of what I believe used to be 27 teams in the Big East. Assuming they clear that hurdle, Duke would likely see an always-dangerous Michigan State team in the Sweet 16.

The Devils can smack the floor all they want, but they don't play defense, and that will cost them against MSU in the round of 16.

Assuming seeds hold, who has the toughest round of 32 matchup, South No. 1 Kansas vs. No. 8 North Carolina, or East No. 1 Indiana vs. No. 8 North Carolina State?

For Christ's sake, another UNC-Kansas matchup? That's good news for CBS, but bad news for the Tar Heels. As a team, the Heels are playing some of their best ball; unfortunately, James Michael McAdoo is not, and you can't beat Kansas without an inside presence.

It could be double-trouble for UNC against Kansas: they could fall behind by 28, and Roy Williams may black out.

On the other hand, the Wolfpack could present a problem for the Hoosiers. N.C. State is an athletic bunch with a solid backcourt in Lorenzo Brown and Scott Wood. If the 'Pack can make a concerted effort to pound the ball inside and get Cody Zeller in foul trouble, they have a chance. Plus, it's the 20th anniversary of N.C. State's national championship year. It's possible Jim Valvano may be looking down upon the Wolfpack. It's more possible that the only Italian presence for the 'Pack may be the wet noodle with which they try to whip their opponents.

Can New Mexico win the West and make it to the Final Four?

It's possible. The Lobos are coached by Steve Alford, who played for Bobby Knight at Indiana. Alford has instituted Knight-like principles at New Mexico, and has done so without mental or physical intimidation, assault, profanity, verbal degradation, or red sweater vests.

But the Lobos are not Final Four material. It's hard to put stock in a team that scored only 34 points in a January 26th loss at San Diego. Plus, a potential Sweet 16 matchup with Ohio State and apple-cheeked guard Aaron Craft, who leads a defensively-disciplined and tournament-tested squad, stands in the way.

Will a No. 2 seed falls to a No. 15 seed this year?

It won't happen this year. In fact, all four No. 2 seeds (Duke, Ohio State, Georgetown, and Miami) should win by 23 or more.

If I had to guess, I'd say the highest seed to fall in their first game is a No. 4 seed. I'm going with No. 13 South Dakota State over No. 4 Michigan, 72-69. I'll take a Jack Rabbit over a Wolverine any day, and so will most women.

What about the East Region?

Indiana is the region's No. 1 seed, but seems vulnerable. On several occasions this season, the Hoosiers have appeared to be on the cusp of establishing themselves as college basketball's elite team. However, they seem to falter on these occasions.

That's why my pick in the East is Miami, the ACC regular-season and tournament champs. The Hurricanes have a dynamic backcourt in Shane Larkin, Durand Scott, and Trey McKinney Jones, plus they have a solid inside game, and a coach who's yet to be investigated by the NCAA. In addition, the Hurricanes have the best athletic boosters in the nation, as well as the best athletic boosters in the penitentiary.

Is there a secret to predicting the Final Four?

There used to be. Now the secret's out. Here's the formula: the sum of the seeds of the Final Four teams should be greater than 4 and less than 23.

Picks for the Elite 8?

Midwest: Louisville, Michigan State

West: Wisconsin, Ohio State

South: Virginia Commonwealth, Florida

East: Indiana, Miami

Final 4?

Michigan State, Ohio State, Florida, Miami

Champion?

Miami over Michigan State

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 3:28 PM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2013

Fact or Fiction: Heat the Best Ever?

If you spend any time watching that four-letter all sports network these days, you've undoubtedly noticed that the Miami Heat are on a run for the ages. Though the verdict is still open on how far this win streak will go, Miami passed the 2007-08 Houston Rockets with 23 straight wins at the time this article was submitted (as an aside, it is interesting to note that the aforementioned Rockets streak was ended on March 18, 2008 with a loss to the Celtics ... five years later TO THE DAY, the Celtics failed in their attempt to be the first team in NBA history to end two separate 22-game win streaks).

In addition to the nonstop coverage of Miami's streak, that same network has inundated its watchers with facts and figures that portray the notion that this team — the 2012-13 Miami Heat — is among the best teams ever. This article will delve into that idea and will explore the merits of this team and a handful of others whose play within a given season warranted a ball in the proverbial hopper in the discussion on "the best team ever."

Before we get into the comparisons, let's set the ground rules. This study will assess teams only within a single NBA season. So called "dynasty" teams will only be considered if any single season within that dynastic stretch set a team apart from its contemporaries and the length of a team's sustained success will not factor into this missive in any way. Additionally, player comparisons, a crucial component to any team's claim as the best ever, will not be arbitrarily adjusted based on the era in which a team/player played. This simply means that the measure of a player's excellence will be relative to the league within the year they played, so any arguments about today's athletes automatically earning extra credit because they are bigger, stronger, and faster than their predecessors won't hold up. Now let's meet the competitors:

2012-13 Miami Heat; 52-14, 30-3/22-11 (home/road split), 23-game win streak

1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers; 65-17 regular season record, NBA title, 12-1 playoff record

1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers; 69-13 regular season record, NBA title, 33-game win streak

1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers; 65-17 regular season record, NBA title, 15-3 playoff record

1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers; 68-13 regular season record, NBA title, 46-4 record in first 50 games

1995-96 Chicago Bulls; 72-10 regular season record, NBA title, 41-3 record in first 44, 15-3 playoff record

1985-86 Boston Celtics; 67-15 regular season record, NBA title, NBA record 40-1 home record

1998-99 San Antonio Spurs; 37-13 regular season record, NBA title, 15-2 playoff record (50-game season)

The eight teams included in this assessment will be measured in five key categories: Offensive Prowess, Defensive Presence, Quality of the League, Team Depth, and Superstar Factor. Teams will be awarded points on a scale of 1-10 for each of the five categories and these totals will be added together to net a final score, so a "perfect" team would have a total score of 50 points. It's as simple as that!

Offensive Prowess

The measure of "Offensive Prowess" is an assessment of how effectively a team scores. Factors include field goal percentage, team points-per-game as compared to the league average, and a team's ability to gain extra possessions through offensive rebounds. While some subjectivity is levied, this is a heavily stat-based category.

In reviewing the participants relative to this category, it quickly became clear that seven of the eight teams were well above average based on the comparison items in play. The one team that really didn't show well in this category is, unsurprisingly, the '99 San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs scored just over 1 point per game more than the league average and were the only team of the eight not to average over 100 points per game. While they did post a better-than-average team field goal percentage (45.6%) and a low number of turnovers (4th lowest in the league), they also shot free throws at a clip below 70% and weren't anything special in 3-point percentage, offensive rebounding, or free throws per field goal attempt.

At the opposite end of this spectrum were the 1972 Lakers. This team scored a whopping 11 points per game more than the league average and led their league in field goal percentage (49%), while also finishing in the top five in free throw attempts and offensive rebounds, making them the most efficient offensive team in this competition.

The 1987 Lakers (+8 vs. league average in scoring), 1967 Philadelphia 76ers (+8), and 1996 Chicago Bulls (+6) all showed very well in the offensive prowess category. The Lakers shot 51.6% from the field and also shot a league high number of free throws, while the Bulls led the league in offensive rebounding percentage (36.9% of available offensive rebounds were collected by the Rodman-led Bulls) and turnover percentage. The '67 Sixers shared the Lakers propensity for getting to the free throw line, but unfortunately they also shot a lowly 68% on those free throw attempts, buoyed by the awful foul line performance of star Wilt Chamberlain.

This year's Heat team, the '83 Sixers, and the '86 Celtics showed similarly in the offensive measurable as each was right at +4 in PPG versus the league average and near 50% shooting from the field. The Sixers did post the highest offensive rebounding percentage in this contest (37.1%), but beyond that, none of the three teams really stood out as superior in any of the other measurable categories.

This category is going to be scored as follows:

'72 Lakers – 9.5
'87 Lakers – 9.0
'96 Bulls – 8.5
'67 76ers – 8.5
'13 Heat – 7.5
'83 Sixers – 7.0
'86 Celtics – 7.0
'99 Spurs – 3.5

Defensive Presence

While Offensive Prowess measures were largely statistically-based, the level of excellence as it relates to the "Defensive Presence" category is a bit more subjective in nature. Some stats can and will be used, however, because key defensive statistics were spotty at best for the older teams on this list, a true stat-to-stat comparison wasn't feasible. Obviously, defensive rebounding and a team's points allowed numbers versus the league average are key variables in the formula, much of the defensive assessment is based on the "eyeball test."

Three teams — the Spurs (-7), Bulls (-7), and Celtics (-6) — posted remarkably high grades in terms of points per game allowed. Each of the three were at the top of their leagues in that category and each also scored well in defensive rebounding (Bulls and Celtics were tops with 71.7% of defensive rebounds collected). The Celtics and Spurs also led their respective leagues in lowest field goal percentage against, with the Spurs topping the charts by allowing made field goals at a paltry 40% clip.

Though the Spurs have a slight statistical edge here, the Celtics and Bulls each had multiple players voted to the league's All-Defensive Team, with the Bulls showcasing an unprecedented three players (Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman) on the 1st team of that unit. When assessing all the stats and factoring in the individual brilliance, these three teams are undeniably excellent, but those Bulls are nearly the perfect defensive team with Boston and San Antonio not far behind. Extra credit has to be given to those Spurs who gave up under 85 points per game defensively, by far the lowest total on this list, so in that sense that nudge Boston by a nose.

In the second tier, only one team stood out, the '83 Sixers. Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones, and Moses Malone all found themselves voted as NBA All-Defensive first-teamers, but this feat is slightly less impressive (very slightly) due to the fact that they played in a season where there were six fewer teams than did the Bulls. Still, defensively, Philly's top five players accounted for an impressive 7 steals and 6 blocks per game, making this an elite unit any way you look at them.

Of the remaining four teams yet to be discussed, Miami is a cut above. One of only three teams of the eight that allow fewer than 100 points (San Antonio 84.7 ppg allowed, Chicago 92.9 ppg, Miami 95.9 ppg), when you watch the Heat, you can see that they have the defensive capability to shut down teams and individuals. That said, Miami's points per game total defensively is just 2 points below the league average and they aren't a particularly good rebounding team when looking at the statistics.

Based on these shortcomings, why is Miami considered a "cut above?" Consider the '67 Philly team which, though in another era, allowed nearly 116 points per game defensively (-2 versus league average), even with Wilt's ridiculous 24 rebounds per game and countless (literally, they didn't count them) blocked shots patrolling the paint. Ironically, another Chamberlain team, the '72 Lakers, also struggled a bit on defense allowing 109 points per game (2 fewer than the league average) and though they grabbed a ton of rebounds (Wilt averaged nearly 20 and Happy Hairston grabbed over 13 per game), their defensive rebounding percentage was around 60%, which was right in the middle of the rankings in the 17-team league.

