Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« March 2014 | Main | May 2014 »

April 30, 2014

Bumps in the Road

Life doesn't have an overall smooth ... well ... lifespan. Turbulence has a way of popping into our stratospheres and making our lives more challenging. Some might define it as a chance to step back and assess the path one has chosen to take. Some might define it a mere speed bump that must be navigated to find success. Even others might define it an opportunity to build character. But one thing, positive or negative, everybody would agree upon is that turbulence happens.

Turbulence, when it comes to basketball, can appear in the form of an up-and-comer.

The Chicago Bulls haven't returned to the peak of their glory days, when Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were basically running roughshod over the rest of the Association. However, the organization has re-established itself as a perennial postseason participant and highly-ranked title contender. The presences of Joakim Noah (NBA Defensive Player of the Year), Carlos Boozer, and Kirk Hinrich continue to provide stability. But without Derrick Rose or Luol Deng on the roster, the team continue to lack the offensive firepower they need to coincide with their defensive tenacity.

Enter the team's first-round opponent, the Washington Wizards. While Washington does boast postseason experience in the form of Nene, Trevor Ariza, and Andre Miller, the team ultimately relies on two Playoff newbies in their starting backcourt. Bradley Beal and John Wall were the top two scorers in the series (a combined 38.6 ppg) and averaged 11 assists between them, exposing the Bulls' deficiencies and ultimately ending the Windy City bunch's season on Tuesday night.

Turbulence, when it comes to basketball, can appear in the form of a mind-numbing collapse.

As we all know, the Indiana Pacers were one game away from reaching the NBA Finals last season. As we all know, they had the best record halfway through the recently completed regular campaign (33-8). As we all know, the team was extraordinarily average from the All-Star Break forward (16-14). And, as we can all find out, the Pacers have had their historical troubles with Atlanta (entering this series, the Pacers had lost 16 of their last 19 trips to A-Town). But I don't know if many would have expected these Pacers to struggle so much with a Hawks team that finished the regular season under .500.

If the East's top seed can't figure out a way to get this series back to Indianapolis for a Game 7, they will be only the third team (and first one-seed) to lose a playoff series to an opponent with a losing regular-season record since the NBA first allowed 16 teams to make the postseason in 1984 (the other two both lost to the 1985-1986 Seattle SuperSonics).

Turbulence, when it comes to basketball, can appear in the form of a bad matchup.

In 2011, the Oklahoma City Thunder made it to the Western Conference Finals. To get there, though, they had to survive a brutal seven-game series against Memphis. In 2013, a damaged Thunder team (sans the services of Russell Westbrook) succumbed to the punishing nature of the same Grizzlies franchise. Now, for the third time in four postseasons, the Thunder must get through their I-40 rivals to keep the championship dreams going.

After Tuesday's deflating Game 5 loss (in an NBA single series-record fourth consecutive overtime finish), Kevin Durant, Westbrook, and the rest of the OKC unit will have to find some way to make this a perimeter-based series. That won't be easy, given the strength of Memphis' inside attack is just the type of kryptonite that tends to derail heavily jump-shooting teams.

Finally, turbulence, when it comes to basketball, can appear in the form of the man upstairs. No, literally, the actual guy upstairs. The "nicest office in the building, if not the office fifty stories up in the tower across the street" type of guy.

The last few days of turbulence facing the entire league, and completely surrounding one single entity inside that brotherhood, have overshadowed the previous examples that were mentioned on the court. The recent comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling appeared to have had an effect on the group of players he continues to pay (remember, he is still the owner of the franchise at this point). The Clippers never found their way in Sunday's blowout loss to Golden State.

However, after newly-minted NBA Commissioner Adam Silver gave his assessment on Tuesday afternoon (issuing Sterling a lifetime ban from the NBA, a maximum fine of $2.5 million, and the notice that he could be ousted from his position of power), nearly everybody seemed to let out a sigh of relief. The Clippers themselves looked all the better for it, regaining the edge in their contentious series with the Warriors. However, this issue may be long from settled. And while Sterling's presence won't be seen in the building, it'll surely be felt around the Staples Center as long as his name has not been officially removed as majority owner. We'll find out how much of a distraction this mess continues to be if (and as) the Clippers advance through the postseason.

In basketball, as in life, the next bout of turbulence could be upon you without any forewarning. Sometimes it challenges our day. Sometimes, it's the next decade. But the bumpy ride won't last forever. It's how you respond to it that sets you up for the smooth sailing ahead.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 2:28 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 9

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jeff Gordon — Gordon led 173 of 400 laps at Richmond, but his quest for his first win of the season fell short. He finished second behind Joey Logano after a spirited four-car battle for the win during the final laps. Gordon leads the Sprint Cup points standings, 5 ahead of Matt Kenseth.

"This race had everything," Gordon said. "Excitement, controversy, confrontation, and a punch. Marcos Ambrose really let Casey Mears have it. I guess you could say the Australian gave him a 'vegemite knuckle sandwich.' It was 'Aus-some!'

"NASCAR doesn't have the guts to admit it, but I think Ambrose's punch was good for the sport. There's plenty of 'talking smack' is NASCAR; finally, someone actually did more than just talk it."

2. Joey Logano — Logano started fourth on the race's final restart and zoomed to the lead as Matt Kenseth, Jeff Gordon, and Brad Keselowski jockeyed for position. Logano took the lead with three laps to go and held on for his second win of the year.

"I passed three NASCAR Sprint Cup champions," Logano said. "While Kenseth and Gordon were sandwiching Keselowski, 'Sliced Bread' stole the win. Thanks to my teammate for helping me with the win. Brad then jumped on my hood to congratulate me. I'm not surprised. Just ask Kenseth. Brad was feeling a little 'froggy.'

"Marcos Ambrose punched Casey Mears. That aggressiveness inspired me, so I punched my ticket. Here's hoping it doesn't punch back."

3. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth lead on the final restart and valiantly held off Jeff Gordon and Brad Keselowski, but in doing so allowed Joey Logano to slip by for the win. Kenseth finished fifth and was confronted after the race by Keselowski, who accused Kenseth of blocking.

"Brad had some words from me," Kenseth said. "He can get mouthy when he's angry just as easily as he can get 'gummy' when he smiles.

"But there's no place for violence in this sport, at least not from me. If I 'raise my hand,' you can rest assured it's because I want to ask a question."

4. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished seventh in the Toyota Owners 400, posting his sixth top-10 of the year. He is fifth in the points standings, 32 behind Jeff Gordon.

"I don't appreciate getting caught up in Brad Keselowski's desire for vengeance," Earnhardt said. "He'll 'pay' for this, most likely with a 'brake check.'"

5. Kyle Busch — After rough going for the better part of Saturday's race, Busch stormed to the front on the final restart and claimed third in the Toyota Owners 400. He is now fourth in the points standings, 31 behind Jeff Gordon.

"What a great run by Joey Logano," Busch said. "But he's not the happiest driver of the day. That would be my brother Kurt. He's thrilled that someone got punched and it wasn't him.

"But let's be serious for a minute. Ambrose and Mears finished 18th and 19th, respectively. Is that worth a punch in the eye? By that rationale, Danica Patrick and Ricky Stenhouse, Jr., who finished 34th and 38th, could have very well scrapped. In that case, someone would have taken one right in the kisser."

6. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski battled for the lead late at Richmond, but was held at bay by Matt Kenseth's tactics, which were dirty, according to Keselowski. Keselowski finished fourth as Penske Racing teammate Joey Logano took the win.

"Kenseth tried to run me into the wall," Keselowski said. "I called it a 'mind-boggling' move. What's really mind-boggling is that I found it mind-boggling.

"We had a car honoring Detroit Genuine Parts. Detroit is known for its car parts. The city is littered with them."

7. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson lost a front tire with 34 laps to go at Richmond and limped home to a 32nd-place finish. He is now eighth in the points standings and still winless on the year.

"It's been a tough year for us so far," Johnson said. "But, despite being a six-time Sprint Cup champion, I'm human just like every other driver. The worse that can happen to me is the same as the worse that can happen to them — not winning the championship."

8. Carl Edwards — Edwards took ninth at Richmond, recording his fifth top-10 result of the year. He remained third in the Sprint Cup points standings and trails Jeff Gordon by 28.

"Robert Griffin III drove the pace car at Richmond," Edwards said. "He was recruited by Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Those two have a lot in common; they've never won a championship, and they both like white women."

9. Ryan Newman — Newman finished eighth in the Toyota Owners 400, posting his fourth top 10 of the year. He stands ninth in the points standings, 69 out of first.

"Casey Mears got KO'd," Newman said, "while Brad Keselowski got PO'd. I'm shocked ... shocked that Ambrose's punch wasn't an uppercut. If it had been, we could say that the punch, much like Ambrose himself, came from 'Down Under.'"

10. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished 11th at Richmond, posting the top finish among Stewart-Haas Racing drivers. Race winner Joey Logano joined Harvick as the only two-time winners this season.

"What a race!" Harvick said. "And what a punch by Marcos Ambrose. I'm sure that left Casey Mears with a black eye, which, in NASCAR's eyes, is proof enough that the 'Drive For Diversity' program is working."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

April 29, 2014

Is Jon Jones the Greatest?

Five Quick Hits

* Terrific card in Baltimore last weekend. Two highlight-reel knockouts, four straight submissions, a dominant title defense by a great champion, an upset of a top-10 light heavyweight, and the Fight of the Night between Takanori Gomi and Isaac Vallie-Flagg.

* Evidently no one else liked the women's bantamweight match between Bethe Correia and Jessamyn Duke. It was the least sensational fight at UFC 172, but I really thought it was okay.

* When Jim Miller fights anyone outside the top 10, he looks so dominant, you wonder how he ever loses. He's got to start performing the same way against the other top lightweights.

* Anthony "Rumble" Johnson made his UFC debut in June 2007, as a welterweight. After missing weight twice, he finally moved up to middleweight in 2012, and promptly missed weight by a UFC-record 12 pounds, then lost to Vitor Belfort and got released. He also missed weight for his first fight out of the UFC, which had to be changed to catchweight.

* Competing in World Series of Fighting and a few smaller promotions, Johnson went 6-0, mostly as a light heavyweight. His triumphant return to the UFC on Saturday night has got to rank among the most unexpected career comebacks in MMA history.

Jon Jones and UFC 172

Is Jon Jones the greatest mixed martial artist we've ever seen?

Georges St-Pierre went three years without losing a round, including seven title fights, and wins against the likes of Matt Hughes, B.J. Penn, and Jon Fitch. Anderson Silva set a record for consecutive title defenses. Fedor Emelianenko dominated the heavyweight division and went a decade without losing a fight.

No one seemed less vulnerable than GSP, but he didn't win with the same style as Jones. Silva won in style, but he also lost a lot of rounds before coming back to win. Fëdor spent his last few years ducking top-level opponents.

Jon Jones won the UFC light heavyweight belt just three years ago. Since then, he's defended it seven times, defeating former champions like Shogun Rua, Rampage Jackson, Lyoto Machida, Rashad Evans, and Vitor Belfort, plus serious challengers like Alexander Gustafsson and Glover Teixeira. You can't argue against Jones' quality of competition. Yet he's been as dominant as Silva and Emelianenko, and he's showcased flashy techniques no one else can pull off.

In his eight title fights, Jones has won three unanimous decisions, three submissions, and two TKOs. Jones can dominate an opponent for 25 minutes, like he did against Teixeira. That was always Silva's weakness. Whether it was gas tank or concentration or something else, Silva never really looked impressive in decisions. Jones is the most dangerous striker in the light heavyweight division, and he's used three different techniques to submit his opponents. That was the complaint against St-Pierre, who hasn't finished an opponent in more than five years. And Fëdor never fought so many tough opponents in a row.

Jon Jones hasn't fought for nearly as long as the other guys in the "Greatest of All-Time" debate. He's only 26, and probably has more years in the sport in front of him than behind. I still believe he'll eventually move up to heavyweight, maybe after winning a rematch with Gustafsson and beating the winner of Daniel Cormier vs. Dan Henderson. I'm not saying definitively that Jon Jones is the best mixed martial artist in history. But I think he has to be part of that conversation.

April 2014 UFC Rankings

The rankings below do not count as part of the UFC's official rankings, but they are exclusively for the UFC, so you won't see names like Pat Curran or Bibiano Fernandes on these lists.

Heavyweight (206-265 lbs)

1. Cain Velasquez
2. Fabricio Werdum
3. Junior Dos Santos
4. Travis Browne
5. Antonio Silva
6. Alistair Overeem
7. Josh Barnett
8. Mark Hunt
9. Stefan Struve
10. Stipe Miocic

Make it Happen: Overeem vs. Hunt

It's hard to keep of track of who's healthy and who isn't in this division, and it doesn't help that Overeem ducked JDS, but there are some really appealing striker-vs-striker matchups in this weight class.

Thank You, UFC, For: Brendan Schaub vs. Andrei Arlovski

It feels right to have Arlovski back in the UFC, and that loss to Anthony Johnson doesn't seem like such a big deal after Saturday night.

Light Heavyweight (186-205)

1. Jon Jones
2. Alexander Gustafsson
3. Rashad Evans
4. Glover Texeira
5. Daniel Cormier
6. Anthony Johnson
7. Phil Davis
8. Dan Henderson
9. Mauricio Rua
10. Ryan Bader

It is my policy not to list fighters unless they (1) have competed in the last 12 months, or (2) have a fight scheduled. In his last bout, Antonio Rogerio Nogueira beat Rashad Evans, but that was more than a year ago. This also applies to fighters in other weight classes, like Dominick Cruz and Cat Zingano.

Make it Happen: Texeira vs. Johnson

Maybe the UFC would prefer to give Johnson an easier opponent, and not risking disrupting the Rumble Train, but this is a pretty appealing matchup after what we saw last weekend. Top three matchups for Johnson's next fight:

1. Glover Texeira
2. Shogun Rua
3. Rashad Evans (timing is awkward for this)

Thank You, UFC, For: Cormier vs. Henderson

I'm glad to see Cormier prove himself against a top-10 opponent in this weight class before he gets a title shot.

Middleweight (171-185)

1. Chris Weidman
2. Vitor Belfort
3. Ronaldo Souza
4. Lyoto Machida
5. Luke Rockhold
6. Chael Sonnen
7. Tim Kennedy
8. Michael Bisping
9. Mark Muñoz
10. Francis Carmont

Make it Happen: Belfort vs. Jacare

Weidman-Machida is set for July 5. The next title fight probably won't take place until winter, maybe even early 2015. Belfort and Souza have both done enough to earn title shots, and both need a fight. This is the one that makes sense.

Thank You, UFC, For: Muñoz vs. Gegard Mousasi

Similarly-ranked fighters, and an intriguing striker-vs-grappler matchup.

Welterweight (156-170)

1. Johny Hendricks
2. Carlos Condit
3. Robbie Lawler
4. Tyron Woodley
5. Rory MacDonald
6. Matt Brown
7. Tarec Saffiedine
8. Hector Lombard
9. Demian Maia
10. Dong Hyun Kim

I Don't Understand: Why Jake Ellenberger is the 5th-ranked contender in the official rankings

Ellenberger is 2-2 in the last two years and has never beaten anyone who is currently ranked in the top 10. He beat Jake Shields right after Shields' dad died, and he beat Diego Sanchez when we still thought that might be a big deal. Ellenberger's a good fighter, but he's been coasting on those wins for years now. He'll make my top 10 if he beats Robbie Lawler, though.

Thank You, UFC, For: Woodley vs. MacDonald

Top contender's bout.

Lightweight (146-155)

1. Anthony Pettis
2. Josh Thomson
3. Benson Henderson
4. Gilbert Melendez
5. Khabib Nurmagomedov
6. T.J. Grant
7. Nate Diaz
8. Rafael Dos Anjos
9. Donald Cerrone
10. Jim Miller

I thought Bellator's pursuit of Melendez was going to be a real positive for MMA fans. Adding Melendez to a lightweight division with Eddie Alvarez and Michael Chandler would stack that division with talent, and give Bellator's big names a chance to show how they measure up against one of the best in the UFC. If the UFC held onto Melendez, it was a sign of healthy competition and the UFC's respect for a rival.

I was wrong. The UFC's deal with Melendez, including a coaching spot opposite Anthony Pettis on The Ultimate Fighter and a match against the champion, is a loss for fans. Pettis hasn't fought since last August, and taping of the new show hasn't even begun yet. This keeps two of the UFC's most exciting fighters, and the lightweight belt, on the sidelines for roughly the next year.

Featherweight (136-145)

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

I Don't Understand: How B.J. Penn is going to make 145 pounds

Is Frankie going back up to 155 for their fight? B.J. used to fight at 170 just so he didn't have to cut weight. He's 35 now, and he's going to cut to 145 for the first time in his life?

Make it Happen: Tatsuya Kawajiri vs. Hatsu Hioki

Two well-regarded Japanese fighters who haven't looked so good in trips across the Pacific. Let them fight each other in Asia, and give the winner an opponent in the top 10. Preferably one who doesn't lay-and-pray.

Men's Bantamweight (126-135)

1. Renan Barao
2. Urijah Faber
3. Michael McDonald
4. Raphael Assuncao
5. T.J. Dillashaw
6. Eddie Wineland
7. Takeya Mizugaki
8. Francisco Rivera
9. Iuri Alcantara
10. Erik Perez

Make it Happen: Assunçao vs. winner of Barão-Dillashaw

Assunçao has a good argument that he's deserved a title shot for a while now. He beat Dillashaw last fall and hasn't lost since, but it's Dillashaw getting the shot at a belt. Assunçao should be next.

Thank You, UFC, For: Alcantara vs. Vaughan Lee

Lee is 3-2 in the UFC, but his losses were against Assunçao and Dillashaw. Alcantara is one of only four bantamweights to last three rounds against Faber, the others being Barão, Dominick Cruz, and Wineland.

Flyweight (116-125)

1. Demetrious Johnson
2. Joseph Benavidez
3. John Dodson
4. Ian McCall
5. Ali Bagautinov
6. Zach Makovsky
7. Brad Pickett
8. Jussier da Silva
9. John Moraga
10. John Lineker

Make it Happen: Johnson vs. Dodson

Assuming Dodson beats Moraga on June 7, he's earned a rematch with Mighty Mouse. Their first fight was awfully close, and there aren't a lot of deserving contenders in this weight class.

Make it Happen: Makovsky vs. da Silva

Makovsky, the former Bellator bantamweight champion, looks like he could be a serious challenger at 125. It's time for him to fight someone in the top 10.

Women's Bantamweight (126-135)

1. Ronda Rousey
2. Alexis Davis
3. Sarah Kaufman
4. Miesha Tate
5. Liz Carmouche
6. Jessica Eye
7. Bethe Correia
8. Sara McMann
9. Amanda Nunes
10. Jessica Andrade

Make it Happen: Kaufman vs. Tate

They haven't fought in five years, with Kaufman winning a UD in Strikeforce. Kaufman can make her case for a rematch with Rousey by beating Tate.

I Don't Understand: Why Cris Cyborg and Marloes Coenen aren't in the UFC

I know they're both more comfortable at 145, but I think the reason has more to do with protecting Rousey than it does with weight cuts. Rousey vs. Cyborg would do huge pay-per-view numbers.

