T.O. Fiasco Sheds Light on Deeper Issue

I believe Dallas Cowboys star wide receiver Terrell Owens when he says he didn't attempt suicide Tuesday night, instead taking too many pain killers in combination with the numerous supplements he ingests. I believe his stay in the hospital was the result of an adverse reaction and not some attempt on his part to cram as many as 35 pills down his throat.

I also believe this latest chapter in the media circus that is T.O.'s life has shed some light on a subject nobody dares discuss: the issue of suicide and the psychological pressures of the professional athlete.

I took issue with his publicist's comment at the end of Wednesday's press conference in Valley Ranch, when she quipped, "He has 25 million reasons to live." It seems crass, inappropriate, and it sends the wrong message.

That message? All it takes to make a professional athlete happy is money.

That message has certainly been perpetrated, even by Owens himself. His rift with the Philadelphia Eagles last year centered around his desire for a new, richer contract. While I didn't disagree with his notion--coming back early from a broken ankle to play well in the Super Bowl is the closest I'll ever get to calling a football act heroic--he went about it the wrong way, and his reward was a three-year, $25 million deal with the Cowboys.

But the message of his publicist's asanine comment aside, this episode sheds light on the issue of suicide. I would venture to guess many of us have had to deal with suicide in one form or another in our lifetimes, whether it's losing a loved one or trying to save someone from suicidal thoughts to dealing with those thoughts yourself.

Five years ago, I lost one of the most important and special people in my life to suicide. It was a gut-wrenching reality, and to this day I don't think I'll never understand why anyone would willingly take their own life. It's a senseless, confusing act...and yet so many struggle with it.

I even struggled with thoughts of suicide not long after the aforementioned tragedy. But I recognized the signs early on and after several months of therapy (and a very strong support group in my best friend and my sister), I got through it. So on some level, I empathize with this ordeal.

I'll be honest and say I'm not the biggest T.O. fan in the world. He really fell out of favor with me last year when he threw Donovan McNabb under the bus and went all huffy over the Eagles not giving him a bigger payday. And now that he's a Cowboy, I cannot in good conscience root for him (on account of my loyalty to the Redskins).

But in this regard, I feel for him. Even if he didn't attempt suicide, I still feel for him.

There's the intense pressure of being a professional athlete. You make millions of dollars to play a sport at the highest level possible, and everyone expects you to be the best 24-7. The pressure can get to a player, and sometimes the result could be suicidal thoughts.
"Your job's always in jeopardy," Redskins fullback Mike Sellers told the Daliy Press (Newport News, Va.). "The way I treat it is like finals in college. Every day is a final. There's so many guys out there that want your job and are willing to do anything to get it that you've got to stay on top of your game."

But in T.O.'s case, things seem different. By all accounts, he's a player who seems to thrive on that spotlight and that pressure. He loves it when everyone focuses on him, and as such the rigors of being a professional athlete don't seem to phase him.

No...in the case of Owens, we examine his past for clues as to potential suicidal tendencies. His isolated childhood has been well-documented; his grandmother keeping him in the house, not knowing his father for so many years, being teased and bullied, constantly feeling abandoned and isolated.

For some people, that eventually builds up to a boiling point, especially if the person in question has no release. Some might say football is T.O.'s release, but I can't accept that all that baggage doesn't eat at him.

Attempted suicide or no, I think he needs help. To be fair, both the San Francisco 49ers and the Philadelphia Eagles have offered psychiatric help in the past, but he's denied it both times.

Therapy can be a difficult thing to accept, but I can say from personal experience it is greatly rewarding and something that has the ability to change one's life for the better. Even if T.O. didn't try to kill himself, I still think it would do him some good to consider this route.

And I think this situation sheds light on this for us all. Who hasn't felt isolated or abandoned in life? But if we start seeing that professional athletes can be just as fragile as the rest of us, maybe we can be braver in our everyday struggles.

Considering how many of us idolize professional athletes, going so far as to even call them heroes, such a thing seems plausible.