The final team to be discussed in this group are those '87 "Showtime" Lakers. This team gave up 108.5 points per game — barely one point under the league average — allowed teams to hit field goals at nearly a 47% clip, and was near the bottom of the league in defensive rebounding percentage, yet they featured the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year in Michael Cooper. That last fact just underscores how very average this Laker team was defensively as even with Coop shutting down one opponent nightly, the rest of the team was regularly gouged for buckets of buckets.

Scoring of the defensive units:

'96 Bulls – 10.0
'99 Spurs – 9.5
'86 Celtics – 9.0
'83 76ers – 7.5
'99 Heat – 7.5
'67 76ers – 6.0
'76 Lakers – 5.5
'87 Lakers – 5.0

Quality of the League

All right, this category is a bit of a nod to those of you who lament about the differences between eras, but only just a slight nod. It is evident in reviewing a simple, high level statistical portrait of the league over time that the NBA has changed. There are more Superstars, better athletes, and, counter-intuitive to these two facts, far fewer points scored (as an aside, this is a product of the three-point line coming into play ... though the shot is worth more points, it has dropped shooting percentages down precipitously).

Even considering, it is still neither practical nor possible to factor in some sort of adjustment to level the statistical accomplishments of today's players to the inflated levels of those who played in the '60s and '70s, so we won't even try. What we can do, though, is factor in the relative strength and quality of the league at the time each of our teams played. To do this effectively (and to avoid the knee-jerk urge to rate quality of today's league very high and the '60s teams league very low), we'll use some statistical measures to draw out similarities and dissimilarities between the eras.

The first and most important factor that has to be considered is the size of the league. The '67 Sixers, for example, played in a 10-team league, while the '72 Lakers competed in a 17-team league. The three teams from the '80s featured 23 teams, while the "modern day" teams played in the 29-team league we are all familiar with today.

The second consideration, and one that gets weighed as a factor to the aforementioned league size conditions, would be how "good" the competition was. Those same '67 Sixers faced only one other team in their league with a winning percentage above .550 (which I've arbitrarily selected as a level that defines a team as "good"), meaning 1/9th of their opponents, 11%, were "good." By comparison, the '96 Bulls and '99 Spurs top the list with 11 such opponents on their schedules (out of the 28 they could face), and though they played against many more teams than the '67 Philly team, they still faced a "good" team 39% of the time. In short, marrying these two variables together provides a good indicator of what the landscape of the league looked like in terms that can be related to all eight teams on our list.

This is also where any highly impressive win streaks factor into the equation. While it can be opined that long winning streaks may well be due to a weak set of opponents, I'd like to think we're all past that idiotic belief. Look, winning 20+ consecutive games in any season — hell, in any sport — is impressive no matter how you cut it, as is winning 40 out of 45 or 72 out of 82 ... you get the point.

The final contributory factor that cannot be ignored is a team's strength of schedule versus the league average. One has to be careful with this particular number, as it must be noted that these teams did not play themselves during their seasons of greatness, so by definition they made the teams they played weaker by playing them and beating them on such a regular basis. Still, you can get a feel for just how consistent a team needed to be throughout the season by measuring the strength of schedule rating against the others on our list.

The number that this comparison will be using is called "SoS (Strength of Schedule) Rating Versus Mean" and it can be explained quite simply. If you consider a given NBA season and add up all the wins and all the losses, those two numbers will obviously be equal. This puts the "mean" (aka the average) win percentage at .500. If every team played every other team exactly the same number of times, than everyone's SoS Rating Versus Mean would be 0.0, indicating that each night, the average winning percentage of the team they were playing was .500.

But alas teams don't play every team exactly the same number of times, so this SoS RVM becomes much more relevant — if you play a team that has a win % of .150 20 times and one with a win % of .600 five times, you would expect to have a better record than you would if you reversed those numbers. I'm sure it is clear as mud at this point ... enough explaining, on to the ratings:

'13 Heat – 9.0; 10/28 teams over .550 (36%), 4 in conference. Number two SoS at -0.33. Plus 0.5 point for 23-game win streak.

'72 Lakers – 9.0; 7/16 teams over .550 (44%) including 5 in their conference. SoS a middling -0.63. Plus 1.0 point for 33-game win streak.

'96 Bulls – 9.0; 11/28 teams over .550 (39%) including a total of 6 in-conference. SoS rating of -0.44. Plus 1.0 point for 72-win season.

'83 Sixers – 8.5; 8/22 teams in the league were over .550 (36%). Feature the best SoS rating at -0.14.

'86 Celtics – 8.0; 8/22 teams over .550, 4 in conference. Third best SoS at -0.36. Plus 0.5 point for 40 home wins.

'99 Spurs – 6.0; 11/28 teams over .550, 4 in conference. SoS low at -0.94. Lose an additional 0.5 point for 50-game strike-shortened season.

'67 Sixers – 5.5; 1/9 teams over .550 (11%). SoS predictably low at -0.94. Plus 1.0 points for 46 wins in first 50 games.

'87 Lakers – 5.5; 7/22 teams over .550 (32%), only 2 in conference. SoS of -0.98, worst of group.

Team Depth

Those first three categories focused on the teams themselves and how they fared as a unit. The final two will bring some much-needed individuality into the equation, beginning with "Team Depth."

Any basketball coach worth his or her salt will tell you that a deep team is a good team. This rings true in the NBA, as well, but isn't necessarily the rule. Understanding how deep some of the teams on this list are is important to the measure of that team as the "best ever" ... if it was not a consideration, than we'd be awarding this to the team with the best player on it and would stop there. Nobody wants that.

As you peruse the rosters of the eight teams, it is quite noticeable quite early that there are two distinct and very different methodologies to how these teams got on this list. One path is to have a very dominant core that handles the heavy lifting. Typically, these teams also have some players deeper down the roster with very specific skill sets that allow them to play very specific roles. The second path is to have balance throughout the roster with a larger group sharing the workload and spreading the statistical wealth across stat categories.

No team better epitomizes the latter than the 1972 Los Angeles Lakers. This is a team that boasted an aging but still productive Wilt Chamberlain — and he was their fourth leading scorer. The incomparable Jerry West and the underappreciated Gail Goodrich each averaged over 25 points per contest with West also chipping in nearly 10 assists per game. Relatively obscure teammates Jim McMillian and Happy Hairston also topped 13 per game along with the aforementioned Wilt the Stilt. Hairston added 13 boards a game, which complimented Wilt's 19 nicely. Six players averaged in double figures scoring in all and beyond those 6, there was still another 12 points per game floating around on their bench.

The '67 Sixers were similarly built as they also featured 6 double-digit scorers, but they did have a threesome that carried the majority of that water from the well, so they lose some momentum there. The '87 Lakers featured the most double-digit point men with seven, but the fact that they has only two all-star selections and only a single All-NBA representative (first or second team, no third team selected in '87) doesn't help their case, even if the reasoning behind that was a plethora of well-known, fan-favorite stars that blocked some of the supporting cast on the teams of the era.

There is little mystery over which team least fits the profile — those Jordan-led Bulls — but surprisingly today's Heat team and those '99 Spurs are comparable in terms of teams that lack top-to-bottom contributions. In the case of the Spurs, the problem was they didn't score very much. They had four 10+ ppg guys, but their bench barely scored at all. The Heat are in a similar predicament — four players averaging over 10 and contributions from the bench so sporadic that you never know where additional points are going to come from, if they come at all. But even with those two examples staring you in the face, there is no debating the fact that the Chicago Bulls are the team that is destined to score the worst in this category. Beyond Jordan and Pippen, those Bulls had the uber-erratic Toni Kukoc as their only teammate to drop in double figures each game. Yikes.

The '83 Sixers and '86 Celtics hold a very special place on this list. Though it would be unfair to award them more points than those mentioned in the first group, consider the pain that opponents would have to manage to get through when reviewing the lineup cards. In Philly's case, you have Moses Malone, Dr. J, Andrew Toney, Mo Cheeks, and Bobby Jones coming off the bench. In the case of that classic Boston team, you had Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, and Bill Walton coming in as the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year. These two teams together featured seven future Hall of Famers (and two others that have a very good case in Andrew Toney and Maurice Cheeks), so to define these teams as anything other than "deep" would be greatly flawed logic.

'72 Lakers – 9.5
'87 Lakers – 8.5
'67 Sixers – 8.5
'86 Celtics – 8.0
'83 Sixers – 7.5
'13 Heat – 6.0
'99 Spurs – 5.5
'96 Bulls – 5.0

Superstar Factor

Saved the best for last! All of these other facts, figures, and suppositions are neat and tidy and certainly paint a good picture, but let's get real here: no team is on this list unless they sport some real superstar gravitas. There isn't a lot of pomp and circumstance to get into as a prelude to this closing scoring element as it really is quite simple. The question we answer here is "How good is your best?" To that end, let's get this rolling…

Of the eight teams on the list, we have to cleave off one club and separate them from the rest. Unfortunately that separation comes at the bottom of this list. That club is the San Antonio Spurs. Though there is little denying the 21.7 ppg, 11.4 rpg, and 2.5 bpg stat-line that Tim Duncan threw up there nightly is strong, it just isn't dynamic enough on any level to rate up there with the others. The Admiral, David Robinson, also was much more than a corpse as he averaged double-digits in points and rebounds and chipped in with over 2 blocks a game and 1 steal a game, as well, but again, they are $30/plate steak entrees while the others are upwards of $50 per pop.

Looking at both Lakers squads, there are similarities. Magic on one hand versus West on the other. Both averaged well over 20 points per night and West's 9.7 assists were outdone by Magic's 12.2. Then you have three "other" Hall of Famers on West's Lakers team, one of which is one of the top three players ever to lace them up in the form of Wilt Chamberlain. Magic had his own aging big man legend at the tail end of his career in Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (still averaging 17.5 ppg in the '87 season) and another HOF teammate named James Worthy. Both of these teams are large on star-power, and the final scoring in this category will certainly bear that out.

The other franchise with two teams in the hunt, the Philadelphia 76ers, did things very differently from one another. The '76 edition was highlighted by a dominant big man in Moses Malone, but the '67 version had the dominant big man, the aforementioned Wilt. Dr. J was nearing the end of his Hall of Fame career in '76 and Andrew Toney could score at will. Still, Wilt averaged 24 PPG, 24 RPG and also chipped in nearly 8 assists per game. He also shot 68% from the field! Hal Greer, Wilt's main running mate, poured in 22 points per contest and actually led the team in scoring in the playoffs with 27 per game in the "second season." Chet Walker was no schlub either with his 19.3 ppg/8.1 rpg contribution. Both of these teams fare well in terms of superstardom, but fall short of the final group of teams in this category.

Bird's Celtics were stacked, as was already covered, but their depth doesn't negatively impact the assessment of their sheer superstar talent. Being a superstar is more than just the robust stat lines, and Larry Bird is Exhibit A in that argument. Yes, Bird put up numbers (25.8/9.8/6.8 plus 2 steals), but he also put up results when it mattered most. His consistency in the clutch sets him apart from many others on this list. McHale and Parish each could have averaged over 25 ppg had they been the lone post options for their team, so you can't punish them for playing alongside one another. Dennis Johnson was a star in Seattle before coming to Boston and he too could have put up much larger stats had he needed to. Bill Walton was aging and injury-prone, but his contributions as a sixth man reinforced his status as a star in the league.