Upcoming Events

UFC Fight Night - Brown vs. Silva

Welterweights Matt Brown and Erick Silva headline the UFC Fight Night on May 10. It's a major step down the ladder for Brown, who was scheduled to fight Carlos Condit before an injury forced him to pull out. Brown has won six in a row, five of them by knockout. Erick Silva is a sensation, but he's never beaten anyone in (or even near) the top 10. Silva is heavily favored (-250), but since 2012, Brown is 6-0 and Silva is 3-3. I'm done underestimating Brown. I like him straight up, and I like him a lot at +190.

Another surprise betting line show Lorenz Larkin (-175) favored against Costas Philippou (+135). Both have lost two of their last three, including decisions against Francis Carmont. I see this one as more of a Pick 'Em. Chris Cariaso, who beat Takeya Mizugaki and Vaughan Lee at bantamweight two years ago, is also an underdog (+120), in his flyweight match against Louis Smolka (-160), who made his UFC debut in January. Cariaso is 2-2 at flyweight, but riding a win streak. Putting three underdogs in a parlay is nuts, but a $100 bet on Brown, Philippou, and Cariaso would win $1,400. More conservatively, a parlay with Brown, Eric Koch (-305), and either Cariaso or Philippou would reap about $750.

Bellator 120 - Alvarez vs. Chandler 3

The next big show, on May 17, is Bellator's first pay-per-view, featuring the rubber match between lightweights Eddie Alvarez and Michael Chandler. Those are both top-10 lightweights, either of whom could challenge for a belt in the UFC, and both of their first two fights were barnburners. The stacked card also features Quinton Jackson against Muhammed Lawal, middleweight champion Alexander Shlemenko vs. Tito Ortiz, Patricky Pitbull and Marcin Held, plus fights involving Will Brooks, Cheick Kongo, and Alexander Volkov.

Alvarez-Chandler is a toss-up. They're both great fighters. Gun to my head, I might bet on Chandler. He's a better wrestler, and he's still improving. I think Eddie has already peaked. Rampage and King Mo are both a little nuts (Rampage is a lot nuts), so it's tough to predict who will show up to fight. I guess I might have more faith in Lawal. The easiest fight to call is Shlemenko vs. Ortiz. Shlemenko is a brilliant striker, and Tito is a shadow of his former self. Tito will have the size advantage, but Shlemenko is going to ruin him. TKO.

UFC 173

The next big UFC event is UFC 173, in Las Vegas on May 24. The main card features two important bantamweight bouts: a title fight between Renan Barao and T.J. Dillashaw, and a top-10 matchup between Takeya Mizugaki and Francisco Rivera. The winner of that is probably one more victory away from a shot at the belt. Daniel Cormier meets Dan Henderson in a title eliminator at 205, and Robbie Lawler faces Jake Ellenberger at 170.

Barao is a huge favorite (-650), but odds aren't out yet on most of the other fights. In the co-main, Cormier will likely be a heavy favorite. He's been terribly dull since coming over from Strikeforce, but he's been winning. I can't imagine he'll choose a fight with Hendo to open up and take some chances. I lean towards the favorites all across the main card on this one, though not with a lot of confidence. I'm curious to see how Lawler-Ellenberger plays out, and I'd really like to see Mizugaki or Rivera make a statement at 135. That weight class needs some fresh challengers, especially with perennial top-10s Brad Pickett and Scott Jorgensen dropping to flyweight.

If you have to choose between Bellator 120 and UFC 173, I might go with Bellator. They're both good cards, but Bellator's will likely be cheaper, and you can't pass up Alvarez-Chandler or Shlemenko.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:06 PM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2014

SEC: Eight is Enough

The college football playoff will reward teams with tough strengths of schedule.

Knowing this, coupled with new conference networks aimed to drive revenue, the Big Ten and Pac-12 moved to nine game conference schedules. The Big 12, despite not having a network, did the same in the hopes of bolstering title hopes of worthy teams.

The SEC is different. They have recent history on their side, which gives them a confidence and swagger that stands apart in college football. And, with that swagger in mind, the SEC announced that they are not moving to a nine game schedule; rather sticking with the eight game rotating slate they currently have.

To many, it's a stroke of arrogance. True, but it's also a pretty clever move, given just how nice a position the SEC occupies.

The added caveat was that, beginning in 2016, all 14 SEC schools must play a team from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-12 in their non-conference slate. While it sounds great on paper, this doesn't affect most SEC teams. South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky all have ACC in-state rivalries. Arkansas is already covered until 2020, then hosts Texas in 2021. LSU has four years to find someone for 2018 and 2019, and is covered up until then, plus from 2020-24.

The teams that it'll affect the most ... Ole Miss, who has Georgia Tech for 2017-18, but plays no one from the Big Five conferences in 2014-15. The Rebels do play Boise State this season though. Mississippi State, who has no Big Five conference teams scheduled in the near future anytime soon. And Vanderbilt, who has Georgia Tech themselves in 2016, but no major school slotted.

It'll also affect the other conferences, who now know that the SEC will ensure many of their teams end up playing a SEC opponent to go with their nine game conference slates, making it even tougher for their best teams to gain one of those coveted four spots in the college football playoff. Sure, they could turn SEC schools down and force the issue. However, as we've realized more and more, college athletics has become big business and the SEC is a cash cow that can't be ignored right now.

So, to put it short, the SEC called everyone's bluff, kept their schedule from getting tougher while making everyone else's so. Game, set, match, Mike Slive.

The only real howling from this decision from inside the ranks came from LSU Athletic Director Joe Alleva, who did not succeed in persuading the SEC to end the policy of having a permanent cross-divisional opponent. LSU draws Florida every year, and Alleva is livid that the Tigers annually play a national power, while Mississippi State gets Kentucky each year.

Alleva has a valid point. There are some issues, though.

First, Alabama and Tennessee don't want to end their traditional game. Neither do Georgia and Auburn. Alleva conceded those two games, citing their tradition.

Second, geographically, it makes complete and total sense for Arkansas and Missouri to play each year; the fact they haven't played yet in conference play is puzzling enough.

Third, LSU/Florida demands big crowds and big TV audiences. LSU/Kentucky does not. LSU/Vanderbilt does not. The powers that be in the SEC know this.

So, if LSU wants to trade, their best shot is to swap with Texas A&M, who plays South Carolina. Their other option is to start losing on a consistent basis to make their Florida matchup unattractive. I doubt the latter would go well in Baton Rouge.

All the bases were covered. The SEC Network will reap the benefits and the conference was spared the option of making life tougher on themselves. You have to hand it to Mike Slive. The SEC, yet again, makes a move and comes out on top.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

April 25, 2014

Foul Territory: Tarred and Featherbrained

* "Bye" Like Mike, or Big Apple Turnover — The New York Knicks fired head coach Mike Woodson and his entire staff on Monday. The team's front office said they hope to "Phil" the position soon.

* Smear Campaign, or This Cream is Not in the Clear, or Get a Grip — New York Yankees pitcher Michael Pineda was ejected from Wednesday's Yankees/Red Sox game after Boston manager John Farrell complained about the foreign substance on Pineda's neck. The substance turned out to be pine tar and Pineda was subsequently suspended for 10 games. Its looks like a black eye for the league, and a hickey for Pineda.

* He Didn't Get "T'ed Up," He Got "F'ed Up," or Nigerian Nightmare, or Tyrannosaurus Ex-pletive — Toronto Raptors general manager Masai Ujiri was fined $25,000 by the NBA for uttering an expletive at the Raptors pep rally before their home opener on Saturday. Apparently, in Ujiri's native tongue, there are 25 "G's" and only one "F."

* Full (of it) Back — Fifty-two-year-old former NFL running back Herschel Walker said he could still play in the NFL today. The Minnesota Vikings were immediately intrigued in acquiring Walker, this time for five fewer players and six fewer draft picks than it took the first time.

* "T" Pain — The Oakland Raiders traded quarterback Terrelle Pryor to the Seattle Seahawks for a seventh-round pick in next month's NFL draft. Pryor, at best a mediocre quarterback, is expected to "improperly benefit" by going from a team that went 4-12 last year to the defending Super Bowl champions.

* Dumbed Down — Mary Willingham, the reading specialist who questioned the literacy level of athletes who were admitted to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says she's resigning at the end of the semester. University officials have requested that Willingham write her letter of resignation on a second-grade level so everyone affiliated with the university can understand it.

* Horse D'Ouevres, or Stylin' and 1¼ Milin', or I Went to a Fashion Show and a Horse Race Broke Out — Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski will cover fashion during NBC's coverage of the Kentucky Derby on May 3rd. Sexual predilections aside, the coverage is expected to be pole-to-pole.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 6:58 PM | Comments (0)

April 24, 2014

Prince Albert Smokes 500 Home Runs

This week's set between the Los Angeles Angels and the Washington Nationals was supposed to be about Mike Trout vs. Bryce Harper. On Monday night they went a combined 2-for-8 with no runs scored or driven in; on Tuesday night, Harper went 0-for-4 and Trout 1-for-5 with 2 runs scored. And Trout needed Albert Pujols to get those two scored on a night Pujols had a feeling he was about to swing his way into history.

"I took my 0-for-5 yesterday," Pujols is said to have told teammate Erick Aybar during pre-game routines. "And I'm going to hit two out today." The drift of that conversation got to Trout. "Albert's Albert. If he tells you something, he's gonna do it," Trout related.

Taylor Jordan, the Nationals' starting and losing pitcher Tuesday night, probably wishes Pujols had kept his not-so-big trap shut.

In the first inning, with nobody out and J.B. (Aw) Shuck (leadoff double) and Trout (safe on third baseman Anthony Rendon's throwing error) aboard, he threw Pujols a 1-1 change-up that dangled so far above the middle of the plate Pujols could have been arraigned on criminal neglect charges if he didn't do exactly what he did to it, sending it into the left field seats.

That sent the Angels three toward a 4-0 lead before the first inning even changed sides. (Chris Ianetta would send home Howie Kendrick with the fourth run of the frame.) In the top of the fifth, however, with Trout (leadoff single) on board again, Jordan wanted to throw Pujols a sinkerball low and away. The ball didn't sink. It didn't arrive at the plate anywhere close to low and away. And it didn't stop traveling until it passed the Angels' bullpen into a spot in the bleachers where Tom Sherrill, Angels fan, could retrieve it before the swarm.

Sherrill made damn sure he got to give Pujols the ball before anyone could even think about starting to tabulate the ball's market value. Pujols, for his part, had more important things on his mind after arriving at the plate off the first of his two night's bombs. "I told them, 'We've still got a game to win'," he recalled of the scene as he crossed the plate into his teammates' greetings the first time around.

The second time around, Pujols swung his way into the record book with a flourish. He not only became the 26th member of the 500-bomb club, he became the only one to get there by hitting numbers 499 and 500 in the same game.

The Angels kind of gifted the Nats cutting that early lead in half in the Washington third, with a bases-loaded wild pitch from starter Tyler Skaggs and a run-scoring double play by Washington's Jayson Werth. But Pujols flattened the unsinkable sinker for the milestone mash and a 6-2 lead that became a 7-2 final after the bullpen held it following David Freese's eighth-inning sacrifice fly scoring Aybar (one-out double; stolen base).

Pujols himself has been having a far different season than his first two with the Angels, with whom he signed following the 2011 World Series triumph to which he and Freese helped stake the St. Louis Cardinals. He started slow to finish respectably in 2012, but 2013 was ruined by knee trouble and a painful case of plantar fasciitis in his left foot. There were even those writing his baseball obituary.

After all those impeccable Cardinal seasons — he was the only man in baseball history to hit .300, hit 30 or more bombs, and send home 100 or more runs in his first 10 major league seasons while wearing the birds on the bat, among other things including two World Series rings — it would have been a sorry way to go, even if he would have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer regardless.

Pujols isn't exactly an immodest man but he has an awareness of the game's history second to few. "To have almost 18,000 players wear a big league uniform, and to have only 26 players do this," he said after the game, "it's pretty special."

"Starting in [2001], being a kid in high school, watching him play a little third base, a little left field, amazing to think that years down the road I'd be able to witness such a special time in history, in person, wearing the same jersey," Freese told reporters, speaking as the lifelong Cardinal fan who got to play with Pujols from 2009-2011, not to mention making sure Pujols's staggering 3-bomb World Series game didn't go for nothing in the Cardinals's extraterrestrial Series triumph.

"What Albert has done on the field is extremely impressive, but what he's done off the field is even more so," Freese continued. "There's a lot of guys that make a lot of history in this game, on the field. But what he does off the field is incredible."

Pujols is well enough known for his off-field works. He's also known for making the other guy blink when accused of even a tiny truck with actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances. A Cardinal predecessor at first base, Jack Clark, accused Pujols of just that last year on a radio show. Pujols hit back with a lawsuit. This past February, Jack the Ripper (so nicknamed in tribute to his own monstrous home runs) retracted his earlier comments completely.

On the field, of course, Pujols is known in surrealistic terms. Among other things, he has the fourth-highest batting average (.321) of any 500-bomb club member, behind only Jimmie Foxx (.325), Babe Ruth (.342), and Ted Williams (.344). And he has the second-best strikeout-to-bomb ratio (1.69 K per homer) of any of the 500-clubbers, Williams (1.36) being the only one better.

Today it seems strikeouts are epidemic. Pujols has struck out only 843 times lifetime to date. He's just ahead of Mel Ott (896) and just behind Williams (709). It's not that you'd rather see him hitting into double plays, of course (the bad news, maybe some of the few of his career: he's averaged 22 per 162 games lifetime), but Pujols to date has struck out only once every 10 and a half at-bats.

When Freese was traded to the Angels over the winter, after back trouble killed his 2013 and made him futile on a postseason stage he'd once owned, the first message he got was from Pujols: "Remember what we did the last time we played together? Let's go try to do that again."

The Angels are now a .500 club. It won't be quite as easy for the pair to do again with the Angels what they did so shockingly for St. Louis three years ago. Right now they're third in the Show in offense but 19th in defense; they needed a four-run eighth on the night Pujols took his collar to beat the Nats 4-2, after Tanner Roark manhandled them for a 6 2/3 shutout inning start. And before they hit Washington they'd dropped four out of six to other contenders.

Things like hitting milestones with two swings in one game sure don't hurt. Neither do things like Pujols, modest fellow though he often is, all but predicting what he would do Tuesday. Someone should have finked to Pujols's wife, who was back home with their children anticipating a trip to New York where her husband's said to have thought he might hit Number 500 at first. Reportedly, Mrs. Pujols told her husband if he hit 499 in Washington she'd jump the soonest plane possible.

Oops.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

World Cup Preview, Groups C and D

Continuing with our four-part series, here's a look at Group C and Group D in this summer's World Cup.

Group C

COLUMBIA — I bet you didn't know Colombia, who returns to the World Cup for the first time since 1998, is ranked fourth in the world, and was as high as third last year. Three years ago, they were ranked 54th.

Why? Because of their impressive run in World Cup qualification, where they finished second, behind only Argentina, in CONMEBOL (that is, South American) qualifying.

But in that stretch they avoided qualification matches with Brazil, who qualify automatically as hosts, and are a ho-hum 2-1-3 in their last six matches. Their last two matches were an impressive draw against the Netherlands and an unimpressive draw against Tunisia. Their final two warmups to the World Cup is not exactly a murderer's row — against Jordan and Trinidad & Tobago. I don't think this is really a top-five squad.

GREECE — Greece is perhaps the most overlooked and underrated side in Europe. They have qualified for two straight World Cups and three straight European Championships. The first of those three, they won, and in the most recent one, they made the knockout stage.

Their run in World Cup qualifying was stout, too. In the group stage, they allowed only four goals, and all of them (directly or indirectly) off of free kicks; they conceded not a single goal during the run of play.

As you might have gleaned, this is a defensive team. They only scored 12 goals in 10 group stage matches. Six of those 10 matches ended with a score of 1-0 (all in Greece's favor) or 0-0. They remind me of 2006 Switzerland, who conceded zero non-shootout goals in that year's World Cup. They will want to improve on what Switzerland did, however: they got bounced in the round-of-16 in a shootout to Ukraine following a scoreless draw after 120 minutes.

They are testing themselves in the run-up to the tournament. Three of their four post qualifying friendly matches are against countries that have also qualified. They've already played, and lost, the first of those matches, to South Korea.

IVORY COAST — Ivory Coast is, as usual, the top-ranked African side (21st) and, as usual, the most star-studded African side, with Yaya Toure, Salomon Kalou, and Didier Drogba, still grinding at age 36.

It's time for Les Éléphants to capitalize on that and make it out of the group stage, something only (of African sides) Ghana has been able to do in the last two World Cups. Recent results, however, are not encouraging. They've won just one of their last five matches.

JAPAN — I mentioned in the last installment that the Asian qualified teams were across-the-board the lowest ranked in the competition. Indeed, if Japan shaved their ranking in half, from 54th to 27th, they'd still be the lowest-ranked team in this group.

But just as I don't believe Colombia is as good as fourth, I don't believe Japan is as bad as 54th. They've qualified for the previous four World Cups and made it out of the group stage in two of them. They are the reigning Asian Cup champions, they have a strong core with Yūto Nagatomo (Inter), Shinji Kagawa (Manchester United) and Keisuke Honda (Milan), all of whom are 27 or younger. Recent form is good, too, with a draw against the Netherlands and a win over Belgium in Brussels. There's really not much to dislike about this squad.

Predicted Order of Finish

1. Greece
2. Japan
3. Colombia
4. Ivory Coast

Group D

ENGLAND — Whether you root for them or not — and I don't — England is that team everyone keeps their eye on in the English-speaking diaspora, aren't they? We probably follow the Premier League more than any other league, and we are just familiar with them in a way we are not, quite, with other soccer powers.

Maybe it's inaccurate to call them a "power," since they haven't won a major competition since 1966. But things might be trending upwards for them. They've only lost two of their last 13 matches, and the debacle of failing to qualify for Euro 2008 is now far in the rearview mirror.

But both those losses took place in their last three matches, and both were in London, against Chile and Germany. Indeed, England infrequently travels for friendlies and are in the midst of five in a row in London. I wonder if this reluctance to travel contributes to their lack of championship runs. They are not in a difficult group, so making it to the knockout stage is probable. After that, who knows.

ITALY — This side is probably just as enigmatic as England. They won it all at the 2006 World Cup and then failed to win a single match at the 2010 World Cup. They qualified for the 2014 World Cup without losing a match, but are winless in their last five matches, which included an ignominious home draw against Armenia.

Their last two World Cup tuneups will be against sides that did not qualify for the World Cup (Ireland and Luxembourg), so I'm not sure how battle-ready they will be. But as I wrote with England, this is not a strong group and the drop-off is considerable after England and Italy.

URUGUAY — It sort of pains me to refer to Uruguay as clearly behind England and Italy, and the FIFA rankings do not agree with me (Uruguay is ranked fifth), but it appears the bloom is off the rose after their shock fourth place finish in the 2010 World Cup, which they followed up by winning the 2011 Copa America.

But they only just barely qualified for this World Cup, needing to win an intercontinental playoff against Jordan. They might not have made it even that far had they not won four of their last five CONMEBOL qualification matches. They are not exactly testing themselves in the run-up to the tournament, playing no teams who qualified.

If they have a shot, it will be because of Luis Suarez, who leads the 2013-14 Premier League in scoring, ten clear of the guy in second. Their might not be a better striker playing today.