All the money in the world can't solve everything. I applauded New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez when he admitted several months ago to seeing a therapist. Clearly he didn't have it nearly as good as the masses thought, and I think it takes tremendous courage for him to go, as well as to admit he goes.

I urge everyone to examine this scare for Owens and consider the frailty of humanity--even the sect of humanity capable of sculpted muscles, tremendous athletic feats, and millions of dollars.

Just because Owens didn't try to kill himself doesn't mean we can ignore the reality of suicide. If Deion Sanders can consider suicide, then how susceptible are the rest of us?

Under Arrest For Doing Your Job

San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, famous for their two-year-long investigative story on the BALCO steroids scandal and the tell-all best-seller Game of Shadows, were sentenced to as many as 18 months in prison for refusing to reveal their source to a federal grand jury Thursday.

The sentence will not take effect until after the reporters appeal to a circuit court.

Now, bear with me, because I'm about to ask a very "duh" question: what exactly did Williams and Fainaru-Wada do wrong? Is there some law I'm missing that states reporters must reveal their sources?

I realize leaking grand jury testimony--which their source did in providing the reporters with the information used in both the Chronicle and Game of Shadows--is illegal, but we need to remember the reporters weren't the leak. Williams and Fainaru-Wada did not break the law; their source did.

But who is this source? The reporters aren't saying, nor should they. I studied journalism in college, and one of the first things I was taught was that you never reveal your sources. This won't really matter to the beat writers who spend their lives covering games and practices, but for the investigative journalists among us, this credo is gold.

Think about it: if these reporters talk to keep out of jail (which I don't think they will), their careers are over. Once they're out of jail, they can never be journalists again, because by talking and revealing their source, they've compromised a trust between reporters and their sources.

But more than that, whistleblowers as a whole won't be so quick to blow said whistle anymore, because they won't be certain whether or not the reporters they'd be dealing with would keep their confidentiality. If a source can't trust a reporter, that reporter's not going to get any information, and he won't be able to do his job nearly as effectively.

So the reporters would be right to keep their mouths shut and probably end up behind bars for some really asanine reason. Ignoring the potential societal impact their investigation has had, let's examine the nature of a grand jury testimony.

There are no defense attorneys in the room during a grand jury hearing, nor is there any media. The only people in the room during a hearing are the prosecuter(s), the judge, a clerk, the 12 jurors, and whoever's testifying that day.

So here's a novel thought...maybe the leak came from one of them? Maybe one of those several people were Williams and Fainaru-Wada's source?

And if that's the case, why not interview and investigate them to find out the leak, as opposed to picking on two harmless reporters who, by the very nature of their profession, are sworn to never reveal who they get their information from?

Because we need a scapegoat, and these days...who better to be that scapegoat than the media?

Never mind how their investigation into BALCO opened our eyes into how deep and prevalent steroid use is in professional athletics. Forget how their stories and their book brought about the beginnings of positive change, in the form of tougher testing and potential legislation.
And let's ignore President George W. Bush commending these men on a job well done; they won't give up their source, so they must be a menace to society and therefore belong behind bars.

Please!

And, having read both their Chronicle pieces and Game of Shadows, most of the information is prevalent in both. If anything, the book merely collects all their Chronicle work and puts it all in one place, so whoever wanted to read it could have it all right then and there without having to sift through archives and the like.

The point is, though, that Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did nothing wrong. They did not break the law, so as far as I'm concerned, they don't belong in prison. Whoever gave them their information does, however, even if I think going after the reporters to find out who the leak was is a pointless and fraudulent endeavor.

But to pick on the reporters? To me, that's the very definition of weak.

Changes at ESPN?

http://thebiglead.com/?p=986

The above link is a blog which describes a possible change in philosophy and personality at the Worldwide Leader in Sports. It raises some interesting points, mainly a potential shift in network philosophy resulting in fewer screaming heads and more programming focused on sports news and analysis.

I, for one, hope much of what the blog states is true.

An aspiring sportscaster myself, I view ESPN as the pinnacle of sports broadcasting, that anyone who lands an on-air gig in Bristol has, in essence, "made it." Musicians have headlining tours, actors have top billing in a big-budget feature. Sportscasters have ESPN.