The Miami Heat, though a team whose history has not yet been fully written, are unique in their own right. They have the single most talented basketball player today in uniform and that he has "sacrificed" his own numbers (still averaging 26.7/8.2/7.2) and still earns that moniker is a testament to just how good this guy is. Dwyane Wade may have parents that don't know how to spell "Dwayne," but they sure know how to raise a superstar hoops player. Chris Bosh, as the third member of the "big three," seems to step up at the most opportune times and whenever you want to make an argument against his superstar status, he goes on a Player of the Month type of run that makes such an argument absurd. Since this is a story that is still playing itself out, I am confident giving this crew the benefit of the doubt and sliding them ahead of all others, save one.

Michael Jordan is, without question, the greatest basketball player to have ever played in the NBA. If you do not agree with that statement, you simply haven't put enough time into researching it. Jordan was at his best when others are at their most unpredictable. Late in games, trailing by piles of points, in the NBA playoffs, sick; situations that have shrunk even the most stoic of NBA legends bread moments of unparalleled success for MJ. Yes, he lost some of his legendary luster when he came back and played for the lowly Wizards and even more as he drives the Charlotte franchise toward the edge of a bottomless pit, but in 1996, this man was untouchable.

Robin to M.J.'s Batman was Scottie Pippen, a Hall of Famer in his own right who was at the top if his game in 1996. But the factor that sets this team apart from all comers is that annoying, freakish, oft-criticized and lampooned reluctant star named Dennis Rodman. Rodman scored a measly 5.5 points per game — hardly star material — but his 15 rebounds per game were light years ahead of his peers of the time. Rodman made a Hall of Fame career out of doing the little things better than anyone else of his generation and his presence on this team and his unique skill set was the perfect complement to Jordan's greatness and Pippen's consistency.

'96 Bulls – 10.0
'13 Heat – 9.5
'86 Celtics – 9.0
'72 Lakers – 8.5
'67 Sixers – 8.5
'87 Lakers – 8.0
'83 Sixers – 7.0
'99 Spurs – 5.5

And the Winner is...

To be honest, I did not know what to expect when I started this. I put much thought into my rankings and my methodology and I truly let those rankings play themselves out. I didn't look at the results and go back and tinker with a thing, I simply let the system dictate the results. In totaling all the scores, I must admit I was a bit surprised with how tight things turned out, but as I went through the totals, I can say that I feel very good about these results.

The reality is all of these teams are legendary in their own right. Though some may not be on the same level of others, they all belong in the discussion as each team did things that, when viewed in hindsight, defy any logical expectation. As you will see, Miami is not the greatest team of all-time, at least not by my calculations, but to have a team like that on the court in today's day and age is something any basketball fan should not take lightly. Enjoy the ride, as even though these "Once in a Lifetime" teams come along more frequently than that, they remain masterpieces to behold.

1. 1996 Chicago Bulls (42.5 Points) — It is fitting that the only team ever to win 70 games in a single NBA season winds up atop the list of greatest teams ever. They feature the best player ever to play and they won with a defensive intensity that is tough to match and an offensive efficiency that rendered no deficit insurmountable.

2. 1972 Los Angeles Lakers (42 Points) — A 33-game win streak is amazing when you truly think about the feat. Jerry West was as dynamic as they came in his day. Wilt Chamberlain, even at the twilight of his career, was a dominant force. A fitting No. 2 on this list.

3. 1986 Boston Celtics (41 Points) — Admittedly, this is the biggest surprise for me on this list. But a team with five Hall of Famers contributing should never be overlooked. Bird was nearly unmatched in his ability to make a difference in games and it is hard to imagine a more potent set of true post weapons in McHale and Parish, who rarely stepped outside of 15 feet from the rim.

4. 2013 Miami Heat (39.5 Points) — Time will tell if this team leapfrogs any others on this list, but they are in the argument and that argument is tough to discredit. Perhaps if the '13 Heat don't wind up sliding up a spot or two on this list, the 2014 version will, and that's as scary a thought as any.

5. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers (39 Points) — Probably the most underrated team on this list, the Sixers of this era were remarkably well put together. Of all the teams listed here, this is the one team that played the traditional positions to their definition: their big man was a dominant post weapon and gifted rebounder, their point guard was crafty, speedy, and smart, their shooting guard was an ultra-efficient scorer, their small forward was smooth and athletic, and their sixth man was gritty, blue collar, and exhibited pure effort.

6. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers (37 Points) — With Wilt closer to his prime than he was with those '72 Lakers, this team was a force to be reckoned with. It is quite possible that better stat-keeping in the era would have earned them some extra credit in this race, but a great showing nonetheless for a team that stepped in front of the Celtics freight train and lived to tell about it.

7. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers (36 Points) — The "Showtime" Lakers were as entertaining a watch as there's ever been, but their fast paced style actually played against them in this analysis as it did lead to some blowout losses which tarnished their luster ever so slightly.

8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs (30 Points) — As low men on this totem pole, many may question why they were included at all, but any team that allows 85 points per game in an NBA season — strike shortened or not — is in the discussion. What truly set this group apart was an impressive playoff run that to this day may never be matched, a testament to the age-old spirit of team play, understated excellence, and playing towards a goal. As impressive as that season was, it may be more impressive to note that since that season, this team has continued to perform at a high level without compromising those tenants which got them there in the first place.

Posted by Matt Thomas at 6:31 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 4

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski finished third at Bristol and snatched the points lead from Jimmie Johnson, who finished 22nd, two laps down. Keselowski now leads Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 9.

"I finished the race sandwiched between the two Busch brothers," Keselowski said, which is like being between a rock and a hard head. Many have often said that a 'championship' might someday come between the Busch brothers. Thanks to me, it just did."

2. Kasey Kahne — Kahne wrested the lead from Brad Keselowski on a lap 460 restart and pulled away for the win in the Food City 500, Kahne's first win at Bristol.

"The No. 5 Great Clips Chevrolet was amazing," Kahne said, "and just a hair better than everyone else. In honor of the track they call the 'Bull Ring' and in honor of my current favorite sponsor, I plan to get a 'bull cut.'"

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt posted his fourth top-10 finish of the year with a sixth at Bristol. He moved up one spot to second in the Sprint Cup point standings and now trails Brad Keselowski by 9.

"They call this a 'promising' start," Earnhardt said, "mostly because I can't 'promise' it will continue."

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson hammered the wall with 46 laps to go at Bristol and limped home to a 22nd in the Food City 500. He tumbled from the top of the Sprint Cup point standings and is now in third, 15 behind Brad Keselowski.

"Like Joey Logano," Johnson said, "I hit the wall on Sunday. Unlike Logano, I didn't go talk to one after the race. This Logano-Denny Hamlin feud could potentially come to a head, but I doubt it. Their threats were much like Bristol's seats on Sunday — empty."

5. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin was headed for a likely top-5 finish at Bristol, but cut a tire with eight laps to go and scraped the wall continuously as he struggled to a 23rd-place finish. Afterwards, Hamlin was accosted by former teammate Joey Logano, who was spun into the wall by Hamlin earlier.

"Look at this," Hamlin said. "Just four races in, and Logano's dying to get back in a Toyota.

"I'm not in the least bit afraid of Logano. They call him 'Sliced Bread,' but there's certainly no yeast in that bread, because Logano's never 'risen' to anything, much less a challenge."

6. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished fifth in the Food City 500, posting his first top-five of the year. He improved five spots in the point standings to fourth, and now trails Brad Keselowski by 38.

"'It's Bristol! They're fighting!' I famously quoted after the race," Bowyer said. "That makes me the 'ring announcer.'"

7. Kyle Busch — Busch registered his second straight top-five finish with a runner-up at Bristol. He jumped seven spots in the point standings to 10th, and is now 51 out of first.

"No one enjoyed my spirited battle with Brad Keselowski more than me," Busch said. "Brad famously called me an 'ass' once at Bristol; in case he'd forgotten, I gave him a good look at it on Sunday."

8. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth was running second when leader Jeff Gordon blew a tire and collected Kenseth's No. 20 Chevrolet, eliminating them both from the race. Kenseth finished 35th and is now 63 out of the lead in the points standings.

"Take it from Clint Bowyer," Kenseth said. "'Following' Jeff Gordon can only lead to bad things for both teams in the garage."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards struggled in the Food City 500, finishing one lap down in 18th. He is now seventh in the point standings, 42 out of first.

"I was ill for most of the race," Edwards said. "I said 'Aflac' several times during the race, but it had nothing to do with supplemental insurance. At least for a day, the Aflac mascot was no longer a duck, but a 'yak.'"

10. Greg Biffle — Biffle finished 11th at Bristol, posting Roush Fenway's top finish. He is now fifth in the point standings, 40 out of first.

"There are power couples," Biffle said, "like Danica Patrick and Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. And there are power couples, like Tiger Woods and Lindsey Vonn. I find it refreshing that Woods has gone public with a relationship, this time on purpose."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:19 AM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2013

The Best Way to Go Dancing

Last weekend, I spent the last few days before the NCAA tournament like I always do: watching basketball for hours and hours, following conferences large and small from New York to Anaheim.

Only this time, I was at one of the conference tournaments with a real, live press pass for the first time covering the WAC tournament at The Orleans casino in Las Vegas. It would be the last chance to see some semblance of a rational, once-proud league before schools like Chicago State, Missouri-Kansas City, and Division II Grand Canyon University (the only for-profit school in the NCAA) joined the conference that Arizona, Arizona State and BYU founded, among others.

Coming in to the tournament, three favorites stood out: Louisiana Tech, Denver, and New Mexico State.
Three weeks ago, Louisiana Tech was ranked after piling up a 16-0 record and a 17-game winning streak. Denver had been playing some of the best offensive basketball of anybody in the country and had won 17 of 18 since New Year's Eve. New Mexico State, the defending tournament champion, was the only club to defeat each of the top two seeds and was led by waterbug guard Daniel Mullings and 7-5, 355-pound man mountain Sim Bhullar.

Louisiana Tech and Denver were the favorites to meet in the championship game, which would have been a rematch of the teams' last regular season game, in which the Pioneers won by 24, clinching a share of the regular season conference title. So it's easy to deduce who was the favorite to win the automatic bid.

Within a few hours of the quarterfinal round starting, that favorite had crashed out to 21-loss Texas State. The Pioneers never led and were helpless to stop junior Bobcats star Joel Wright, who scored 32 on 9-of-10 from the floor and hit 14-of-16 free throws.

The tournament, turned on its side a few hours prior, was completely flipped upside down when Louisiana Tech lost to another 20-loss team, ninth-seeded UT-San Antonio. The Bulldogs were dominated on the glass and fell victim to the Roadrunners' streaky shooting guard Kannon Burrage.

If you've looked at a bracket by now, you know that Bhullar, Mullings, and the Aggies won the tournament and the automatic bid. They were a deserving champion over the three days and have a better-than-zero chance of knocking off double Atlantic 10 champ Saint Louis in the first round.