COSTA RICA — Trivia time: Costa Rica is the only North American side besides the U.S. and Mexico to make it out of a World Cup group stage, which they did in 1990. Will they repeat the feat in 2014? Let's look at the evidence:

* Losers of three of their last four, including a 4-0 frog-stomping at home at the hands of Chile. Losses to Australia and South Korea are the other two.

* The win was against Paraguay, who finished last in CONMEBOL World Cup qualifying.

* Their current squad and recent call-ups include 22 players who ply their trade in either the Costa Rican League or MLS.

Conclusion: oe point will be worth celebrating.

Predicted Order of Finish

1. England
2. Italy
3. Uruguay
4. Costa Rica

Posted by Kevin Beane at 10:14 AM | Comments (2)

April 23, 2014

Can Teams Replicate the Avalanche's Success?

With Colorado exploding out of the gate in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs, there's a good chance that their feel-good story is being watched by plenty of others outside of the Rocky Mountains. Most notably, teams that crashed and burned during the regular season may take a measure of inspiration in watching the Avalanche go from worst-to-first.

However, the Avalanche didn't just wake up as an organization and decide to be better. There are a number of moving parts and they all came together at the right time. For teams like the Buffalo Sabres, Edmonton Oilers, and Florida Panthers, take note because the following reasons behind Colorado's success aren't easily replicated.

1. A young core — While Nathan MacKinnon is understandably getting all the headlines for, well, just about everything, it's important to remember that this stew has been bubbling for some time. Matt Duchene, Gabriel Landeskog, Ryan O'Reilly, and Paul Stastny have been assembled as pieces to a young core group for a few years now. Despite the bottoming out of last year's lockout-shortened campaign, MacKinnon has proved to be just one of numerous gems in the Colorado forward lineup. This may feel like a worst-to-first story, but when you look at the bigger picture, it's not that extreme.

2. An all-world goalie — Semyon Varlamov has been a regular in the NHL since the 2009-10 season. However, his numbers have been up and down for a while, include last season when his save percentage was an ugly .903 and his goals-against ballooned to 3.02. This year, his save percentage is a Vezina-worthy .928. The goals-against is still a little high at 2.41 but the Avalanche have enough goal support to withstand that type of barrage. While Colorado's young core of forwards should continue to mature together, Varlamov may remain a question mark going into next season, as he's not that far removed from relatively poor campaigns. In order for him to truly become an elite goaltender, he's got to put a few strong seasons of consistent play.

3. A coach to be feared and/or loved — Patrick Roy is a fiery individual. That's not a surprise to anyone. But when you're playing alongside that fire, it can spark loyalty and motivation, and that's exactly what the Avalanche got after Roy publicly demonstrated his temper a few times early in the season. Some critics thought it was a calculated move to rally the troops, and the truth is that it's probably 50/50 between strategy and just pure temper. However, players learned that their coach would go to battle for them, which strengthened individual commitment to the goal. Passion combined with skill can get you far in this league, and for at least one season, Roy inspired plenty of passion from his players.

4. Luck — Colorado is fast, talented, and explosive. They're also not that great defensively, with a goals-against that is smack in the middle at 15 and a shots-against that is in the league's bottom five. These types of things tend to normalize over the long haul, and if Colorado wants to continue being upwardly mobile, the team will have to address its defensive assets.

Posted by Mike Chen at 7:28 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2014

Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, and Big Ben

It's been 10 years since the 2004 NFL Draft produced Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, and Ben Roethlisberger, all within the first 11 picks. A decade into their careers, all have become productive players, but how do they rate relative to one another?

Career Statistics

Let's begin with a look at some numbers. The stats below include sacks and rushing. The "TO" column indicates turnovers: interceptions, lost fumbles, and safeties. "NY/A" shows net yards per attempt: passing yards minus sack yardage, divided by pass attempts and sacks.

Manning leads in games played, pass attempts, completions, yardage, and lowest sack percentage. Roethlisberger leads in first downs, total touchdowns, yards per completion, fewest fumbles, and all the rushing stats (attempts, yards, average, TDs). Rivers leads in yards per game, yards per attempt, completion percentage, first down percentage, touchdown percentage, lowest INT percentage, passer rating, and touchdown/interception differential.

This is just the beginning of our analysis, but it puts Eli Manning in a pretty substantial hole. Rivers is clearly the most efficient, with Big Ben an easy second and Manning far behind. He commits a lot of turnovers and throws many more incomplete passes than Rivers and Roethlisberger.

Individual Seasons

What do we find with a season-by-season breakdown: which of the three quarterbacks had the best season each year?

2004: Roethlisberger
2005: Roethlisberger
2006: Rivers
2007: Roethlisberger
2008: Rivers
2009: Rivers
2010: Rivers
2011: Manning
2012: Roethlisberger
2013: Rivers

2004: Ben Roethlisberger

Roethlisberger won Offensive Rookie of the Year. He broke the rookie record for passer rating (98.1) and went 13-0 as a starter in the regular season, leading Pittsburgh to a 15-1 record and an appearance in the AFC Championship Game.

Manning went 1-6 as starter, with a 55.4 passer rating, and Rivers, backing up Drew Brees, didn't play (8 pass attempts).

Best: Roethlisberger
2nd: Tie. Manning was awful, but Rivers didn't play enough to rank ahead of him.

2005: Ben Roethlisberger

Rivers didn't play (22 att), and Manning was just okay (75.9 rating). The Steelers used a conservative offense that didn't ask Roethlisberger to do too much, but he played very efficiently (17 TD, 9 INT, 98.6 rating) and Pittsburgh won Super Bowl XL.

Best: Roethlisberger
2nd: Manning
Last: Rivers

2006: Philip Rivers

This was the year Big Ben had his motorcycle accident. He tossed a league-high 23 interceptions and took twice as many sacks (46) as the previous season. His 75.4 passer rating is still the lowest of his career. Manning's 2006 looked a lot like his '05. For the second straight season, the Giants made the playoffs but lost in the first round.

With Drew Brees in New Orleans, '06 marked Rivers' first year as a starter. He passed for 3,388 yards, with 22 TD and 9 INT, good for a 92.0 rating, and he took only 144 sack yards. The Chargers went 14-2, the best record in the NFL.

Best: Rivers
2nd: Tie. Manning and Roethlisberger both had great teammates around them, and neither one really capitalized. Manning had better TD/INT numbers, but Ben had more yards on fewer attempts. Among the weaker seasons for both players.

2007: Ben Roethlisberger

All three teams made the playoffs. The Giants won Super Bowl XLII, and Eli Manning played very well in the postseason, but he had a blah regular season (3,188 net yds, 24 TD, 27 turnovers, 73.9 rating), while Roethlisberger had a great one (3,011 net yds, 34 TD, 14 turnovers, 104.1 rating). Rivers was solid but unexceptional.

Best: Roethlisberger
2nd: Manning
Last: Rivers

2008: Philip Rivers

Now, Roethlisberger is on the other side of the Super Bowl issue: the Steelers won Super Bowl XLIII, but Philip Rivers had a much better season than Big Ben. Statistically, this was probably Ben's worst season. He threw almost as many picks (15) as TDs (17), took way too many sacks (46 for 284 yards), and fumbled 14 times (losing 7). And unlike Eli the year before, he didn't have a great postseason. Eleven QBs have won multiple Super Bowls, and of those 11, Bob Griese and Roethlisberger are the only ones never named Super Bowl MVP.

The Giants had an impressive regular season (12-4), and it was probably Eli's best up to that point. He set a career high for passer rating (86.4), and it is still the only season of his career in which he threw twice as many TDs (21) as INTs (10). But Rivers came into his own this year. With LaDainian Tomlinson beginning to fade, Rivers passed for 4,009 yards, with 34 TDs, 11 INTs, and a 105.5 passer rating that led the league and is still his career best. In December, with San Diego on the fringe of the playoff picture, Rivers threw 11 TDs and just 1 interception, recording a 120.3 passer rating and leading the team to four straight wins and a division title, then a fifth consecutive win in the first round of the playoffs. I believe he was the most valuable player in the NFL that season.

Best: Rivers
2nd: Manning
Last: Roethlisberger

2009: Philip Rivers

Rivers had another MVP-caliber season. This was probably the best overall season for the '04 QB class; they all had good years, although only Rivers made the playoffs. All three passed for over 4,000 yards, and 26-28 TDs. The differences were efficiency and negative plays. Big Ben took almost as many sacks (50 for 348 yards) as Eli and Rivers combined (55, 383 yds), while Manning committed nearly as many turnovers (22) as Rivers (12) and Roethlisberger (15) combined.

Best: Rivers
2nd: Roethlisberger
Last: Manning

2010: Philip Rivers

Rivers led the NFL in passing yards, with the second-highest passer rating in the league (101.8). Roethlisberger played great in 2010 (97.0 rating), but he missed the first four games due to suspension. Rivers led the three QBs in every major statistical category, except that Manning threw 31 TDs and Rivers 30. However, Manning also threw the most interceptions in the NFL, 25.

Best: Rivers
2nd: Roethlisberger
Last: Manning

2011: Eli Manning

Clearly the best season of Eli Manning's career. He passed for by far the most yards, and yards per attempt, of his career, and he tied a career high for TD/INT differential. The Giants won the Super Bowl, and Manning was awarded his second Super Bowl MVP.

Rivers and Roethlisberger were okay, but both underperformed their expectations. Rivers set a career high for pass attempts, but played nowhere near his standard of the previous three seasons. Hampered by late-season injuries, Roethlisberger missed a game and played poorly down the stretch, including an awful performance in Pittsburgh's upset playoff loss to the Tim Tebow-led Broncos.

Best: Manning
2nd: Rivers
Last: Roethlisberger

2012: Ben Roethlisberger

Manning and Rivers both threw 26 TDs, and both tossed 15 interceptions. Eli threw for more yards and took fewer sacks, while Rivers made some really horrible throws. Roethlisberger missed a few games, but he passed for as many TDs (26) and fewer picks (8) than Manning and Rivers, with a 97.0 passer rating and the lowest sack rate of his career (6.3%). This is the only season since the '04 draft in which the Giants, Chargers, and Steelers all missed the playoffs.

Best: Roethlisberger
2nd: Manning
Last: Rivers

2013: Philip Rivers

Comeback Player of the Year season for Rivers, who tied his career-high passer rating (105.5) and threw nearly three times as many TDs as INTs (32-11). Big Ben attempted by far the most passes of his career (584), topping a previous high of 513. He played well, especially in the middle of the season. Eli Manning had a disastrous year, the worst full season of his career.

Best: Rivers
2nd: Roethlisberger
Last: Manning

These are subjective evaluations, but most of them are obvious, not close calls at all. Even if there are a couple you disagree with, the tally below gives a pretty fair assessment of their season-by-season contributions:

Best: Rivers 5, Ben 4, Manning 1
2nd: Manning 6, Ben 4, Rivers 2
Last: Manning 3, Rivers 3, Ben 2

There are more Seconds than Lasts because of two ties. If we award 3 points for Best, 2 points for Second, and 1 point for Last, this gives Rivers 22, Roethlisberger 22, and Manning 18. But of course, not all "Best" seasons are created equal, and this is a pretty limited way to evaluate careers.

None of the QBs from the Draft Class of '04 has been selected All-Pro, and only Rivers has received votes (in 2008 and '09). Rivers has made 5 Pro Bowls, compared to 3 for Eli Manning and 2 for Ben Roethlisberger.

Skills and the Eye Test

All three first-round QBs have done some very good things; they've all been useful players. Let's get away from the numbers and just evaluate some of the things they do well (and not so well).

Eli Manning

Very few quarterbacks in history have the same pedigree as Eli Manning. He's 6'4", his father was a Pro Bowl quarterback, and his brother was named MVP the year he was drafted. Eli Manning has some of the same strengths as Peyton Manning. Most obviously, he takes few sacks. He's got a quick release, he's good at reading the blitz, and he's shown the same kind of small-space footwork that helps Tom Brady and Peyton avoid hits in the pocket. He has a lower sack percentage than Ben Roethlisberger for every year of their careers. Eli is a gunslinger — a high-risk, high-reward passer, like Brett Favre — and he completes more long passes than most QBs. He played very well in the 2007-08 and 2011-12 postseasons.

The other side of the gunslinger coin: Eli has always had accuracy problems. His completion percentage is very low for this era, and his interception percentage is very high. Manning has thrown 5,008 passes in the regular season. Since his rookie season of '04, 18 QBs have thrown at least half that many passes. Eli ranks 18th out of 18 in completion percentage and 16th of 18 in interception percentage, ahead of Ryan Fitzpatrick and basically tied with Jay Cutler and Favre; they all round to 3.4%. Eli has led or tied for the league lead in INTs three times in his nine full seasons. He also fumbles a lot for someone who takes so few hits.

The younger Manning is very streaky, which can be good or bad.

Philip Rivers

Philip Rivers has some of ugliest mechanics in the game. You would never deliberately teach someone to throw like Rivers. His release takes forever, and it doesn't even look like it should work. But he's big and strong (6-5, 228), and he took over for Drew Brees without a noticeable drop in the team's production. Rivers, like Eli and Big Ben, takes shots downfield. All three go long more often than most of their contemporaries. Rivers' most positive attribute is probably his ability to complete passes to guys who are covered. He's among the best in the league at the back-shoulder throw, he finds that small area where the receiver can catch the ball but his defender can't, and he has a special chemistry with Antonio Gates on the fade in the end zone. Rivers has always found his running backs for productive check-downs.

Because Rivers does throw to covered receivers, when he's a little bit off, it can result in disaster. His decision-making occasionally leaves a lot to be desired, and he doesn't always shake off bad plays. When he has a bad game, it's not one thing, it's everything. The previous two seasons, 2011-12, there wasn't one thing he was terrible at; he just generally didn't play real well.

Ben Roethlisberger

Big Ben, we call him, and not just because of the clock in London or because "Roethlisberger" is hard to spell. At 6-5 and 241 lbs, Roethlisberger is perhaps the hardest QB in the league to tackle. If the NFL tracked broken tackles and sack escapes, Big Ben would probably lap the field. No other quarterback absorbs so much contact without going down. Ben extends plays and completes passes downfield. The defense has had to cover for too long, or abandoned their assignments to go after the quarterback, or simply assumed that he'd been sacked. Even when he does get sacked, Ben seldom fumbles. He's got a strong arm, and other than 2006, he's never been interception-prone. He's a more productive runner than Manning or Rivers, and his pump fakes are terrific.

Roethlisberger's strength is also his greatest weakness. With faith in his ability to break tackles and turn them into big plays, Ben doesn't get rid of the ball quickly and he absorbs a huge amount of damage. He takes the most sacks in the NFL. Over the last decade, only one quarterback has been sacked more than 252 times in the regular season: Ben Roethlisberger was sacked 386 times. Unsurprisingly, he's also injured frequently. Only twice in his 10-year career has Ben played 16 games (compared to eight for Rivers and nine for Manning). Roethlisberger has often played when he was less than 100% and should have rested. We can admire his dedication, but he's really hurt the team by playing when he's not healthy.

Supporting Cast: Teammates and Coaches

Football is a team sport, and no one succeeds without a lot of help. Good linemen and receivers can make a mediocre quarterback look like a star. An innovative coach can help him stand out, while poor coaching can hold him back. A strong running game sets up play action and keeps blitzers honest. A great defense keeps the offense in good field position and lets the quarterback feel comfortable, rather than getting desperate and trying to force big plays. Among the 2004 QB class, who's had the most to work with?

Receivers

None of the '04 QBs have played with a receiving duo like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, or Randy Moss and Wes Welker. But they've all gotten to work with some talented receivers. Eli Manning has played with Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, Plaxico Burress, Amani Toomer, and Jeremy Shockey. Philip Rivers has thrown to Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates. Ben Roethlisberger used to play with Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes, and Mike Wallace, and now he has Antonio Brown and Heath Miller.

There's not a huge gap here, but you'd probably say that Big Ben has gotten the most help from his receiving corps.

Offensive Line

Until the last season or two, the New York Giants' offensive line was among the steadiest, and best, in the league. Anchored inside by center Shaun O'Hara and guard Chris Snee, with largely the same group of starters, the offensive line created opportunities for both Eli and his running backs. More quietly, the Chargers also featured strong offensive line play for most of Rivers' career. With veteran center Nick Hardwick, Pro Bowl tackle Marcus McNeill, and guard Kris Dielman, a standout whose career was ended by head injuries, San Diego set up its stat players for success.

The Steelers had Jeff Hartings and Alan Faneca early in Roethlisberger's career, but in recent seasons, offensive line has been a consistent weakness for Pittsburgh. Overall, he's probably at a slight deficit, though not enough to even out his advantage in the receiving corps.

Running Backs

Eli, in his first three seasons, got tremendous help from Tiki Barber. Tiki rushed for over 1,500 yards each season, averaging 1,680 rushing yards and 524 receiving yards. Since then, the Giants have used a shifting cast led by Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. In 2008, Earth, Wind and Fire (Jacobs, Derrick Ward, and Bradshaw) helped the 12-4 Giants lead the NFL in rushing.

Rivers began his career with LaDainian Tomlinson, including two of LT's best years. Ryan Mathews has had a couple of nice seasons. The Steeler RBs were the most productive in the NFL during Big Ben's rookie year, and he benefitted enormously from a ground game that took pressure of him and kept opponents focused on the run. Pittsburgh, during the Roethlisberger era, has gone from Jerome Bettis to Willie Parker to Rashard Mendenhall to Le'Veon Bell. All had one or two productive seasons, but there's no Tomlinson or Barber on that list. If you wanted to argue that Roethlisberger has benefitted least from his RBs, I might agree with you.

Defense

A good defense can take pressure off the quarterback, and set up field position that leads to TDs and wins. Over the last 10 seasons, the Pittsburgh Steelers have probably been the most consistently dominating defense in the league. They've led the NFL in scoring defense three times (2004, 2008, 2010), and the '08 Steelers allowed the fewest yards per game in the history of the 16-game schedule. The Giants and Chargers have both had their moments, but this is a clear advantage for Ben Roethlisberger. The Giants' defense would probably rate a little ahead of San Diego's, but not by a lot.

Coaching

The '04 QBs began their careers with Tom Coughlin, Marty Schottenheimer, and Bill Cowher, all borderline Hall of Famers. The Steelers replaced Cowher with Mike Tomlin, and the Chargers moved on with Norv Turner and now Mike McCoy. Kevin Gilbride has a good reputation, Turner is among the most highly-regarded offensive coaches in history, and Big Ben has worked with three successful coordinators, all of whom have head coaching experience. It's not obvious to me that any of the three quarterbacks gained an advantage in this area.

Overall

Most of these categories come out remarkably even, with few clear advantages or disadvantages for any of the three players we're examining. If you had to choose someone who's gotten the most help from his team, though, the answer is Ben Roethlisberger. Backed by a good coach, good line, league-leading run game, likely Hall of Fame receiver, and the best defense in the NFL, Roethlisberger achieved immediate success in the NFL without having to create many big plays. Manning and Rivers have seen some of the same benefits, but not as dramatically as Big Ben, and not for as many years.

Winning and Clutch Play

The Steelers have an exceptional record in games started by Ben Roethlisberger. He's 95-47 (.669) as a starter, about 10.5 wins per 16 games. Pittsburgh has qualified for the playoffs in six of his 10 seasons with the team, posting a 10-4 record and winning two Super Bowls. Big Ben's Steelers have won their first playoff game four out of six times.