But over the past several years, ESPN's various on-air personalities have been, at best, over the top. At worst? Annoying, contrived, and insulting.

Let's examine, for instance, Stuart Scott. When the unashamed Tar Heel made his way to ESPN back in 1993, I thought his style was fresh and creative. He stood out among the other SportsCenter, and I liked how he was appealing to a "hipper" demographic than many of the others.

But Scott, like so many other personalities at ESPN, has grown stale.
It seems today sportscasting at ESPN is less about the games and the stories and more about talking heads yelling over one another trying to make a point, and the point gets lost in the yelling. Take, for instance, the bulk of ESPN's afternoon programming:

1st and 10: An off-shoot of the pointless Cold Pizza, this half-hour program pits sports writers Skip Bayless and Woody Paige against each other as they "discuss" the ten top sports topics of the day. Pretty much all you need to know about this poor attempt at sports debate is Bayless hates Terrell Owens and Woddy's more funny than informative.

This show needs to go, and to be perfectly honest, so does Bayless.
Though I'm no more a fan of his writing than his "broadcasting," I would feel much better if he went back to being a newspaper writer.

Around the Horn: I will admit, I like this show, if for no other reason than the occasional humor it showcases. The idea was interesting enough; get sports writers from around the country to debate current sports topics. Does it generate into shouting matches? Yeah, and I admit, the host Tony Reali is a bit annoying (I prefer the show's orginial host, Max Kellerman), but it's somewhat of a guilty pleasure.

Pardon the Interruption: When both Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon are around, this is one of the best, most entertaining shows on ESPN. They started the trend of sports writers showing up on the Worldwide Leader, and though they too degenerate into shouting matches every so often, I love the chemistry Tony and Michael have, and the show itself is quality more often than not.

But where does ESPN go wrong? By over-doing the scream-and-argue element. I don't doubt there's an audience for it--there has to be someone out there watching Quite Frankly with Stephen A. Smith--but not everyone tunes into ESPN looking for that.

If anything, many of those segments are rendered unwatchable, partly because they're so frequent. I hated "Old School, Nu Skool," a SportsCenter segment pitting Bayless against Screamin' A. Even worse was "4 Downs," in which career backup QB Sean Salisbury berates John Clayton. I like Salisbury as an analyst (and I love how he ribs himself over his less-than-spectacular career), but that segment was brutal.

"Open Mike," which airs with Michael Irvin and Mike Ditka on Mondays during the NFL season is almost as bad, and I've quickly grown tired of Irvin's pro-T.O., pro-Cowboys tirades. He's the biggest homer I've seen at ESPN in years, and I would be more than happy to see him go (we miss you, Sterling Sharpe).

I'd be equally pleased to see Chris Berman go. His nicknames grew old when I was in middle school (wow, I'm dating myself here), and he's just not that good anymore. I realize he's been at ESPN from the beginning, and that engenders some loyalty, but come on...there comes a point where a guy can't do the job anymore, and I daresay Berman reached that point long ago.

I miss the old days of SportsCenter, where we had the likes of Keith Olbermann, Charlie Steiner, and Craig Kilborn. I was never much a fan of Kilborn's, but he was better than some of the other faces that have popped onto the show over the years.

And what about Dan Patrick? Does he not do SportsCenter anymore? I know he's got his ESPN Radio show, and he's gonna be doing an NBA show with Marc Jackson and Michael Wilbon, but he was at his best on SportsCenter.

And since I mentioned that NBA show, let's not punish Greg Anthony and Tim Legler, hm? It's not their fault they couldn't get a word in edge-wise on Kia NBA Shootaround because of Screamin' A. They're good analysts; let them have a chance to prove it. And I really hope John Saunders resurfaces on another show; he's a good one.

I'm glad part of ESPN's afternoon programming has gone to Outside the Lines: First Report. I've always appreciated Bob Ley's style of reporting, and I always come away from that show feeling like I learned something. It might not be as in-your-face as a lot of the other shows ESPN has put out lately, but it gets back to what the network was originally founded on.