But did Denver and Louisiana Tech's regular season superiority deserve to be "rewarded" by making them play three games in three days at true neutral site?

This is a debate that comes up every year at this time. But in recent years, with more and more regular season games in mid-major leagues available on TV, and better statistics that convey a team's strong points and very specific style, the hardcore college basketball fan has more tools at his or her disposal. So we know that teams like Middle Tennessee and Stony Brook are far and away the class of their respective leagues, but also that they're more than just gaudy records, and probably deserve some sort of greater built-in advantage than just playing lower seeds.

It seems like there are almost as many ways conferences organize tournaments as there are ways to score on a basketball court. But the most common format is the one that regular season champions like Louisiana Tech, Long Beach State, and Niagara lost in: send all or most of the NCAA tournament-eligible teams in the league to one neutral site, where the No. 8 seed has to win the same or a similar number of games as a No. 1 seed that could have lapped the league by five games.

Then, there are campus site-only tourneys where every game is played at a higher seed. For a conference like the WAC, there might be a slight issue with travel budgets in geographically widespread leagues if San Jose State had to go to northern Louisiana on two or three days’ notice, with a trip to Utah State three days thereafter.

There are also weird hybrids out there, like the one that victimized Stony Brook. The Seawolves had to play a road semifinal at Albany, where the quarters and semis were being held, and lost just before they would have hosted the championship game.

But a third option is out there that encompasses the best of both worlds: a neutral site tournament that gives the top two teams in the conference a bye to the semifinals. It still allows the "madness" and "last chance to dance" aspects of the weeks of conference tournaments to play out, but rewards teams properly for their regular season work.

Take, for instance, this year's West Coast Conference tournament, played in the same Orleans Arena as the WAC. Loyola Marymount won a grand total of one conference game in the regular season. The Lions still had a chance to go to the NCAA tournament, but had to win five games in five days to do it.

LMU ended tripling its regular season conference win total in Vegas, but fell to a big second half by No. 1 Gonzaga in the semifinal. In the final, the conference's top two teams, and ultimately, its two NCAA tournament representatives played off in Saint Mary's and Gonzaga.

The Southland Conference, where WAC finalist UT-Arlington called home last year, employed a WCC-style bracket this season after the 15-1 conference record Mavericks of 2012 crashed out in a semifinal, their second of that tournament. This season, Stephen F. Austin and Northwestern State dominated the league. The tourney format changed so that the No. 1 and 2 seeds went straight to the semifinals and the number 5-8 teams had to win four games. The result was a deserved showdown between the Lumberjacks and Demons, with NSU winning.

You may be asking yourself if all this really matters. If RPI No. 192 Charleston Southern beats No. 293 Liberty, goes straight to the bracket and plays Duke or Indiana in the first (not play-in round, NCAA), they're probably still going to lose, right? Just know that conference's representative (and 2012 regular season champion) nearly beat a No. 1 seed.

If a conference isn't truly sending one of its best teams, the chance of madness goes down. And unless you're that obsessive about making your bracket the "perfect" one, no one should want less of March in for this week.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 4:59 PM | Comments (0)

Why the 2013 Ravens Will Miss the Playoffs

Since realignment, four out of 10 Super Bowl winners have missed the playoffs the following season. The 2012 champion Ravens appear to be headed down the same path.

Baltimore did not have a dominant regular season, finishing 10-6, which tied for the worst record of any playoff team. According to the Simple Rating System used at Pro Football Reference, the Ravens were the 12th-best team in the regular season (+2.9). A more dominant champion might inspire more confidence, but pessimism about Baltimore's 2013 campaign is less about the regular season last year than about the offseason this year.

Since winning the Super Bowl, the Baltimore Ravens have lost nearly half of their starting defense. Ray Lewis retired. Dannell Ellerbe signed with Miami. Paul Kruger went to Cleveland. Bernard Pollard was cut in a salary cap move. Ed Reed may sign elsewhere. The offense has taken hits, too, losing veteran center Matt Birk and leading receiver Anquan Boldin. I watched 11 Ravens games last season, and I believe Boldin was their best offensive player. In the playoffs, Boldin had twice as many receptions and receiving touchdowns as Torrey Smith, with almost as many yards (380) as Smith and third-leading receiver Dennis Pitta combined (396). Whenever the Ravens needed a big play on third down or in the red zone, Joe Flacco looked for Boldin.

The Ravens will begin next season without their leading sacker and, if Reed leaves, four of their top six tacklers. They'll miss both starting safeties, both inside linebackers, their three most experienced veterans, and one of their best players on offense. The team is also at greatly elevated injury risk after a 20-game season that ended a month after most teams were done playing. Add the wear and tear to the lost recovery time, and you have to assume Baltimore will have some injury issues in 2013.

All Super Bowl teams face a longer season, and most lose some key players after a title run, but seldom to the extent Baltimore faces, with key losses like Ellerbe and Boldin and the exodus of veteran leadership like Lewis. Even without so many key players leaving, many Super Bowl teams struggle to defend their championships. Since realignment:

Out of the previous 10 champions, four missed the playoffs and four lost their first playoff game. Only the 2004-05 New England Patriots, the greatest dynasty of the free agency era, advanced in the postseason. The record is no better for Super Bowl losers: five missed the playoffs the following season, and none reached the Super Bowl.

That long season — playing 20 games is like an extra ¼-season — puts teams at a significant disadvantage with regard to injuries. Their players have more exposure to damage and less time to recover. The Ravens have also lost key players from last season, mostly for salary cap reasons. They'll choose last in the NFL draft and they'll face a tough schedule.

There are some points working in Baltimore's favor. Terrell Suggs and Lardarius Webb return from injuries that sidelined them for most of last season. If both play at the level they did in 2011, and Reed returns, the defense might actually be better than last season. The team might sign another pass rusher in free agency, which should compensate for the loss of Kruger. Offensively, if Torrey Smith continues to develop and Joe Flacco plays the way he did in the postseason (rather than the other 16 games), the Ravens might be okay without Boldin. If opponents like the Steelers struggle with age and offseason losses, the schedule might be easier than expected.

But that's a lot of ifs to overcome, and Baltimore faces even more challenges than most defending champions, so it's unlikely we'll see the 2013 Ravens in the playoffs next January.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 3:48 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2013

Thoughts on Proposed NFL Rule Changes

When the NFL Competition Committee meets this week, they will be considering a handful of proposed rule changes. Most of the seven modifications make perfect sense, but a couple do not. Following is a brief rundown of the proposed changes and whether they seem to stem from common sense or simply from stupidity.

Starting with the sensible proposals, the one that is receiving the most attention is the revocation of the controversial "tuck" rule. This rule says that if a quarterback loses control of the football while attempting to bring it back to his body after an aborted pass attempt is an incomplete pass. To me, this has been one of the most ridiculous rules ever concocted by the NFL. Reason being is that, in my estimation, once a quarterback decides to not pass the ball and "tuck" it under to protect it, he has given up his passing status and becomes a runner. How a quarterback who clearly is not passing the ball can be gifted with an incompletion solely because his arm is still in motion doesn't make sense to me, and elimination of the rule does.

Another proposed rule change that makes perfect sense is one that would limit the number of players on the team defending a field goal or extra point to six on either side of the snapper. Since there are restrictions in place regarding formations on kickoffs and onside kicks, this seems to bring some consistency to the kicking game. Plus, with the kicking team having its own limits on the number of players on either side of the snapper, it makes things more fair and it might cause coaches to become more creative in their schemes to try and block field goal and point after attempts.

In the player safety arena, two proposed rules make sense in protecting players' legs. One would disallow offensive players to make cut blocks when facing their own goal line. Recent season-ending knee injuries to key defensive players prompted this proposal which makes perfect sense in keeping defensive players as safe as the league has tried to make offensive players. One problem, though, is that veteran players who have been ingrained to cut block defenders who make it around the pocket will have a tough time breaking that habit, so there probably will be many penalties and still a few injuries.

The other safety rule proposition that seems to make sense to me is requiring all players to wear knee and thigh pads. Skill players claim that the pads make them slower, but to me that's a copout. Players of yesteryear wore full pads and most of the speedsters didn't seem to have much difficulty outrunning their opponents. And if it keeps a back or receiver from getting a blown knee or thigh contusion from a defender's helmet or shoulder pad, then I think it's a good requirement.

One final proposed requirement is that teams must maintain their fields and have them in good shape for games. While this seems like a no-brainer, I could see some teams claiming "home field advantage" for keeping a sloppy playing surface and hope it plays in their favor against a team that's not used to playing on it. However, in this day and age of overblown player safety measures, this also makes sense from a safety standpoint. Players who were injured simply from making a bad cut or a foot slipping was one reason most teams got away from the evil Astroturf, and running those same risks due to a poorly kept natural surface seems to negate those efforts.

One proposed rule change that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is one that, to me, shouldn't have been a rule in the first place. This rule penalizes coaches who try to challenge a play when it can't be challenged, such as on scoring plays. However, in these specific instances, it doesn't make sense to me that a coach would be penalized if he tried to challenge a play that would be reviewed anyway. I mean, it's not like his attempting to challenge an already reviewable play is an attempt to affect the outcome of a game.

For example, a coach or player trying to call a timeout when there are none available is an obvious infraction. But what does it hurt if a coach throws the red flag and an official reminds him that the play is already automatically reviewed and to pick up his flag? Charging them a timeout or a 15-yard penalty if they have none seems a little harsh for attempting to make sure a questionable play gets reviewed.

The last rule change proposal seems to make no sense at all. Now, I understand its intent is to help protect offensive players from head injuries, but to try and legislate out an instinct that all ballcarriers have is asinine. The rule change would penalize ballcarriers who lower their heads and lead with the crown of their helmets against would-be tacklers outside the tackle box.

Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith called the league "insane" for proposing this rule change, and I can't say I disagree with him. This move is a natural defense mechanism hardwired into running backs and receivers, and even a few quarterbacks, and to penalize someone for doing what their body instinctively does when preparing for a collision is like trying to eliminate the stiff-arm or the hurdle.

Plus, how many "wrecking ball" backs and receivers of years past suffered head trauma from lowering their heads into a defender? Maybe I'm uneducated in this realm, but I haven't heard about Jim Brown or Larry Czonka or Earl Campbell suffering from the effects of concussions or other head injuries.

So while most of the changes being proposed make sense, a couple do not, at least to me. And while the NFL Competition Committee will have to use its best judgment in deciding which proposals to accept, and hopefully it will use common sense in rejecting those that seem to stem from a lack thereof.

Posted by Adam Russell at 11:53 AM | Comments (2)

March 14, 2013

The Real March Madness: Free Agency

If you ever wanted a microcosm of how crazy the NFL is with its player value system, this is the week for you.

We got it started on Monday with two trades involving NFC West rivals Seattle and San Francisco. The Seahawks picked up Percy Harvin from Minnesota in exchange for picks in the first and sixth rounds this year, plus a reported third-round pick next year. Not a few hours later, word leaked that the 49ers had picked up Anquan Boldin from Baltimore in exchange for just a sixth-round pick in next month's draft.