Eli Manning is 85-66 (.563) as starter, an average of 9-7 in a 16-game schedule. The Giants have reached the playoffs in five of his 10 seasons, posting an 8-3 record and winning two Super Bowls. They've won their first playoff game two out of five times.

The Chargers are 79-49 (.617) in regular-season games started by Philip Rivers, roughly 10-6 over a full season. They have reached the playoffs in five of his eight seasons as starter, six of 10 if you count the years he backed up Drew Brees (though I don't know why you would). San Diego is 4-5 in the postseason with Rivers, and has won its first playoff game three out of five times.

If you give the quarterback sole credit for his team's wins and losses, this method would show Roethlisberger as the clear leader, with Manning and Rivers roughly even behind him. The Giants have two championships, but the Chargers have a better regular-season record, a higher rate of playoff appearances, and more seasons in which they won a playoff game. It more or less evens out, I think. Despite Manning's clutch reputation, his Giants have lost their first playoff game more often than they've won.

Of course, we know that teams, not players, win games. How have these three QBs personally performed in their teams' postseason wins and losses?

Eli has by far the best turnover numbers, but he's also been the least efficient at generating yardage. Keep in mind the different number of postseason games for each player: 14 for Roethlisberger, 11 for Manning, and 9 for Rivers. Per game, Rivers averages the most yardage (241 passing, 228 net). Eli is next in passing yards (229/gm), but Big Ben's rushing yardage moves him up to 2nd in net yards per game (223). Overall, I think these stats are pretty close. If you had to pick a winner, it's probably Eli.

In Manning's favor is that his best postseason performances have come in the Super Bowl. His 96.2 passer rating is higher than in any other round, and he's won two Super Bowl MVP Awards. His passer rating was over 100 in Super Bowl XLVI (296 yds, TD, 0 INT), and his sack-escape-and-desperation-pass to David Tyree four years prior is among the most celebrated and dramatic plays in Super Bowl history. I don't believe that Eli Manning has a special clutch "ability" other players lack, but he brought his A-game in the two most important games of his career, and that's not something we should ignore.

Ben Roethlisberger is almost the opposite. He's had some nice playoff performances, especially in the wild card and divisional rounds, but he did not play well in his three Super Bowl appearances. In those games, he threw 3 TDs and 5 INTs, including a pick-six, with an overall passer rating of 69.9. Roethlisberger's efficiency has dropped as he goes deeper into the playoffs. In the wild card round, Ben's passer rating is 93.4. That falls to 87.8 in the second round, 81.8 in AFC Championship Games, and that miserable 69.9 in the Super Bowl.

Ben's had some great playoff games, and he's had good playoff games when the Steelers didn't need him to be great. He got the job done. But Pittsburgh's titles were fueled by defense, not the quarterback. The Steeler mini-dynasty (2004-10) went 77-35 in the regular season, appeared in three Super Bowls, and won two championships. Those were dominant defensive teams, and Ben hasn't led Pittsburgh to any playoff wins without that great defense backing him up.

Philip Rivers, among these three QBs, has the thinnest postseason résumé. He's never played in a Super Bowl, and only once in a conference championship game. But he's had a passer rating over 100 in four of his nine postseason games, compared to 5/11 for Manning and 3/14 for Roethlisberger. The Chargers are 3-0 in wild card games with Rivers, and his stats in the divisional round are the best of any of these three QBs in any round of the playoffs. His two worst playoff games were probably the years in which San Diego had its best shots at the Super Bowl: the 2006 and 2007 seasons, both against New England. In '06, the Chargers went 14-2, and in '07 they advanced to the AFC Championship Game. In those two matchups, Rivers went a combined 33-of-69, for 441 yards, with no TDs, 3 picks and a lost fumble, and a 50.5 passer rating.

It's absurd to credit or blame an individual player for team results in the postseason, and it's even crazier to judge whole careers by a dozen games in January. But playoff results don't show up in the stats cited earlier, and these are the most important games. They shouldn't count for everything, but they certainly count for something. The takeaway here is probably a small bump for Eli Manning. He's overrated as a postseason player — we ignore all those first-round losses — but his Super Bowl performances push him ahead of Rivers and Roethlisberger.

What If...?

If the same teams had drafted different players in '04, how many championships would each team have won? There's no way to know, of course, but it's fun to think about. Most intriguing re-arrangement: Manning to the Steelers, Ben to San Diego, Rivers to the Giants. How many Super Bowls has each team won?

Conclusion

Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, and Ben Roethlisberger have all had successful careers so far. They've all made multiple Pro Bowls, and all will be nominated for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, though it's unlikely any could get in yet.

Looking at career statistics, Manning's are clearly the weakest. His yards-per-throw efficiency actually is not bad, but he's far behind Rivers and Roethlisberger, whose numbers are excellent. Even more problematic, Eli's turnover rate is much too high. When we examined individual seasons, Eli trailed there, as well. There's only been one year in which he had a good case as the best QB of the '04 draft class.

Getting away from numbers, we looked at each QB's strengths and weaknesses. They all have strengths that stand out, and areas where they need to improve. For Eli, his control of the pocket and avoidance of sacks are positives, but his accuracy is a major negative. Rivers' ability to connect with covered receivers is a rare and valuable talent, but his occasionally poor decision-making sometimes leads to interceptions. Roethlisberger turns sacks into big plays downfield, but he also takes too many hits and insists on playing even when he's too injured to perform well.

Our expectations for pro athletes are very high, so we tend to gloss over the things we expect them to do well. A lot of a player's value comes just in meeting those expectations, factors like arm strength, reading defenses, self-control on and off the field. All three players meet those basic criteria, but another one is accuracy, and that shortcoming helps to explain Eli's statistical disadvantage: it hangs over his whole game. Rivers' decision-making problems are infrequent, and Ben's excessive patience in the pocket is forgivable.

Roethlisberger has probably benefitted the most from his strong supporting cast in Pittsburgh, but Manning and Rivers have been surrounded by good teammates and coaches, as well. Looking at playoff performance, the Steelers have the best results over the last decade, but Manning has probably done the most to directly facilitate his team's success, due to his fine play in Super Bowls XLII and XLVI.

So where does all that leave us?

Eli Manning

Eli Manning's greatest success came in the 2007-08 and 2011-12 postseasons, when the Giants won Super Bowls. That's a nice cherry on top for a great career, the sort of thing that puts a Terry Bradshaw over the top and into the Hall of Fame, but Eli doesn't have that great regular season career as a foundation. He's never been an MVP candidate and he's never gotten All-Pro votes. He's this generation's Jim Plunkett.

Eli has a "winner" reputation, but other than their two Super Bowl years, the Giants have never won a playoff game with Eli Manning. They've only made the playoffs in five of his 10 seasons (50%), a lower rate than Roethlisberger (60%) or Rivers (62.5%), and they've won their first playoff game less often (40%) than Big Ben (66.7%) or Rivers (60%). Eli Manning played very well in the two most important games of his career, but you don't judge a 10-year career by two games.

Manning has thrown an appalling number of interceptions, and his 2013 was bad enough that you might worry about his future in the sport. Compared to Rivers and Roethlisberger, he is the least valuable quarterback from the top of the 2004 draft. Insult to injury, to obtain Manning, the Giants traded not only Rivers but also the draft picks used to select All-Pro linebacker Shawne Merriman and All-Pro kicker Nate Kaeding. Combined, those three players have made 10 Pro Bowls.

The argument for Eli Manning is that he played well in two Super Bowls. The argument against Eli Manning is the other 154 games of his career. He's not accurate, not consistent, and makes too many mistakes, with a turnover rate that is unacceptable in modern football.

Philip Rivers

Alone among the top trio of QBs from the 2004 draft, Rivers did not start early in his career. For Charger fans, it was worth the wait. After two fine seasons from Drew Brees, Rivers led San Diego to four straight division titles. I discovered while writing this article that from 2004-13, the Chargers had a higher percentage of passes for first downs than any other team in the NFL, though Peyton Manning moves ahead when you look at individual players. The top five:

1. Peyton Manning, 40.2%
2. Philip Rivers, 37.0%
3. Tom Brady, 36.8%
4. Drew Brees, 36.3%
5. Ben Roethlisberger, 35.5%

The Giants rank 13th, 31.5%. Still, impressive numbers for Rivers and Big Ben. Rating Eli Manning third in this draft class should not be interpreted as an insult — he's got excellent competition.

Where Rivers stands out from Eli and Roethlisberger is on big plays. He has the highest TD% (5.4) and lowest INT% (2.5) in the trio. Perhaps even more, Rivers is distinguished by his great seasons. He was an MVP candidate in 2008 and '09, and he's had four full seasons with a passer rating over 100, twice as many as Roethlisberger (2) and Manning (0) combined. Rivers has more 4,000-yard passing seasons (5) than the other two (3 each), and more 30-TD seasons (3) than them (1 each). When we assess player careers, we're not looking just at the bottom line, but also at peak performance: who reached the greatest heights? Among the QBs from the '04 draft class, that's clearly Philip Rivers.

I know some people will never get past the Super Bowls. In the last decade, the Giants and Steelers have won two each, and the Chargers none. San Diego is a good team right now, but not so good that it's likely to challenge for a title in the next season or two. By then, all three QBs will be 34, past their primes and approaching retirement. It seems probable that Rivers will never play for a Super Bowl champion.

The question is whether that's mostly his fault, or mostly outside of his control. Rivers played at a very high level in 2013, and San Diego lost in the second round of the playoffs. Would the Chargers have been better off with Colin Kaepernick, whose team reached the NFC Championship Game? Would the 49ers have been worse with Rivers?

The Steelers have had more success than the Chargers, and the Giants have done better in the playoffs, but was Rivers the one holding his team back, or has he often been the reason they got so far in the first place? He has more 300-yard passing games (33) than Manning or Roethlisberger (28 each) — even though they've started more games — and San Diego has a better record in those games (18-15) than the Giants or Steelers (both 13-15). Rivers has the most games with 3 passing TDs (32), and a better record in those games (24-8, vs. a combined 38-18).

For most of his years as starter, Rivers has been the one leading his team to victory, and it's not fair to pin the team's shortcomings on him. He's had several seasons in which he was absolutely good enough to lead his team to a championship, but the other 50 guys on the roster weren't at the same level.

The argument for Philip Rivers is that he's the best passer from this draft class. He's the most accurate, makes the most big plays and the fewest mistakes. The argument against Philip Rivers is team success in the postseason. The Chargers are 4-5 in the playoffs with Rivers as starter.

Ben Roethlisberger

The term game manager is somewhat derogatory, implying a QB with limited skills, who doesn't create a lot of plays on his own. That was Roethlisberger's reputation his first couple seasons, but not really accurate. His workload was limited because Pittsburgh ran all the time, but he was never a play-it-safe passer. He threw downfield, with yardage, TD, INT, and sack averages that were all above league norms. He was the first quarterback in 34 seasons to win Offensive Rookie of the Year. The Steelers improved from 6-10 to 15-1, then won the Super Bowl in his second season.

Very few quarterbacks have done so well in their first two years. His passer rating was over 98 both seasons, and he delivered what the team needed. Since then, he has thrown for over 3,000 yards every year, with a passer rating over 90 for the last five seasons in a row. I use a complicated statistical formula to analyze QB statistics. Big Ben has ranked 10th four times, as well as 8th, 9th, and 12th in other years. He's never had the best stats, and he's never been close, but he's right around 10th every season. He's solidly in that second tier of QBs. Five or 10 years ago, that level was typified by Matt Hasselbeck. Everyone knew he was a top-10 QB, and everyone knew he wasn't top-five. That's where Ben is.

Roethlisberger is a fun QB to watch, because he escapes so many sacks and makes so many plays downfield. And sometimes he's a frustrating QB to watch, because he holds the ball forever and takes sacks even when his line is blocking heroically. He's always been a good player, but with obvious factors holding him back from the kind of greatness you see in players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

The argument for Ben Roethlisberger is that the Steelers have been very successful for most of his career. He played at a high level almost immediately, and he's always performed well when healthy. The argument against Big Ben is that his success is really team success, and he hasn't been anything special without a great defense to back him up.

J.P. Losman

Losman was drafted 22nd overall, the same year as Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger. Losman had only one season (2006) in which he started more than eight games, passed for 1,500 yards, or threw double-digit TDs. His last start came in 2008. Matt Schaub, taken 90th, is the fourth-best QB of the '04 draft class.

The Verdict

I've presented a lot of angles here, and readers are free to reach their own conclusions. But I don't believe that Philip Rivers has held the Chargers back from winning a championship; rather, he's been their best player and the reason they were even competitive. I also feel that Ben Roethlisberger was never the key player on Pittsburgh's championship teams, and that the Giants have often succeeded in spite of Eli Manning. Unless you give quarterbacks sole credit and blame for team results, it seems obvious that Rivers is the best QB (so far) from the 2004 draft class, followed by Roethlisberger.

That's not to demean any of the three; this is one of the most accomplished quarterback draft classes in history, probably the best since the legendary '83 draft class that produced Dan Marino, John Elway, and Jim Kelly.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 5:55 PM | Comments (9)

From the Tennis Industry: PACIFIC Aiming Higher

Recently, I caught up with an old friend, Bastian Gründler from Germany, whom I have known since his years of playing college tennis in the USA. He grew up playing tennis in Germany before moving to the U.S. to play college tennis for the University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB) — his brother Philipp played for the UCLA team that won the 2004-05 NCAA championship.

He went on to get his Sports Science diploma from London Metropolitan University in England. He continued to play tennis and went on to win in 2010, the British Universities and Colleges Sport (BUCS) UK Individuals Singles and Doubles Championships, as well as the Team Competition with his university team.

He now works for a German tennis goods manufacturer. The company was the official ATP partner for strings, grips and stringing machine in the years 2007-2012. Having acquired Fischer Racquet Division in 2009, PACIFIC today is a full-range supplier and one of the major players in the string and racket industry.

Q: Bastian, for starters, can you please provide a brief background of PACIFIC?

A: PACIFIC Entermark GmbH started as a distribution company for various sports goods, founded in the early 1970s. Our own PACIFIC brand has grown stronger over the years, due to high quality production and innovative products. With the quality label "Made in Germany," PACIFIC manufactured the first electronic stringing machine in the 1980s. The company was famous for their own natural gut production, equipping world's best players, such as for example John McEnroe.

As much as the company has grown, it still remains 100% family-owned, with its headquarters located in Stuttgart, Germany. Even with all the revolutionary developments, you still see the best players relying on traditional products! A great number of today's top 100 players, actually more than 60 out top 100 players, prefer "hybrid stringing," a mixture of natural gut strings combined with synthetic materials. Gut strings provide elasticity and power factor, while synthetic strings provide control and accuracy factor.

Q: What is your area of responsibility with PACIFIC?

A: I have been with PACIFIC for four years now, and I am working within two divisions at PACIFIC. On the one hand, I work with the International Sales department where all efforts are combined, providing our worldwide sales partners with everything PACIFIC's got to offer. On the other, I am responsible of the division of "Global Brand and Player Services on ATP/WTA and ITF Tour." Together with Tom Parry, our Player Services Director, I am looking after all our sponsored players, as well as scouting upcoming talents and potential future champions. Furthermore, PACIFIC works closely with more than 250 coaches worldwide, because one of our central concerns is to educate tennis players, improve their material knowledge, more importantly, instill the importance of the service factor in tennis.

Q: Can you further elaborate on this aspect that you refer to as the service factor?

A: By saying "service factor," I am underlining the importance of serving and educating the customer with an in-depth knowledge of the full range of products that we have to offer. The company has been holding material and service seminars all around the globe throughout the last 40+ years educating sales partners, industry, and also consumers on fundamentals. The company's foundation in manufacturing strings and grips provided ground for such seminars, demonstrating the actual function of accessories to the racket itself. Without a motor, no car could move an inch. Without strings, a racket cannot be used to perform; therefore the strings are often called the engine of the racket.

At PACIFIC, we provide our players with best materials and advice. My job is to interact with players, and also deliver my advice and services onto our global distribution network, retail partners and tennis specialist stores. It's a well-functioning combination of sponsoring, marketing and — obviously what's most important for any company — sales.

Q: PACIFIC is one of the top companies in the industry competing for the world market for hard goods, especially rackets. Where do you see PACIFIC's current status and in what ways can PACIFIC hold an advantage over its competitors?

A: A large portion of the tennis market for hard goods, especially rackets, is held by Babolat, Head, and Wilson. However, PACIFIC has become a strong contender for the number four position and we plan to aim even higher. Traditional brand names are fading, and loosing share to current major players. It's important to develop and grow key markets, but also invest on your foundation. PACIFIC products are recently available in 80+ countries through its active distribution network. PACIFIC's product range provides high quality performance products in all segments, being full-range supplier (except shoes). There are many companies out there that produce one or two good products in just one category, may it be racket or grips, while PACIFIC is growing as a strong performer in all product categories.

Q: Bastian, this all sounds interesting in the scope of the industry's ins and outs, but how does it help the consumers in the general population, in other words, your everyday tennis players in the clubs and tennis fans who picked up the game?

A: Let's give the example of a great champion and work our way to all tennis players. Just like Roger Federer did when switching to a new frame, every tennis player, regardless of their level, should ask themselves the following question: "What is the best product(s) for my individual performance?"

A couple of years ago, I was at a tournament in Switzerland. In the evening, I was walking by some local courts when I noticed a senior player who looked to be about 80-years-old. It was obvious that he was barely able to hold on to his preferred racket. It turned out that he chose Federer's heavyweight, small head-sized racket to play, and I can assure you that he was not enjoying his Sunday evening performance. So I walked up to the court and asked him who on earth recommended that frame to him. He responded that he went up to a tennis retail store to buy the world No. 1's racket, because that racket "must obviously be the best one on the market."

Here again it is my job to combine multiple perspectives such as understanding the player's mind in connection with the game's different facets, analyzing market trends, providing feedback for today's world's best athletes, as well as the consumers. I need to respond to the demands of the professional players, as well as the Swiss senior club player. I follow closely the requirements of products, and I seek answers to questions such as how to match products to the individual player's ability and how to enhance performance and while maximizing the joy of playing tennis. What does the player require from his/her product? What are the deciding factors for tennis players and consumers when choosing one brand's product over another? My job is to not only answer these questions, but bring in different perspectives and angles to various individuals according to their abilities.

During the 2012 London Tour Finals, PACIFIC Tour Coach Robert Davis (long-time Coach of Aisam Qureshi) held a kids clinic instructing young tennis learners how to mount a grip band. It starts with the simple things.

Q: It seems that racket and string technologies have evolved tremendously. Companies are always introducing new models, different technologies with flashy names. I can't even count all the different names given to the various stringing materials. How do you keep up with all this?

A: Actually, the shape of tennis rackets has practically not changed throughout the last 50 years, while materials absolutely did! Back in the days, rackets were wooden, heavy, and not comparable at all to today's high-tech frames. Then came along a racket made from aluminum, then another from carbon, and yet another from graphite. Eventually, the manufacturing process was industrialized because the technology side became too important for the business.

In 2009-10, PACIFIC acquired Fischer Racket Division, a company who has equipped Slam winners such as Michael Stich or Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Starting the company's first own racket production in 2010, PACIFIC and Asa.Tec, a research and development company specializing in raw materials, pioneered in utilizing basaltic fibers during the process of racket manufacturing. In a highly complex process, volcanic rock is melted and extruded in the form of continuous fiber which is then strategically positioned in PACIFIC tennis rackets, providing enhanced comfort and precise feedback. In short, you asked me how I keep up with all the developments. We are part of the innovations and actively involved in the developments, thus it our job to know everything inside and out.