In fact, I propose the following list of SportsCenter anchors and other ESPN personalities to keep. In my opinion, they best serve what ESPN is supposed to be about: the best, most in-depth sports coverage around.

-Dan Patrick (Bring back Keith!!)
-Bob Ley-
Jay Harris (he's good, and he's an ODU alum. Gotta stay loyal to a Monarch)
-John Buccigross
-Scott Van Pelt
-Steve Levy
-Mike Greenberg (he's better on SportsCenter than he is on his radio show)
-Jim Rome
-Tony and Wilbon
-Tom Jackson
-Chris Mortensen
-Ron Jaworski
-Peter Gammons (welcome back!)
-Tim Kurkjian
-Buster Olney
-Harold Reynolds (if we're not gonna fire Michael Irvin for drug charges, don't fire HR for alleged sexual misconduct)
-Jon Miller (sans Joe Morgan...the John Madden of baseball)
-Dave O'Brien
-Gary Thorne
-Rachel Nichols
-Karl Ravech (highly underrated)
-Trey Wingo
-Suzy Kolber
-Sean Salisbury (just keep him away from John Clayton)
-Mark Schlereth
-Michael Smith (he's far better as the NFL insider than he is on Around the Horn)
-Woody Paige (cause he's just funny!)
-Chris Fowler (and I don't even like college football)
-Mike Massaro
-Jay Bilas
-Rusty Wallace
-Mike Tirico
-John Clayton
-ME!!

I'm sure there are more; feel free to add any I may have forgotten or you feel would still be worthy of ESPN's employ.

And now, in the interest of fairness, I present a list of those I feel should no longer work for ESPN:

-Chris Berman
-Michael Irvin
-Stephen A. Smith
-Tony Reali
-Tino Martinez (that voice bugs me!)
-Lee Corso
-Digger Phelps (what, your analyzing skills aren't good enough, so you need a highlighter gimmick? Weak.)
-Dick Vitale
-Skip Bayless
-Jay Mariotti
-Pedro Gomez

Again, there might be more, but I've probably forgotten them. Feel free to add your own names if there's someone you think should go who isn't here.

Contrived? Yes. Exciting? You Bet.

The Chase for the Nextel Cup is in its third season, and I can officially say I've turned a corner on it. When the head honchos over at NASCAR cooked up this 10-race playoff formula, I was skeptical, believing the system at the time worked fine, despite Matt Kensseth's runaway championship.

But Mike Helton decided he needed to spice things up, keep interest in the sport in September, October, and November--coincidentally, the three months NASCAR goes head-to-head against the NFL on TV.

Let's not kid ourselves, though; nobody--certainly not auto racing--is going to trump the NFL. Professional football is king on American television, and the sooner everyone realizes it, the better.

But after last Saturday night's thrilling, and somewhat shocking, Chevy Rock 'n' Roll 400 at Richmond, I'm finally willing to admit I'm down with the excitement the Chase for the Cup generates.

Is the formula contrived, designed to create excitement where otherwise there might not be? Of course.

But does it work? Damn straight it does.

Under the 10-race format, the top 10 in points are separated by just five points. So if Jeff Gordon were to end the 26th race of the season with a 250-point lead, all but five points of that would be gone. Under this formula, the 10th-place driver is only 45 points behind the leader.

And with 10 races to determine who takes home the big trophy, a 45-point cushion is nothing.

Most of the tracks in the Chase are the standard variety--anywhere from one to one-and-a-half miles in length--but two tracks will undoubtedly stand out: Talladega and Martinsville.

Talladega, the largest track in the Nextel Cup Series at 2.66 miles, is one of two places the cars runs horsepower-robbing restrictor plates, a package resulting in large packs of cars, often three-wide and 30 deep. Not only is this a recipe for exciting racing for the fans in the stands and on TV, but it's also a recipe for disaster for the drivers.

Those not in the know should look up the term "The Big One."

Martinsville, the shortest track on the Cup circuit at only 0.528 miles, is your typical short track. Lots of rubbing, lots of beating and banging, lots of torn-up sheet metal. Tempers are shorter than usual at a short track, meaning anyone at any point could just pop off and wreck someone.
And that someone could be a Chase contender.