Now Harvin and Boldin are clearly at different stages of their careers. Boldin will turn 33 next season, while Harvin will be just 25. Also, Harvin's deal came contingent on an extension with Seattle, while it looks like Boldin will just play out the final year of his contract for $6 million. Boldin is more reliable and a better run blocker; Harvin is more explosive and provides special teams value. So two different players, but is that worth the extreme disparity in the compensation received by the Vikings and Ravens?

Think about how much Boldin meant to Baltimore's Super Bowl run last year. It goes well beyond just the catches and yards. He's the best run blocker this side of Hines Ward (remember his crushing block on the 4th-and-29 conversion at San Diego)? He destroyed the Patriots in the Red Zone in the AFC Championship Game. I know Ray Lewis got all the face time on TV, but Boldin was the heart of that offense, and Baltimore doesn't win a thing without him on the field. But he's not worth $6 million for the repeat run? You give your QB a $120 million-plus contract and then trade away the guy who has led the team in targets each of the past three years to save $6 million? This makes sense?

Harvin, on the other hand, has never cracked 1,000 yards or 6 touchdowns receiving in any of his four seasons. He's played all 16 games just once in those four years. He's been ... enigmatic off the field (to put it politely). And all of a sudden he's worth three draft picks, including a first rounder, and huge contract ($67 million over six years, though only $14.5 million guaranteed) for a team that passed an NFL-low 405 times last season and already had one of the best special teams in the league? I don't get it.

And this WR value craziness is far from limited to Monday's trades:

* With the signing of Mike Wallace added to the re-signing of Brian Hartline, the Dolphins have now committed over $90 million (more than $40 million guaranteed) over the next five years for the wide receiver position. All the while, they are letting Jake Long walk away and leaving a pile of steaming dog junk for an offensive line. How exactly is Ryan Tannehill supposed to get Wallace the deep ball when he's on his ass the whole time?

* Somebody is going to give Danny Amendola a lot of money, and I'm not sure why. Is he good? Sure he is. But he's good because he's cheap. Do you know who else is cheap? Rookies. If I'm the Rams, I thank Amendola for his time, let some other saps pay him $6 million a year, then draft T.J. Moe from Missouri with a late-round pick. Plug and play.

(Don't like Moe? How about Conner Vernon from Duke or Ryan Swope from Texas A&M or Ace Sanders from South Carolina? Point is, there are a number of guys who can step in and play, and for a heck of a lot less money.)

* And then there's Wes Welker. He's in a class all his own, primarily because of his ability to keep getting up. But he's not fast, and I don't think his game translates nearly as well to any offense that isn't spread based with a great QB (Saints, Broncos, Packers). The fact is, none of those teams are going anywhere near $10 million a year for a guy who will almost always get you the big first down, but will rarely get you the huge game-changing play. And yet Welker has continued to insist he's worth more than the reported $7 million or so the Pats have been offering on a longer-term deal.

The Patriots would be better off retaining Julian Edelman at a third of that price, spending a draft pick on one of the aforementioned rookies-to-be, and using the leftovers to beef up their offers in a free-agent cornerback pool so packed with talent (Aqib Talib, Antoine Cason, Brent Grimes, Sean Smith, Antoine Winfield, etc.), it's bound to drive down prices.

The NFL fixed the major flaw in its value system with the last Collective Bargaining Agreement that finally put a stop to ridiculous rookie contracts that put chumps like JaMarcus Russell in the same tax bracket as Tom Brady (pre-billionaire model wife).

But this part of the value lunacy is going to be much harder to fix. NFL GM's can't wait for the commissioner to brow beat the players out of this one. They're going to have to stand at the podium while their fans cry on talk radio and tell the hard truth: your favorite player wasn't worth what he/you thought he was, and we're replacing him with a guy you've never heard of. Get over it. You'll be fine. (Note: Baltimore may try this with Boldin, but they're wrong. He is worth $6 million.)

Of course that's not going to happen, so get ready for some more ridiculous contracts given out to ego-driven stars who will never live up to them. And when all the dust settles, it's probably going to be the team that made the most quite moves whose fans will be pounding its chests come next February.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 9:30 AM | Comments (1)

March 13, 2013

The Rise of the New Big East

The Big East was founded to be a basketball-centric conference.

Then came money. TV contracts. More money. Realignment. More TV contracts. More money.

Like that, the Big East tried to take a wild football detour. Like that, the conference died.

Rising from the ashes though are the seven Catholic schools, still basketball-centric. For once, realignment was sincerely proper, just and good. The Big East will go back to its roots. And it will be a strong basketball conference. Very strong.

The "Catholic Seven," DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova, watched as the conference they helped found run like a chicken with its head cut off. Football had spoken, loud and clear, and the Big East was caught off guard. As they watched West Virginia flee to the Big 12, Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC and then Rutgers ... Rutgers to the Big Ten, the conference scrambled to come up with substitutes. And in droves.

Memphis. Houston. SMU. Boise State. San Diego State. Tulane. And then, for football only, Navy and East Carolina. As if the day would ever come that a conference built on hoops would choose schools only for football. Times dramatically changed.

The geography says it all: it was a conference who had let football completely erase its very identity. And, when the new "America 12," or whatever they call it, meet for the first time, their very identity will be a tough mission to discover. So much so that Boise State and San Diego State had little to no trouble going back to their rightful spots in the Mountain West.

What the Catholic Seven did was bold. They demanded a return to their founding priniciples. They got it. And, while the benefits of football realignment remain a toss-up, the new Big East will be nothing but great for college basketball.

When these schools are strong, basketball is better for it. Georgetown and Villanova have championship tradition and can again lure basketball prospects to come to a school and play in a conference where their sport is top dog. A good St. John's team gets New York City more involved in college hoops. A solid Marquette team and a return to prominence for DePaul could make for a great Midwest hoops rivalry. And, if Butler and Xavier join in, along with possibly Creighton, the league could eventually rival the ACC or Big Ten in top-to-bottom strength. Big city schools, recruiting home-grown talent, playing in the one basketball-centered conference. The potential is huge.

Notre Dame made it official in joining the ACC? Sure that was a good move, Irish? Great hoops conference, but the new Big East could fit you like a glove.

While realignment killed some rivalries and made dramatic changes to the geographic map, seven Catholic schools got it right. Instead of creating new leagues and identities, they went back to their roots. They'll be better off for it, as will college basketball.

Congrats to the new Big East. My only advice is to grow to 10 schools, 12 at the absolute most, and stop. Don't go to 16, or 20. Stick to the ideals of what the predecessor was supposed to be about and you'll do just fine.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 3

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished sixth at Las Vegas and maintained his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings. Johnson leads Brad Keselowski by 5 points.

"It's always good to leave Las Vegas on top," Johnson said. "The season is shaping up to be a two-man battle for the Sprint Cup championship. Who's going to win it, me or Keselowski? I don't have a clue, but if I was a detective, I'd have a 'lead.'"

2. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski started on the pole in the Kobalt Tools 400 and finished third, his third top-five result of the year. Keselowski now trails Jimmie Johnson by 5 in the point standings.

"It was quite an awkward moment when the Miller Lite Ford was awarded the Coors Light Pole Award," Keselowski said. "Luckily, my 'wide mouth' didn't 'vent,' thereby avoiding a 'vortex' of controversy."

3. Matt Kenseth — On his 41st birthday, Kenseth held off Kasey Kahne to win the Kobalt Tools 400, his 25th career Sprint Cup win.

"How about that race trophy I was awarded?" Kenseth said. "Toyota engine issues aside, Joe Gibbs, for once, is happy to have a wrench thrown into his operation.

"I became just the third driver to win on his birthday. Carl Edwards threatened to give me a 'spanking,' but I politely declined."

4. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt posted his third top-10 finish of the year with a seventh at Las Vegas. He now trails Jimmie Johnson by 10 in the point standings.

"I'm off to the best three-race start of my career," Earnhardt said. "And I'm still in third.

"I hear they've chosen a grand marshal for the April race in Texas. His name is 'N.R. Ray,' and I understand he'll be packing a starter's pistol."

5. Denny Hamlin — An eventful week for Hamlin culminated with a 15th at Las Vegas, as Joe Gibbs teammate Matt Kenseth won the Kobalt Tools 400. Earlier in the week, Hamlin was fined $25,000 for making critical comments about the new Gen-6 car.

"There's five digits in $25,000," Hamlin said. "Unfortunately for NASCAR, they'll only see one of them."

6. Carl Edwards — Edwards backed up his win at Phoenix with a solid fifth at Las Vegas, earning his second top-five of the year. He moved up six spots to fifth in the point standings, 31 out of first.

"I hear Danica Patrick was hit in the head by a rock," Edwards said. "If it's anything like her driving, I'm sure it left a dent."

7. Kasey Kahne — Kahne No. 5 Chevy was clearly the class of the Kobalt Tools 400, but lost the race off pit road to Matt Kenseth on the final caution. Kahne tracked down Matt Kenseth but was unable to make the winning pass and settled for second.

"I'm amazed that Kenseth could hold me off on old tires," Kahne said. "And speaking of 'old' and 'tired,' how about the racing at Las Vegas. Maybe Denny Hamlin was on to something. His children may not be, but his points sure are legitimate."

8. Mark Martin — Martin finished 14th in the Kobalt Tools, as Michael Waltrip Racing teammate Martin Truex, Jr. finished eighth. Martin is sixth in the point standings, 34 out of first.

"Much like my homeboy 50 Cent to find black people at Daytona," Martin said, "I'm on a fruitless quest of my own &mdash to win a Sprint Cup championship.

9. Greg Biffle — Biffle finished 17th in the Kobalt Tools 400 as former Roush Fenway teammate Matt Kenseth took the win. Biffle is tied for seventh in the point standings, 36 out of first.

"Congratulations to Matt," Biffle said. "I knew he'd do well in the Dollar General Toyota. When you combine Matt's boring personality in a car with 'Dollar' on the side, you get a character named 'So-So Money.'

10. Kyle Busch — Busch overcame an early pit road speeding penalty to claim fourth in the Kobalt Tools 400.

"Pit road speeding is exactly what you'd expect from Joe Gibbs Racing," Busch said. "Usually, it happens when we're in a hurry to make an engine change."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2013

Zeno's Running Backs

People love ranking things. Books, movies, chefs, musicians, anything that might reasonably be evaluated and ordered. But no one loves ranking more than sports fans, and the ultimate ranking is the one labeled all-time.

But all-time rankings are tricky, because every once in a while you'll meet that person who says that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, and better trained. Therefore, this person tells you, the best athlete right now is the best of all-time. Thus, you get LeBron James over Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan. Albert Pujols over Babe Ruth. Calvin Johnson over Jerry Rice. And so on.

Those people are either stupid or trolling, because that isn't an all-time argument at all — it tacitly eliminates all but the most recent competitors. A few years ago, when ESPN was busy crowning the 2005 USC Trojans as the greatest team in the history of college football, Mark May explained that USC was better than the 1955 Oklahoma Sooners (who went 11-0 with a combined points margin of 385-60) and it wasn't even close: "look at the size of the players ... their starting center was 5-8 and 158 pounds."

