Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« May 2013 | Main | July 2013 »

June 27, 2013

Lay Off the Caddies

On Sunday, former Masters champion Bubba Watson held a 2-stroke lead going to the par 3 16th hole of the final round of the Travelers Championship. He left the 16th with a triple-bogey 6 on his card, and at every stage of the debacle, he laid the blame at the feet of his caddie, Ted Scott.

After his tee shot found the drink:

"Water. It's in the water. That club. Yes, the water."

He took a drop and took his penalty stroke, which bounded well past the hole:

"So you're telling me that's ... that's the right yardage." I can't really convey the incredulity in his voice here, but you can see and hear for yourself.

But Watson still wasn't done teeing off (ha!) on his hapless bagman. After he left his double bogey putt well short: "There's just no reason for you to show up!" To be fair to Watson, he might be saying "for me to show up," the audio is not clear to me and there's a bit of a debate as to what he actually said. Ken Duke would go on to win the tournament.

Afterwards, Scott took the blame and the high road. Indeed, "high road" doesn't seem to cut it, it was somewhere in the jet stream or the Van Allen Belt, and not, in my opinion, altogether necessary.

"I convinced him to hit the wrong club, 100 percent take responsibility for it. It's totally my fault. I got in the way of the painter on that one."

First of all, "the painter." I enjoy and employ hyperbole as much as the next guy, but, barf. Watson is probably one of the best 20 or so golfers in the world, but the links' answer to Michelangelo he is not. Second, if it was the wrong club and not just a mishit or a gust of wind (a possibility put forth by Watson in a non-apology apology he made), there can really be no doubt that Scott advised Watson to the best of his judgment and ability.

On one hand, this incident may be understandable for a couple of reasons. Scott and Watson have been together for years and years and years. If you get to that level of rapport with somebody, both your affections and derisions are more frankly stated.

Secondly, Watson is known as a hot-head with a bad temper, and indeed, Scott threatened to quit Watson if he didn't change his on-course attitude, a change implored by Watson's wife as well. They say he's made that change, but if Sunday taught us anything, Watson is a recidivist.

At any rate, undeniably, Watson berated Scott on national television, and that's absolutely unacceptable. This is one of those incidents that reminds me of a scene from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Jack Nicholson's character is dealing a round of blackjack to his fellow inmates an an insane asylum. Danny Devito's character, also an inmate, continually tries to go out of turn. "Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!" he says over and over again. Finally, Nicholson grabs Devito by the shoulder and says, "You see these guys?" pointing to the other players, "They're the real ones. They're real people!"

I'm a little depressed at how often in life I'm reminded of that scene. Ted Scott is a real person with real feelings who deserves better than to be dumped on national television as he tries his best.

But players treating caddies like dirt is nothing new. I'm hard-pressed to come up with another sporting example where the employer publicly berates the employee with the fair amount of frequency as occurs with pro golfers and caddies. It seems to happen about as often as a coach lays into one of his players on the sidelines in the major pro sports leagues — but even then, the coach isn't the players' employer, strictly speaking. The golfer is absolutely the caddie's employer.

One of the worst offenders is the now-Senior Tour golfer Fulton Allem. In a Golf Digest poll of caddies, he "won" the question, "Whose bag would you never take?" with 18%. Although the original article does not seem to online, I had the print edition of the copy that survey came in, and one anonymous caddie said something along the lines of, "Just once, I wish Allem would somehow be made to caddie. I wish he would truly understand what it's like and how it feels to be on the receiving end of his treatment."

Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart to hear of a guy who grew up in the family that owned the largest corn farm in the Southern Hemisphere leave his more humbly-rooted employees feeling that way?

Then there's Seve Ballesteros. He fired one caddie just four weeks after winning a tournament, after missing the cut at the U.S. Open. The same article tells us he told one caddie, "Make sure you get the yardage right on this one because it will be the first you've got right all day." He complained to another that the apple he was given was too soft. Ballesteros's treatment of caddies has driven one caddy to throw his clubs against a wall after a round, and another one to quit in the middle of the round.

There are other notorious ones. Garrett Willis. K.J. Choi. Mac O'Grady.

So to all the zero professional golfers reading this: if you treat your caddie anywhere near like this, no matter what happens, no matter how "heat of the moment" things get or hyper-competitive you are, stop it. Caddies on the PGA tour are of such a caliber that they do you a great deal more good than harm, lest you would not have hired them. If you do feel they are not serving you optimally, then either take your complaints, or your job back, in private, not in public.

Because these guys, they're the real ones. They're real people.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2013

Lessons Learned From a Shortened Season

Chances are, you've all but forgotten the Great NHL Lockout of 2012 — you know, the sideshow of business logistics that became a chest-puffing contest between Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr. Yes, it was that pro sports beast that ate up the first three months of the season, the Winter Classic, the All-Star Game, and a whole lot of goodwill from fans.

And now the Stanley Cup Finals are finishing up while reaching record TV ratings. Attendance for the regular season wasn't impacted that much, and in most markets, ticket sales equaled or exceeded each market's usual standard. There are probably still a few disgruntled fans out there, but the fact that the saved season didn't march off into the Armageddon of the lost 2004-05 campaign has probably given hockey die-hards some Stanley-colored glasses.

To be fair, it helped that the regular season was filled with storylines and intrigue, from Sidney Crosby's torrid start to Alex Ovechkin's MVP finish. The Stanley Cup playoffs produced loads of memorable games, and even the lopsided Eastern Conference Final stood out simply by the utter meltdown of the Pittsburgh Penguins. Forty-eight games and four rounds of playoffs later, it seems like all is forgiven in the world of the NHL. And with an extended outdoor stadium series next year, along with participation in the Sochi Olympics, and it seems like little-to-no momentum has been lost by the NHL. They can give a big thank you to the Chicago Blackhawks and the Boston Bruins, two marquee Original Six markets that put on overtime thriller after overtime thriller (just imagine the groans if the Cup Final was San Jose and Ottawa).

Not all was rosy, though. The enthusiasm of the first two weeks or so of the season gave way to sluggish, even sloppy play. Much of this was the result of the lack of a training camp and preseason, along with the ramrod approach free agents and team newcomers had to getting adjusted. One has to wonder how the Chicago Blackhawks' record-breaking undefeated streak would have gone if their opponents had normal prep time.

It wasn't just the players and coaches that were sloppy, though. NHL officials got more than their share of dirty looks, particularly in the Stanley Cup Playoffs when it seemed like decisions became downright arbitrary, from the small (letting go off blatant obstruction calls) to the large (Raffi Torres getting a series suspension for a hit on Jarret Stoll — one that even Stoll said was clean). A lot of this has led to formal discussion among general managers of a coach's challenge, and it wouldn't be surprising if this finally landed in the NHL in the upcoming seasons.

What will definitely become part of the NHL norm, however, are visors. After ugly injuries, particularly one to Marc Staal that created permanent vision damage, players finally agreed to grandfather in visors. Visors are no longer considered equipment for the weak or fragile; in fact, it seems that many players and fans simply consider it stupid not to wear a visor with all of the possible eye/concussion injuries it can help prevent.

And finally, it's hard to discuss the 2013 season without looking at the fact that it was only 48 games. There was a certain excitement to the truncated season, one where there was no mid-season doldrums to slow things down. Every point counted, which made for a sprint rather than a marathon. Who knows how things would have changed for some teams had they had a full 82- game season. As fans, though, it's worth pondering what the ideal season length could be. For its beneficial quirks, 48 games is too short; at the same time, 82 games often feels like it's too long. A 70-game season might be ideal, though the only way that will happen is if owners give up revenue from six home games — something that will never happen unless those games are replaced by a play-in round prior to the Stanley Cup playoffs.

The 2013 season started with uncertainty and anger and ended with record-breaking TV ratings and a thrilling two months of playoffs. Yet in some ways, it feels like failures and mistakes can be written off due to the strange nature of the truncated schedule. The NHL has amassed a ton of goodwill, much more than one could have dreamed following a lockout — now it's up to both individual teams and the league as a whole to make sure they don't squander it for the 2013-14 season.

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2013

LeBron Made the Wrong Decision

Two years ago, when the Miami Heat reached their first NBA Finals with LeBron James, I wrote that James and the Heat were winning the wrong way. I still believe that, but I also suspect now that LeBron made the wrong decision for his own legacy.

Throughout sports history, there have been popular and unpopular dynasties. The Showtime Lakers of the 1980s, with Magic Johnson, were widely beloved. The Lakers dynasty of the late '90s and early 2000s, with Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, was widely resented. Most fans liked Joe Montana's 49ers and Wayne Gretzky's Edmonton Oilers. Most fans hate the Yankees. Boston Celtics dynasties are usually popular, while Dallas Cowboy dynasties are always hated. Fans loved the John Elway/Terrell Davis Broncos, and quickly grew to loathe the Bill Belichick-Tom Brady Patriots.

I might guess that the Miami Heat are the most universally despised dynasty in the history of North American sports. Obviously the Heat have their fans: there are people who have cheered for that team long before LeBron's arrival, and a few "fans" will always attach themselves to whoever's the best. The Heat are the best right now. But while the Yankees or Cowboys have inspired fierce animosity from most fans, they've always drawn huge numbers of supporters, too. In some circles, a Yankees cap will always be a sign of coolness, and when Dallas finally gets good again, you'll start seeing a lot blue stars, too.

The Heat don't have that kind of base; the Yankees and Cowboys are iconic franchises, and Miami is not. Furthermore, there's The Decision. Most fans hated the spectacle, many felt offended by the presentation, and even ESPN executives admit that it was handled badly. The Decision caused many fans to detest LeBron James. The hubris of an hour-long special to announce a free agent signing, the arrogance of "take my talents to South Beach," and the transparent choice of an engineered contender alienated a huge percentage of sports fans. Some have forgiven him, a few still need more time, and many never will.

Negative reaction to The Decision was almost universal. ESPN ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer acknowledged that many fans saw the production as "an affront to humility, loyalty, moderation ... a celebration of greed, ego and excess." One of his successors, Kelly McBride, noted the one-year anniversary of The Decision, remembering it as "one of the most viewed, and one of the most hated, moments of ESPN television ... it will forever remain in the minds of fans a target of deserving scorn." Even ESPYs host Seth Meyers asked, "Did it really need to be an hour? Somebody time me. 'Miami.' How long did that take?"

But that's not really where LeBron went wrong. People root against him now, but he's got two rings, a lot more than two endorsement deals, and he's pretty clearly the best basketball player on the planet. Fifty years from now, no one will care about The Decision. But some fans will still notice the context for LeBron's championships. Even if few recall the words he used — "As much as I loved my teammates back in Cleveland, as much as I loved home, I knew I couldn’t do it by myself against [the Celtics] ... this opportunity was once in a lifetime" — they'll see that James went seven years without winning a championship, then joined a team with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

I'm surprised people don't make a bigger deal out of that quote, actually: "I wanted to stay in Cleveland, but I didn't think we could beat the Celtics." We're supposed to celebrate that as greatness? I'm not good enough to carry this team to an Eastern Conference title. I need help. Contrast that with Michael Jordan: "There's no way, with hindsight, I would've ever called up Larry, called up Magic and said, 'Hey, look, let's get together and play on one team' ... I was trying to beat those guys."

In Jordan's first five seasons, the Bulls went 205-205. Rather than bolting Chicago for a better team, Jordan made himself better and improved as a team player. James showed his drive to succeed by ... going somewhere it would be easier to succeed. Rather than lifting his teammates to victory, James looked for a team that could win right away. Winning championships is seen as the ultimate achievement because it means a player helped his team, played at a high level and made the guys around him better. We don't celebrate a guy just for being in the right place at the right time.

LeBron James is the best player in the world right now. Kevin Durant and Chris Paul are pretty close, but I think most objective fans would agree that James is at the top. But for someone who's obviously obsessed with his legacy, I wonder if LeBron made the right choice. If he had stayed in Cleveland, or just chased the highest offer, and eventually won the same number of championships as Larry Bird (three), every one of those rings would represent a colossal triumph. In Miami, don't they both feel a little cheap so far? If LeBron wins six championships, same as M.J., will anyone view those accomplishments as equal?