Q: Considering all your interaction with the players, have you seen any players express strange concerns, or make unusual demands with regards to their equipment?

A: Absolutely. There is this one top female contender, who does not want her grips being touched and prepared for the match by anyone other than her coach! There are several tour players out there who do not want anyone to touch their match rackets other than their trusted personnel or entourage.

Roger Federer was one of the first players to consequently change frames before every ball change because his preferred string tension drops during match play. Today's tour players are very sensitive with their materials, and I mean this in a positive sense. Same with coaches, physical experts and trainers; with regards to material, no stone is left unturned in order to enhance performance. Material experts and specialists are brought in to tweak here and there in order to figure out little advantages for the player.

Q: Bastian thanks for your time. We will keep in touch. Any last word to the readers?

A: Thanks for your time, and my best advice to the readers: pay attention to details when you get your equipment, and try at least a few varieties before settling on one.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 10:24 AM | Comments (2)

April 21, 2014

Outlandish October Predictions

Ah, baseball season. It's a great time of renewed hope for many fans. So long as a team can stay close to .500 by the end of May, the hope remains. But for some teams, a quick start can mean the fantasy of an October run. For some teams this is an annual hope. For others, well, it's been a while. But let's look at a few teams and their chances of staying at least warm.

Milwaukee Brewers

At 12-5, the Brewers are off to the best start in baseball. I didn't see that coming. Mainly this has been the product of excellent pitching. In 17 games, the Brewers already recorded 13 quality starts — best in MLB. They are also first in WHIP (1.09), third in ERA (2.63), and fifth in batting average allowed (.220). Their hitting has been about average (70 runs scored is ranked 13 in MLB).

The rotation simply looks like it has over-performed. Yovani Gallardo has been a good pitcher throughout his career, but don't expect his ERA to stay at 1.46. Wily Peralta is a pitcher who may be having a breakout season. Last year, he was 11-15 for the Brewers with a 4.37 ERA and a WAR of -1.1. But the 24-year-old Dominican has good stuff. If he can stop giving up the long ball, he could be dangerous.

Marco Estrada is another young arm that could see some improvement this season. What worries me about the Brewers' rotation is that the two players most prone to be the ace of the rotation are Kyle Lohse and Matt Garza. Lohse is a veteran journeyman who had three great seasons (and two mediocre) seasons in St. Louis. His performance last year of 11-10 with a 3.35 ERA and nearly 200 innings is nothing to sneeze at, but he's more of a number two or three in the rotation than an ace. Garza is in the same boat. At times he is brilliant, but he has never been consistent enough to be an ace. He'll have an ERA between 3 and 4 and that's just the way it is.

If the Brewers want to compete for the NL Central crown, either Peralta or Estrada will have to break out and become the ace of the staff. Lohse, Garza, and Gallardo just aren't going to do it. I doubt the Brewers will win the division. The Cardinals are just too good. But they could compete for a wildcard spot if the Pirates and Reds stay cold. I think the Brewers will finish between fifth and eighth in the National League.

New York Yankees

They're not that hot at 10-7, but anybody on top of the AL East is in a good position. And considering how gutted this team is from last year, well it's surprising they are winning games. And it's not surprising at all considering this is the New York Yankees. The Yankees have a balanced approach — performing above average in most batting and pitching statistics.

The question for the Yankees is staying healthy and the big question mark is Michael Pineda. He looks pretty imposing, but the guy hasn't pitched since 2011. He's prone to another injury. If he gets one, I doubt the Yankees will make the playoffs. But if he stays healthy, look out. The Yankees can always manage to find hitting somewhere. CC Sabathia looks like he's on the downward slope of his career, but the Yankees would be a terribly dangerous team to meet in October. If they can stay healthy and survive the AL East, look out.

Atlanta Braves

The Braves success is by no means guaranteed, but along with the Dodgers and the Cardinals, they look like one of the favorites for the National League. But we'll see if the Nationals can make a better push to challenge them for the division title this year. The Braves are a solid organization with a pitching staff that looks pretty good right now. They are even better than Milwaukee's over-performing crew.

Currently, the Braves are first in ERA (2.28), first in quality starts (13), second in WHIP (1.11), and second in batting average allowed (2.13). But much like the Brewers staff, the Braves have some up and coming talent and a couple of veterans who are good, but nobody that has proven to be an ace. However, Julio Teheran could very well be that guy. This season will tell a lot about Teheran and the Braves' future. Oh, and Freddie Freeman can hit the crap out of the ball. So that's good for the Braves. If I had to pick an early World Series champ, I'd probably go with the Braves.

A few players have also showcased red-hot electricity in the early part of the season. But are these flashes in the pan or prolonged quality showing forth?

Chris Colabello

Where did this guy come from? The Twins finally have a real designated hitter by the look of things. In 16 games, Colabello already has seven multi-hit games, and four multi-RBI games. He is first in the AL with 19 RBI and fifth in batting average at .350. I don't expect these numbers to stay so high, but if Colabello can keep his strikeout numbers down and draw a few more walks, I think a season with 120 RBI and a .300 batting average would be within reach.

Giancarlo Stanton

The 6'6", 240-pound right fielder looks like the LeBron James of baseball. What a beast! Currently, Stanton is batting .329 with an OBP of .390 with s6 home runs and 26 RBI (best in MLB). Stanton's biggest problem in the past is simply that he plays for the Marlins. In 2011, Stanton had 34 home runs and a batting average of .262, but only managed 87 RBI. In 2012, Stanton had 37 home runs and a batting average of .290, but only managed 86 RBI. (Granted, that was in only 123 games.)

Staying healthy is a concern as Stanton only saw 116 games in 2013. But I can't believe this guy has never managed 100 RBI. He's over a quarter of the way there already in just over 1/10 of the games this season. I think he'll make it this season, but he probably won't make it to his projected number of 248 RBI, but 140 might be within reach if the Marlins continue to put guys on base for Stanton to knock home. If Stanton can keep his average above .300 and the Marlins aren't one of the worst five teams in baseball (not terribly likely), Stanton might make an interesting NL MVP pick.

Mark Buehrle

At age 35, Buehrle is off to a great start in his second year in Toronto. He pitched Saturday afternoon, but as of Saturday morning he was 3-0 with an ERA of .086. Buehrle is a workhorse, pitching 200 innings each of the past 13 seasons. He's always been pretty good, but he's only made the all-star roster three times (2002, 2005, 2009) and he's only started four post-season games. In 2005, he finished fifth in the Cy Young vote, but hasn't received a vote in any other season. He's not the type of guy you expect to go 24-3 with a 2.00 ERA (not that you really expect that of anyone). But he could have one of those years with how he has started. In general, Buehrle just gives up too many hits to post those numbers. He has allowed the most hits in four out of 13 seasons. So maybe 20 wins, maybe an ERA under 3, maybe even his best season ever. Is that enough to win the Cy Young? Why not?

Kyle Gibson

The Twins are on shaky ground with Colabello and Kyle Gibson off to such great starts, but only managing an 8-8 record to start the season. And despite Gibson's 3-0 record, 0.93 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, and .179 batting average against, the Twins are still 28 in ERA with a 5.04 average. Aside from Gibson's two quality starts (he only went five innings in his first outing), there are only three others in the Twins first 16 games. Sorry, Twins fans, but don't be surprised if Gibson ends the season 10-15 with an ERA of around 4. He might not be that bad, but he's too good to be true right now.

Aaron Harang

Harang is with his sixth team in five years. He's been 16-6 and he's been 6-17. Last year, he was 5-12 with an ERA of 5.40. He's currently 3-1 with an ERA of only 0.70. He may very well thrive in Atlanta, but this guy will wear down as the season goes on. He can certainly hover around 3.50 ERA and win 15 games, but he's no Cy Young candidate. Unlike Gibson who might be the Twins only hope, Harang has a pretty good rotation around him with veteran Ervin Santana, and up and coming stars Alex Wood and Julio Teheran. Last year, at only 22-years-old, Teheran was 14-8 with a 3.20 ERA and 170 strikeouts. The kid could prove to be a real star. In the end, I think Harang might very well be the fourth best starter on the team. So don't expect more than 15 wins out of him.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 2:54 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2014

Foul Territory: "Free" Agents

* Full Mettle Jacket — Bubba Watson won the Masters with an 8-under 280, earning his second green jacket. Watson earned $1,620,000 for the win, then celebrated with a meal at the Waffle House. Watson later became the first golfer to simultaneously appear on the covers of both Golf Digest and Golf Digestion.

* Unintentional Grounding, or This Kind of Behavior Won't Fly — San Francisco 49er Aldon Smith was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport on Sunday after he indicated he was in possession of a bomb. Smith later clarified that he was bombed, and didn't have a bomb.

* Oh (cho) Canada! — Chad Johnson joined the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League on Thursday, signing a two-year contract after a successful three-day minicamp. Johnson worked out, but, in the end, we'll be sure to find it didn't work out.

* Open Up and Say "NCA-Ahhh," or Okay the Buffet, or Happy Meals — The NCAA's legislative council approved a proposal to expand the meal allowance for all athletes to provide unlimited meals. The proposal would allow athletes, such as Connecticut's Shabazz Napier, to stuff everything into their mouths, particularly socks.

* CJNY — Former Tennessee Titan Chris Johnson signed a two-year deal to join the New York Jets. It's the first time in years that Johnson, who once ran a 4.24-second 40-yard dash, has "turned on" the jets.

* I.O. Drew, or He'll Have to Go Deep, Into His Pockets, or Owe, Snap! — An arbitrator on Tuesday ruled that DeSean Jackson owes former agent Drew Rosenhaus over $500,000. Jackson learned the hard way that there's no such thing as a "free" agent.

* He Already Puts the "Buff" in "Buffoon" — Donald Trump says he would consider buying the Buffalo Bills, and would keep the team in Buffalo. Bills fans said they would prefer that he get the "D," "T," and "F" out of Buffalo.

* Is There a Draft in Here? — The Connecticut Sun drafted Stanford's Chiney Ogwumike with the No. 1 pick in Monday's WNBA draft. The draft was the first since 2008 in which fans were allowed to attend, meaning the league succeeded in making its product more "watchable."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)

April 16, 2014

Sports Are Bad For Us

About two weeks into the new baseball season, the Milwaukee Brewers are hot, but the early theme is probably injuries, particularly those that require Tommy John surgery. The Atlanta Braves have been particularly hard-hit, but they're not the only team that's now planning surgery and re-shuffling the rotation.

About a year ago, Eno Sarris wrote a piece titled Every Pitch is Bad For You. His theory was that pitching injuries aren't about cutters or curveballs or any other specific pitch, but about the act of pitching itself: "Pitching is an unnatural movement that puts unnatural stress on the elbow and shoulder joints." Sarris wasn't talking about simply throwing a ball, but about throwing a major-league quality pitch. It's a fascinating idea, really, and there's considerable evidence to support it.

Pitchers injuries are perhaps the greatest puzzle in baseball. Over the last 150 years or so, rotations have grown larger, outings have gotten shorter and complete games have become less common, and use of relievers — especially multiple relievers — has become standard. Today's players use weight training, consult nutritionists, and have access to advances in sports medicine that would have been revolutionary even a single generation ago. They have experienced coaches, they use pitch counts, and their managers don't hesitate to call upon the bullpen. So why aren't pitcher injuries decreasing? With all these advantages, all these new techniques, pitchers today get injured as often as ever.

You can find parallels in most popular sports. Football players are better-conditioned than ever before. They have better protective gear, better training techniques, great doctors paying attention to them. Injury rates are as high as ever, and we're still learning about the dramatic risks of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Sprinters in track meets routinely pull up with hamstring injuries and other muscle issues. In almost every sport, injuries are becoming more common, not less.

Every level of athletics from high school up commits a comparable amount of time to their sports. Pros practice the most, of course, but a college athlete has hours-long practice or a game, probably six days a week. High school isn't far behind. Why do the best in the world get injured as often as teenagers who are still learning how to play?

The explanation is simple: sports are bad for us. There are certain things the human body wasn't designed to do. Run 30 miles an hour, leap 30 feet, throw 100 mph. High-level athletes suffer major injuries at many times the rate of low-level athletes. The competitors in the best physical condition, with the finest training facilities and the best doctors, get hurt more often than kids on varsity.

So how do we protect pitchers? I agree with Sarris: every pitch is bad for you. Breaking stuff is probably worse than fastballs, but the pressure put on an arm to accurately deliver a 95-mph fastball to a major league hitter is going to stress that person's body. Today's pitchers throw more violently than they did in the era of four-man rotations and complete games. I don't believe the breakthrough is coming. We'll continue to get better at treating injuries, but preventing them is just going to get harder.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:15 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 8

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished seventh in the Bojangle's Southern 500 and held on to the lead in the Sprint Cup points standings. He leads Matt Kenseth by 1 point.

"I'm surprised Kenseth didn't win a race sponsored by Bojangles," Gordon said, "because he knows chicken better than anyone.

"But the 'Drive For Five' is still alive. And if I win the Sprint Cup title, you can best believe I'll ride off into the sunset. If not, I might call it a day, anyway."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt took second at Darlington, posting his fifth top-three finish of the season. Earnhardt is fourth in the points standings, 26 behind Jeff Gordon.

"I'm sponsored by the National Guard," Earnhardt said. "Is Kevin Harvick sponsored by the Navy? Because his wife curses like a sailor.

"As Harvick proved, tires were the most important factor in winning. Maybe we should have put on those extra two tires. I guess you could say we failed. Of course, it's surely not the first case of 'blown' tires this year."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson took the lead with a two-tire pit stop on a caution with ten laps to go at Darlington. Harvick eventually chased down Johnson and passed Dale Earnhardt, Jr. for the lead on the final lap. Johnson finished third and is now fourth in the points standings, 27 behind Jeff Gordon.

"I'm still winless on the year," Johnson said. "But winning isn't everything. Otherwise, I'd have everything. Harvick can have his four tires; I'll take my six Cups. Unlike those tires, those Cups will last forever."

4. Kevin Harvick — Harvick's four tire pit stop on the final caution at Darlington proved the difference. Harvick, restarting fifth, chased down Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt, Jr, to secure the win in the Bojangle's Southern 500.

"We were 'great' in 'Darlington,'" Harvick said. "Taking four tires was a 'good decision.' Those weren't the only 'G.D.'s' heard at Darlington.

"Gene Haas of Stewart-Haas Racing is planning to field a Formula 1 team in 2015. Gene's got the money to make it work. He's loaded. He has to be. Reportedly, he couldn't pay Tony Stewart enough to have Kurt Busch as a teammate."

5. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth claimed fourth at Darlington, posting his sixth top-10 result of the year. He is second in the points standings, trailing Jeff Gordon by a single point.

"The call Darlington Raceway the 'Lady In Black,'" Kenseth said. "They call Delana Harvick the 'Lady in Blue' because of her language. Harvick may be the best driver never to win a Cup championship. Maybe he's cursed."

6. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished 13th at Darlington, as Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle was the only Ford in the top 10. Edwards is third in the points standings, 19 behind Jeff Gordon.

"How is Delana Harvick like the Aflac duck?" Edwards said. "They're both 'fowl-mouthed.'"

7. Kyle Busch — Busch finished sixth at Darlington, joining Joe Gibbs Racing teammate Matt Kenseth, who finished fourth, in the top 10. Busch is sixth in the Sprint Cup points standings, 28 out of first.

"My brother Kurt was wrecked by Clint Bowyer," Busch said. "Rest assured, Kurt won't take that lying down. Or at least not before an open-handed slap takes him off his feet."

8. Joey Logano — Logano blew an engine with 10 laps to go at Darlington and finished 35th, 15 laps down. He fell four spots in the points standings to eighth, 52 out of first.

"Hey," Logano said, "I wasn't the only one cursing my blown engine."

9. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski finished 17th at Darlington on a disappointing day for Penske Racing. Teammate Joey Logano suffered an engine failure, while Keselowski dealt with handling issues late in the race.

"With no top-10 finishes in the last five races," Keselowski said, "I haven't looked like a Cup contender. We're heading to Easter for a much needed break, and hopefully I'll be a lot better upon returning. I'll call it a 'Kes-urrection.'"

10. Kyle Larson — Rookie of the Year candidate Larson finished seventh in the Bojangle's Southern 500, scoring his second straight top 10 and fourth of the year.

"I earned my Darlington stripe," Larson said. "The 'Lady in Black' always leaves an impression. But I think I did the same. Hopefully, this driver of the No. 42 Target car will leave a mark, and not just leave."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:16 PM | Comments (0)

April 15, 2014

A Modest Proposal

As we come to the end of the NBA regular season for 2013-14 and look forward to what promises to be an exceptionally high-level and competitive playoffs, fans should marvel at how entertaining it's been.

Based on league-wide averages as of Monday, the NBA is averaging 93.9 possessions a game and 100.9 points per game per team. It's been since 1995 that teams played that fast and since 1994 that they scored more.

The West, even in the Lakers-Spurs era of the early 2000s, has never been quite this strong or compelling. Out East, a season-long battle for home-court advantage has been nearly as strong and contributed to the league's best team rivalry, despite both clubs' fumbles in the final weeks. In addition to the top two seeds in each conference, Doc Rivers' Clippers look like a serious title contender. You could also make something of a case for Houston, depending on how effective Patrick Beverley is.

Coupled with the fact that so many teams play team-oriented basketball, and that the biggest names in the league are as marketable and likable as ever, the NBA is in about as good a position as it has ever been. But where the regular season has been one of the best in memory, it's also exposed some flaws in the league's structure that could use some tweaking. And with new commissioner Adam Silver saying that he wants to challenge the NFL's seat on the American sports throne, it's time to think outside of the box.

Tanking is the problem that gets the most attention, and is something I've written about in this space this season. And even though teams like the 76ers depleting their rosters to the point of absurdity has the unacceptable consequence of messing up competitiveness, we're still dealing with levels of bad. Would Philadelphia have lost 26 games in a row with Spencer Hawes and Evan Turner? Certainly not. But they may have only won 4-6 with them, or shut them down with "injuries." In any case, the Sixers were never going to be a playoff team this year.

However, the league's conference system does unequivocally mean that one of the league's 16 best teams will not make the playoffs.

After Monday night's thriller in Phoenix between the Suns and Grizzlies, the playoff field is set. The Suns, who defied all odds in a season in which they were supposed to be languishing with the Jazz and the Kings in the standings, will finish the season with 47 or 48 wins.

No matter how you shake it, nearly winning 50 games is an accomplishment in the NBA, and especially in this year's Western Conference. For Phoenix to miss the playoffs with what would have been the third best record in the East, or very close to it, is pretty ridiculous.

The fix for this problem is pretty straightforward, and I'm far from the first to suggest it. Just do away with the conference playoffs, and seed everyone 1 to 16. In a one-season vacuum, this leaves us with the following for first round matchups, before Monday night's games:

1) San Antonio vs. 16) Charlotte
8) Golden State vs. 9) Dallas

5) Miami vs. 12) Chicago
4) Indiana vs. 13) Phoenix

6) Houston vs. 11) Toronto
3) Clippers vs. 14) Brooklyn

7) Portland vs. 10) Memphis
2) Oklahoma City vs. 15) Washington

And look at what we've done. On the whole, these matchups are even more compelling than the actual likely first-round slate. Also, just look at some of the incredible storylines we've set up. Miami/;Chicago round one? Struggling Indiana against Phoenix in a massive clash of styles? Miami/Indiana in round two?! The Clippers having to face the surging Nets right off the bat? The only two series that might be unwatchable from a competitiveness perspective are Spurs/Bobcats and Thunder/Wizards.