That's a sucker's argument, because then your all-time argument is really limited to the last 10 or 15 years. Between the size of the players and the sophistication of today's offensive and defensive strategies, even an awful team like the 2012 Boston College Eagles would probably beat the '55 Sooners. That's not what we mean when we discuss the best of all time; we compare players and teams in the context of their own eras.

Without that context, today's players are better. They're bigger, stronger, and faster. They begin playing seriously while they're still young. They train full-time and study game film. Today's players are better, yes. But even without the context of era, has any NFL running back surpassed Jim Brown?

Jim Brown in 1958 was at least as good as Gale Sayers in 1966. You don't need to make any adjustments for era; the men were contemporaries, and even in 1965, the year before his retirement, Brown outplayed Sayers.

Sayers in '66 was about as good as O.J. Simpson in 1973. Again, these are players whose careers overlapped. In Simpson's rookie year, Sayers led the NFL in rushing. Knee injuries ended his career shortly afterwards, but if Sayers had the same doctor as Adrian Peterson, perhaps he would have matched O.J. into the '70s.

Simpson in 1973 was probably just as good as Walter Payton in 1977. It was the best season of Payton's long and storied career, but you could give O.J. a time machine leap of four years and I don't know that Sweetness would be the best running back in football.

I don't believe Payton in '77 was any worse than Eric Dickerson in '84. Payton averaged more yards and more touchdowns per game, and he did it an era that was dominated by defense. Dickerson in '84 was comparable to Barry Sanders in 1990. Again, if you popped Dickerson into a short-range time machine and put him on the field six years later, there's every reason to believe he'd still be the best RB in the game.

It's hard to believe Sanders in '90 was any worse than in '97. In 1990, Sanders was 22 and in the middle of a three-year reign as the premier RB in the NFL. In '97, he rushed for 2,053 yards, but he was 29 and only a year from retirement. At the same time, would anyone argue that there was an obvious difference between Sanders in 1997 and Marshall Faulk in 2001? If Sanders had unretired, a lot of people would have expected 33-year-old Sanders to play near Faulk's level. If you transported the 29-year-old Barry to 2001, he might have given Faulk a run for his money as the best RB in the league.

But with his unique receiving ability, wasn't Faulk in '01 every bit as valuable as LaDainian Tomlinson in 2006? And as remarkable as Adrian Peterson was in 2012, did he play any better than Tomlinson in '06? L.T. had more total yardage and 18 more touchdowns.

So Brown in '58 was as good as Sayers in '66, who was as good as Simpson in '73, who was equal with Payton in '77, who matched up with Dickerson in '84, who was as good as Sanders in '90, who probably wasn't a lot different in '97, and could then be compared with Faulk in '01, when he probably wasn't any better than Tomlinson in '06, and Tomlinson wasn't any worse than Peterson in 2012.

Thus, working on the transitive property, we've just shown that Jim Brown in 1958 was every bit the player Adrian Peterson was last season, without making any adjustments for era.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2013

Is This the Year a 16 Beats a 1?

One of my favorite aspects of the NCAA men's basketball tournament to predict is what will be the biggest upset in the first (well, I guess now we call it the second) round of the tournament. I usually go with a three- or a four-seed losing, but still rejoice every time a two-seed loses (I love upsets!). But 2013 is shaping up to be a potentially crazy tournament. Every single team in the country (except Gonzaga and Stephen F. Austin) has four or more losses.

It seems like each time we have a new number one, they lose. There have been weeks where nearly half of the teams ranked in the top 25 have lost. It's been unpredictable to say the least, and that makes me wonder: could this be the year a number one seed finally loses in their first game?

The answer of course is probably not, but I would say the odds are better this year than any other year in my lifetime. So let's take a look at teams that could potentially be ranked No. 1 and look at how vulnerable they are. Below are the top 15 teams from the AP poll, as of March 4. Obviously some of these teams don't have much of a chance to be ranked No. 1, but winning a conference tournament could mean a lot of clout this season and the vast majority of these teams are in conferences with such clout.

For assessment, I'll use the following ranking system — vulnerability level will be by code colors as follows:

Red — High: Higher than 10% chance they'll lose in their first game.

Orange — Medium: 5-10% chance they'll lose in their first game.

Yellow — Low: 1-5% chance they'll lose in their first game.

Blue — Very Low: Less than 1% chance they'll lose in their first game.

So let's start with No. 15 from last week.

Marquette — Code Orange

I'm probably being too hard on the Golden Eagles, but I see one game on their schedule that makes me a bit concerned — a 49-47 away loss to the Green Bay Phoenix. While an in-state game in an undoubtedly hostile environment, it is a loss to an inferior team; moreover, it is a loss in a close game to an inferior team: exactly what the tournament could be in Marquette's first game. Be wary, Golden Eagles!

Ohio State — Code Blue

Ohio State has not lost to a non-ranked opponent this season. While they do have two laughable losses at Illinois and at Wisconsin by 19 and 21 points, respectively, those were both in hostile, conference rival arenas. Don't count on the Buckeyes suffering any difficulties in their first game of the tournament.

Oklahoma State — Code Orange

I wasn't entirely sure what warning to put on the Cowboys, but they have had four overtime games this year. Only one of those (Kansas in 2OT) was a loss, but allowing a game against Akron to go to overtime makes me a little twitchy — though Akron was having a pretty good season until Alex Abreu was suspended. There are a few other games in their schedule where they let teams hang around and that could easily bite them in the tournament.

New Mexico — Code Red

The Lobos are probably the least likely team on this list to get a No. 1 seed. It's far more likely they'll land in the 3-6 range where they are potentially vulnerable. As a three or four seed, they'll most likely play a conference champion from a weak conference, but as a five- or six-seed, they could play a lower seeded team from the Big East or Big Ten and those would not be good matchups for the Lobos. Finishing the season with only four losses will help to ensure a more easily beatable first round foe.

Florida — Code Yellow

The Gators have not lost at home this year. They have five road losses and one neutral site loss. Their loss at Kentucky will likely mean no No. 1 seed for them, but the selection committee seems to love Florida and they'll probably manage a three seed and teams in the running for 14 seeds are unlikely to be able to matchup against this balanced lineup.

Michigan State — Code Yellow

The Spartans probably have nothing to worry about, but a couple nail-biters early on in the season (74-70 over Boise State and 63-60 over Louisiana-Lafayette), along with a rough schedule the past three weeks, makes me take out the yellow label for the Spartans.

Kansas State — Code Yellow

There's only one worrying result from the Wildcats this season — a 3-point win over Delaware on a neutral court. It is not much to be concerned over. Generally K-State takes care of business.

Louisville — Code Yellow

The Cardinals certainly have some character, I'll give them that. I should probably give them the benefit of the doubt with a Code Blue, but I remember 2011 when they lost to Morehead State and Louisville is a team that has been worn down by a difficult schedule (much like everybody in the Big East and Big Ten). An energy-consuming Big East Tournament could be bad for Louisville, but winning that tournament could bolster them into No. 1 seed territory. We'll see what happens.

Michigan — Code Blue

Other than a loss at Penn St., you can't really say anything bad about the Wolverines. They have star power and can shoot the lights out. They are a team that will garner numerous picks to win it all. No worries in their first game.

Miami — Code Red

I think Miami has some potential to make some noise in this tournament, but they have some seriously bad losses this season. They lost at Florida Gulf Coast (who in the world is that?); at home vs. Indiana State, they got blown out by a bad Wake Forest team; and they lost a close one to a weak Georgia Tech team at home. Losing three of their last five is not a good sign for Miami. I can see them in the Final Four or out in their first game. This I know: I'm not taking any chances on them.

Georgetown — Code Yellow

Georgetown looks like they are a team that could do some real damage in the tournament, but they have two games on their schedule that just make me shake my head. They beat Tennessee at home by a score of 37-36. Some of my games in fifth grade had higher scoring than that. Also, a 46-40 win over Townson — again at home. The Hoyas seem to have a propensity to underwhelm at times. Those games were both early in the season, but they happened and the tournament can bring out the worst in some teams.

Kansas — Code Blue

The Jayhawks had a rough patch in early February where they lost three in a row to conference opponents, but I'd say they are largely over those troubles. I'm just not worried about Kansas. They shoot well. They pass well. They rebound well. They have depth. They're solid.

Duke — Code Orange

Duke laid a few eggs this year, but their four losses were all on the road to conference foes. Duke is likely to find themselves with a one or two seed where I doubt they'll have much trouble. Every game against a weak team has been a blowout. But I have one word for Duke: Lehigh.

Indiana — Code Blue

The Hoosiers have had an interesting year. They've lost some games that perhaps they should not have, games we wanted them to win so we could have an obvious favorite for the NCAA tournament, but I don't think they are in any real danger of being eliminated before the first weekend is over.

Gonzaga — Code Red

I love Gonzaga. I am thrilled they are the number one team in the country and that they will likely receive a number one seed, but no number one seed will be more vulnerable than the Bulldogs. Gonzaga has three ranked teams on their schedule. They lost to Butler and Illinois, and they beat Oklahoma State. But they have not had a stern level of competition in quite some time. Think about this: they have not beaten a ranked opponent in 2013.

If ever a 16-seed will beat a 1-seed, this is the matchup where it could happen. The power conferences have beaten the crap out of each other, leaving a very muddy field of very good teams, but no clear favorites. Gonzaga has won the games they should without terrible difficulty and has been rewarded. But a matchup against a potential 16-seed such as Charleston Southern — a team that scores a lot and rebounds well, despite having no size at all — could spell upset city for Gonzaga. Now I'm not so worried that I will actually pick Gonzaga to lose in the first round, but if the odds were right, I might put some money down, just to see.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 4:00 PM | Comments (0)

March 7, 2013

Changes Afoot in U.S. Sports Broadcasting

A few months ago, I wrote a column ranking the different U.S. sports channels. Looks like next summer I will have to give it another go, because the landscape is about to change dramatically.

The reason? FOX Sports has announced that they are rolling out a national sports network (called "FOX Sports 1") on August 17th. They are expected to roll out a "FOX Sports 2" at some point shortly after.

The idea, in short, is to give an ESPN a run for its money. It will be interesting to see if they can, but I doubt it, at least not for many years.

The main reason is that, from a content perspective, very little will change. FOX has lost the rights to one of their leagues and gained another. Specifically, they have lost the rights to the English Premier League to NBC. They gained the rights to the new Big East basketball conference, the so-called "Catholic 7" that has broken away from the public school members of the Big East and retained the conference name.

It's hard to say for sure, but I'd say losing the EPL is bigger than getting the Big East. The new Big East is a nice get, but the season only runs for four months (at least, the part that FOX will have rights to), whereas the EPL runs for nine. There's also no telling how much interest the new conference will generate. I'd say it will certainly be behind the Big Ten and the ACC, and maybe just ahead of the Big 12 and SEC.