I would argue that the answer is no. Maybe that will seem foolish eight years from now, but as it stands, I think fans see Jordan as the architect of greatness, and James merely as the instrument. He's the best player on the best team, but you don't get that sense about LeBron that you did about Michael — that there was just no way he would let his team lose, that he could do anything necessary to win. There have been hundreds of pages written on whether James has killer instinct, and I've always seen that as silly and unfair. But when James is discussed among the greatest players of all time — and he's already in that discussion — I doubt he'll be viewed as lifting the Heat the same way Jordan lifted the Bulls, or Bill Russell the Celtics, or even Tim Duncan the Spurs.

LeBron is the greatest player in the world, and he's performed at a high level in clutch situations. But when he chose Miami, when he admitted that he didn't think he could win a championship without help from players like Wade and Bosh, James may have forever taken himself out of that conversation with guys like Jordan and Duncan. Jordan's image, his perception among the public, was a player who could do anything necessary to win. James implicitly disavowed that quality in himself when he picked his Dream Team in Miami. I'm not good enough, he said. I can't lead the Cavaliers to a championship. If I want championship rings, I need to go somewhere it's going to be easier.

That's always going to be part of his legacy, and we'll never know if LeBron really was good enough to put a lesser team on his shoulders. I wonder if it's a Decision he'll regret some day.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:47 AM | Comments (3)

June 24, 2013

NBA Draft: Don't Believe the Non-Hype

Sometime shortly after 8 o'clock Thursday evening, the Cleveland Cavaliers (or a trade partner) will have their pick of this year's NBA draft class. Of all the players in the world eligible to join the league this summer, the Cavs can add to their roster any one of their choosing.

And yet by most reports, neither Cleveland nor the rest of the league want any of them.

The 2013 NBA draft fraternity is being portrayed as Old School's Lambda Epsilon Omega, a crew of sorry losers banded together by their inferiority. Nerlens Noel is a raw, injured big man with no offensive skills. Alex Len is a raw, injured big man who rarely impressed in college. Ben McLemore is a mildly skilled shooter who was afraid of stepping up in big games and deferred to his older teammates. And Otto Porter, Jr. is an average swingman already bumping his head against the ceiling of his talent.

Of course, the same reports (and reporters) praised the dawn of the Darko Milicic, Adam Morrison, and Michael Beasley eras. Credibility is a rare trade these days.

In truth, the backlash against this draft class as a whole is wildly exaggerated. Yes, the 2013 draft is short on visions of low risk, high immediate prospects dancing through GMs' sleepy heads. But the popular suggestion that this group is devoid of All-Stars is intellectually lazy and statistically insane.

For example, consider the 2001 draft. Similar to this year's draft, Washington won the lottery and faced a very unimpressive and unproven group (remember that this was the peak of high school lottery picks). The Wizards opted for the raw upside of Kwame Brown, whose term in the nation's capital lasted just four years. This is the inevitable curse of a weak draft featuring unproven players, right?

Wrong. The next three picks after Washington whiffed on Brown were also non-NCAA players, but few would consider Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, and Pau Gasol busted lottery picks.

But really, the best comparison for this year's draft is 2006. The 2006 draft was a perfect "down year" storm, as it was the first year high school grads were banned from draft eligibility. Greg Oden and Kevin Durant would have been in the 2006 pool under the previous rules, but instead the CBA change forcing players to wait a year before entering the NBA left a talent hole for one offseason. On top of that, the top 2005 high school graduates (namely, Andrew Bynum) who would have been in the 2006 draft after a year in college declared straight after high school under the old CBA, so the 2006 pool was artificially weak.

And while Toronto's selection of Andrea Bargnani has been mostly lukewarm, Portland immediately followed by choosing LaMarcus Aldridge. Rudy Gay went eighth to Memphis (through Houston). Rajon Rondo slid to Boston at 21.

Admittedly, cherry picking the players from these supposedly weak drafts is a little unfair. There have been recent NBA drafts that delivered handfuls of future stars. But the knock on 2013 is not that it won't replenish the league with a slew of cornerstones; there are some seriously claiming they don't see a single all-star in the lot.

So why would such a clearly pessimistic narrative persist? Because GMs love low expectations.

As much as sportswriters enjoy playing personnel evaluators for fun, they earn their bread buttering up GMs for information about players leading up to the draft. But these GMs do not just dole out free evaluations to make writers happy; they create low expectations to cushion busted picks.

With no consensus, sure-fire star in this draft, the GMs at the top of the lottery face significant pressure to avoid a disastrous pick. And while they cannot really improve their ability to scout at this point, they can disparage the overall talent of the class so hindsight is kinder to their mistake.

Thursday's draft may not have the star power or franchise-saving hope we have seen in other years, but there is quality in this class somewhere. Finding that talent is the challenge for the brightest evaluators in the game.

You know, the kind of task a GM is being paid to do.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2013

WTA Needs to React to Bathroom Breaks

It's time once again for me to gripe about something that I have been criticizing on and off, literally for over a decade. I know it has at least been that long, because I remember writing an article back in 2002 on how annoying the bathroom breaks were in the finals of that year's Australian Open Women's finals between Martina Hingis and Jennifer Capriati.

They were annoying because it was so obvious that their only purpose was to disrupt the opponent's flow. It was Hingis getting an injury timeout when she was behind, and then it was Capriati taking a bathroom break when Hingis won the set, and then vice-versa, etc.

Since then in the women's game this has become a common tactic, unfortunately going unchallenged, because nobody wants to be the first "bad person" to say something about it. I noticed how awful it had gotten when I saw several players in a Challenger few years ago that at least half of the players were taking bathroom breaks after losing a set (never after winning one). In one particular challenger in Belgium last fall, seven out of the eight quarterfinalists took bathroom breaks at the end of the sets they lost!

Then came the moment in the Australian Open this year when Azarenka got unintentionally "too honest" on the microphone after her win against Sloane Stephens and said that she took a bathroom break at 6-1 5-4, right when Sloane was mounting a remarkable comeback, because she "could not breath" — which basically meant she was getting nervous and needed to calm down. It's not exactly an ethical excuse for a medical timeout of 10 minutes.

WTA and Azarenka did not wait too long to realize the gravity of that error. Patrick McEnroe and Pam Shriver were the first ones to jump on the "slam Azarenka" train. Personally, I thought that showed dishonesty since they chose not to say anything for years up to that point because they did not want to "rock the boat." Once they found the opportunity since a player admitted herself — thus giving them the opportunity to hide behind the "she said it, I didn't" as if they did not notice the dimensions of this practice for a long time — they immediately discharged all their carefully-kept thoughts on Azarenka.

As expected, WTA and Azarenka gave their best shot at damage control. Azarenka claimed that she misspoke and that the timeout was for a back injury; the WTA had the trainer explain the nature of the "injury," etc. Nobody in their right mind swallowed these mediocre explanations. Nevertheless, this problem continues to invade the women's game like a plague. Thus I was not surprised to see that on the three junior girls' matches that I have watched on the middle Sunday of the French open tournament, five out of the six players took bathroom breaks after having lost a set!

So should we be surprised when, in the final match of the junior girls draw, the Swiss player Belinda Bencic had to wait on the court after winning her first set 6-1 against the German player Antonia Lottner, because the latter needed a bathroom break? Bencic still won the match 6-1, 6-3. I don't think I am too naive to believe that a large majority of those bathroom breaks, if not all, were taken not because the players had to go, but to regroup themselves, break the opponent's rhythm, or a combination of both.

This is a dirty, unethical tactic, and it has spread deep to the juniors. The Azarenka incident drew some attention to it, due to the magnitude of the occasion and the name-recognition factor, but nobody in the WTA has the guts to do anything about it. I imagine we will have to wait until the matches average one or two bathroom breaks per match (or medical timeouts like Azarenka), each coming after the opponent wins the set, including in the big stages, before WTA feels enough shame to do something about it.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 2:35 PM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2013

The Year of Rask

After the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals, I thought we were in for the greatest series of all-time. After Game 3, I think it's pretty clear that this series is waxes and wanes with the two best goaltenders this year's playoffs has seen in Tuukka Rask and Corey Crawford.

Rask, the goaltender for the Boston Bruins, is just too hot to stop right now. The Bruins needed seven games (and an epic come-from-behind Game 7 overtime victory) to beat the Toronto Maple Leafs in their opening playoff series. Since then, Rask has been a machine, losing only two of his last 12 games. The first loss was at New York in overtime. The second was at Chicago in triple overtime. Rask and the Bruins managed to sweep the favored Pittsburgh Penguins with one of the most unbelievable performances by a goalie in the playoffs as Rask allowed two goals in four games to a Pittsburgh team that averaged a league-best 3.4 goals per game during the regular season. They should have scored 13 or 14 goals on Rask and they managed 2.

Rask hasn't lost at home since May 10 and I don't expect him to. He has 3 shutouts in his last seven games. His save percentage for the playoffs is at .946. He has allowed 1.64 goals per game in the playoffs. And despite losing the marathon of a triple overtime game one, he kept his head and won game two in overtime, allowing only one goal in nearly 74 minutes of play. And then, despite playing on the ice for the equivalent of three games in the first two games of this series, Rask blanks the second best offensive team in the NHL (3.1 goals per game) in Game 3.

Now Crawford, the Chicago Blackhawks goaltender, is no slouch. So far in this year's playoff run, he is allowing 1.73 goals per game with a save percentage of .936. Truly, Crawford has had nearly as good of a playoff run as Rask, the difference is in that Rask seems to be getting better and better as the playoffs go on and Crawford seems to be steadily declining.

Rask's numbers by series go like this:

Toronto — 2.49 GAA; .923 save %; 0 shutouts; 4 wins; 3 losses
New York Rangers — 1.86 GAA; .936 save %; 0 shutouts; 4 wins; 1 loss
Pittsburgh — 0.44 GAA; .985 save %; 2 shutouts; 4 wins; 0 losses

Here are Crawford's numbers:

Minnesota — 1.32 GAA; .950 save %; 1 shutout; 4 wins; 1 loss
Detroit — 2.00 GAA; .929 save %; 0 shutouts; 4 wins; 3 losses
Los Angeles — 1.81 GAA; .927 save %; 0 shutouts; 4 wins; 1 loss

Notice the progression: Rask is getting better and better. Crawford is playing rather consistently. Rask has peaked at exactly the right time. Rask almost lost to the Maple Leafs, but with the boost of a great offensive comeback, he has been on fire ever since. Crawford had a great series against Minnesota where the Blackhawks obviously had the Wild overmatched. Since then, Crawford has been very solid, but not lights-out. In a normal stretch, posting a 2.00 GAA should be more than enough for the Blackhawks to consistently win, but against Rask, I'm afraid that isn't going to cut it.

Consistency is what wins games in the regular season. Being on fire is what wins games in the playoffs and I think it is pretty clear that Rask is on fire and Crawford is playing well, but not on fire well.

The question that Blackhawks fans are probably asking right now is "how are we supposed to beat a guy who swept the offensive powerhouse Pittsburgh Penguins, blanked them twice, and only allowed two goals in four games?"

The answer is not easy to come by. Triple overtime at home worked once. Perhaps playing the equivalent of two games in one night should have shaken Rask off of his amazing run against the Penguins and return him to some sort of normalcy. This was obviously not the case.

Rask is currently unflappable. He is not going to beat himself. He is not going to lose his head. He may just win this series in five games. He'll certainly manage to finish off the Blackhawks by Game 6.

Patrick Sharp, Patrick Kane, and Marian Hossa have been performing toward their typical standards for the Blackhawks. Hossa sat out Game 3, but is expected to play in Game 4. But the strange phenomenon of this postseason for the Blackhawks is that Jonathan Toews has only managed to find the net one time this postseason (in Game 5 vs. Detroit). He has contributed in other ways, but during the 2012-13 regular season, Toews scored 23 goals in 47 games, nearly a goal in every other game. By that count, he should have 10 goals this postseason ... and he has 1. The Blackhawks have scored 52 goals in 20 games this postseason, an average of 2.6 goals per game, 0.5 behind their regular season total. Add another 9 goals to their total — making up for Toews lack of production — and they are at 3.1: right on target.

Meanwhile, Patrice Bergeron has more game-winning goals (2) than Toews has goals. Toews has been more of a goal scorer over the course of his career than Bergeron, but this postseason Toews is losing 7-1.

I don't think there is any question of which position will be awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy. Unless we see the remaining games decided by margins of 7-5 and 8-6, it seems obvious that if the Blackhawks win, it will be Crawford. If the Bruins win, it will be Rask.