So despite the glaring fact that the Chase was cooked up to create drama, it succeeds. Even if somneone runs away with the title in the last 10 races--the way Tony Stewart did last year--there's still enough drama in positions 2 though 10.

There's even drama to see who finishes 11th, because that lucky driver gets a cool $1 million and a seat at the awards banquet in New York City in December.

All of which equates to very happy sponsors.

But enough about how great this ultimately contrived formula is: who's going to win the 2006 Nextel Cup championship? I could be honest and tell you I don't know, but then this wouldn't be a very good opinion, now would it?

So instead, I'll break down each of the top 10 drivers, examining who has the best chance of all the Chasers.

1. Matt Kenseth: The 2003 champion is probably the least-noticed driver on account of his dry, boring personality. But there's no denying Kenseth's driving ability--or his team's talent in the pits. Don't overlook Kenseth, who is almost always strong at the 1.5-mile tracks.

But Talladega and Martinsville could be his pitfalls. He survives those, Kenseth has a great chance of winning the Cup.

2. Jimmie Johnson: The points leader for much of the regular season, Johnson has a lot going for him--most notably Daytona 500 and Brickyard 400 victories. But he's hit his annual slump before the Chase, and I wonder if he can bounce back from a series of unspectacular finishes.

He is going to a lot of tracks he's good at--most notably Lowe's, Martinsville, and Homestead--so if Chad Knaus can get the 48 bunch back in tow, I give Jimmie a great chance to win it all.

3. Kevin Harvick: We'll call Harvick--the winner at Richmond last Saturday night and polesitter for this weekend's Sylvania 300 at New Hampshire--Mr. Momentum, because that's on his side as the boys enter the Chase. The boy's been driving the wheels off the race car, no doubt about that.

Harvick could become the first driver ever to win the Cup and Busch Series titles in the same season. What a feat that would be.

4. Kyle Busch: The lesser evil of the two Busch brothers, Kyle certainly has the talent and the equipment to win the title, and a few tracks he runs well at, such as Phoenix and Dover, are on the schedule. But he's really young, and still gets rattled easily.

It wouldn't surprise me if Busch won the title, but it wouldn't surprise me if he finished 10th, either.

5. Denny Hamlin: The driver nobody expected to see in the Chase, Hamlin is the first rookie to qualify. Despite the inexperience, I give Hamlin a good shot, simply because nobody'll see it coming. He's got championship backing in Joe Gibbs Racing (and teammate Tony Stewart, who surprisingly isn't in this year's Chase field), so don't count the boy out.

No rookie has ever won a Cup championship.

6. Dale Earnhardt Jr.: Rebounding nicely from missing the Chase last year, Earnhardt has reunited with crew chief Tony Eury Jr. While I like how the team runs on all kinds of tracks this year, I think the Budweiser team is still one year away.

He'll make some noise--especially at Talladega, Atlanta, and Phoenix--but Junior won't hoist the trophy until at least 2007.

7. Mark Martin: The sentimental favorite, the guy who's finished second in the points four times in his career. He'll likely hang 'em up after Haomestead, but there's nothing saying Martin can't win the title in his last full season.

He's got the talent, the car, and the team.

8. Jeff Burton: If NASCAR gave out a Comeback Driver of the Year award, I'd give it to this guy. Burton's had a resurgence of sorts this year in the No. 31 car, qualifying and running up front nearly every week...

...at least until the halfway point. Then things seem to go awry. Nice story, but Burton's not winning the Cup.

9. Jeff Gordon: Never count Gordon out of any championship chase. I realize he missed the Chase last year, and he's struggled of late, but when you put the trophy on the line, Gordon and the No. 24 team go at it.

There's a reason this guy's got four Cup trophies in his house.

10. Kasey Kahne: He leads the series in wins, yet had to race his way into the Chase. Between winning at California and finishing third at Richmond, Kahne also has momentum on his side. He's won at Atlanta, Texas, and Lowe's, all of which are on the Chase schedule.

His potential hang-ups? Talladega and Martinsville.