But the hypothetical 16-team bracket leads me to one big question: Does the NBA even need conferences or divisions for organizing or scheduling purposes?

I don't think anyone would particularly care if divisions were done away with pronto. After the schmozzle at the end of the 2006 season, which saw the Clippers throw a game to face 44-win Denver and get home-court in the first round as the No. 6 seed instead of facing 60-win Dallas, divisions hardly ever matter anymore for playoff seeding. Besides, whenever I see the Mavericks' 2007 "Southwest Division Champions" banner, all I inevitably remember is a 67-win team falling flat on its face against the Warriors in the first round.

But for conferences, there'd be an unquestionably harder sell. After all, if we're talking about banners, Eastern Conference and Western Conference celebrations would go by the wayside in favor of simple "Finals appearances." But that shouldn't be what we're talking about. We should be talking about competitive balance. And a 47-win team in one of the best conferences in NBA history not making the playoffs while a 37-win club in a bad conference strolls in definitely doesn't qualify.

My solution is to do away with all geographical constructs. I'd want the season to be shorter, but the league most certainly does not. Assuming an 82-game slate, each team would mostly play everyone else three times. Since playing everyone else three times would result in 87 games, exceptions would be made on a rotating basis or if teams finished on opposite ends of the standings.

Wish you could have seen Sunday's Thunder/Pacers game one more time in 2013-14? Under this plan, it happens. That's not even mentioning all the other inter-regional matchups that would get played an extra time, like Heat-Spurs, Heat-Thunder, and so on. For the league's TV deals, those extra games would be invaluable.

What about travel, you ask? Orlando going to Portland, or vice versa, won't be the cheapest or the shortest trip. But in case you haven't noticed, teams are making money more now than ever before. There's a reason that even the Bucks and Kings are getting sold for about $500 million a piece. Teams can afford a couple extra road trips in a season.

Regional rivalries would also lose one meeting a year. But how often is it that a rivalry comes about when the stakes haven't been high or a playoff series wasn't involved? Never. Four years ago, Miami was a middling East playoff team, and Indiana was off the map. Now, it's the best rivalry in the sport. A single-table system with mostly balanced scheduling would allow any number of new, unexpected rivalries to emerge due to the stakes.

All of this isn't to even mention that each team's record would be a more accurate representation of quality. Right now, Chicago and the Clippers have about the same record against their respective conferences. It's obvious that the two are not made alike.

This direction would be especially unique in North American pro sports. After realigning into four divisions for this season, the NHL has gone with a mostly division-based format for the first two rounds of the playoffs. MLB has teams play nearly half of their games against division foes.

But more so that those leagues, the NBA is a national sport driven by top teams and top players, and has been for quite some time. To its part, the NBA recognizes this fact in promoting big games. If it took the next step and did away with conferences and divisions, fans, teams and the competitive integrity of the league would all be better served.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2014

One Whining Moment

After finishing an impressive run through the NCAA tournament, Connecticut's Shabazz Napier grabbed even more attention by using his moment in the sun to take a few final shots at the NCAA.

Named as the Final Four's Most Outstanding Player, Napier used his brief on-court interview with Jim Nantz to say, "...This is what happens when you ban us," referring to UConn's 2013 postseason ban for failing NCAA academic standards. Later in his open press conference, when asked about feeling like an employee or a student-athlete, Napier said he thought players should be paid a modest amount because, "...there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving."

Napier's barbs, separated just a few weeks from the progression of the Northwestern unionization push, emboldened many anti-NCAA-ists. But tempting as it may be to embrace any digs at college sports' antiquated system, we have to be discerning in which shovelers we back.

Napier's comment about going to bed hungry may illustrate the great hypocrisy of college sports, but it is hardly the smoking gun in the hand of a broken system many would like it to be. College is a time of relative poverty for many students, regardless of athletic participation.* Yes, NCAA rules like those restricting athlete employment probably complicate Napier's cash flow, and yes, eyes should roll when schools can sell a player's replica jersey but he cannot be paid for his own likeness, but I think the direct line from those rules to not having enough money for food makes some grand and flawed leaps.

(*There's an enormous discussion about students' reliance on debt to get through school and the decreasing value of college overall you might inject here, but I don't think Napier was invoking it.)

Can we do better? Of course. But the superficial (and TV-friendly) argument Jon Stewart and others have crafted has more holes than the Swiss cheese they would have you believe the NCAA is taking out of Napier's fridge.

However, at least in that jab Napier touched on a plausible, if not well-developed, argument. But when he proudly boasted to Nantz that somehow UConn's 2013 postseason ban motivated the Huskies, he exposed an age-understandable immaturity. Again, I'm willing to have a discussion not only about the machinations of the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate (APR), a score by which college teams are rated in their progress toward graduation, but also the silliness and relevance of even trying to standardize academic progress in the first place. But right or wrong, these are the current rules NCAA teams are bound to. Napier's post-championship griping struck me as impulsive, frustration-born, and the kind of thing I also might have said in a fiery moment when I was 22.

And that's where I substitute Napier's accountability for those who have used his comments as some sort of field evidence of the NCAA's failings. I can sympathize with a young man attacking a crumbling, cruel monolith in a moment of passion and bravado. But I expect more out of supposed thought leaders and agenda setters, even if I share their cynicism for the NCAA.

There's a reason even the most vile, guilty criminals get a fair trial in our society. By presenting evidence and coolly reasoned cases, we leave no question as to the justification of punishment. I believe the NCAA will eventually be forced into concessions as the public becomes increasingly aware of and outraged by its outdated framework. But this has to be achieved through real discussion, like that around Northwestern's football players, rather than heated insults that demonstrate circumstantial guilt at best. The false dichotomy that any shots fired at the NCAA are good ones only confuses that discussion.

Look, I'm excited for the bubbling prospect of sweeping college sports reform that seems intractably inevitable. But if those that share this excitement want to do so from the perceived logical and moral high ground, we have to be selective in picking our examples.

Give Shabazz Napier credit: he cleverly used a high-profile platform and a swelling progressive wave to gussy up his grievances against the NCAA. But if justice is the goal, even deserving targets like the NCAA have to be spared stray slings and arrows.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)

April 11, 2014

Foul Territory: Pins and Needles

* When the Raiders Say They Need to Spend Money on the "Black Hole," They May Not Be Referring to O.Co. Stadium — Johnny Manziel visited the Oakland Raiders, who have the fifth pick in April's NFL Draft. Manziel, forecast to be a top-10 pick, is expected to make more with one signature in the NFL than he did with all of his signatures in college.

* Going, Going, Gone (That is, The Baseballs, Out of the Stadium, Not Braun, Out of Baseball) — Milwaukee Brewers slugger Ryan Braun blasted 3 home runs and drove in 7 runs in a 10-4 win at Philadelphia on Tuesday. When asked about it, Braun said he felt like he was hitting the ball off a tee. Or, to use another golf analogy, he had a "good lie."

* Pros and UConn,or UConn Territory, or Anarchy on the UK — Connecticut beat Kentucky 60-54 on Monday to claim the NCAA Men's Championship. Following the game, Shabazz Napier verbally chided the NCAA for banning the Huskies from last year's tournament for low test scores. Napier received an "F" for humility.

* 40 and Oh!, or Girls, Undefeated — The Connecticut women capped off an undefeated season with a 79-58 win over Notre Dame to win the women's NCAA championship. The Huskies recorded 25 assists as a team, proving that despite the UConn men's graduation rate, there is some passing in Storrs, Connecticut.

* They Flipped the Script, That Was Out of Character, or Pin State, Dead Man Sulking — The Undertaker lost for the first time at WrestleMania on Sunday when he lost to Brock Lesnar. It was the Undertaker's first loss in 22 WrestleMania matches. Most people reacted with shock to the 'Taker's loss, with many saying, "You can't be for real!"

* No. 1 With a "Gun," or He's Got Range, While Some Other Knicks Guards Are on the Range — The Knicks' J.R. Smith set an NBA record with 22 three-point attempts in New York's 102-91 loss to the Heat on Sunday. Raymond Felton's wife spoke for everyone when she screamed "Don't shoot!"

* Say it Ain't, So-So Joe, or Pist-On, Pist-Off — Joe Dumars resigned as general manager of the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday. Dumars joined Isaiah Thomas on the list of former Pistons to run a team, into the ground.

* It Was the Shot Heard 'Round the World, Until Jose Canseco Started Giving "Shots" 'Round the Ass — Major League Baseball celebrated the 40th anniversary of Henry Aaron's 715th home run on April 8th. Reigning home run king Barry Bonds commended Aaron by saying, "You creamed 755 balls, and they all cleared the fence."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:08 PM | Comments (0)

April 10, 2014

Hank Aaron's Hard-Earned Honor

It really has been 40 years since Hank Aaron laid waste to Al Downing's 1-0 service and Babe Ruth's career home run record. Forty years since Milo Hamilton's immortal holler, through the din of Fulton County Stadium, "There's a new home run champion of all time, and it's Henry Aaron!" Forty years since Aaron rounded the bases, accepting handshakes from every Dodger infielder, and plunged into a crowd at home plate that included, somehow, and much to his surprise, his mother. Forty years since Vin Scully, the Dodgers' broadcaster whose team had just become the victim as Aaron swung into history, purred inimitably:

"He means the tying run at the plate now, so we'll see what Downing does ... Al at the belt now, and he delivers, low, ball one. And that just adds to the pressure, the crowd booing. Downing has to ignore the sound effects and stay a professional and pitch his game ... One ball, no strikes, Aaron waiting, the outfield deep and straight away. Fastball — and a high drive into deep left center field, Buckner goes back, to the fence, it is gone!!! ... (long pause during crowd noise and fireworks) ... What a marvelous moment for baseball, what a marvelous moment for Atlanta and the state of Georgia, what a marvelous moment for the country and the world. A black man is getting a standing ovation in the deep South for breaking a record of an all-time baseball idol. And it is a great moment for all of us, and particularly for Henry Aaron, who was met at home plate not only by every member of the Braves, but by his father and mother ... It is over, at 10 minutes after nine in Atlanta, Georgia, Henry Aaron has eclipsed the mark set by Babe Ruth."

Forty years, since the unconscionable pressure of mental cases plying Aaron with hate mail for daring to even think about passing the Sacred Babe; of racists plying him with hate mail and death threats and death threats nasty enough to require police and even FBI protection for the unassuming outfielder whose career wasn't so much a career of bigness but of sustained excellence. Forty years, since his own team strove to cheapen a one-time-only achievement by putting the gate ahead of the game.

Aaron entered 1974 needing one homer to tie and one more to pass the Babe. The Braves entered 1974 bent on making damn well sure he could only do both before the home audience, the Braves' first homestand due to begin after a season-opening visit to Cincinnati. Boy, wouldn't that have been great for the gate at old Atlanta Fulton Country Stadium!

Three New York sportswriters (for the record: Dick Young, the New York Daily News; Dave Anderson, the The New York Times; Larry Merchant, the New York Post) denounced the plan without softening their prose or apologizing for their stance, and ramped up a drumbeat on behalf of convincing then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn thwarting the plan. Furman Bisher of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution led the counterattack and denounced the New York writers as "meddling Manhattan ice-agers" who would do better to demand the cleanup of Times Square before criticizing the sainted Braves.

This hadn't exactly been unheard of in baseball to that point. When Stan Musial was striking toward his 3,000th career hit, the Cardinals were playing the Cubs in Wrigley Field and Musial shot 2,999 his first time up in the second game of the set. Cardinal manager Fred Hutchinson elected to sit Musial in the final game of the set, with the Cardinals due for a home-stand to follow, unless he needed Musial to pinch hit. W.C. Heinz, once a New York Sun sportswriter who'd since turned to magazine writing, put it this way to Red Smith (then of the New York Herald-Tribune):

"Maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but it seems to me Hutch is sticking his neck out. His team got off to a horrible start and now it's on a winning streak and he's got a championship game to play tomorrow, without his best man because of personal considerations. Not that the guy hasn't earned special consideration, but from a competitive point of view I think it's wrong. If the Cardinals lose tomorrow, Hutch will be blasted. He'll be accused of giving less than his best to win and it will be said the club rigged this deliberately for the box office, gambling a game away to build up a big home crowd."

As things turned out, the Cubs were up 3-1, the Cardinals had a man on second, and Hutchinson sent Musial up to pinch hit. Musial hit the sixth pitch of the sequence for an RBI double. Hutchinson lifted him for a pinch-runner; the Cubs stopped the game to pay Musial tribute; and, the Cardinals kept the rally alive and went on to win the game. Musial had been allowed to do it the right way, after all. Back home in Sportsman's Park the following night, Musial got an elongated standing O from the home audience and thanked them with a launch over the right field pavilion.

Smith would have something to say, too, when Kuhn stepped in and ordered the Braves not to even think about sending out a lineup lacking Aaron:

"He explained to [Bill] Bartholomay what self-interest should have told the Braves' owner, that it is imperative that every team present its strongest lineup every day in an honest effort to win, and that the customers must believe the strongest lineup is being used for that purpose. When Bartholomay persisted in his determination to dragoon the living Aaron and the dead Ruth as shills to sell tickets in Atlanta, the commissioner laid down the law. With a man like Henry swinging for him, that's all he had to do."

Thus did Aaron appear in the Opening Day lineup against Jack Billingham, a Cincinnati pitcher against whom he'd already had 4 home runs lifetime. Aaron merely drove one over the left field fence in that very first at-bat to tie Ruth, vindicate Kuhn, Young, Anderson, Merchant, and anyone who believes in honest competition, and receive a pleasant commemoration from Kuhn after he finished rounding the bases.

Braves manager Eddie Mathews, a longtime Aaron teammate as it happens, sat him for the second game of the set, provoking Kuhn to order Mathews back into the lineup for the series closer. Aaron missed fair and square, when Cincinnati's Clay Kirby struck him out twice and lured him into a ground out. And home went the Braves. First time up against Downing, in the second inning, Aaron walked and scored on an error. Come the fourth, Aaron squared Downing up for the milestone mash.

Downing earned his living with a fastball that tailed away from right-handed hitters and crawled in on left-handed hitters. This time, it didn't tail away.

And with one smooth, unadorned, unaffected swing, Aaron demolished a fastball, the ball sailing parabolically into the left center field bullpen. With the same swing, he demolished all the mental cases, all the racists, and (there were a few) all the baseball Luddites to whom shoving Ruth to one side in the career bomb record books was even more blasphemous than had been Roger Maris shoving Ruth to one side in the single-season record book thirteen years earlier.

But he also demolished his own team's shabby pretentiousness and, running four bases, stood foursquare for earning his milestones the old fashioned way. And once he made his way through the home plate crowd of adoring teammates, he got hit with a big kiss on his face from his mother, Estella. "I don't remember the noise," Aaron said later.

"Or the two kids that ran on the field. My teammates at home plate, I remember seeing them. I remember my mother out there and she hugging me. That's what I'll remember more than anything about that home run when I think back on it. I don't know where she came from, but she was there."

On April 8, 1974 Atlanta, the South, the United States, and the world learned where Hank Aaron came from. To remember how honorably as well as how courageously he got to meet, greet, and pass Ruth would be nothing less than his due.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)

World Cup Preview, Groups A and B

With the World Cup scarcely over two months away, it's time to roll out the previews. In this first of a four-part series, I will be looking at groups A and B.

Group A

CAMEROON — I don't know if they are the worst squad in the entire field, but they were ranked the lowest (59th in the FIFA rankings) when they qualified. And they might be the worst. They failed to qualify for this year's African Cup of Nations, losing ignominiously to Gabon and Congo-Kinshasa along the way. In their only friendly so far leading up to the World Cup, they were thrashed by Portugal 5-1 in March.

Still, they have some nice players who ply their trade on European powerhouses, including Alex Song (Barcelona), Nicolas N'Koulou (Marseille), Henri Bedimo (Lyon), and Joel Matip (Schalke).

But make no mistake, this is 3-time African Player of the Year Samuel Eto'o's team, he of Chelsea and previously of Barcelona and Inter. He's their all-time leading scorer though he's still only 33.

Fans of the worldwide nature of the sport owe Cameroon a debt of gratitude. Their shock win of Group B in the 1990 World Cup, complete with a quarterfinal run and a win over Argentina, paved the way for more non-European and non-South American berths to be added to the competition.

CROATIA — The Croats are, perhaps, a bit lucky to be here. They finished second in their qualifying group, meaning they needed to win a two-legged playoff with another second place finisher to qualify, and they drew plucky Cinderella Iceland for that. They won 2-0 on aggregate.

Compounding matters for Croatia is they will be without perhaps their best player, Mario Mandzukic, for their opener because he did this.

The opener will also be the opening match of the tournament, against home-standing and hungry Brazil. If you draw the hosts, it's unlucky. If you draw the hosts for the opener, it's double unlucky. If that host was formerly a pre-eminent world power that has fallen off of late and has something to prove, yikes.

Really, whether they make it to the knockout stage depends on whether they win their match against...

MEXICO — Talk about being lucky to be here. They squeaked in as the fourth place CONCACAF qualifier, beating New Zealand in an inter-continental playoff. And they would not have even achieved fourth place if not for a stoppage time goal by their archrivals, the U.S., in their game against Panama on the last day of qualifying.

Still, they absolutely hammered the Kiwis in that playoff, winning 9-3 on aggregate, and they are undefeated in their last six matches. The future is bright, too: they won gold at the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Interesting trivia about Mexico: They have made it to the Round of 16, and no further, in the last five World Cups. That's what I see happening again.

BRAZIL — The fact that Brazil is only ranked 9th in the world seems bizarre at first glance. But then, it's been awhile since they've done much damage in the World Cup, bowing out in the quarterfinals in the last two. The quarterfinals is also all they could manage in the 2011 Copa America.

Consider, though, that it's difficult to pick up ranking points when you don't play any meaningful games, and as hosts, Brazil has been exempt from qualifying and can only pick up ranking points in friendly matches.

The one exception to their friendlies tour was last year's Confederations Cup, which they won with stunning ease. They went undefeated and won every match save one by at least two goals. They beat Spain 3-0 in the final. Spain, who wins everything.

This would seem to indicate they like home cooking, and they are going to get it. In their last 14 matches, Brazil has 13 wins, one loss, and no draws. They are very much back.

Predicted Order of Finish

1. Brazil
2. Mexico
3. Croatia
4. Cameroon

Group B

AUSTRALIA — Cameroon may have qualified with the lowest FIFA ranking, but Australia holds it now among World Cup participants (63).

Recent results have not been pretty. They've lost three in a row, including one to 98th-ranked China. Prior to that, they did enjoy a seven-match unbeaten run, but their only win against a fellow World Cup team in that span was in a home friendly over Costa Rica. Prior to that, but still within the past eight months, they endured back-to-back 6-0 defeats to Brazil and France.

This squad features exactly two players among their current squad and recent capped call-ups that play for one of the big European leagues, and one of those is a goalkeeper with 8 caps for Liverpool and 4 for his country. They will be lucky to get a point.