Two more things worth noting. Firstly, this is the first Original Six matchup in the Stanley Cup Finals since 1979 when the Montreal Canadiens defeated the New York Rangers. It's odd that it has been so long since an Original Six matchup considering in the 1970s, the Stanley Cup Final saw six Original Six matchups. The 1960s had eight and every Final in the 1950s was an Original Six matchup. The times have changed.

Secondly, from 1976 to 1988 there were only three Stanley Cup champions — the Montreal Canadiens (5), the New York Islanders (4), and the Edmonton Oilers (4). In the past 13 NHL seasons, there have been 11 different Stanley Cup champions.

However, if you look at the champions from 2009 to 2012, you will see the Pittsburgh Penguins, Chicago Blackhawks, Boston Bruins, and Los Angeles Kings. Notice, these were the final four teams remaining in this year's postseason. It seems to me like there are a handful of teams that are establishing themselves for league dominance over the next 10 to 20 years.

I don't think we'll see three-peats and four-peats like we did in the 1970s and 1980s, but what I will call the "San Antonio Spurs Formula" is one that may work well for NHL teams. Establish a core group of players and the same coach for 10-20 years and you can win three, four, or five championships. It certainly looks to be the formula the Penguins and the Blackhawks are employing and I think it just might work ... but probably not in 2013: the year of Rask!

Posted by Andrew Jones at 4:57 PM | Comments (1)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 15

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — While in pursuit of Greg Biffle in the lead, Johnson's No. 48 Chevy cut a tire and slammed hard into the wall at turn two. Biffle went on to win, while Johnson finished 28th, one lap down. He remained the points leader, and holds a 31-point cushion over Carl Edwards.

"I'll let Biffle enjoy the moment," Johnson said. "He tastes victory. I drink it."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished second in the Quicken Loans 400 at Michigan, posting his fourth consecutive top-10 result. He is fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 62 out of first.

"Sunday was my first Father's Day as a father," Harvick said, "and I finished runner-up to Greg Biffle. I always like to say, 'I'm a daddy first, and a driver second.'"

3. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished eighth at Michigan, falling victim to an untimely caution, while Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle took the win. Edwards remained second in the point standings and trails Jimmie Johnson by 31.

"Biffle refused to help me get some debris off my grill," Edwards said. "But I've got no problem 'trashing' him. I guess my current teammate is a lot like my former teammate, Matt Kenseth, in that neither 'favors' me."

4. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth came home sixth at Michigan, collecting his eighth top-10 of the year. He improved one spot in the point standings to fifth and is now 82 out of first.

"Toyota Racing Development is boosting the power of their engines," Kenseth said. "That likely means Toyota cars will be going faster ... when their engines blow."

5. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — A promising day for Earnhardt at Michigan turned sour when his engine blew on lap 131 after he had led 34 laps on the day. He finished 38th and tumbled three places in the point standings to seventh, 91 out of first.

"We're close to signing a sponsor that will be new to NASCAR," Earnhardt said, "and it will be a big deal for both parties. In other words, it's a 'win-win' situation, which doubles my number of victories over the last year."

6. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer posted his eight top-10 finish of the year with a seventh in the Quicken Loans 400. He remained third in the point standings and trails Jimmie Johnson by 49.

"The No. 15 5-Hour Energy car took a beating," Bowyer said. "Of course, it's taken a 'beating' all year, because I haven't won a single race. That may change. I won last year at Sonoma's road course, so I'm confident things will make a 'turn' for the better."

7. Kyle Busch — Busch led the way for Joe Gibbs Racing with a fourth in the Quicken Loans 400. He is fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 86 out of first.

"Michigan is a fast track," Busch said. "It carries more speed than the Mayfield's. That speed is probably why I was penalized for passing on pit road. And that reminds of the title of my upcoming autobiography, 'Black Flags and Blue Lights.'"

8. Greg Biffle — Biffle held off Jimmie Johnson at Michigan to give Ford its 1,000th victory in NASCAR. Biffle inherited the lead on a fortunate pit stop on lap 167, and kept Johnson at bay before the No. 48 blew a tire with two laps to go.

"I stared down Johnson," Biffle said, "and he blinked. Or maybe he just winked. In any case, he saw me. For once, I can say I had the 'look' of a champion."

9. Kasey Kahne — Kahne blew a tire while leading on lap 104 at Michigan on a tough day for Hendrick Motorsports. Kahne finished 38th, while Jimmie Johnson was the highest Hendrick finisher in 28th.

"Tire isuues meant it wasn't a good day for Hendrick," Kahne said. "You want to know why? Because it was a Goodyear."

10. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski finished 12th in the Quicken Loans 400 at Michigan on a historic day for Ford, as Greg Biffle gave the auto maker it's 1,000th win.

"If you don't think this is a big deal for Ford," Keselowski said, "then you've been misinformed. Biffle celebrated in Victory Lane with Miss Sprint Cup. Me? I got stuck with 'Miss Informed.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2013

WSOF 3 and June 2013 UFC Rankings

Five Quick Hits

* Carson Beebe vs. Joe Murphy was probably the best match at World Series of Fighting 3, a compelling grappling contest between wrestling (Beebe) and jiu-jitsu (Murphy). But in awarding the bout to Beebe, the judges made the wrong decision.

* Josh Burkman choked out Jon Fitch in the first minute of Fitch's WSOF debut, but the real concern for Fitch is that it seems like he's developed a glass jaw. Fitch went five years without losing (16-0), dropped a decision to Georges St-Pierre, and then went 5-0-1 for another three years. He's 1-3 since, twice losing by stoppage.

* Referee Steve Mazzagatti couldn't tell Fitch had passed out, so Burkman flipped him over and walked away — a pretty cool walk-off to follow a big win. Dana White criticized Mazzagatti for not stopping the fight earlier, but it was really just a couple of seconds. That said, WSOF highlighted the biggest problems in MMA: substandard judging and reffing.

* Stupidest event name in the history of combat sports: UFC on FOX Sports 1 1. You can't end the name with two distinct numbers in a row. That's even more ridiculous than pretentious old event names like UFC: Vindication. Let's just call all UFC events by number (162, 163, etc.) instead of dividing them by which US television station airs the matches.

* I don't know whether Bellator's new reality series on Spike (Fight Master) will be any good, but the first episode, with fighters choosing coaches, looks really interesting.

UFC 161: Henderson vs. Evans

On Saturday night, Roy Nelson fought like you would expect if you knew nothing about him. He looked like an aging fat man whose "strategy" consisted of throwing haymakers and looking for a knockout. Big Country came into this sport with a grappling pedigree, but he's also shown incredible knockout power, and that's how he's won in the UFC: he's 6-0 when he gets a knockout, five of those in the first round. In his other matches, he's 0-4. There has to be a Plan B.

With Nelson's standup power and prowess on the ground, he should be able to compete with anyone in the light heavyweight division. But his striking is too one-dimensional, his takedowns are terrible, and he's too fat. Nelson's weight has gone up and down, but last weekend he was back up to 260. Roy knows how to use his size, but his cardio is not where it should be, and if he dropped to the same weight as, say, heavyweight champion Cain Velasquez (240), I think he'd be more effective. I'd really like to see Nelson less enamored of his power and rededicate himself to grappling. Mixed martial artists are most effective when their martial arts are mixed — not just a big right hand.

In the main event, Rashad Evans won a close decision over Dan Henderson. The win puts Evans back in the title conversation, and a fight with Glover Texeira would probably make sense, but the more interesting question is what's next for Hendo. Last year, he pulled out of a title fight due to a training injury, and since then he's lost two in a row. Both losses were split decisions against top-10 opponents, so it's not like Henderson is suddenly over the hill and needs to retire. But he's 42 and he's probably at least three wins away from another shot at the belt.

I've compared Hendo to Randy Couture before: good wrestlers, small for their weight class, elite into their 40s. I believe the smaller size makes up for quickness lost with age, and the strong wrestling base compensates for lesser strength against larger opponents. Hendo's been effective at LHW, and has shown no interest in cutting down to middleweight, but that's a potential path for him. He's not going to be successful against the top light heavyweights unless he can land an H-Bomb, and that won't happen against Jon Jones or Alexander Gustaffson (because of their reach), or Lyoto Machida (due to his speed). It's hard to imagine Henderson earning a title shot without getting by at least one of those three, especially because his age decline could set in at any time.

After last night's loss, Henderson (like Tito Ortiz before him) complained about Machida's style, invariably described as "elusive." Fights are fundamentally about attacking your opponent without making yourself vulnerable, and Machida is a master. If you expect the other guy to just stand in front of you and let you hit him, maybe you're in the wrong sport. And if you're still so pissed off about your last loss that your post-fight interview is mostly about that, maybe you didn't concentrate enough on the opponent who just beat you. Henderson is still too good for anyone to say he needs to retire, but he needs to get his head right before his next opponent, whoever it is.

June 2013 UFC Rankings

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

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

1. Cain Velasquez
2. Junior Dos Santos
3. Fabricio Werdum
4. Daniel Cormier
5. Antonio Silva
6. Alistair Overeem
7. Travis Browne
8. Josh Barnett
9. Frank Mir
10. Mark Hunt

Make it Happen: Antonio Rodrigo Noguiera vs. Stipe Miocic

A bounce-back fight for Nogueira, against a fighter with momentum, or a chance for Miocic to show he's for real against a heavyweight legend.

Thank You, UFC, For: Barnett vs. Mir

A matchup a decade in the making.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

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

Make it Happen: Henderson vs. Thiago Silva

Henderson's fought nothing but top competition for most of his career, and now he's riding a tough two-fight losing streak. Thiago Silva is a good fighter on the periphery of the top 10, a tough out but a good opportunity for Henderson to right the ship.

Thank You, UFC, For: Rua vs. Sonnen

When Rua's original opponent (Little Nog) got hurt, Sonnen was the right choice to step in.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Anderson Silva
2. Chris Weidman
3. Vitor Belfort
4. Michael Bisping
5. Yushin Okami
6. Luke Rockhold
7. Jacare Souza
8. Costa Philippou
9. Gegard Mousasi
10. Mark Muñoz

Mousasi has been fighting at 205, but he sounds committed to fighting at middleweight, so I've ranked him here. Otherwise, I suppose Alan Belcher might be 10th.

Make it Happen: Mousasi vs. winner of Muñoz-Tim Boetsch

Muñoz and Boetsch are both on the border of the top 10, and the winner of their match at UFC 162 would be a great first test for Mousasi if he returns to middleweight. He's asked for Vitor Belfort, but let's keep this realistic.

Thank You, UFC, For: Uriah Hall vs. Nick Ring

After Hall's upset loss on the TUF finale, I suggested "someone like C.B. Dollaway or Tom Lawlor" as his next opponent. Ring qualifies. He's a middle-of-the-road fighter, well-rounded but not as exceptional in any one area as Hall is in striking. He'll probably look to take the fight to the ground, and if Hall's going to justify the hype, he needs to stuff some takedowns.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Georges St-Pierre
2. Johny Hendricks
3. Carlos Condit
4. Rory MacDonald
5. Demian Maia
6. Martin Kampmann
7. Jake Ellenberger
8. Tarec Saffiedine
9. Matt Brown
10. Josh Koscheck

Nick Diaz says he's retired, and this time it actually seems like he's done fighting in the UFC. If he gets a fight on his calendar, he's obviously top-10.

Make it Happen: Hector Lombard vs. Jake Shields

After years of dominance against lesser competition, Lombard has disappointed in the UFC. Match him up with an inferior striker like Shields and let's see if he'll finally let his hands fly the way we saw in Bellator. Lombard's judo base should limit Shields' ability to turn this into a Boring Jake Shields Fight©, and even if he does, Lombard's last few fights have been pretty dull anyway. This could be the right matchup to inject some life into two of the UFC's most disappointing acquisitions.

Thank You, UFC, For: MacDonald vs. Ellenberger

If Ellenberger is for real, he can certainly prove it by beating MacDonald. The winner of this will probably get a title shot if Georges St-Pierre stays at 170.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. Ben Henderson
2. Anthony Pettis
3. Josh Thomson
4. Gilbert Melendez
5. T.J. Grant
6. Gray Maynard
7. Pat Healy
8. Nate Diaz
9. Donald Cerrone
10. Jim Miller

Make it Happen: Maynard vs. Evan Dunham

Maynard's coming off a brutal loss, and Dunham a controversial judges' decision that inspired Dana White to tweet that Dunham got robbed. Maynard hasn't looked the same since his loss to Frankie Edgar, and with Dunham in the top 15, this is a matchup that makes sense for both fighters.