In terms of soccer, the loss of the EPL means the only soccer FOX still have rights to are the English FA cup, the UEFA Champions League and Europa League, and most CONCACAF events. That's not bad, but it's apparently not enough to sustain a soccer network, which is why according to Ken Fang, FOX Soccer Channel will cease to be, and will be rebranded as non-sports-channel "FX2."

If true, that'll be a pity. FOX Soccer Channel is well-produced, and if they push through a lean schedule for a year, then programming couple pick up again, because FOX Sports has won the rights to FIFA events (read: the World Cup, including qualifiers, women's, juniors, etc.) after the 2014 World Cup. If there's one thing that is lacking from a soccer perspective on US TV, it's World Cup qualifiers. ESPN shows U.S. home qualifiers, Mexico qualifiers, and that's about it. There are almost no European qualifiers on US TV.

Back to FOX Sports 1, that's all that really changes. They have Major League Baseball already, and the new network will show 26 games, but those will largely be poached from the main FOX network, who will cut FOX Saturday Baseball from 24 games to 12 starting next season. So, 14 more games total. Whoopee.

Nothing changes in college football. The FOX over-the-air network will continue to have a game of the week from the Pac-12 or the Big 12, and FOX Sports 1 will take the leavings from those conferences and Conference USA, just as now.

They'll have UFC events as well, which is technically sort-of new for FOX Sports, but not really, since the main FOX Network occasionally has UFC fights, as does Fuel and FX, both of which are owned by FOX. In fact, it's expected that Fuel will rebrand as FOX Sports 2.

If you're wondering if you will get FOX Sports 1, check your cable guide for an auto racing channel called "Speed." Do you get it? Good, because that's where you'll see FOX Sports 1 starting on August 17th.

The FOX Regional channels will still exist, and in fact some of the MLB games FOX Sports 1 will be picking up will come from the regional networks. The regional networks will have quite a few more holes to fill with local programming now that syndicated FOX events (like college football, described above) will be aired on FOX Sports 1.

In terms of non-event programming, it's a good news/bad news scenario. They will have shows anchored by Erin Andrews, thus picking up the key masturbators demographic, but will also have a show hosted by Regis Philbin, who was considered lame 20 years ago, when he was only 60.

So while I am intrigued to see how it all shakes out, I am not that impressed with the forecast thus far. Also intriguing are the drastic changes coming to soccer coverage.

NBC won the rights to the English Premier League by more than tripling what FOX was paying for it when they won their bid, and they have committed to doing it justice. For starters, they will show 18-20 games live on NBC itself. Awful Announcing's Matt Yoder is agog over this fact ("I'll give you a few seconds to get off the floor and back to your computer at the shock of NBC championing live televised sports"), but I don't really think it's so incredible. This is a Saturday morning slot, ESPN already does this, and I imagine their ratings are not much worse than NBC's showing of Saved By The Bell 4 or whatever fills their 10 AM Saturday time slot these days.

The NBC Sports Chairman, Mark Lazarus, says, "We are working to make it a consistent schedule so fans know exactly where to find games. But the Premier League fan will be able to get to every game live." That's good, obviously, but it depends on what form it takes. Sports Illustrated mentions NBC Sports Network (that's a given) as the flagship station for their soccer coverage, with the overflow going to the NBC Sports website, and their Spanish-language holdings like Telemundo and mun2.

On the other hand, Lazarus says, "It will not be unlike the Olympics where you saw programming on CNBC, Bravo, USA, or MSNBC," If he means that literally (and I don't think the details have been worked out yet), then I look forward to being able to watch all of those games, in English, on television and not on my limited-bandwidth ISP. On the other hand, I'm wary of it when the networks co-op non-sports or non-general programming channels for sports, and the effect on ratings it might have for non-one-off events like the Olympics or the NCAA basketball tournament. It's an unwieldy marriage. CNBC: your home for financial news and stock market analysis. Also, soccer.

One surprise winner that may emerge out of all these changes? beIN Sport. I said in my previous column that I hadn't seen the channel yet. I have now, and it has a lot going for it if it can continue to get in more households. For one ... they are loooow on hype. Blessed be. What they are high on is actual event coverage. We've been over the EPL. FOX Soccer also shows a Scottish Premier League game every week or two, and GolTV, which is terribly third-rate and may not be long for this world, has the German Bundesliga.

Who owns the rights to the other big leagues of Europe? France, Italy, Spain? beIN TV, on all counts. And they do a fantastic job with them as well. One of their programs is "90 in 30" which, as you might guess, is simply distilling a soccer match into its most compelling third. They also have events I can't imagine anyone cares about, like the Italian Volleyball League, but dammit, they key word is event. Not, "The Next American Beckham: The Hair Episode."

So that's what's on the horizon for U.S. sports television coverage. Once it's upon us, I'll be sure to write another column about how Lifetime Movie Channel has purchased the rights to all NFL games, and what they plan to do with it.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 9:11 PM | Comments (0)

Foul Territory: Gun Shots, Nut Shots, and Parting Shots

* "Safety" Just Became Even More Important in NASCAR, or the Race is Being Billed "All Turns Left, Second Amendment Rights" — The National Rifle Association will sponsor NASCAR's Sprint Cup race in Texas on April 13th. Reportedly, fans who arrive at the gate half-cocked will receive a free magazine.

* "Pop" Fly, or Bad Hop, or 7th Inning Stretcher — New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman broke his ankle while skydiving in Florida on Monday. Cashman became the first Yankee to experience free fall since the whole team did it in last season's ALCS.

* She-Maled it in, or Bear-Ly Impressive — Baylor's Brittney Griner scored a Big 12 record 50 points, including a dunk, in the Bears' 90-68 win over Kansas State. The performance begs the question: could Griner play in the NBA? Hopefully, everyone will beg for the answer "No." Meanwhile, Magic Johnson offered Griner $1,000,000 not to dunk again.

* Ibaka Flocka Flame, or Nuts and Thunder, or Ball Control Foul — Kobe Bryant said he would have "smacked" Serge Ibaka had the Thunder forward hit him in the crotch as he did Blake Griffin on Sunday. Bryant said his feeling reminded him of a certain night in Denver some years ago, because he wanted to "slap that ass."

* Yes We Spo-kane — Gonzaga topped the Associated Press top 25 men's basketball poll for the first time in school history, just ahead of Indiana. When asked how many weeks they expected to remain atop the poll, Gonzaga players "quoted" their coach and said a "Few."

* He Left His Heart in San Diego, As Well as a Few Needles, or Lights Outahere — Buffalo Bills linebacker Shawne Merriman announced his retirement from the NFL on Tuesday after an eight-year career. Merriman's retirement reminded many Bills fans of the departure of O.J. Simpson in 1978, when the "Juice" left town.

* Swing and a Mis-Take — Rory McIlroy told Sports Illustrated that quitting after going 7-over after eight holes in the second round of the Honda Classic was a mistake. In his defense, McIlroy wasn't lying when he said he had "better" things to do.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 2:28 PM | Comments (0)

March 6, 2013

Are Lakers Lions in a Lamb's World?

When Kobe Bryant guaranteed the Los Angeles Lakers would make this year's playoffs, pundits claimed he was putting his legacy on the line but it was hardly that. After all, this is essentially the same team that Metta World Peace believed could win 73 games. Even with the losses of Jordan Hill and Pau Gasol, the Lakers are stacked and Bryant has a slam-dunk guarantee, with or without the face of Josh Smith as backdrop.

The truth is, even with GM Mitch Kupchak's offseason scavenger hunt, the Lakers and their league-highest $100 million payroll including three of the top 10 individual salaries — need a lot of help, and Bryant knows he can count on it. Today's NBA has too little talent spread over too broad of a base to provide much of a fight to any team with even a modicum of determination. We all know this to be true but choose to suppress it. Bryant, on the other hand, has embraced it and incorporated it into his formula to get to May.

It's a fluke that he ever found himself in the position of making guarantees in the first place. The Lakers have made franchise art out of acquiring the best big men the league has to offer and riding their backs to titles — George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabber, Shaquille O'Neal — and now they've added Dwight Howard to the list. Throw in Steve Nash to fill their one glaring hole at point guard and a core triumvirate of Bryant, Gasol and Peace, and the Lakers appeared able to dial up any win total they wanted. Why not 73-9?

Yet Hollywood took the court as a dysfunctional squad back in October, and within the week after Thanksgiving had already blown Peace's prognostication to hell. Most of the Laker-hating free world delighted in the in-fighting and Mike D'Antoni bashing and their effect in the standings as the Lakers sank to their eventual low water mark of 17-25 on January 23. But we all forgot one basic thing: the safety net of bad teams woven by under-developed young players and nomadic journeymen simply would not allow them to fall any further.

Their 13-5 run since then is an indictment on just how distant the pro game is now from where it was a generation ago. In those 18 games, they've faced only 4 teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better. In fact, they lost 3 of them, fairly representative of a season in which they are 3-15 against the upper echelon.

What's different about this streak is that they're now beating the huddled masses of mediocrity that are the Association's staple. Through January 23, the Lakers were 15-13 against teams who've won less than 60% of their games. They're 12-2 since, including 6-1 against teams winning less than 40% of the time. It's as if Bryant & Co. suddenly discovered that as obstacles go, the rank-and-file teams that compose two-thirds of the NBA offer about as much resistance as a light summer breeze.

It's not like there weren't bad teams in the 1980s and 1990s. Thirty seasons ago, a third of the teams were contenders, a third sought their identity, and a third struggled. Same thing 20 years ago. In every year, the composite winning percentage has always been .500. This is a case where the numbers don't support what the eye can see. Teams today don't play 48 hard-nosed minutes like they used to. They have more quit in them nowadays, and maturity is at issue.

If you have designs on becoming a pro basketball player, you've never had better chances. There are 390 potential roster spots to fill each summer. Thirty years ago, there were 268 (only 15 teams carried an optional 12th player in the 1982-83 season). That's 122 more job openings, and to fill them the NBA has gone younger. Last year, 66 players registered for early entry into the draft. Of the 60 players selected, 39 were underclassman (including international players under age 22), including 26 of 30 first-round selections.

There's no question that the current ranks are filled with the best athletic talent the league has ever seen. It just doesn't come out to play regularly, and when it does it's usually less for the winning and more for ESPN highlights and impressing celebrities in attendance. Or each other. Before the 'When Magic Met Isiah' romantic undercurrent of the 1988 NBA Finals, fraternization was a breach of competitive protocol. Now it's the norm from pregame warm-ups to post-game interviews and every tweet in between. Could you imagine Kevin McHale, Bill Laimbeer, and Kurt Rambis all orchestrating an opportunity to play together?

The disturbing thing in all of this is that most teams don't maintain stamina and intestinal fortitude over the course of a 48-minute game, much less an 82-game schedule. The lion one night gets punched in the mouth the next and becomes the lamb. This is the backdrop in which Bryant has put his legacy on the line.