CHILE — Uruguay may object to this characterization with their recent successes, but South American football basically features Brazil, Argentina, and 2-3 countries to take turns in relevance among the rest, save Bolivia and Venezuela.

Right now, Chile is one of the countries taking their turn. They have quietly built their FIFA ranking up to 15th, and more quietly made the knockout round in the last World Cup, albeit in a weak group.

They are a ho-hum 2-2 in their last four, but they can be forgiven in the two losses — one goal defeats to Brazil and Germany — and one of the two wins was a 2-0 victory over England in London.

Alas, this group is too top-heavy for a return visit to the knockout stage, I fear. But that only means a) they can make the biggest statement in Chilean football history by proving us doubters wrong, and b) as they are lead by a pair of 25-year-olds (defender Mauricio Isla and striker Alexis Sanchez), the future is very bright indeed.

SPAIN — What can I tell you about Spain that you do not already know? They are ranked No. 1 in the world. They won the last World Cup and the last two European Championships. For some of these countries, I mention a couple players who feature for European heavies. For Spain, that's essentially "everybody."

But I think we are starting to see chinks in the armor. On March 5th, they had a nice 1-0 home win over Italy. Prior to that, their last 8 games featured just two opponents currently ranked in the FIFA top-20, and Spain didn't win either (the 3-0 loss to Brazil in the Confederations Cup final that I already mentioned, and a 2-2 draw with Chile last September).

Perhaps most worrisome of all was their November loss to South Africa. I figured they had sent a B team to Johannesburg, but no — they fielded seven players who started in the 2010 World Cup final. They aren't looking indomitable anymore, and I do not think they will win the group.

NETHERLANDS — It's somewhat inevitable that even the group stages in any World Cup will feature some marquee matchups, but man — Spain vs. Netherlands? That would be, if you don't recall, a rematch of the 2010 World Cup Final.

I've talked a lot about recent form for these teams. The Netherlands lost to France (in Paris) in March. Before that, they enjoyed 17 straight matches without a loss, a streak that went all the way back to August 2012.

If anything gets in the way of Holland, it might be the injury bug. Robin Van Persie, perhaps the biggest star on a squad, like Spain, that is full of stars, is trying to shake off a knee injury he suffered on duty with Manchester United, and midfielder Kevin Strootman is already a World Cup scratch.

If Van Persie gets back to 100%, however, that should be enough.

Predicted Order of Finish

1. Netherlands
2. Spain
3. Chile
4. Australia

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)

April 9, 2014

Tourney Learning

On Tuesday morning, the basketball world woke up to center itself on Storrs, Connecticut once again. For the second time in four years, and the fourth time in 16 seasons, the Huskies became the rulers of men's college basketball (only to be joined by the women's team Tuesday night). Just like all other NCAA tournaments, this one left us with a gaggle of moments to relive and analyze. Media outlets throughout the stratosphere are taking their own lessons from this year's Field of 68. I'm here to do the same. There are five items that I'll take away from the past three weeks and will hold me over until November, when we all get to go through it again.

1) The Region of Redonkulousness

As I sat down to watch the Selection Show on March 17th, I wondered what gifts the tournament committee had wrapped for us fans. Who would be the fourth 1-seed? What were the 5-12 matchups? Where would the potential dark horses line up? You know ... typical stuff. Then, halfway through the program, the Midwest Region was unveiled. My jaw tumbled to the floor as school after school popped up on the screen. I said to myself, "This is the most loaded region I can ever remember seeing."

Now, granted, I've only been following college basketball for about 20 years. But even in that time, I can't recall seeing a region that included the defending champion, the defending national runner-up, a national semifinalist from the previous year, and the preseason number one team all in the same quadrant. And, to be honest, it played like a region of doom. The fact that Kentucky got out of it only prepared them to play in Dallas all the more.

2) Mid-Major Love

With the continued fracturing of the conferences we all grew up knowing, it's inevitable that more teams from mid-major, basketball-first conferences will find ways to grab more spots in the tournament field (and yes, I'm putting the new Big East Conference in that category again). But it wasn't the fact that these leagues got more bids than in recent years past (they didn't), it was the amount of respect that they were shown.

The Big East received three at-large bids to go along with surprising auto-bid Providence. The Atlantic-10 got as many at-large bids as the ACC, Pac-12, and Big Ten (5). In that specific grouping, Massachusetts received a six-seed (even with some struggles in the second half of the year) and Dayton got in without having to play in Dayton (the 11-seed got one of the last byes into the field despite many wondering about their resume).

3) Don't Go Westward, Young Men

A pattern continued to show itself in the NCAA champion. In the first 36 NCAA tournaments (1939-1974), 10 colleges located west of the Mississippi River won 20 of the awarded trophies. And yes, I understand that UCLA's nine titles during that stretch must be included in those numbers. However, since 1975, when the NCAA allowed more than one team pre conference to enter the bracket, 5 schools have accumulated just 7 of the 40 championships available.

It wasn't just that the western half of the country couldn't manage to win a title this year. That side of the country only had one chance to reach the Final Four (Arizona). I realize that the vast majority of conferences, schools, and players reside in the eastern third of the U.S., but I'm pleading for the Left Coast, Rockies, and Plains to step your game up. Right now, if you want a shot at a banner, you've got to stay or head East.

4) Blast From the Past

I may not have thought it before the tournament. It may sound like sour grapes at this point (because I had this team out in their second game). This season's Kentucky Wildcats, at its core, turned out to be the 1991-1992 Michigan Wolverines in all but four ways. First, their seedings didn't quite match up (UM was a 6-seed compared to the UK 8-seed). Second, the hype in the rankings didn't follow the same path, either (UM was preseason #20 in 1991, UK was preseason No. 1 this past November). However, both teams shared a common thread.

The Fab Five and the "Big Blue Boys" (as I will now call them) got off to very promising starts in the non-conference before struggling in the slog of conference play (UM finished 11-7 in the Big Ten in '91-'92, while UK was 12-6 in the SEC this season). The rigors of those seasons, though, took hold when the pressure of the tournament ramped up. The infamous Wolverines won four of their five victories by 7 points or less. This year's Wildcats got all of their wins by seven points or fewer (including the Aaron Harrison parade of clutch game-winners). But, in the end, both teams wound up one victory short of an historic feat.

Oh, and as for those other big differences? I don't believe the Big Blue Boys will have their Final Four run vacated by the NCAA. I also don't think that this group of frosh will stick together to make another Fab Five-style run to the national title game.

5) Redefining Royalty

Three months ago, I tried to take a look at the world of conference realignment through the eyes of Connecticut men's basketball. To be honest, I wasn't too high on their future and still think that they're getting the short end of the stick. But they also did the one thing that could help the conference as a whole ... win a national title. This could and should help keep the overall profile of the AAC at the forefront of everyone's minds for a little while.

This is also a huge boost to UConn's brand. After winning the 2011 championship, I saw some articles discussing how the Huskies' program had joined the blueblood ranks of college hoops. Now, with a fourth title in 16 years, I think it's time to readjust our thinking even more.

The royal court of this game is fairly evident. The mainstays include UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Indiana. My newcomers would be Duke, Louisville, and Connecticut. The mainstays are rich and deep in the history and roots of the sport, while the newcomers have dug their own path over the last 35 years of so. But the game, along with how a champion is crowned, has changed quite a bit since the late 1930s.

Going back to that impact point of 1975 (the first tournament which allowed multiples teams from the same conference into the field), your outlook really changes. Four schools have won four championships in that 40-year timespan. Two are "historical" bluebloods (Kentucky and North Carolina). The others are "new school" bluebloods (Duke and, now, Connecticut). As it sits now, this fact alone should put Storrs as one of the top two or three locations to be for men's college basketball. And if coach Kevin Ollie doesn't spurn his alma mater for the NBA, UConn might just close the title gap on other members of the royal court sooner rather than later.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 7:41 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 7

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jeff Gordon — Gordon took the lead on a late two-tire pit stop, but was unable to hold off Joey Logano, with four tires, down the stretch at Texas. Gordon's runner-up finish, his second of the year, moved him to the top of the points standings.

"I still like our two-tire strategy at that point," Gordon said. "If you put on four Goodyear tires there, the odds of one of them exploding is doubled.

"Texas Motor Speedway has a 12-story high HD video screen. If it displays a picture of Jeremy Mayfield, would that be considered "high" resolution?"

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson's No. 48 Chevrolet suffered early damage as debris from Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s wreck damaged the front of his car, including the windshield. Johnson eventually finished is 25th, two laps down, and is now sixth in the points standings.

"Talk about 'dirty' air," Johnson said. "I'm so vanilla, this is the closest anyone's come to getting the dirt on me. Usually, when there's mudslinging, there's a Busch brother involved, often followed by a right hand to the face. But there's a fine line between SOB and SOD."

3. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished 14th in the Duck Commander 500 while Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle took sixth. Edwards is now third in the points standings, 12 behind Jeff Gordon.

"The whole Duck Dynasty Robertson clan was at the race," Edwards said. "They've created an empire out of good old-fashioned hard work and homophobia. But my car owner is not a fan. In fact, he's banned all references to the show. Some may consider it an overreaction, but Mr. Roush disagrees. It's a natural reaction after someone says 'Hey Jack!' to you for the millionth time."

4. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished third at Texas on a solid day for Joe Gibbs Racing, and Kyle Busch and Denny Hamlin came home third and 13th, respectively. Kenseth is now second in the Sprint Cup points standings, four out of first.

"Did I hear correctly?" Kenseth said. "Did a duck give the command to 'Start your engines?' Of course, why should I be surprised? It's the Duck Commander 500; I should expect a 'duck call.'"

5. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski lost a shot to win the Duck Commander 500 when he was nabbed for speeding on pit road during the race's final caution. Instead of his second win of the year, Keselowski went home with a 15th.

"My hood got blown up by a jet dryer," Keselowski said. "That's two races in a row in which my hood wouldn't stay down. If it happens again, I might have to write a book about it, from the perspective of a misplaced hood. The book, which will be endorsed by NASCAR's 'Drive For Diversity' program, will be called 'Tales From the Hood.'"

6. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt blew a tire after going too low on the apron into the soft, rain-soaked infield at Texas Motor Speedway. The No. 88 smacked the wall and caught on fire before Earnhardt escaped unharmed. He finished 43rd, and tumbled two spots in the Sprint Cup points standings to sixth.

"It was a mistake on my part," Earnhardt said. "I put the nose of the No. 88 car in the grass, and the results were disastrous. That's not always the case with Junior Nation. Ask one of my fans about a 'faceplant' in the infield, and many will tell you it's a good thing.

"There's not a lot of margin for error with the Goodyear tires. Apparently, my tire was punctured by a blade of grass."

7. Joey Logano — Logano charged past Brian Vickers and Jeff Gordon on a green-white-checkered finish to win the Duck Commander 500 at Texas, earning his first win of the year. Logano is now fourth in the points standings, 28 behind Jeff Gordon.

"The 'Bread' is sliced," Logano said, "and Vickers and Gordon were diced. It's an honor to win such a prestigious race. It was an historic win, also. It was the first race in NASCAR history in which the winner's trophy outweighed the winner."

8. Kyle Busch — Busch started 29th and led 10 laps on his way to a third-place finish at Texas. He holds the fourth spot in the Sprint Cup points standings, 28 behind Jeff Gordon.

"Luckily," Busch said, "tire wear was not much of a factor in the Duck Commander 500. Thank heavens for that, because it prevented someone from calling the race the 'Rubber Ducky 500.'"

9. Brian Vickers — Vickers posted his best win of the year with a fourth in the Duck Commander 500.

"Those jet dryers wreaked havoc at Texas Motor Speedway," Edwards said. "It was a welcome relief for NASCAR officials. Finally, something else was responsible for blowing hot air. By the way, do jet dryers run on jet fuel? I bet Michael Waltrip can answer that."

10. Kyle Larson — Larson finished fifth at Texas, the best finish among rookies in the Duck Commander 500. It was his second top-five of the season, placing him two short of Juan Montoya's total from last season in the same No. 42 car.

"I'm NASCAR's only Japanese-American driver," Larson said. "I may be a rookie, but I fear no one or no thing, not even Godzilla, whose image is sure to adorn a car with the release of the new Godzilla movie upcoming. I'm guessing it will be on a Toyota."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 6:42 PM | Comments (0)

April 8, 2014

The HOF Case For Ricky Watters

A few years ago, I wrote a column in which I ranked Ricky Watters the 29th-best running back of all time, and in 2012, I wrote that I believe Herschel Walker, Terrell Davis, and Tiki Barber should join the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and after them, "I don't know that I'd consider any" RB a Hall of Fame snub. So while I acknowledge Watters as a fine player, it's a little strange that I'm writing a column about his Hall of Fame qualifications.

Do I think Ricky Watters belongs in Canton? If the Pro Football Hall of Fame were subject to my unilateral whim, I'd probably have him in there. Watters could get in and it wouldn't bother me. He can stay on the outside and I won't lose any sleep over it. But most fans don't appreciate what a great player — what a consistently great player — Ricky Watters was. After a rookie year spent on injured reserve, he played nine full seasons, 1992-2000, which doesn't sound like a lot but is pretty good for a featured running back, plus an injury-shortened 2001.

You probably don't think of Watters as a serious HOF candidate, but here's a challenge: what was his worst season? Pick one, then remember that he had eight full seasons which were even better. His nine healthy seasons, in chronological order:

1992: A second-round draft pick out of Notre Dame, Watters quickly established himself as an impact player. Teammates compared him positively to Roger Craig and Bo Jackson. A December article in Sports Illustrated seconded the comparison: "By filling a void in the Niner offense, the all-purpose back role in which Roger Craig excelled in the championship years of the late 1980s, Watters has helped restore San Francisco's offense to No. 1 in the NFL." Of the 13 players who rushed for at least 1,000 yards in 1992, Watters had easily the best average per carry, his 4.92 coming in comfortably ahead of Thurman Thomas' 4.77. Before you ask: Barry Sanders averaged 4.33. Watters added 405 receiving yards, and scored 11 touchdowns. He fumbled only twice, compared to 4 for Emmitt Smith, 6 for Sanders and Thomas, and 9 for Barry Foster.

1993: Watters rushed for 950 yards (12th in NFL), averaged 4.57 yards per attempt, gained 326 yards receiving, and scored 11 TDs, 2nd-most of any running back. In the playoffs, he rushed for 5 TDs against the Giants, a postseason record that still stands.

1994: The obvious "worst season" answer, since Watters set career-lows for rushing yards (877) and average (3.67). But in '94, Watters gained 719 receiving yards and scored 11 touchdowns. If you say this was his worst year, you're choosing a season in which he gained the 5th-most total yardage of any RB, scored the 4th-most TDs, made his third straight Pro Bowl, made the cover of Sports Illustrated, and scored three touchdowns in the Super Bowl.

1995: In his first season with Philadelphia, Watters ranked top-10 among RBs in rushing yardage (6th), first downs (t-4th), and TDs (t-4th). The Eagles improved from 7-9 to 10-6, and Watters scored two TDs in a playoff win over the Lions. The 49ers, who advanced to the NFC Championship Game every year with Watters, lost their first playoff game.

Watters was frustrated with his limited role in San Francisco (218 attempts per year), and the Eagles made him a workhorse (325 att/yr), but his rushing average, a superb 4.74 after his first two seasons, never bounced back after '94. From 1994-99, his yardage per carry stayed remarkably steady: 3.7, 3.8, 4.0, 3.9, 3.9, 3.7. Those are not good averages, but Watters made up for it with volume (337 att, 1273 yds), receiving (62 rec, 434 yds), and consistent scoring production (12 TD). If you played fantasy football in the mid-90s, Ricky Watters would have been a first-round pick every year, and if you played PPR, he would have been top-5.

1996: His best season, with career-highs in rushing yards (1,411) and TDs (13). He had 444 receiving yards, too; Watters gained over 400 receiving yards in six of his nine full seasons, and over 300 in each of the other three. The only other running backs with nine 300-yard receiving seasons are Walter Payton, Marshall Faulk, and LaDainian Tomlinson, plus a few receiving specialists (like Larry Centers) who weren't true RBs.

1997: This is among Watters' weakest seasons. He rushed for 1,110 yards, which was 10th-best in the NFL. He averaged 3.89 yards per carry, 13th out of the 16 thousand-yard rushers that season. He scored 7 TDs, the lowest total of his career to that point. He did add 440 receiving yards. If this was the worst season of Watters' career, it was one in which he was a top-10 rusher, led his team in TDs, and gained 1,550 yards from scrimmage.

1998: In his first season with the Seahawks, Watters had another top-10 rushing season (1239 yds), upped his TDs (9), and caught 52 passes for 373 yards.

1999: In my opinion, probably his worst season. Now 30 years old, his stats were in line with previous years: 1,210 rushing yards (9th), 3.72 average (12th out of 14 thousand-yard rushers), 387 receiving yards, 7 TD. Good season. But in the early-mid '90s, those were top-five stats, and by the end of the decade they were borderline top-10. This was still a nice year — Watters gained almost 1,600 yards — but he didn't really stand out any more.

2000: You may recall that 2000 was initially remembered as The Year of the Rusher. There were 23 thousand-yard rushers and eleven 200-yard rushing games, both records. Marshall Faulk won MVP, Corey Dillon broke the single-game rushing record, Mike Anderson set some rookie records, and Eddie George made the cover of Madden. It was madness, but Watters kept up. He rushed for 1,242 yards, outside the top 10, but his average rebounded (4.47) and he posted the second-best receiving season of his career (63 rec, 613 yds). Even in the context of a big year for RBs, it was a very good season.

So what do you think? Which was Ricky Watters' worst season? Even in his worst years, Watters was a top-10 running back, and that is extremely rare. Using yardage, without any other stats, is a limited and flawed way to evaluate seasons, but it works as a very basic measure, so below are the ninth-best seasons — by yards from scrimmage — for the greatest RBs who began their careers between 1989-95:

Terrell Davis, Rodney Hampton, and Robert Smith all played fewer than nine seasons, so they're not listed.

Total yardage is a simple way to organize this, but there's some room for disagreement on which was actually, say, Curtis Martin's ninth-best year. Maybe you think it was '98, or '02, but it was somewhere in this statistical neighborhood. Martin's career actually is comparable to Watters'. Martin played 10 healthy seasons, Watters 9. Martin had most of his value in rushing yards, Watters had a lot of his as a receiver. Neither was ever the best RB in the NFL, but they were both among the leaders throughout their careers. Martin's career was better than Watters', but only by about that one extra year. Martin was an easy choice for Canton. Watters is borderline.

I judge players on their productive seasons. Any pro running back can have a year like Charlie Garner's 1994. That's just padding the numbers, and it doesn't count for much in my book. Even Bettis and Emmitt ... those are BenJarvus Green-Ellis seasons. They're okay, but any full-time starter can post numbers like that. All you have to do is play the whole season without getting benched. Ricky Watters never had a year like that. He had nine impact seasons, which is special.

Watters doesn't have huge career numbers, because he didn't have any hang-around years. But he rushed for 1,200 yards five times, gained 1,500 yards from scrimmage seven times, and scored double-digit TDs five times. Contrast that with Jerome Bettis, who rushed for 1,200 yards four times, gained 1,500 yards from scrimmage three times, and scored double-digit TDs twice. Watters had easily twice as many impact seasons. But Bettis had half a dozen hang-around years. I don't think those should count for nothing, but Watters gaining 1,500 yards in a season meant a lot more to his team than Bettis gaining 1,500 over the course of two seasons.