Thank You, UFC, For: Cerrone vs. Rafael dos Anjos

Both are on the border of the top 10, and this fight should push one clearly into contention.

Featherweight (136-145)

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

Make it Happen: Edgar vs. winner of Swanson-Siver

Contingent on Edgar beating Charles Oliveira, of course. Edgar is about -500 on most sites, so let's go ahead and pencil him in.

Thank You, UFC, For: Koch vs. Poirier

There's still some strange match-making in the UFC's lower weight classes, but it's nice to see top-10 guys mostly facing other fighters in the top 10.

Bantamweight (126-135)

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

Dominick Cruz hasn't fought in a year and a half, and he's not yet scheduled to return. When he does, he'll obviously be at or near the top of this list.

Make it Happen: Dillashaw vs. Easton

Dillashaw lost the Ultimate Fighter finale to John Dodson 18 months ago. Since then, he's won four in a row, the last three by stoppage. It's time for him to face someone in the top 10.

Thank You, UFC, For: McDonald vs. Pickett

The match-making options in this division are pretty limited with Cruz and Barao both sidelined by injury, but you want to keep fighters active, and this is a good test for McDonald, who's still only 22.

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

I'm not ranking these divisions until they have more fighters.

UFC 162: Silva vs. Weidman

It is UFC policy to state as fact that Anderson Silva is the greatest pound-for-pound fighter in the world, and this is not treated as a subject that is open to debate. But Silva lost more rounds against Chael Sonnen than Georges St-Pierre and Jon Jones combined have lost in the last five years, and he's not a real heavy favorite (-265) against a guy with only 9 pro fights. Many fans and analysts believe Chris Weidman has a real shot at unseating the Spider, though it's a big step up in competition.

Silva forever lost me as a fan during his title defense against Demian Maia, but I think he holds on to the belt. He's so dynamic, and all he needs to do is catch you once in a 25-minute match. All the important fights on the card take place in the middleweight or featherweight divisions. Joining the title fight at 185, Mark Muñoz faces Tim Boetsch. Meanwhile, Frank Edgar makes his second appearance at 145, against Charles Oliveira, and Cub Swanson takes on Dennis Siver.

I like Muñoz and Edgar straight up, and I guess Swanson, too. He seems to be one of those guys I always underrate a little bit, but logically I know he's been fighting well, and Siver is beatable. From a betting angle, though, Swanson (-240) doesn't interest me. Odds haven't been posted on the Muñoz fight, and Edgar's too heavy a favorite to be profitable (-500), but he's a nice base for your parlay. Oliveira's only obvious path to victory is a submission, and Edgar's never been submitted. He's used to fighting much higher-caliber fighters, and he's a safe bet to win by decision or TKO.

This card is still three weeks out, and oddsmakers haven't addressed many of the fights yet, but you might be able to do a reasonable parlay on Edgar, Tim Kennedy, and Edson Barboza. It could be tough to find books interested in Barboza's match with Rafaello Oliveira, and you won't make much on three favorites, but that's pretty safe for a parlay. If the odds are close to even, you could also add Muñoz to the parlay, and if you like living on the edge, take a flyer on Andrew Craig (2-1 UFC) against Chris Leben. The Crippler has lost three of his last four, and it's been two years since his last victory.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:57 PM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2013

The Dizzying Coaching Carousel

Unless you've been living under the world's biggest, sports-free rock, you know that perhaps the most compelling NBA Finals in a generation is currently going on between the Spurs and Heat. It's featured blowouts, last-second heroics, dominant performances, and two teams that seem determined on taking each other's best shot and responding the next night.

With only two possible games remaining as the series heads back to Miami, it's anybody's guess as to how the season will conclude. But whoever wins the title, be it tomorrow night or Thursday, a strong case can be made that the Spurs and the Heat are the two strongest, best run, and most stable organizations in the league, despite all their differences in style and swagger.

In Miami and San Antonio, essentially the same front office management teams have been in place for the last 18 years. Personnel moves under Pat Riley in Miami and R.C. Buford in San Antonio are thought out well in advance with the best interests of the team. If either organization has a large or relative sea change in philosophy, such as the Heat adding LeBron James and Chris Bosh in 2010, or the Spurs beginning to run their offense more through the perimeter three years ago, the team dedicates itself to the change and doesn't change midstream.

So, in the two teams that are still playing as the calendar clicks over to the latter half of June, the other 28 teams have a model to work off of, that smart, consistent management and leadership in coaching and the front office can work wonders and lead to success.

Nearly half of those remaining teams changed their coaches, or will have a new coach by the time the 2013-14 preseason. With the possibility that Doc Rivers might not return to the Celtics, over 40 percent of the league could have a new coach.

Coaching turnover is, of course, understandable in a league like the NBA where the gap in quality from the best teams to the worst teams is perhaps the biggest of any major league (Orlando finished 46 games behind Miami in the East standings this year) and where the vast majority of teams harbor playoff ambitions or greater in a league where about half the teams make the postseason.

However, the most incomprehensible thing about this year's coaching changes is just how many coaches will not return to their teams after having strong or even outstanding seasons. A total of six playoff teams will have new coaches, including three teams in the Nuggets, Grizzlies, and Clippers that had top-six records in 2012-13. When you consider that P.J. Carlesimo won nearly 65 percent of his team's games in charge of the Nets after taking over for Avery Johnson in midseason and was not retained, the number of coaches of top-level teams who were let go grows.

One of these departures was defensible. Vinny Del Negro, despite an excellent record the past two seasons with the Clippers, probably reached his personal ceiling with the team. The former NBA veteran had the services of the league's best pure point guard, a prodigious young talent, and several other productive and talented contributors. However, the team had chemistry issues, and often appeared overmatched against the league's best clubs and coaches.

You can't be nearly as sympathetic about the letting go of both George Karl in Denver and Lionel Hollins in Memphis. Each coach guided their teams to a franchise record in wins in 2012-13, and each coach had a well-defined style that the players embraced and loved playing to. In other words, each coach provided the kind of stability for their organization that helps sustain success in today's NBA.

In a puzzling turn of events, there is a better than zero chance that Hollins and Karl could take over each other's team from 2013. That switcheroo would probably benefit the Grizzlies better than the Nuggets, as Karl has more of a proven track record of adapting his coaching style to his team's personnel than Hollins.

On the other side of the league, well down the standings from 55-win teams like the Nuggets and Grizzlies, there has been a trend for a while that sees rebuilding teams often give up on a coach after one or two years. Then, if those short-term hires follow other short-term coaches, it can lead to a team losing several years in a constant culture of instability.

Take the recent history of the Detroit Pistons, for instance. After making six consecutive Eastern Conference Finals from 2003 to 2008 under Larry Brown and Flip Saunders, the team is now on its fourth coach since 2009. Not coincidentally, the Pistons' last trip to the playoffs (a four-game sweep to LeBron's Cavs) came in 2009. No coach has lasted more than two years in the Motor City since Saunders.

Organizations like the Kings and Bobcats have had similar recent patterns, and have been regulars in the draft lottery.

It's worth mentioning that when Popovich, then San Antonio's GM, hired himself to be the team's head coach early in the 1996-97 season, he promptly went 17-47 for the rest of the year. Spoelstra finished just above .500 his first two years with the Heat, and was bounced from the first round both times. After the team obtained LeBron and Bosh, he was constantly embattled by rumors of Riley swooping in to coach the team, as he did with Stan Van Gundy in 2005.

Coaches don't usually put it all together in their first couple seasons, and organizations with successful teams don't have to change coaches. The league's front offices would be better served to realize both points.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2013

Foul Territory: High Heat and Low-Lifes

* Chick Magnet, He's Still a Virgin (to Good Quarterbacking) — Tim Tebow signed a two-year deal with the New England Patriots on Monday. Bill Belichick plans to use Tebow in a variety of manners, but mostly to prove to Rob Gronkowski that you can have a useless left arm and still contribute.

* He Said "Put it There" and Surprisingly, Garcia Realized "It" Wasn't His Foot and "There" Wasn't His Mouth — Tiger Woods and Sergio Garcia shook hands at the driving range at Merion Golf Club in an act that may have possibly signaled a truce to their running feud. Or it merely could have been meaningless, because Garcia always "shakes" in Woods' presence.

* Butt Your Honor! — Chad Johnson had his plea deal thrown out and was sentenced to 30 days in jail after he patted his defense lawyer on the butt. Despite the setback, Johnson boasted that it was the first time he's "got behind" a defender in the last five years.

* Chin Musical — The Diamondbacks and Dodgers brawled on Tuesday night after six hit batters resulted in a lengthy bench-clearing scrum that lasted led to six ejections. It's further evidence that even baseball fights are on PEDs.

* Pick and Roll — The Brooklyn Nets hired Jason Kidd as head coach on Wednesday. Kidd has no prior coaching experience, much as Deron Williams has no prior coach-hiring experience.

* Panama Corral — The United State shut out Panama 2-0 in a World Cup qualifier on Tuesday in Seattle. It was the most thorough butchering of "Panama" since the last Van Halen reunion.

* Just Because He Was On Sirius Doesn't Mean He Was Serious — Brett Favre told Sirius XM NFL Radio that Aaron Rodgers will "shatter" his Green Bay passing records. Many, including Rodgers, were surprised by Favre's decision to "show some love" was not followed by an explicit text message.

* Somebody Rubbed it the Wrong Way — The Clemson University's iconic Howard's Rock at Memorial Stadium was vandalized, leaving a sizable piece of the rock missing. It was the biggest chunk taken out of Clemson since Woody Hayes in the 1978 Gator Bowl.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 5:50 PM | Comments (0)

Lay Off the NCAA

Dom Cosentino has a piece up on Deadspin that gives us the rundown on another piece, a Sports Illustrated expose on the bureaucratic shambles of the NCAA and how they are no longer able to enforce compliance on the athletic programs they govern.

The SI piece is only available in print for now, hence the usefulness of Cosentino's article. The SI piece apparently makes the case that the state of the NCAA's disarray is as such that, "the time is ripe to cheat; there is no policing going on," according to a former NCAA bureaucrat.

Such a Somalian state of affairs is probably news to Kolton Houston. Whoever wrote up Houston's saga in Wikipedia describes it like this:

"In 2013, the NCAA was criticized for denying Georgia offensive lineman Kolton Houston his eligibility for violating the drug policy. Houston tested positive for the anabolic steroid norandrolone that was given without his knowledge to recover from shoulder surgery during high school, but the banned substance remain trapped in the fatty tissues in his body. Despite a huge decline in the substance level to the point where Houston does not gain a significant advantage for using the drug and proof that he had not been reusing it, he remained ineligible. Houston would then undergo dangerous operational procedures to get under the threshold to regain his eligibility, which goes against the mission for the NCAA to help out students. The NCAA is being heavily criticized for maintaining their rigid standards and not making an exception for Houston."

In fact, the Wikipedia article, in its "Criticisms" section, only contain cases of the NCAA being too heavy-handed — not asleep at the switch. Not listed among the criticisms listed is the case of a golfer who washed her car on campus, using ... some sort of hose and source not available to other students. The school self-reported the incident to the NCAA and fined the student $20.

You probably heard about this, but what you might not have seen are certain uneditorialized details of the case. The school fined the student, not the NCAA, and more to the point, the NCAA opined (due to the backlash) the no violation had occurred.

The (once again) Deadspin piece on the golfer, by Barry Petchesky, does take care to note that this wasn't an example of the NCAA being "stupid or evil," but still finds a way to partially find the NCAA at fault: "The fact that the WCC school wasn't sure what was a violation or not, and self-reported it anyway, says plenty about the NCAA's byzantine rulebook."

The piece goes on predictably to excoriate the NCAA, in a style reminiscent of Yahoo commenters who will blame everything from tornadoes to "Breaking Bad" ending on Obama. Both the Petchesky piece and the Cosentino piece end on the same note: the NCAA oversees a "unsustainable, unpoliceable behemoth" (Petchesky) and "the NCAA's rules only exist to perpetuate the lie of student-athlete 'amateurism.'"

Cosentino, in fact, goes a step further and heralds the NCAA's enforcement difficulties because college amateur athletics is a lie and so on and on.