My Winner: Kevin Harvick.

Monarchs Football - the Right Thing to Do

There was a time I was against Old Dominion University having a football team. Part of it was simply me not being a college football fan (for reasons I've already outlined in this blog), but it was mostly because I didn't feel the student body deserved it.

ODU students were like that three-year-old who has all these toys strewn about the floor around him that he won't play with. Instead, he wants a big, shiny new toy.

The school has 16 NCAA-sanctioned athletic programs, and aside from the men's basketball team, the student body doesn't support them. Even with the basketball team, ODU students are fair-weather, only showing up when the team is successful. Nastionally-ranked field hockey and men's soccer teams are virtually ignored, as are vastly-improved women's soccer and consistently competitive wrestling. Baseball is nonexistant--even when Detroit Tigers star Justin Verlander was lighting up opposing CAA hitters.

Even the women's basketball team, which has won an astounding 15 straight conference titles, has seen a sharp decline in attendance in recent years.

Given all that, I didn't feel ODU deserved a football team. But, in light of Tuesday's press conference and a number of other factors, I'm slowly beginning to come around on the idea.

For the record, the idea of football at ODU is not an old one; several years ago, when I was a freshman and Dr. James Koch was president, the issue was raised...and promptly struck down. Koch forever opposed the school having a team, though I can't tell you for the life of me why (although the money it would've taken to start a program probably had something to do with it).

But since he left and Roseann Runte took over, things have changed. Not just on the football front, but on the university front.

-The school opened a new arena, the 8,600-seat Ted Constant Convocation Center. It resulted in a renewed interest in ODU basketball and has increased the number of on-campus activities.

-The school has also expanded its campus, including the University Village apartments and several shops beneath them. Two new dormitories are also being built in an effort to make ODU a more on-campus school. (as of right now, over 70 percent of the ODU student body commutes).

-Several of the university's athletic facilities are receiving facelifts, the product of cash coming in from team and conference success (thank you, George Mason's Final Four run).

All of that, along with increased student interest and a real commitment from President Runte and the Board of Visitors, makes this the right time to pursue football at ODU. With the Colonial Athletic Association adding football in 2007 (essentially merging the CAA with the Atlantic-10 football league, creating a Division I-AA powerhouse conference), the move seemed perfect.

And the school looks to be going about it the right way.

Toyota has already pledged its support as a corporate sponsor for ODU football, and PricewaterHouse Coopers has been brought in as the consulting firm. The university and the city of Norfolk are in talks for the delegation of land for football facilities, and the school seems to be dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's.

But what really sold ODU football to me was what the school announced this morning, the hiring of former coaches George Welsh and Dick Sheridan as advisors.

Everyone from Runte to athletic director Jim Jarrett raved this morning about how ODU was going to do this the right way, that they were bringing in football with the intent of being competitive and successful. Jarrett says the school will begin competing for CAA titles in 2011.

With the talent in the Hampton Roads area--which currently goes everywhere from James Madison to Norfolk State to William & Mary to Virginia Tech and Virginia--I'm not inclined to agrue with him.

It really seems like the school has the right idea. In Welsh, they bring in a guy with an extensive coaching pedigree and an intimate knowledge of the Hampton Roads area. The Navy has a huge presence in the area, and he spent many a time recruiting in the area when he was the coach at U.Va.

As for Sheridan, he brings in not only Div. I-AA experience, but the experience of starting up a new program. His years at Furman--not to mention the 1985 Div. I-AA national championship--and a smiliar position at Coastal Carolina when it started a I-AA program four years ago will prove valuable as ODU acclimates itself to one of the premier I-AA leagues in the country.

But beyond that, Jarrett has a plan. Hire a coach by December...maybe January at the latest. Kick off in the fall of 2009, begin competing for conference titles in 2011. More than anything, that shows me this isn't something the school just decided to do--it was something they thought through, set in motion and went about taking things one step at a time.

Beginning a football program at the college level is not easy--ODU admits as such. But I really like the approach they're taking, almost as much as I like the fact that no men's programs are going to get the axe in the interest of complying with Title IX.