Despite the short career, Watters rushed for over 10,000 yards and added another 4,000 as a receiver, with 91 touchdowns. Here's the list of players in the 10,000/4,000/90 Club: Walter Payton, LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Marcus Allen, Thurman Thomas, Ricky Watters. That's three of the greatest RBs in history, two more Hall of Famers, and Watters.

Watters barely meets those standards, though, so let's soften the requirements to put Watters near the middle of the group: 8,500 rushing yards, 3,000 receiving yards, 70 TDs. That adds Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Tony Dorsett, Edgerrin James, Steven Jackson, and O.J. Anderson. Watters ranks near the middle of a group with 11 very good running backs, including at least eight Hall of Famers (assuming LT is a lock).

As long as we're at it ... in NFL history, there are 18 players with five 1,200-yard rushing seasons, and 14 of the other 17 are in the Hall of Fame or not yet eligible. Twenty RBs have five seasons of double-digit TDs, and 17 of the other 19 are in or not eligible. Only eight players have gained 1,500 yards from scrimmage seven times: Jim Brown, Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Ricky Watters. That makes seven Hall of Famers — six of them first-ballot — and Watters.

I don't feel strongly about Ricky Watters getting into the Hall of Fame. But I don't believe there are another 10 running backs who had so many good seasons, and it seems pretty clear that Watters is being underrated by the HOF voters, who have never advanced him even to the Semi-Finalist round. A lot of people didn't like Ricky Watters, and many voters judge RBs by one statistic: career rushing yards. Because he didn't have hang-around years, and because so many of his contributions came as a receiver, Watters' career rushing yards are good but not eye-popping. He was also an excellent postseason player, but that doesn't show up in the stats, and he didn't win Super Bowl MVP, so with most people it counts for nothing. Watters was a special player, and he deserves more respect, including serious consideration for the PFHOF.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 11:12 AM | Comments (0)

April 7, 2014

Fresh Faces For the WTA

Despite the title of the article, for many, it could not come sooner. After years of Serena Williams' supremacy and the duo of Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova specializing in failed attempts to dethrone the American, but excelling in the shrieking department, the WTA desperately needs an injection of new and fresh faces into the spotlight.

Fret no more! They are slowly but surely arriving. Three of them were at the Charleston WTA Tournament's semifinals, but their road to greatness has been progressing for some time now.

Furthermore, they don't act like unattainable, superior divas. They actually spend more time praising their opponents in the after-match conferences than the lack of quality in their own game. They don't necessarily believe the sport revolves around them — read as "I won because I am great, I lost because I played bad, and the girl on the other side of the net is of no consequence." They behave far more mature than today's star players did when they were up-and-coming hopefuls.

Eugenie Bouchard is neither jumping up and down for minutes after a win, nor sporting a bitter-face accompanied by comments on how bad she played without a word of credit to her opponent. If you wish to be impressed by the composure and the maturity of a young player in front of cameras, just observe one of her interviews. Belinda Bencic, at 17, keeps her emotions at check whether she saves a match point or chokes one away. You don't hear the 20-year-old Jana Cepalova complain about being without a coach, a family in her box, or the lack of a hitting partner while she travels in a foreign country playing tournaments. She goes on her business and reaches the finals in Charleston, not to mention defeating Serena Williams, Elena Vesnina, and Daniela Hantuchova on her path.

In fact, if it was not for the title-winner Andrea Petkovic mentioning in her after-match speech how much she admires Cepelova for accomplishing that without anyone on her corner, not many people would have even been aware of that remarkable anecdote. You are not likely to witness Caroline Garcia, the 20-year-old French player, talking about how "embarrassed" she is, after losing to a player ranked lower than her.

These upcoming and fresh faces constitute what WTA Tour desperately needs. The top players of today ignore the fans for the most part, unless they are fulfilling a contract requirement dictating that they smile for pictures and have a few moments with a number of hand-picked fans for a certain function or a cause. They cannot stand each other and maintain no friendly contact other than the handshake at the end of the match. The other players have expressed many times how these few divas harbor a considerable distance from the rest of the players. When your peers cannot even identify with you, it is naïve for the WTA to expect fans to do so.

John Isner said at the Cincinnati tournament that the top players in the ATP were all "class guys" and that everyone got along incredibly well. Juan Martin del Potro confirmed Isner's observation. They both talked about how they admire each other as people and as players. Friendships among the top players are well-known. They also don't mind staying on the court after their practice sessions and after matches to accommodate as many fans as possible, signing autographs. This brief reference to the ATP equivalent of how top players behave was simply to preemptively answer the handful of fans of those divas who will attempt to strike back with the feeble "the top women's players' job is not to entertain fans" argument. Fans love to watch Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, David Ferrer, and others, because they interact with fans, and remain attainable to the average tennis fan.

It is obvious that the WTA needs a major facelift in terms of who represents its stardom. Being noteworthy athletes can only carry your popularity so far and will prove fatal when the attention begins to diminish. The interest in women's tennis is nothing like it used to be a decade ago, and there are no notable rivalries (please do not say Williams vs. Sharapova).

This up-and-coming group is talented, athletic, personable, and spectacular to watch. If you have not yet watched Bencic's sizzling ground strokes, Cepelova's drop shots, Garcia's ability to accelerate the ball, Simona Halep's footwork, and Zarina Diyas' calmness on the court, and Sloane Stephens' powerful ground strokes, you do not need to worry. You will get plenty of chances to see them in the near future. I will predict — for the WTA's sake as much as my own — that by the spring of 2016, we will see a different layer of players fighting for the big titles while the divas of today will be trying to come to terms with what is hitting them. Moreover, instead of hearing yet again the excuses with regards to their games, tennis fans will embrace the change of layer at the top of the women's game.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)

April 3, 2014

Final Four: Throw the Stats Out

The NCAA website features a section devoted entirely to college basketball statistics; a feast for basketball geeks everywhere.

The problem is, for this year's Final Four, it means little.

Most NCAA tournaments are hard to predict ... it's why Warren Buffett threw down a billion-dollar challenge to the nation. This year's version, however, might've surpassed them all. Most all of ESPN guessed Michigan State would cut down the nets in Jerry World. They were wrong. Out of millions of brackets, very, very few picked the rarity of a seven seed (UConn) and an eight seed (Kentucky) reaching Arlington this weekend.

Statistic lovers have to be a little bit baffled. Not one of the four teams remaining is in the top 50 teams offensively. Not one is in the top 50 in field goal percentage. Defensive-oriented teams dominated this season but even then, only Florida has a top 25 defense.

It seems as, if anything, the stats are good for just a game or two. Had one seen that the top shooting team in the tournament was North Dakota State, maybe more would've picked that second round upset. Had one seen that Stephen F. Austin was one of the best teams in assist-to-turnover ratio, they'd have given the Lumberjacks better odds to take down the hectic havoc that is VCU (though no one would've guessed that four point play near the end of regulation).

Ken Pomeroy's ratings certainly weren't that bad this season. He had this year's Final Four ranked first (Florida), sixth (Wisconsin), eighth (Kentucky) and 15th (UConn). He also had Tennessee ranked seventh and, given the run the Vols made, that was a nice pick. However, if anything, Pomeroy proved his rankings would've made for much better seedings than the NCAA's committee rankings, which proved, if anything, to be out of sorts.

Still, the old adages remain as to how to pick a successful bracket. And this year's tournament seemed to break all the rules.

The sum of your Final Four seeds should add to 10 or below. This year, that sum is 18.

Pick teams with veteran point guards. Kentucky's band of freshmen are dancing in Dallas. Aaron Craft and Ohio State were knocked out in the very first round.

Assist to turnover ratio is a great indicator of tournament success. Only Wisconsin was ranked in among the top 50 teams in this category. The Badgers were sixth.

The only adage that seemed to hold true? The continued greatness of the 12 seed. Had NC State not epically collapsed, the five seeds could've all bowed out to the four 12 seeds.

So, as we approach this weekend, you can certainly pick your favorites and make guesses on statistics. Like a team that rebounds well? Kentucky led the nation. Like a team that goes to the foul line often? Kentucky led the nation in that, as well.

Like a team that doesn't beat itself? Wisconsin was fourth in the nation in fewest turnovers; none of the other teams were ranked remotely close.

Like a team that's just overall sound defensively? Florida's defense is third best nationally. Wisconsin's and UConn's barely crack the top 40. Kentucky is way down the list.

As for UConn? They aren't found often on the statistical side of things. However, they do have one statistic that demands recognition: a win over Florida. Wisconsin's got the other one.

It's educated guesses. It's fun to decipher and guess. But in the end, just throw the books out.

When the Harrisons go up against Frank Kaminsky, just sit back and enjoy. When Florida tries to avenge their loss to the scalding hot UConn Huskies, let the numbers fade. Four teams are going to slug it out. One will emerge champion. The rest will play out on its own.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 4:15 PM | Comments (0)

April 2, 2014

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 6

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — After two straight races outside the top 20, Earnhardt finished third at Martinsville and reclaimed the lead in the Sprint Cup points standings. He leads Matt Kenseth by 9.

"I'm thinking about taking Graham Rahal's Indy car for a spin," Earnhardt said. "I doubt Junior Nation cares too much about seeing me in an Indy car. They don't care about open wheels, just open containers."

2. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led 296 laps at Martinsville, but couldn't hold off Kurt Busch down the stretch. Busch took the lead with 10 laps to go and Johnson took second. Although winless on the year, Johnson is fifth in the points standings, 18 out of first.

"With eight wins at Martinsville," Johnson said, "I'm practically a sure thing. Ironically, 'automatic' lost out to 'automation,' that being the No. 41 car sponsored by Haas Automation. I couldn't hold Busch off. I drove the wheels off the No. 48 Lowe's car. Kurt drove the hood off the No. 2 Miller Lite car."

3. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished 13th at Martinsville, leading the way on a disappointing day for Roush Fenway Racing. He is third in the points standings, 10 out of first.

"Brad Keselowski and Kurt Busch had quite a battle," Edwards said. "They exchanged sheet metal, insults, and fingers. And speaking of 'birds,' the No. 99 car with the Aflac duck on it should be one of the favorites at the Duck Commander 500 at Texas. If we win, you could call it the 'Duck Commandeer 500."

4. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth posted his fourth top-10 finish of the year with a sixth in the STP 500. He moved up three places to second in the points standings, and trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 9.

"Denny Hamlin had some metal removed from his eye," Kenseth said. "And that calls for some 'cornea' jokes. I think it was glass. That may explain the 'Who shard-ed?' buttons that the No. 11 team wore at Martinsville. Many are questioning Denny's character, accusing him of only caring about himself. Well, let me tell you, Denny's passed the 'eye' test, and he's passed the 'me' test."

5. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski's No. 2 Miller Lite car suffered major damage early when Kurt Busch plowed into it as Keselowski was trying to leave the pits. With his front end wrecked, Keselowski finished 38th, 31 laps down, and fell three places in the points standings.

"Kurt won a grandfather clock for his win," Keselowski said. "Trust me, his time is coming. When I see him next, there will be one hand on his nose, and one hand on his mouth."

6. Joey Logano — Logano continued his strong year with a fourth at Martinsville, aided by a solid qualifying run of third. He is seventh in the points standings, 40 behind Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"I doubt we've heard the last of the Brad Keselowski/Kurt Busch incident," Logano said. "Brad's angry. Kurt's just as angry, if not angrier. How can you tell? Because he's got his ears pinned back."

7. Jeff Gordon — Gordon suffered front-end damage early at Martinsville and struggled the rest of the way, yet managed a 12th-place finish. He is fourth in the Sprint Cup points standings, 11 out of first.

"Texas is next on the agenda," Gordon said. "They're calling it the 'Duck Commander 500' in honor of Duck Dynasty. Robertson family patriarch Phil Robertson is set to wave the green flag. However, there's no chance in hell he'll be waving the 'P-Flag.'"

8. Kyle Busch — Busch started on the pole at Martinsville and led some early laps before handling issues stifled his efforts. He eventually finished 14th and is now sixth in the points standings, 38 out of first.

"Congratulations to my brother Kurt," Kyle said. "That was an impressive win. He held off Martinsville master Jimmie Johnson. This pasty white boy's not hip to the current street lingo, but this seemed to be a case of 'Bro's Before Lowe's.'"

9. Kurt Busch — Busch bounced back from early contact with Brad Keselowski to pass Jimmie Johnson with 10 laps to go, and won the STP 500 at Martinsville.

"Unlike some drivers who are expecting children," Busch said, "I don't have a baby on the way. But there was a 'baby' in the way. I'm sure Brad will say I haven't heard the last of me. That's okay, because he has heard the 'first' of me.

"Kyle started in the lead, and I finished with the lead. That's great publicity for Sprint's new cell phone plan. But neither of us has any friends, so it's not the 'Framily' plan, it's just the 'Family' plan."

10. Austin Dillon — Dillon posted a solid 15th in the STP 500, the top finish among rookies at Martinsville. He is ninth in the points standings, 48 out of first.

"I really wish I could have won the race," Dillon said. "Then I would have a grandfather clock to go with my grandfather. Without Richard Childress, I doubt I would be in a Sprint Cup car right now. He's no clock, but he does tell me when it's 'time.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

April 1, 2014

Dalton is Bengals' QB of the Future

A column recently ran on SI.com with the absurd title The Bengals Are Crazy For Thinking Andy Dalton is Their QB of the Future. I didn't read it originally, because ... well, because that's absurd. I wouldn't read an article called "Up Is Down," either. It's a waste of time. Although frankly, "Up is Down" would be a much better title. What professional writer gives his article a 14-word headline?

But that headline got under my skin. I had to read it for the same reason I had to look at an article claiming the AFL's passing game was less exciting than the NFL's. The premise of the piece is that the real Andy Dalton is the one who played badly in his three playoff games, not the one who played well in his 48 regular-season games. I noted this in January, but I think it's worth reprinting — among Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the Super Bowl Era, half of them won zero playoff games in their first three seasons as starter: Joe Namath, Bob Griese, Dan Fouts, John Elway, Steve Young, and Warren Moon, plus Peyton Manning and Drew Brees after they're enshrined.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the Bengals should give up on Dalton because they haven't won any playoff games in his first three seasons. The same logic would have encouraged the Colts to unload Peyton Manning ... before he won four MVPs and a Super Bowl. That's not just short-sighted, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how sports work. The Broncos could have given up on Elway after they lost his first playoff game, 31-7, and lost their next playoff when Elway threw a late interception that was returned to the 2-yard line and set up the game-winning touchdown. Hall of Fame coach Don Shula lost his first three championship games. So did Tom Landry. There are a dozen examples like this.

If the author intended to suggest that Dalton can't play under pressure, I would remind him that Dalton led TCU to two bowl wins and was named Offensive MVP of the 2011 Rose Bowl — a game with 20,000 more people in attendance than any of his NFL games. The Rose Bowl was, up to that point, by far the biggest game of Dalton's life, and he choked so badly that he was named MVP.

Now, here's a list of starting quarterbacks who led their teams to the playoffs in each of their first three seasons: Dan Marino, Bernie Kosar, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton. Of the previous three, you've got a Hall of Famer (Marino), a Super Bowl champion (Flacco), and a guy who reached three AFC Championship Games as starter (Kosar). Elway didn't reach the postseason in each of his first three seasons. Neither did Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana or Tom Brady. From a wins perspective, Dalton is one of the most successful young quarterbacks in history.

Greg A. Bedard, who wrote the SI.com piece, rightly points out that Dalton was backed by a good defense. However, Bedard also claims that Dalton benefitted from throwing to Mohamed Sanu. "On offense, Dalton had the pleasure of dropping back behind one of the league’s best pass-blocking units ... and he also threw to targets such as A.J. Green, Giovani Bernard, Marvin Jones, Mohamed Sanu, Jermaine Gresham and Tyler Eifert ... [Dalton] has been the one impediment [for] a roster dripping with talent."

A.J. Green, I'll give you. But then you've got a rookie running back, two nobody WRs, and a couple of middle-of-the-road tight ends. This isn't exactly the Greatest Show on Turf that Dalton's working with. He has one of the best wide receivers in the NFL, and a bunch of guys who are basically average. It's nowhere near the supporting cast he'd have somewhere like Dallas or Denver. If you swapped Dalton with Russell Wilson, would the Bengals have been a stronger contender than the Seahawks? Bedard is sure the answer is yes.

But if Jim Plunkett, Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Eli Manning, and Joe Flacco can lead teams to the Lombardi Trophy, surely Dalton can do the same. He's only 26, and it's foolish to assume that he's already peaked and will never improve. Dalton is one of the most accomplished quarterbacks, through three seasons, in the history of professional football. Most passing yards, first three NFL seasons:

1. Peyton Manning, 12,287
2. Dan Marino, 11,431
3. Andy Dalton, 11,360

Manning, Marino, and Dalton. That's some nice company. Most passing touchdowns, first three NFL seasons:

1. Dan Marino, 98
2. Peyton Manning, 85
3. Andy Dalton, 80

I don't believe Dalton is on the same path as Marino and Manning, but look, this is pretty impressive. Best TD/INT differential, first three NFL seasons:

1. Dan Marino, +54
2. Jeff Garcia, +41
3. Carson Palmer, +35
4. Matt Ryan, +32
5. Andy Dalton, +31

This is still very good. But let's get really unfair, and compare Dalton not just to rookies, but to everyone. Over the past three seasons (2011-13), Dalton ranks 10th in passing yards, 9th in TDs, 12th in TD/INT differential, and 12th in passer rating — all above average. If you were just going by stats, which QB would you prefer?

QB B is ahead in nearly every category: more completions, fewer attempts, more yards, many more TDs, better TD/INT differential, better rating, fewer sacks, fewer sack yards lost, more rushing yards, more rushing TDs, fewer fumbles ... it's not close, right? You probably guessed that QB B is Dalton. QB A is Joe Flacco.

Of course, I'm ignoring Bedard's real argument: that playoff football is fundamentally different from regular-season football, and ability to perform in the regular season is totally unrelated to performance in the postseason. "There is little question that Dalton has been good in the regular season, at times playing very well. The stats and the film study bear this out ... [Dalton] plays with zero confidence when the games matter most."

Andy Dalton has increased his yardage, TDs, passer rating, and win total every season. He is one of the best young QBs in the history of the game, he has never missed the playoffs, and he's making consistent progress. But Bedard sees a choker and a proven failure. He even claims that "everyone outside Paul Brown Stadium has sizeable doubts about [Dalton's] ability to win in the postseason." Up is down.

Perhaps the most ludicrous statement in his indefensible column was Bedard's contention that the Bengals were "ready to win big two years ago." I don't know whether he means 2011 or 2012, but does anyone really think the Bengals were a contender in either of those seasons? They had only just returned from the depths of mediocrity and worse. In 2010, Cincinnati went 4-12. Since drafting Dalton, they've improved to 9-7, 10-6, and 11-5.

The Bengals were underdogs in Dalton's first two playoff games, both on the road against a team with a better record. This year's loss deserves more blame, and Dalton was the most obvious problem, but that's one game. You can't infer any meaningful conclusions about a player from a single game. Dalton is only 26. He had a great rookie season, and he's gotten better each year. His team will be favored to win the AFC North again in 2014. Let's avoid throwing dirt on this guy's career for a little while.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)