Cosentino must really be a big fan of dynasties, because without the NCAA, may the school with the most money win. There are no more Appalachian States beating Michigan in football, no more Butlers and George Masons in basketball. It's the NCAA's rules, however ineptly enforced, that allows this level of parity.

But let's go back to Kolton Houston and the myth of the NCAA's involvement with the golfer. These cases are spotlighted to show the NCAA's problematic "one-size-fits-all" approach (Petchesky). But what is the alternative? That is, what is the alternative if you're not on the Deadspin staff and united in solidarity over the need to abolish the NCAA? You'd have the NCAA making judgment calls. I'm sure everyone would love that. No way would we see reams of blogs condemning the NCAA's decisions and their "right" to even make such decisions.

In summation, the NCAA does too much, does too little, presses down too hard, doesn't press down hard enough, is unwilling to make case-by-case decisions, and (I am certain) would make terrible case-by-case decisions and shouldn't be making case-by-case decisions.

The punditocracy has spoken, and the NCAA can do no right. When Mark Emmert goes to Starbucks and spills some coffee, Deadspin and the rest will be there to explain why it foretells the ruination of college athletics. I'd rather have Appalachian State.

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

June 12, 2013

The Brawl-Star Game

Jump not to any conclusions that not even a collarbone fracture in an earlier brawl this season sent Zack Greinke the message. Let's run down how went the Tuesday night fights between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Arizona Diamondbacks — featuring a few rounds between several 1980s all-stars now among both teams' brain trusts — for those who needed a scorecard to establish the, ahem, order of battle:

1) Greinke caught Cody Ross with a pitch to open the Arizona fifth, quite by accident, with the game scoreless to that point as Greinke and Ian Kennedy seemed locked in a reasonable pitcher's duel. The next Snake in the batter's box, Joe Kubel, hit one over the right field fence. Since nobody including Ross seems to have taken offense at a clearly unintended plunk, you could say Kubel exacted the most honorable retribution a teammate might exact. Dodgers in the hole, 2-0. No muss, no fuss.

2) Kennedy squirmed out of a jam that climaxed with the bases loaded and two out in the bottom of the inning when he pumped one past Nick Punto for the side.

3) Greinke dispatched the Diamondbacks in order in the top of the sixth, but in the bottom of the sixth Kennedy, for whatever insane reason, aimed one high at Los Angeles super rook Yasiel Puig, who's become must-see viewing no matter where you're watching, and was hitting with two strikes and two outs. It caught Puig on the snoot. You can argue Kennedy wasn't exactly trying to shatter the schnozzola, but you can't deny he was throwing a purpose pitch at all. And you can question why he waited an inning to administer the purpose pitch unless he just might have decided the way to send the Dodgers a message about an accidental clip was to go after the super rook.

4) Puig shook it off and took his base and the next Dodger up, Andre Ethier, saw the Snakes magnificently, sending one not that far from where Kubel's take-that! blast landed.

5) Puig batted cleanup Tuesday night, and Greinke — obviously out to protect his teammate — had the perfect chance leading off the top of the seventh, when Arizona cleanup hitter Miguel Montero checked in at the plate. Greinke hit Montero in the back. Say what you will about the unwritten rules or the mound marksman's tit-for-tat philosophy, but if you're going to retaliate for your cleanup man's drilling by going after their cleanup man, that is the way to do it. Had Greinke gone up, in, and decapitation upon Montero, the Diamondbacks would have been wholly justified in plans for vengeance.

6) The benches didn't move a muscle, more or less, when Puig went down by a nose, but they cleared when Montero took one in the mere back. The good news is that nobody threw any punches and the umpires handed both sides warnings right then and there. That should have been the end of it.

7) Except that it wasn't so far as Kennedy was concerned. Exactly why Dodger manager Don Mattingly left him in to bat for himself in the bottom of the seventh, with the game still tied at a deuce, remains a mystery. But it was a gift of manna to Kennedy, who threw one with Greinke's head on its destination log, and Greinke was probably lucky the flight plan diverted to his shoulder.

8) This time the benches emptied with a purpose of their own that crossed from the sublime to the ridiculous. We'll put it to you this way: you could have won a 1980s pennant or two with the coaches who mixed it up: Mattingly and Diamondbacks bench coach Alan Trammell; Dodgers batting instructor Mark McGwire giving Diamondbacks manager Kirk Gibson a mouthful and a half before opening verbal fire and grabbing upon Diamondbacks third base coach Matt Williams. Ladies and gentlemen, the 2013 World Sillies.

9) Somewhere in the middle of the Brawl Stars there were Dodgers relief pitcher J.P. Howell body-slamming Snakes assistant batting instructor Turner Ward against a railing, Puig landing a roundhouse on the head of Arizona first baseman Eric Hinske, and several D-listers — including Matt Kemp — risking the addition of further injury to insult by bounding up onto the field.

10) Crew chief Brian Gorman and company sent six to the proverbial showers. For the Dodgers, Puig, McGwire, and reliever Ronald Belisario; for the Diamondbacks, Gibson, Kennedy, and Ward. Just why Ward got the ho-heave despite being flattened by Howell seemed obscure until you heard Gorman comment that he was doing quite a round of door-to-door grabbing of guys, never mind that "it's hard not to, when they go after you." Gibson and Kennedy, of course, got the automatic ejection button hit, since Kennedy was fool enough to try for Greinke's cone after the warnings, but it's difficult to impossible to believe Gibson ordered any such knockdown pitch.

11) Said Kennedy after the game, which — somehow — the Dodgers managed to turn into a win for their injury-sapped, inconsistent troops — "I didn't think it was right, what (Greinke) did to Miggy." Has anyone pressed upon him that the Dodgers didn't think it was right that he hit their cleanup hitter in the smeller?

12) After the Dodgers hung up the runs that meant the game in the end, courtesy of a three-run double by catcher Tim Federowicz, Arizona reliever Joe Paterson caught pinch hitter Mark Ellis with a pitch. That time, nobody dared move even their pinkies.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 3:30 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 14

Note: The quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson dominated at Pocono, leading 128 of the first 160 laps, and won the Party At The Poconos 500. His sizable lead in the point standings is now even larger, a 51-point cushion over Carl Edwards.

"The depth of my domination cannot be overstated," Johnson said. "There was a party in the Poconos, but there was no parity."

2. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished 25th at Pocono after late-race incident with Juan Montoya caused a spin and a loss of track position. Kenseth fell two spots in the point standings to sixth and trails Jimmie Johnson by 103.

"At least we didn't have an engine failure," Kenseth said. "Toyota Racing Development has really worked tirelessly on their engine program. Unlike their engines, they just won't quit."

3. Carl Edwards — Forced to make an unscheduled pit stop to check lug nuts, Edwards finished 18th at Pocono, equaling his worst finish of the year. He remained second in the point standings, and now trails Jimmie Johnson by 51.

"In the Party in the Poconos," Edwards said, "we were hoping to party like it was '99.'

"Johnson has been so dominant, there are those who think he will run away with the championship. That's ludicrous. He can walk away with it."

4. Kevin Harvick — Harvick overcame an early pit road speeding penalty to take ninth at Pocono, earning his sixth top-10 result of the year. He is fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 87 out of first.

"Jimmie Johnson has three wins," Harvick said. "I have two. I'm keeping him in my sights. I may be the only driver standing between Johnson and a sixth Cup. He knows I'm coming; Richard Childress knows I'm going."

5. Kyle Busch — Busch, in the M&M's No. 18 Toyota, came home sixth at Pocono, joining teammate Denny Hamlin, who finished eighth, in the top 10.

"The 'Party in the Poconos 400' was presented by Walmart," Busch said. "Luckily, we were warned to look out for 'falling prices.'"

6. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished third at Pocono, posting his fourth top-five of the year. He is fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 82 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"As you may know," Earnhardt said, "I'll have a Superman paint scheme on my car at Michigan. As the man most known for his winless streaks, I'm more likely to see Lois Lane than Victory Lane."

7. Clint Bowyer — On a tough day for Michael Waltrip Racing, Bowyer finished 15th in the Party in the Poconos 400. Bowyer remained third in the point standings, 69 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"I'm still looking for my first win of the year," Bowyer said. "The law of averages says my winless streak should soon be a thing of the past. Much like a TNT commercial break, it has to end soon."

8. Kasey Kahne — Kahne suffered early drive train problems from the start at Pocono, resulting in a disappointing 36th. He dropped one place in the standings to eighth and is 121 out of first.

"There was no Party in the Poconos for me," Kahne said. "The No. 5 Hendrick car ran like crap. So you could say our engine was a party 'pooper.'"

9. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski led four laps early at Pocono but faded to 16th, continuing an uneventful season for the defending Sprint Cup champion. He is ninth in the point standings, 123 out of first.

"You probably saw me make an incredible save after contact with Tony Stewart," Keselowski said. "I believe I can top that save, but only if I can 'save' my season.

"I was docked 6 points for failing inspection at Dover last week. But I'm trying to keep my head up. When it seems like your losing points every week, it's difficult to remain 'positive.'"

10. Tony Stewart — Last week's winner at Dover, Stewart finished fourth in the Party at the Poconos 400, recording his second consecutive top-five finish.

"Last week at Dover," Stewart said, "Jimmie Johnson got 'Smoked.' This week at Pocono, he returned the favor, to the entire field."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2013

Who is the Best Female Tennis Player of All-Time?

Three years ago, I wrote a column declaring that Serena Williams was not the best ever to play women's tennis. Since then, she has won three Slams in singles, another in doubles, and Olympic gold medals in both singles and doubles. She has reclaimed the WTA No. 1 ranking, nearly 50% ahead of second-place Victoria Azarenka, and is the oldest woman in the Open Era to hold the top rank. Is it time to declare that Williams now is the finest women's tennis champion in history?

In my mind, there are three players who merit serious consideration as the Greatest Of All Time: Williams, Martina Navratilova, and Steffi Graf. That's not intended to slight Margaret Court or Chris Evert, or champions who precede the Open Era, like Suzanne Lenglen and Mo Connolly. They were all great players. But when you're talking about the best ever, I believe it's down to those three.

In that article from 2010, I compared Serena specifically to Steffi Graf. I don't intend to reprint every argument I made at the time, but here's the key paragraph:

It's not like these two played in radically different eras; they were contemporaries. Serena has won 13 Grand Slam singles titles. That's great, but Steffi won 22. Williams won the French Open only once, in 2002, and has never been as effective on clay as she was on other surfaces. Graf won every Slam at least four times and for years was the world's best player on every surface. Serena has held the top WTA ranking for 120 weeks. Graf held it for 377. Williams has won 37 singles titles, compared to 107 for Graf.

The statistical gap has narrowed, though Graf is still far ahead. Even now, Graf has won six more singles Slams and more than twice as many tournaments. She held the WTA's top ranking for almost three times as long as Williams.

There are four main arguments that Serena's proponents use to rate her ahead of Graf:

1. Serena has interests outside of the sport, and at times when she probably could have been the best in the world, she wasn't playing very much tennis.

2. Serena is a fantastic doubles player, with 13 Grand Slam victories and 3 Olympic gold medals.

3. The quality of play is higher now than ever before.

4. The stabbing of Monica Seles inflated Graf's résumé by removing her greatest competition.

I am largely unmoved by the first point. It is true that there were times when Serena Williams was the best player in the world, and statistics might lead you to think otherwise. It's appropriate to take that into consideration, but the effect is small. This is mostly a "what might have been" argument, and we're not talking about who could have been the best. Maybe Seles, if she hadn't been attacked. Maybe Babe Didrikson Zaharias, if she'd taken up the sport. Let's stick to what happened. The stats don't fully reflect Serena's dominance, fine. That doesn't make up for 6 Slams and 4 years at No. 1.

The second point, however, is significant. In modern tennis, we tend to ignore doubles. None of the top men play doubles any more, except occasionally at the national level. Even most of the top women don't make a serious commitment to doubles any more. Serena and Venus Williams play doubles regularly, and Serena doesn't duck out to focus on her singles matches. Graf won a doubles title at Wimbledon, with Gabriela Sabatini. Venus and Serena have won Wimbledon five times, and every other Slam at least twice.

As to the third contention, that players today are better than they were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, I'm sure it's true. I know some fans dislike the evolution in style of play, but necessity is the mother of invention. That said, this point is meaningless in a "best of all time" debate. It turns "best ever" into "best right now." According to that line of thinking, the second-best player of all time is probably Maria Sharapova. That's obviously not what we mean in a GOAT conversation.