Instead, ODU will add three women's programs: volleyball, softball, and crew. Volleyball and softball have a large profile in the CAA, and crew makes sense, given the university's success in sailing (not to mention, ODU is near a lot of water).

If things keep going the way they are, I see myself at Foreman Field in September of 2009, watching the Monarchs kick off for the first time in my life. It'll be an exciting day, one I once wished would never come.

Now, I can't wait.

NCAA Finally Gets One Right

Have you heard about Clemson football player Ray Ray McElrathbey, who has temporary custody of his 11-year-old brother Fahmarr? Their mother has been fighting drug problems and father has a gambling addiction, which was what precipitated Ray Ray getting temporary custody.

Well, in response, the NCAA has given Ray Ray an exception to its rule against athletes obtaining gifts, cash or other benefits not available to the general student population. This means Ray Ray and his brother, who moved from foster homes to an apartment near Clemson's campus, can recevei help from the school's staff.

"Once the NCAA became aware of the circumstances, we immediately began working with the Atlantic Coast Conference and Clemson University to address this unique situation," said NCAA vice president of membership services Kevin Lennon.

As much as I disagree with the NCAA's regulations nine times out of 10 (well, more like 9.997 times out of 10, but who's counting), I must applaud them in this instance. Not only was allowing the school to give Ray Ray help in taking care of his younger brother the right move, it was also an intelligent move.

How else would Ray Ray have been able to care and provide for Fahmarr? It's well documented the amount of time a student-athlete must dedicate to his sport and the classroom; there's simply no time for anything else--like, say, a part-time job. And without a part-time job, there would've been no income for Ray Ray to use in trying to take care of his brother.

If anything, this reaffirms my belief student-athletes deserve to receive at least a stipend. I realize most, if not all, of their college expenses are already paid for, but what about spending and living money? If these guys can't hold down part-time jobs because of their sometimes ridiculous schedules, how can they expect to have any income?

But that's another column for another day.

Finally, the NCAA put aside its illogical posturing and finally lived up to its credo about being "all about the students." So often, we hear the NCAA SAY they're looking out for the best interests of student-athletes, but they're too busy making asanine rules to really focus on the important stuff (apparently, the feathers on a college's logo are more important to the NCAA than the livelihood of its student-athletes).

But in the case of Ray Ray McElrathbey, the NCAA got it right. They put the legalese and the posturing aside long enough to see the situation for what it was: an unfortunate turn of events and a young man in need of help. I applaud Clemson for reaching out to the NCAA on this issue, and I applaud the NCAA for bending their rules in order to give Ray Ray an easier time raising his little brother and trying to maintain something resembling a family while their parents continue to struggle with their serious problems.

It's not often I give the NCAA credit, but in this case, I'll gladly make an exception.

Anti-College Football Rant

In the interest of fairness, allow me to begin this opinion by admitting something: in Old Dominion, I attended a university that did not have a football team.

You read that right; I spent my seven years as an undergraduate in a collegiate environment lacking in Saturday afternoon tailgates, September homecoming parades and marching band battles. Not once in my years of study did I find myself surrounded by tens of thousands of (probably) drunk students, hooting and hollering over a bunch of men pounding each other into the ground for a pigskin.

And I was fine with that, because I simply don’t care for college football. In fact, I daresay I just plain don’t like it.

I’m sure some of that has to do with attending a college that was sans team (though it is worth noting…ODU will begin fielding a Division I-AA team in the fall of 2009, where they’ll be playing in the Colonial Athletic Association). Why get excited over a sport I can’t walk across the street from my dorm room to witness in person?

Then again, my distaste for college football goes beyond that. Consider the following evidence (all of which is based on Division I-A, the big daddy of college sports and the division ESPN salivates over):

-College football cannot, under the current format, truly determine a national champion. The Bowl Championship Series (or BCS, though I think it’s just BS) is at best a flawed system; how can anyone in good conscience trust a computer to pick the two best teams in the country?
It can’t.