The Lakers have 22 games remaining, 9 of which are against sub-.400 teams. Including Tuesday's contest in Oklahoma City, they have only four tough opponents on the schedule. Wins are everywhere for the picking, even for a non-contender like the Lakers. It never required the clairvoyance of Nostradamus to see they would eventually come around, nor the perseverance of Job to make it happen.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 4:41 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 2

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished second in the Subway Fresh Fit 500, following his Daytona 500 with a near-win at Phoenix. Johnson extended his points lead and now holds an 8-point advantage over Brad Keselowski and Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"Carl Edwards' back flip wasn't the only leap he made on Sunday," Johnson said. "He 'jumped' all the restarts, as well.

"I signed a contract extension to keep Lowe's on my car through 2015. They've been with me for all five of my Sprint Cup titles. There's more than one reason Lowe's is known as a 'hardware' store."

2. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski notched his second consecutive fourth-place finish, finishing at Phoenix behind Carl Edwards, Jimmie Johnson, and Denny Hamlin. Keselowski now trails Johnson by 8 points in the Sprint Cup standings.

"It was a quiet day for me," Keselowski said, "which is exactly how NASCAR wants it. They want their drivers to avoid controversy while they go out and get the NRA to sponsor a race. I've got one thing to say about that, but I can't, because I've been fitted with a silencer.

"There's a fine line between being the 'voice' of NASCAR and being the 'mouth' of NASCAR. Apparently, I'm the only driver with sponsors and censors."

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt continued his hot start to the season by leading 47 laps and finishing fifth at Phoenix. His two top-five results on the year place him second in the point standings, 5 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"Being second in the point standings is always a good sign," Earnhardt said. "Unfortunately, it's only a good sign that it's very early in the season."

4. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin took the third spot at Phoenix after starting at the back of the field after an engine change. He is tied for fourth in the point standings, 18 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"I made what is called a 'Kamikaze' move on the final lap," Hamlin said. "On that subject, any time a Joe Gibbs Racing car starts a race, it's a Kamikaze move, because, chances are, it's going to 'die.'

"If there was a children's book written about Joe Gibbs Racing, it would be called 'The Little Engine That Might.'"

5. Carl Edwards — Edwards led 122 of 316 laps and survived a late caution and restart to snap a 70-race winless streak with a win in the Subway Fresh Fit 500. Edwards led the final 78 laps and held off Jimmie Johnson to put the No. 99 Roush Fenway Ford in Victory Lane for the first time since Las Vegas in 2011.

"I went through 42 cars to finish at Phoenix," Edwards said. "That's just slightly more than the number of cars I 'went through' to finish at Daytona.

"And speaking of Daytona, I felt a lot like debris after the race at Phoenix, because I made contact with fans through the fence."

6. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished sixth at Phoenix, following his 11th at Daytona with a solid run in the desert. He is now ninth in the point standings, 13 out of first.

"I'm happy with our finish," Bowyer said. "Unfortunately, I ran over a crew member during a pit stop. It reminded of last November's race at Phoenix, when I 'ran over' to look for Jeff Gordon."

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart bounced back from his early departure at Daytona to cross the finish line eighth in the Subway Fresh Fit 500.

"Reportedly," Stewart said, "the National Rifle Association will sponsor the April 13th race in Texas. Understandably, there will be no green flag; it will be a shotgun start. And Juan Montoya's Target car will be the most-watched car that day, because it will certainly be in the crosshairs."

8. Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. — Stenhouse finished 16th at Phoenix as teammate Carl Edwards took the win. Stenhouse now stands 8th in the Sprint Cup point standings.

"In honor of the National Rifle Association's sponsorship of the April race in Texas," Stenhouse said, "only 21 of the 43 cars will sport manual transmissions. It will be a 'semi-automatic' field."

9. Greg Biffle — Biffle finished 17th at Phoenix on a strong day for Roush Fenway Racing, as all three cars finished in the top 20, led by Carl Edwards' dominating win. Biffle is sixth in the point standings, 24 out of first.

"Congratulations to Carl," Biffle said. "In a race sponsored by Subway, the car sponsored by Subway won. And that, my friend, definitely makes Carl a 'hero.'"

10. Mark Martin — After starting from the pole, Martin finished 21st in the Aaron's Dream Machine Toyota at Phoenix. He is seventh in the point standings, 25 out of first.

"I didn't see my homeboy 50 Cent in Phoenix," Martin said. "In his honor, I tweeted, 'Where are all the white people at?' I received an anonymous reply stating, 'They're buying tickets to the NRA 500.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:30 PM | Comments (0)

March 5, 2013

A 2013 Look at Gays in Sports

In the early 20th century, racial discrimination was every bit as prevalent in sports as it was in the rest of society. Segregation in baseball is most notorious, but nowhere was the issue more apparent than in boxing. Black champions like Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali played vital roles in the evolution of attitudes toward minority athletes and civil rights.

Gay rights continues to be a divisive topic, but the movement is going in the same direction. The more time passes, the more everyone tends to see gays simply as people, rather than as different. Robbie Rogers played professional soccer in MLS and for several clubs in Europe. Last month, he simultaneously announced that he was gay and that he was retiring from the sport. Public support for Rogers has been something like unanimous, and the Seattle Sounders recorded a video of players and coaches voicing their support.

For years, lesbians have been largely accepted in women's competitions. I think there's less pressure and judgment from their peers, and on a sociologic level it makes sense that lesbians might be drawn to sports. There's also less pressure from the media, because women's sports don't draw the same spotlight as football and baseball and men's basketball.

But I also wonder if society doesn't tend to be more accepting of lesbians than of gay men. Even big stars like Martina Navratilova, who came out decades ago, never had to face the same bigotry that is likely to accompany the first openly gay player in the NFL, NBA, or Major League Baseball. Many NFL fans still consider it the height of wit to call the Cowboys' quarterback Tony Homo. I don't even know what to think of the Manti Te'o dead-girlfriend-who-turned-out-to-be-an-alive-guy saga.

Women's sports continue to be a mostly welcoming arena for gay participants and fans. Last week, openly lesbian Liz Carmouche, who wears a rainbow mouthpiece, fought in the first-ever UFC women's bout. If Ultimate Fighting fans can accept Carmouche — and her back-and-forth battle with Ronda Rousey drew cheers from a crowd that had booed the previous match — then that's surely a positive sign for widespread acceptance of lesbians in sports.

The bigger question concerns acceptance of men in high-profile team sports: the NFL, NBA, and MLB. I believe all three leagues are quickly becoming more accepting of gays and the idea of gay teammates, but I also suspect we have a few more years before anyone in one of those leagues deliberately comes out as gay. As Outsports' Cyd Zeigler wrote recently, "To the closeted athlete, the voice of Chris Culliver is right now far louder than that of Chris Kluwe."

Culliver, a cornerback for the San Francisco 49ers, drew national attention for homophobic comments the week before the Super Bowl. This week, he visited the Trevor Project, which focuses on suicide prevention in the gay community, and tweeted a photo of himself at its Los Angeles headquarters. Five years ago, five-time NBA All-Star Tim Hardaway went public with some of the ugliest anti-gay comments on record from any athlete: "I hate gay people ... I am homophobic." Today, Hardaway is an active advocate for gay rights. He also works with the Trevor Project, and he stood up for gay rights in his home city of El Paso, speaking out against the recall of politicians who supported domestic partner benefits.

In the NFL, Brendan Ayanbadejo and Chris Kluwe are tireless, high-profile advocates for gay rights. But for every athlete who speaks out in support of gay rights, the isolated comments in the other direction speak 10 times more loudly for closeted athletes. And even if players are confident of support from their teams, they might be discouraged by the media attention that will almost certainly surround the first openly gay athlete in a high-profile sports league. MLB's color barrier was broken by one of the greatest players in history, Jackie Robinson. I suspect some gay athletes feel they can't be the first to go public, because they feel the gay rights movement needs its own Jackie Robinson — a player so exceptional that he defies efforts to belittle him.

This week, the NFL Combine made news when it was reported that at least one team asked a prospect, "Do you like girls?" That's disconcerting, because for all the players and coaches who are ready to accept a gay teammate, all the executives and managers who would welcome gay athletes, all the fans who only care whether or not you can play, and all the journalists who would love to support a gay athlete, even with all those people prepared to offer support, the major sports leagues in the United States still project an air of homophobia. When scouts at the Combine ask players whether they're gay, it's hard to view the question as benign.

The gay rights movement is growing quickly in this country, and sports are no exception. One of the greatest stimulants for gay acceptance has been people coming out of the closet. Everyone knows someone who is openly gay, whether it's a family member, friend, or just someone they see on tv. We like these people, and we don't see them as bad or scary; we want good things for them. When gay athletes begin coming out, I suspect it will quickly become a trend: the more who open up, the easier it will get for others to do the same.

But it's hard to be the first. I believe widespread acceptance will come before athletes deliberately out themselves, and I don't think it will happen in 2013, and probably not in 2014.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:20 PM | Comments (3)

March 4, 2013

No Matter What?

It's been nearly two months since college football crowned its national champ. Spring practices are still a few weeks away. And we basically know which prep stars are going to which big-named programs. However, this is the out-of-season time that college football fans should rejoice the most.

"The regular season matters." More than anything, that's the phrase you'll hear from the mouth a college football supporter. In their opinion, games from late August to early December have more much import than those in the season played from early November to early March.

And, for college basketball fans, those words usually come to fruition during the next two weeks. Championship Week (which really should be 'Weeks') is the most exhilarating time of the season for some observers of the game. For many schools that won't be factors in the NCAA tournament, this is their March Madness. This is the opportunity for notoriety, attention, and glory on a national stage. Unfortunately, it's also the sport's downfall.

It takes four months for a basketball squad to round into shape, whether good or bad. The better ones filter themselves out over time. They rise to the top of their peer group, proving their worthiness both in and away from their comfort zones. After the results settle, they have the honor of being the best (or co-best) for that season. Then, in the matter of a few days, all that work can go down the drain.

Even though the regular season conference winners get an automatic bid into the NIT (at the very least), there's no assurance that schools from the NCAA's 'one-bid' leagues will get to the Big Dance by winning the postseason's "preseason." And as fantastic of an event as the NCAA tournament, this is my argument for its fatal flaw.

The conference tournaments provide a nice, neat way to give one-bids their "democratic" vote in the NCAA championship election. While all schools have to go through the same process, the power champions know that they have the fallback of a back-loaded schedule. If they lose, the season continues at the highest level. For their "smaller" counterparts, one loss is not only damaging, it's lethal to their (minuscule, but breathing) title hopes.

So, is there a solution? Like some analysts (most famously, Jay Bilas) have opined, I also think the most ideal situation would be that the regular season champ gets the golden ticket into the NCAAs. It hasn't kept the Ivy League from staying viable and causing havoc in the main draw. And, for the last three campaigns (including this one), the race for that prestigious title has come down to the final weekend.

Unfortunately, we won't see this particular fix in 2013. We likely won't see it in 2014, 2015, 2016, and so on and so on. Hopefully, there will be a day when this argument will be a moot point. But to Middle Tennessee, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Belmont, Akron, Long Beach State, and other small league champs ... LISTEN UP! You'd better take care of business over the next two weeks. If you don't, all you'll do is prove the college football fans right.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 5:15 AM | Comments (0)