It's impossible to know what Monica Seles might have accomplished without the attack that derailed her career. When the incident occurred, Seles was the best player in the world. She had won four of the last five Slams, and seven of the last nine. Following the stabbing, Steffi Graf won the next four Slams in a row.

Graf was a tremendous player. Seles won 9 Slams in her career, but Graf won 9 Slams before Seles won her first, and she won another 11 after the stabbing. In their careers, Graf went 10-5 against Seles, including 6-4 before the assault on Seles. To suggest that Graf would have been a lesser player without the attack is unfair, but if we're just looking at Graf's statistics, it's crazy to think they'd be as impressive if Seles' career had proceeded more naturally.

Both Williams and Graf have awesome résumés. Williams at her best has always seemed unbeatable. Graf once won five Slams in a row. Williams is the most accomplished singles player of her generation and the greatest doubles player. Graf won every Slam at least four times. Serena won a U.S. Open 13 years after her first title there. Steffi won the French 12 years apart.

But we haven't yet considered Martina Navrátilová. We'll go beyond statistics, of course, but let's begin with a chart. All figures below apply to singles play only, examining Match Wins, Tournament Titles, Slams, and Weeks at No. 1.

Navratilova won almost as many matches as Graf and Williams combined, and won more tournaments than the two combined. Martina has an even better doubles record than Serena, including 177 titles and 31 majors, plus 10 major titles in mixed doubles.

All top players are incredible athletes, but probably no one in the history of women's has physically distinguished herself from peers the way Navratilova did. Martina had a well-rounded game, but with her fitness and strength, she is perhaps the player best equipped to transcend eras and racket technology. Navratilova and Chris Evert dominated the late 1970s and most of the '80s, but if Martina had played in today's game, with modern rackets, there's every reason to believe she'd still be the best player in the game, barring perhaps Serena.

One of the most difficult aspects of a GOAT debate in tennis involves estimating the quality of competition. The women's field is probably deeper now than ever before, and in that sense, Serena has faced the toughest competition. The world No. 6, and No. 8, and No. 10 are better in Serena's era than they were when Steffi and Martina were in their primes. On the other hand, Williams has never had to face a transcendent rival like Evert or Seles. From 1982-87, Evert and Navratilova won 20 out of 23 slams. From 1988-93, Graf and Monica Seles won 21 of 24. Between Wimbledon in '86 and the Australian Open in 1990, Navratilova and Graf won 13 out of 15 slams. These were legends, consistently battling each other.

Serena's never had that one historic competitor to test her. Martina Hingis won her last Slam before Williams won her first. Sister Venus had her best years from 2000-01, before Serena reached her peak. Justine Henin's best years (2003-07) coincided with Serena's worst. Maria Sharapova has won all four majors, but never within a year of each other. She's been a good player for a long time, but never that unbeatable No. 1. They're all great players, easy Hall of Famers, but none of the same caliber as Evert, or Seles at her peak.

The way Serena rolls into a tournament and mercilessly dispatches talented opponents like Sara Errani and Sharapova awes fans. Serena on her good days is probably the best player in the history of women's tennis. But she's always been up and down. In the men's game, Roger Federer's consistency — illustrated by his unbelievable record of reaching Semi-Finals — sets him apart as much as anything. The consistency isn't there for Williams, who is nearly as unpredictable as she is dominant, and whose playing schedule is often sparse.

It feels unfair to revise Graf's legacy according to the "what-ifs" of the injury that derailed Monica Seles. It wasn't Graf's fault, and she can't be blamed for continuing to play well following the attack on a rival. But it's impossible to evaluate Graf's legacy without wondering what her career might look like if tennis security had been better in 1993. And unlike Navratilova and Williams, Graf's doubles legacy is pretty thin.

Women's tennis has been graced with exceptional champions. I haven't even mentioned Billie Jean King, or Kim Clijsters, or half a dozen others. But in trying to distinguish the best of all time, the single greatest champion in history, my choice is Martina Navratilova. She won her first Slam in 1978, and remained a top-10 singles player through 1994. She won every Slam in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. She won Wimbledon 800 times. She held the No. 1 ranking for a total of six years despite a prime that overlapped with those of both Evert and Graf. She holds significant records like most singles titles (167) and most doubles titles (177) in the Open Era.

Serena Williams is still active, and she's the best player in the world. If the next three years are anything like the last three, this piece will require revision. But right now, and without intending to disrespect any of the sport's great champions, Navratilova is the greatest.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:06 PM | Comments (9)

June 10, 2013

Heat Win Leaves Unanswered Questions

Dropping the first game in a series should be no big deal for the Miami Heat. They did it against the Bulls. Were it not for a buzzer-beater by LeBron James, they would have done it against the Pacers, and they handed away the next game anyway. Yet, something felt different about San Antonio's tenacious effort in Thursday night's Game 1, causing Heat-bashers to sit up and take notice. The Spurs are not the Bulls or the Pacers. Gun-to-gun, they've been an elite team this year, and maybe this series would be different.

Any question about Miami struggling against the Spurs and closing its second title in as many years may have been answered definitively last night, as the Heat used a 23-3 run beginning late in the third period to blow open a nip-and-tuck affair and tie the NBA Finals at a game apiece with a 103-84 win over San Antonio.

Nevertheless, in watching the entire ABC broadcast, I was still came away with 20 questions. For starters, why didn't Bill Simmons have to submit a demo before he got his panel gig? He is much better in print than in person.

And how did Chris "Birdman" Anderson ever go ten months without getting into a single game? This guy can still bring it, and has helped Miami rebuild its inside presence with 4.9 points, 4.1 rebounds, and 15 minutes per game since joining the Heat in January. I still don't know why he thought tattooing 'Free Bird' up his neck would ever be a good idea.

Does anyone else think the coordinated sea of white worn by Heat fans is the coolest crowd gimmick since the wave?

Should I have known who Jesse Williams is without having Googled him? And should I have been impressed with his behind-the-scenes cell phone photos? Because I didn't, and I wasn't.

How come LeBron James' mom gets to stand in the tunnel waiting for him to come off the court at halftime?

What is the accepted reaction to verbal filler like Jeff Van Gundy's tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the Spurs should kiss away the naming rights fees they collect from AT&T in order to call their arena the Tim Duncan Center? Even in jest, this kind of thing always makes me think, what an idiotic idea.

What happens to Dwyane Wade at halftime? Following first halves of 13 and 10 points in Games 1 and 2, he finished with 17 and 10 points, respectively.

With all the histrionics after a LeBron foul, why would any official ever call him for one? And why do the make-up calls to appease him have to be such a bitch? Case in point: after picking up a debatable foul on Tim Duncan before halftime, his third-quarter charge against Gary Neal was called the other way, putting James on the line to extend the lead at a time when Miami was first beginning to pull away.

How does Tiago Splitter ever get a shot off at this level? LeBron's block of his dunk attempt down the lane was a thing of beauty, but Splitter's release time is longer than the half-life of uranium.

Did Gregg Popovich suddenly forget how to form a 'T' with two hands? Even after the Heat closed out the third quarter with a 14-3 run, he allowed an 8-0 start over the first three minutes of the fourth, which earned him kudos from the broadcast booth for having a Phil Jackson-like understanding of when to let players figure things out on their own.

Is the floor at American Airlines Arena made of ice? Tony Parker was on it so much you'd think he plays for the Montreal Canadiens. Even on an uncontested air ball he still landed on his back. Learn to skate, dude.

Are we really so busy that we need flow cans to cut down the time it takes to pour 12 ounces of Miller Lite into a mug?

Do the Heat really need so many designated shooters? With Mike Ray Allen and Mike Miller a combined 8-for-11, Shane Battier didn't get in until garage time. I guess there's not much market for a left corner 3-point specialist.

Is Matt Bonner right- or left-handed? His shot looks terrible from either hand.

During a bad night from the floor for James, ABC decided it was time to focus on some of his other skills. So, where does LeBron rank on your all-time list of pick-setters? We know Magic Johnson has him at the top of his.

Was allowing Erik Spoelstra to be miked up a good move if you're the Miami Heat front office? His locker room and sidelines motivational speeches don't exactly conjure visions of Herb Brooks.

Did I just hear that correctly? Spoelstra was favorably compared to Popovich because the latter has never been able to take a team to the NBA Finals in three consecutive years. By that standard, shouldn't Marv Levy be the greatest coach in NFL history?

Visit Bwin.com for the latest NBA odds throughout the Finals!

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 5:46 PM | Comments (0)

Eight is Enough For SEC ... Or is It?

There's always a good debate, or quote, that comes from the SEC Coaches Meetings in Destin, Florida.

This year, there's no exception, as Alabama's Nick Saban called for the SEC to join other BCS schools in creating a new, nine game conference slate each season. Saban claims it's the best thing to do for the game itself. And, given the current state, Saban has a good point to make.

However, is it better for the game? Or better, long-term, for the SEC and the other big conferences?

The eight game slate works best for the SEC right now in the current state of football affairs. The conference slate is well-known to wear the best teams down eventually, including Alabama's loss at home to Texas A&M last year. Having four non-conference opponents (with most of them being of the cupcake variety) allows the conference to gather up wins, fill in bowl ties and continue to play for national title games.

However, the start of the four-team playoff is nearing. And, once that begins, the SEC will then seriously consider going to nine games. For a conference that Gordon Gee claimed couldn't read or write, it certainly has the savviest commissioner in Mike Slive. And Slive knows that it's not quite the time to start the eight vs. nine debate. While Saban speaks up now, the commissioner will wait until it fits the needs of the conference first and foremost.

For example, take the SEC Network. One would think that Slive would've struck earlier on this, given the SEC's run of national titles in football. Slive, though, bid his time and let the Big Ten have the first crack. He watched the moves of the Big 10, Pac-12, and Texas's Longhorn Network. He researched and studied thoroughly. Then, while the iron was still scorching, he lands a deal with ESPN that redefined the term "mammoth contract."

Slive knows exactly what he's doing. And he'll eventually lead the charge to move the SEC to a nine-game schedule. It'll happen when the College Football Playoff goes into effect. Knowing the power of the league, the SEC champion will likely be in the four team playoff most every year. With one slot almost secured, Slive then can assure SEC coaches that playing an extra game will not only boost revenues, but that the conference is so good that a two-loss team should still have little trouble making the playoff, thus playing an extra conference game will not hurt their programs.

So the coaches will agree to it. The SEC Network grows. The conference coffers explode and things just keep rolling down south. What will most likely happen? The permanent cross-division rival will continue, angering Les Miles, and teams will play two different teams each year, allowing each team to have played all conference members in a three-year period.

The Pac-12 and Big Ten had the right idea to go to a nine-game slate. The SEC will do it in its own sweet time. There still lies one important question. If the big conferences take away one non-conference opponent, how do the mid-majors and other conferences get any chance at possibly earning a spot in the College Football Playoff?

Chances are, they don't. It will force mid-majors to schedule nothing but brutal non-conference slates in order to grab any piece of the playoff pie. Some will try it; others will skip a slim chance for title hopes and try for a lower BCS-level bowl. However, the worsening scenario for mid-major conferences is something they have to address, especially when the SEC decides o go to nine games.

Conference realignment changed the game. Schedule realignment? That could create even more chaos. At least we know this: even the silly season is loaded with intrigue.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 1:14 PM | Comments (0)

June 8, 2013

Foul Territory: Feet in Mouth, Pot in Mail

* It's Not Exactly a Flaming Endorsement — In an interview with The Oklahoman on Monday, Adrian Peterson said he would be okay with a gay teammate. However, the mere mention of the subject made Peterson long for the good old days, when players went both ways.

* "Swoosh" Is Also the Sound a Nine Iron Makes When It's Swung At Your Head, or Nike is Hoping That Tiger Will Take These Vows Seriously — Nike and Tiger Woods are close to finalizing an endorsement deal that would keep him as golf's highest-paid endorser. Now "Tiger Woods" will be on more merchandise than women. It's also widely believed to be Woods' last "major."

* Ex-Communication, or He May Not Be Absolved of His Sins, But He Was Absolved of His Job, or Baptism By Fire — Ohio State president Gordon Gee announced his retirement, just days after his December 2012 comments criticizing Notre Dame and other institutions were made public. Surprisingly, Gee said he's looking forward to his time in purgatory, mainly since the OSU football team plays its home games there.

* Communication Breakdown — Bill Callahan said he will call plays for the Dallas Cowboys in 2013. So, while Callahan will put in his two cents worth, Jerry Jones will still put in his $2 billion worth.

* It's a Situation That's Gaining Interest, or Loan Shirk — NFL agent Drew Rosenhaus filed a grievance against the Eagles' DeSean Jackson, alleging his former client owes him more than $400,000 in unpaid loans. Jackson fired Rosenhaus and is considering signing with Roc Nation Sports, the agency owned by rapper Jay-Z. There may be no reason for Jackson firing Rosenhaus, but apparently, there is "rhyme."

* This Story's Juicier Than the BALCO Scandal, or Lance Armstrong Calls it a Tour De Force of Drug Scandals — Major League Baseball will likely suspend Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Braun, and others connected to the PED scandal at Biogenesis clinic in Miami, according to an ESPN "Outside the Lines" report. Discipline will be handed out, as well as asterisks. No one knows exactly how many players will be suspended, but those with knowledge of the case say it's a "ball park figure." The story puts the "Genesis" in "Biogenesis," because this is the "beginning" of the end for many players.

* He Throws Heat, But Blows Smoke — Agents are investigating a possible marijuana shipment mailed to the home of Cleveland Indians closer Chris Perez. The hard-throwing Perez, now more than ever, is known for his "blazing" fastball.

* Pinched Hitter — Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was convicted on Monday of abusing his estranged wife. He could face over seven years in prison at his sentencing in July. If there's a prison holding Milton Bradley, then that prison would have to be called "Has Bro.'"

* Girls on Top — Oklahoma swept Tennessee to capture the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. There's a sexist remark to be made here, but that would be underhanded.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:51 PM | Comments (0)

June 6, 2013

John Mozeliak, Take a Bow

Being a Major League General Manager is an ever-delicate walk between trying to win now while at the same time setting up for the long term. Unless you're the Red Sox or Yankees or their West Coast equivalents, the Dodgers and Angels, a GM can't go out and reinvent a team every year, adding this piece or that one to overcome this deficiency or another.

Every move is a butterfly effect, having known and unknown consequences for years to come. Lose sight of that, and you can end up with an awfully expensive mess on your hands — and probably a new GM trying to clean it up.

Perhaps nobody has perfected this delicate weave of planning for the future and a commitment to the on-field success in the present than St. Louis Cardinals General Manager John Mozeliak, who took over for Walt Jocketty in 2007.

Still just 44-years-old, Mozeliak has built the ultimate franchise — one that entered into the week with the best record in baseball and arguably the brightest future. Consider:

* While Cardinals rookies Tyler Lyons and Michael Wacha have gotten a taste of what real big league hitters can do in their latest starts, the rotation is still dominated at the top by Adam Wainwright, Shelby Miller and Lance Lynn, with an absurd combined 232-49 strikeout-to-walk total.

You want your favorite team to go against this in a playoff series?

Wainwright: 12 GS, 8-3, 89 IP, 2.33 ERA, 1.011 WHIP, 84 K, 6 BB
Miller: 11 GS, 6-3, 69.1 IP, 1.82 ERA, 0.981 WHIP, 72 K, 17 BB
Lynn: 12 GS, 8-1, 68 IP, 2.76 ERA, 1.093 WHIP, 76 K, 26 BB

Of course we should expect some normalization on the numbers from Miller. He has an extraordinarily high ceiling as a starter, but he isn't reprising Bob Gibson's 1968 campaign as a rookie. Still, add in Jake Westbrook (1.62 ERA in six starts) when he comes off the DL as early as next week, and the Cardinals are well stocked with starting pitching, making them a season-long favorite to play some meaningful games come October.

As impressive as the pitching stats above are, perhaps even more important to the organization is the long-term sustainability of the rotation. While Wainwright is signed for (relative) big money at $12 million for this season, then $19.5 million per year through 2018, Miller, Lynn and 2012 first-round pick Michael Wacha are under team control for (relative) pennies for years to come. And then there's Carlos Martinez, whose electric arm will undoubtedly find a regular place somewhere in St. Louis before June 2014.

* As promising as the rotation is looking, the offense is in good shape as well. They don't hit for as much power as you would like (19th in slugging percentage, 26th in homers), and they don't steal bases at all (just 18 all season), but they are top-10 in baseball in runs scored (seventh), batting average (fifth), and on-base percentage (fifth). They've only been shut out three times, and the last time it happened was late April.

And just as the Cardinals batters grind down opposing pitchers in 2013, the offense looks primed to be able to sustain its success. While Matt Holliday's contract could rightly be pointed out as the one you might want to have back (hitting .245 so far this season, on the books for $17 million through 2017 with a team option for 2018), the rest of the offense is filled with value:

Yadier Molina, the team (and arguably NL) MVP, signed an extension through 2018, with the deal topping out at $15 million.

Allen Craig, with his 41 RBI (sixth in the NL), signed an extension through 2018, with the max payout just $11 million in 2017.

Regular contributors John Jay, David Freese (14-game hitting streak), Matt Carpenter (13-game hitting streak) and Pete Kozma are all cheap and under team control for years. None of them are what you would call "franchise guys," but teams can't just be made of up of "franchise guys" (looking at you, Arte Moreno). You need the grinders, the middle class blue-collar guys who are part of every winning organization.

And the Cards have several impact bats in the minors who will likely become part of the St. Louis equation in the next year or two: the system's top overall prospect, outfielder Oscar Taveras, could serve as a natural replacement for Carlos Beltran (or push Jay in center). Second baseman Kolten Wong, who is hitting .327 at AAA Memphis, could push Carpenter to third or outfield. And shortstop Ryan Jackson, hitting .323 for Memphis, could either push Kozma or serve as a trade chip if Mozeliak needs in-season replacements for a pennant run.

And none of that takes into consideration the two picks Mozeliak and his brain trust have to spend in the first round of Thursday's MLB draft.

When Cardinals fans woke up Wednesday morning and took a look at the standings, they say their team in first place, 18 games over .500 despite the 14-inning loss to the Arizona Diamondbacks on Tuesday night. They have the highest run differential in the league, very few discernible weaknesses on their current roster, and more solutions in the minors than they have problems in the Majors.

And they have all the pieces in place to say the same thing next year, and the year after that, and the year after that.

Take a bow, John Mozeliak. You've built the ideal organization in a town that loves its baseball. You've won a World Series, transitioned from the Tony La Russa era to the Mike Matheny era seamlessly, and even managed to come through looking good while the second-best hitter in franchise history spurned you in free agency.

I don't know if you'll win Executive of the Year (because who knows who will win what in baseball), but you should probably clear off a spot on the mantle just in case. You may look like David, but you've built a Goliath.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 7:26 PM | Comments (0)

June 5, 2013

Lifetime Bans Will Cure the Steroid Problems

Well, here we are again with another drug scandal in Major League Baseball. In the midst of what is turning out to be a sensational season we are, once again, faced with our diamond heroes having their reputations tainted with the use of illegal substances. So, if what transpired after the "steroid era" findings and sanctions aren't enough to deter today's players from taking performance-enhancing drugs, then what will? I have an idea: lifetime ban.

As I think about some of the more infamous scandals of the past in baseball, namely the Black Sox game-throwing scandal in the 1919 World Series and the Pete Rose gambling scandal, the only reason we never really hear about those types of situations occurring today is, at least in my opinion, because players know the consequences are too high if they're caught.

A lifetime ban is quite serious and can affect a player's ability to stay in organized baseball, at least under MLB's umbrella, once they've retired from being a player. Just ask Pete Rose, who is not allowed to coach, scout, or even be on the premises of the lowest class minor league team. And for a guy who is still considered one of the greatest players of all-time, that has to be the worst feeling ever.

So as the specifics of the Biogenesis situation are learned, baseball also will be looking at stiffer penalties in the future for any player who is caught cheating by using PEDs. But if baseball is truly serious about cleaning up the game and returning it to its pre-steroid era days, then it must seriously consider legislating the harshest penalty of them all: the lifetime ban.

On the other side of the coin, if the players are truly committed to cleaning up the game for their own sakes and reputations, then they also must be willing to accept such a penalty into their union contract. Reports indicate that the vast majority of major leaguers want harsh penalties for cheaters, regardless of their social status within the game. Obviously, though, the specter of a 50-game or even a 100-game suspension is not enough of a deterrent to keep some of the biggest names from allegedly using PEDs.

A doctors' report ordered by MLB regarding use of steroids when the subject first surfaced back in the mid-'90s concluded that if nothing was done about their use, "players would die." This points as much to the long-term effects of steroid use as the immediate effects. On a semi-related note, the NFL is taking great measures to crack down on blows to the head because of what it has seen retired players suffer later in from repeated concussions during their playing days. Regarding baseball, more rigorous testing for PEDs is a good start, but if the teeth aren't sharp enough to support the testing, players will still use PEDs and then suffer the physical consequences down the road. And if MLB truly cares about the well-being of its players and alumni, it will take the most drastic measures possible to ensure their quality of life as they age.

One other group that also must also face harsh consequences is the clinics that provide PEDs to players. I surmise that the people that do this are neither baseball fans nor possess a sense of morality. To willingly provide players with substances that both alter the way the game is played and that are banned by the organization simply shows a blatant disregard for the game and its laws. These people, if found guilty of providing PEDs to players, should be forced to close their clinics and provide anti-drug presentations to Little League players at a minimum.

Now I know that dollar signs are always a great motivator to convince someone to bend or break the law, but if a potential outcome of taking such actions is losing everything, most people with a conscience will decline the offer. If these clinic owners faced the possibility of losing their businesses and licenses to practice, they might just turn down the player's request to juice them.

My hope is that this latest drug scandal will take a back seat to the game being played on the field, and that whatever impacts result from it are enough to convince players for good that nobody likes a cheater — not the Commissioner, not the clean players, and especially not the fans. And if someone is caught cheating, like the 1919 White Sox or Pete Rose, ban 'em for life. That should do the trick.

Posted by Adam Russell at 12:07 PM | Comments (4)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 13

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson was black-flagged for jumping the final restart at Dover, a mistake that most likely cost him his third win this season. After serving a drive-through penalty, Johnson finished 17th, one lap down.

"Much like NASCAR did by allowing the NRA to sponsor a race," Johnson said, "I jumped the gun. Needless to say, I won't be exchanging pleasantries with NASCAR any time soon. We're certainly not 'BFFs.' After getting black flagged, it appears I got 'BF-F'd.'

"I don't agree with the call. Obviously, it's NASCAR's last-ditch effort to add some color to the sport."

2. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth's day ended abruptly in Dover, as his engine blew on lap 159 with the lead. He finished 40th, his worst finish of the year, and fell one spot in the point standings to fourth, 74 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"That's not the first engine to blow," Kenseth said. "If it's not our engine, it's our 'suspension' holding us back. What do our engine and 'suspension' have in common? They both will 'expire' soon."

"But there's one good thing about blowing an engine. The faulty parts get burned beyond recognition. Ha! Take that, NASCAR inspectors."

3. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished 14th at Dover, as Roush Fenway Racing cars all finished in the top 15. Edwards remained second in the point standings, 30 out of first.

"Roush cars took the 13th, 14th, and 15th spots," Edwards said. "All week long, Ricky Stenhouse has been singing Al Green's 'Let's Stay Together.' I guess Greg Biffle and I thought he was singing to us.

"But it remains to be seen what lasts longer for Stenhouse — his relationship, or his manhood."

4. Kyle Busch — Busch led a race-high 150 laps and finished fourth in the FedEx 400 at Dover International Raceway, posting his sixth top-five of the year. He is ninth in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Jimmie Johnson by 99.

"NASCAR races will soon be covered on TNT," Busch said. "Interestingly enough, that's home to the series Falling Skies. FOX recently became the home to a new series — Falling Cables."

5. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer came home fourth at Dover, scoring the top finish for Michael Waltrip Racing. He moved up one spot to third in the point standings, and is 50 out of first.

"We're still searching for our first win of the year," Bowyer said. "It's not a matter of 'if,' it's a matter of 'when.' That also applies to the matter of whether a Toyota engine will explode. In that respect, Toyota's got a lot of 'whens' this year."

6. Kevin Harvick — After winning in Charlotte last week, Harvick finished eighth at Dover for his fifth top-10 result of the year. He is now fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 74 out of first.

"The finish at Dover begs the question," Harvick said. "Who's faster? Jimmy John's or Jimmie Johnson. All I know is that Jimmy John's, unlike Jimmie Johnson, can't get their too fast."

7. Kasey Kahne — Kahne led two laps early and was headed for a sure top-10 finish before a late incident left him with rear-end damage. He finished 23rd, four laps down, and fell two spots to seventh in the point standings, 81 out of first.

"Have you heard?" Kahne said. "There's a new swimsuit calendar coming out featuring 12 of NASCAR's sexiest inspectors in bikinis. It's called 'Sanctioning Bodies.'"

8. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski posted his first top-10 finish since Kansas with a fifth at Dover. The defending Sprint Cup champion is now eighth in the point standings, 98 behind Jimmie Johnson.

"I'm well behind Johnson," Keselowski said, "and my car failed post-race inspection at Dover. I'm the defending Cup champion, but I'm not driving like it. I don't know who's 'come down' harder this year — NASCAR or me.

"NASCAR said the front of our car was too low, and I was penalized for it. That's odd, because as A.J. Allmendinger found out, Penske drivers are often penalized for being too high."

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart benefitted on Jimmie Johnson's black flag and caught Juan Montoya with three laps to go to win the FedEx 400 at Dover. The win ended a four-month winless drought, and moved Stewart up to 16th in the point standings.

"I like my wins like I like my food," Stewart said. "Served on a silver platter. And apparently, I like my wins like I like my women — single. And I like my wins like I like my engines — gift-wrapped from Hendrick Motorsports."

10. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt posted a quiet 10th-place finish at Dover, collecting his eighth top-10 of the year. He remained sixth in the point standings, where he trails Jimmie Johnson by 75.

"I still feel like we're building on something here," Earnhardt said. "Unfortunately, it's another long winless streak."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)

June 4, 2013

Packers Should Not Retire Favre's Jersey

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers made some small headlines last week by urging the team to retire Brett Favre's jersey, and to do so before Favre is elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Rodgers' suggestion was a kind one, but he's wrong.

"It's been too long. I think our country and the state of Wisconsin, these people are people of second, third and fourth chances, and I think it's time to let the healing process begin for those who are still upset about what went down. I was totally okay with being out front of that, and I'm very secure of the things I've been able to accomplish with the team and individually here, and excited about the chance to see him again and get his number retired here before he goes into Canton."

Aaron Rodgers seems like a nice guy. He's also a Pro Bowler, All-Pro, Super Bowl champion, Super Bowl MVP, and NFL MVP. He can afford to be gracious, because he's probably the best quarterback in the world, and he doesn't need to share the spotlight with Brett Favre, or anyone else. There's no reason to think Rodgers' comment was insincere, but it was a great PR move. He comes off as magnanimous and forgiving, and even fans who disagree him with will direct their displeasure at Favre rather than Rodgers. It's a no-lose direction for Rodgers to go.

But the Packers should not retire Favre's No. 4 jersey, at least not yet.

Brett Favre was a great quarterback. In a 20-year career, he made the playoffs 11 times as a starter, including on the team that won Super Bowl XXXI. He set all-time records for pass attempts, completions, yards, and touchdowns, and for consecutive games played. He won 3 NFL MVP Awards, from 1995-97, the last one a co-MVP shared with Barry Sanders. He deserves to make the Hall of Fame, and he will probably go in on the first ballot.

Favre played for four teams, but most of those accomplishments came with the Packers, from 1992-2007. The team will probably choose to retire Favre's jersey at some point, and that's probably appropriate. But "some point" hasn't come yet.

For years, Brett Favre was the most popular player in the NFL, maybe the most popular athlete in the United States. He was a great quarterback, of course — the greatest quarterback, for a few years. But he also made himself accessible to the media and sympathetic to fans. His insistence on playing through injuries caused him to become dependent on painkillers, and he was open about his struggle with addiction. He played on Monday Night Football shortly after the death of his father, and for many fans it became the most memorable game of his career. Favre even grew friendly with many rivals, most famously Warren Sapp and Michael Strahan.

Even more than players and fans, though, the media worshipped Brett Favre. Besides being a great player, he loved the media. He loved cameras, loved microphones, loved to talk to the press. And he had a story sportswriters loved equally. Joe Posnanski wrote a charming piece called I Really Didn't Need That Stew, about the embarrassment of riches in the Rulon Gardner story. That was Favre. He encouraged the media to visit him on his Mississippi farm, and they couldn't get enough: the best QB in the world, and shucks, all he really wanted was to be a farmer.

The most notorious Favre fan was Sports Illustrated's Peter King, but other outlets were no better. Former ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber, in her final column, wrote at length about the network's over-coverage: "Favre was one of my favorite players in the NFL," wrote a fan from Kansas City. "Now I'm just sick of hearing about him."

Across every major sports media organization, Favre was relentlessly hyped, and it was understood that he was not to be criticized. There are two particular moments that have always stuck with me; they're representative of a sample that seems like hundreds. During a game in the mid-'00s, Favre threw an illegal forward pass from beyond the line of scrimmage. Cris Collinsworth, announcing the game, spent the better part of two minutes praising Favre for the penalty. "The best part is, the official could barely call the penalty he was laughing so hard!" The quote is paraphrased, but I didn't see the ref laughing at all. Collinsworth was the only one who viewed the play as anything other than an error.

My favorite, though, was when John Madden missed the memo that you couldn't say anything bad about Favre. It was a Monday Night Football game, and Favre threw an interception nowhere near his receiver, obviously a disconnect on which route the receiver should run in that situation. Al Michaels said something to the effect of, "Well, I think we know whose fault that was." He was taken aback when Madden replied, "I think it was Brett Favre's fault," and then showed viewers why the receiver ran the correct route and Favre made the wrong throw.

The sad thing is, Favre-worship reached its height a decade after his prime. So you've got this guy who can still play, but he's nowhere near the best QB in the league any more, and you've got writers who deify him and announcers who refuse to admit when he makes mistakes. Combine that with hours of coverage, far more than that given to say, Drew Brees during the same years, and fans who had always liked Favre turned against him.

From talking to sports fans over the last decade, I can say this with confidence: in the late 1990s and early 2000s, almost everyone liked Brett Favre. Today, most fans dislike him. There are exceptions, of course, but I feel little doubt that during the '00s, a majority of sports fans in the U.S. shifted from strongly liking Favre to strongly disliking him.

Some of this is just the way our sports media operates right now, but Favre isn't blameless, either. In the last few seasons of his career, fans saw an ugly side to the athlete they'd admired so long: a manipulative, selfish quality. He went publicly back and forth on retirement countless times, so that fans who initially hoped he'd keep playing eventually wanted him to stop just so they wouldn't have to hear about it every week. He became obsessed with his own stats and his legacy within the game. But most disappointing, Favre engineered his exit from the team with whom we associated him: the Green Bay Packers.

I'm not a Packers fan. My editor is; he used to be a huge Favre fan, and I'm not sure how much of this article he'll agree with. Maybe I'll find out when it's published (gulp). But I'm not a particular fan of the Packers, or any of their rivals. I'm just a guy who really likes football. I've always respected players like Cal Ripken and Chipper Jones, Darrell Green and Tom Brady, Magic Johnson and Tim Duncan, who spend their whole careers with one team. I don't hold a grudge against players who get traded, or leave in free agency, or get released and keep playing elsewhere. But I don't like it — and I know I'm not alone — when a superstar deliberately leaves behind the city, team, and fans that have grown to adore him. He's not even chasing money; he just wants out. LeBron James is the most infamous example, and Ken Griffey Jr.'s exit from Seattle always bugged me, but Favre is perhaps the worst offender.

More than wanting to leave Green Bay, he wanted to play for Minnesota, a hated division rival. When Donovan McNabb got traded to Washington in 2010 and returned to Philadelphia in a different uniform, the most ruthless fans in sports gave him a standing ovation. A year earlier, when Favre walked onto Lambeau Field wearing Viking purple, he was resoundingly booed. Fans can tell the difference between a player who was traded in a situation largely out of his control, and a narcissist who deliberately made things difficult for his old club.

After a shaky year with the Jets in which he played unevenly and allegedly texted a photo of his penis to a female employee, Favre's image with the public got even worse in Minnesota. While loyal announcers celebrated his career-high passer rating, Favre publicly feuded with head coach Brad Childress, and eventually got the coach fired, less than a year after an NFC Championship Game appearance and contract extension. Favre wasn't willing to defer to anyone or compromise on anything. No one likes an armchair psychologist, but I invite you to read a list of diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), better known as megalomania. Among the possible causes of NPD is "excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback."

I've never met Brett Favre, and most people who have seem to like him very much. But his image changed decisively, from that of a nice guy living the dream to that of a self-centered diva trying to manipulate his own legacy. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and it bothered not only Packer fans, but everyone who admired Favre partly for his devotion to the NFL's last town team.

Favre was a great player, probably one of the top 10 QBs in history. He is a Packer legend, and I imagine the team will want to retire his jersey eventually. But not now, and not in the next few years. When the team hangs No. 4 in the rafters, it should be a joyous occasion, with fans concentrating on their good memories of the success Favre had in green and gold.

Today, we're still too close to the betrayal. If the Packers retire Favre's jersey in 2013, I suspect he would hear as many boos as cheers. Like him or not, Favre deserves to hear nothing but positives at that moment. I don't blame the fans who might boo him, because they have cause. I just think we need some more distance, some time to forgive. Keep No. 4 on the shelf; don't give it out to other players. But save an official retirement ceremony for a decade down the line. Give Green Bay and its hero some time to remember what they liked about each other.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:48 AM | Comments (11)

June 3, 2013

Not Always a Given

There's something intriguing about the way fate aligns itself, if you believe in that sort of thing. On Saturday night, about 50 minutes before I started my shift at the radio station I work at, there was an interview about collegiate education. In summation, the topic was about why some of the degrees we get when we walk across the stage don't necessarily translate into professional success.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting a Bachelors, Masters, or Doctorate in your preferred field of study. However, don't think that employers will offer you a dump truck full of cash the second you take off your cap and gown. No matter which degree you earn, and no matter how great the school's reputation is, a good GPA on that level doesn't guarantee success in the working world.

The same can be said in the world of basketball. There's no question that Duke University has passed all the exams when it comes to college basketball greatness. They are one of the blue bloods of the NCAA game, and some of the former players have been inducted into the College Basketball Hall of Fame. But if you look one step up the ladder, you'd be hard pressed to find a Blue Devil alum that has excelled in the NBA.

Save the youngsters that are just beginning their pro careers (Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers, Kyle Singler, etc.), there seems to have been one point in particular where Durham success and professional superstardom would have crossed.

That brings me back to Saturday night. At the same time the radio interview was taking place, Grant Hill stepped on the TNT broadcast set in Indianapolis and announced his retirement from the NBA. After 18 season, four organizations, more than 17,000 points, and over 4,000 assists, the longest-tenured Duke alumnus will be remembered more for his days at Cameron Indoor Stadium than in any other arena.

When he came into the Association in 1994, he was seen as the most athletic member of a super squad that completed a back-to-back national title run just two years earlier. And, at the beginning, he lived up to the hype. The third overall pick in that summer's draft, he shared the Rookie of the Year award with Jason Kidd (who is still in the league, as well). Hill made the all-star game in his first four seasons. During the Piston era of his career (first six seasons), there was only one year where he didn't average at least 20 points, 6 rebounds, and 5 assists per game (19.9 ppg in his rookie year).

Then came the sign-and-trade. The moment Hill's heels touched Central Florida soil, they immediately became fragile, along with the rest of his legs. In what should have been the prime of his career, the max-contract player was in a suit most of the time. He played 30 or more games in only two out of those six seasons. Hill's Detroit teams couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs. Hill's Orlando teams usually couldn't get to the playoffs.

The small forward became a wily veteran once he reached Phoenix. His minutes actually didn't fall off too much (he averaged around thirty minutes per game), and, surprisingly, he became much more durable (missed 32 games total in five years). The deep playoff run he'd been waiting for finally came to pass in 2010, with the Suns advancing to the Western Conference Finals. However, unlike the two NCAA titles he got his hands on, he could never embrace the O'Brien Trophy.

So, now, Hill exits stage left. His career has had several highlights, including the winning at Duke, the ROY, and a Gold Medal from the 1996 Olympics. And at least he had the opportunity to get paid for the skills he developed in college. But ... oh, what could have been.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 5:43 PM | Comments (0)