The BCS is about one thing: money. In fact, that’s pretty much all major college football is about. How much money can each school make? The NCAA added a 12th game to the schedule for that very reason; to give the schools more money. Major programs add cake programs to their schedule, guaranteeing a win for the big program and a big payday for the small school.

Does anyone really expect Buffalo to upend Nebraska? Doesn’t matter, because Buffalo’s getting a nice check out of the deal.

As far as I’m concerned, this is no way to run an athletic program. The point of sports is not to make money (okay, so maybe it is), but at the sacrifice of the on-field product? We’re honestly willing to sacrifice competition and athleticism in the interest of making a few extra bucks?

Not only does the computer-based formula do a bad job of determining the two teams to battle for a national title, it gives teams little, if any, room for error. More often than not, one loss ruins a team’s shot at the national title. I cannot get behind a sport where one loss automatically eliminates you from competing for a championship. It’s one thing to promote competition and excellence; it’s another entirely to promote perfection, which more often than not is unattainable.

-The “win at all costs” mentality permeating the sport is ruining the game. Imagine all the instances of fraud, all the cases of players accepting money illegally or coaches fumbling the rules in order to gain an edge. This is undoubtedly a by-product of the BCS layout—you know, the one where one loss renders national title hopes irrelevant.

This isn’t to say NCAA violations don’t happen in other sports—they most assuredly do—but I would venture to guess that more than half of all NCAA violators are football programs.

Coaches get fired for two- or three-loss seasons, boosters and alumni threaten to withhold donations if the football program doesn’t meet ridiculously high standards. No other sport is so strict when it comes to competing for a championship. You don’t see one-loss teams getting the shaft in the NFL or in college basketball.

Even Division I-AA is more forgiving. Teams with two or three losses can still compete for a national title, because Div. I-AA has an actual playoff system, one that pits the two best teams against each other for a shot at the trophy. It’s exciting, the way it should be done…and as long as major college football continues o ignore this fact, I’ll continue to ignore the game.

-The bowl games have to go. Or at least, most of them do. Do we really need over 30 bowl games? What’s the purpose of the Dec. 23rd Budget Rent-A-Car Bowl presented by Popeye’s Chicken? I mean, other than lace schools’ pockets with even more money. There are simply too many bowl games, so many the meaning of making one of these season-ending contests is diluted.

Also diluting the importance of making a bowl game? The fact that a team only has to win six games to be bowl eligible. With the 12th game added starting this season, that means we’re likely to have some 6-6 teams compete in bowl games. This is simply unacceptable; no way should a .500 team be facing postseason play.

It promotes mediocrity, which is in direct contradiction to the BCS’ credo of “win every single game, or else.” And mediocrity for the sake of a quick dollar? Please….

I cringe when an NBA team makes the playoffs with a .500 record, and it pains me to think an NL West team is going to the MLB playoffs this year. So why is it okay for some middle-of-the-pack football program to go to a bowl game? By this logic, we might as well let some .500 ACC program into the NCAA tournament come March.

I can’t deny the atmosphere of a Saturday afternoon leading up to the big game. It’s not something I’ve ever seen first-hand, but I admit I’m curious. When 2009 rolls around, I hope to be present as the Monarchs kick off for the first time, but I’ll do so knowing once ODU becomes competitive, they’ll be fighting for a true championship, and not some computer-generated BCS BS.

Maybe if the powers that be ever change the system and find some way to integrate a sensible playoff format, then I’ll pay attention to big-time college football. But as it is, I can barely watch SportsCenter right now—I’ve already had my fill of Ohio State and Notre Dame and Heismann talk.

Wake me when the NFL season starts. Or, even better, let me know when college basketball tips off. At least then, I’ll be able to trust the eventual national champion.

The Talking Heads Strike Again

It amazes me how often I forget we live with an over-the-top, sensationalistic sports media.

But I was again reminded of that fact the past couple days, when news broke that Team USA had lost 101-95 to Greece in the semifinals of the FIBA World Basketball Championships. Team USA did rebound to beat Argentina 96-81 to take the bronze medal in Japan, but to hear ESPN and the general sports nation talk, one would think the entire basketball world had been attacked.

An embarrassment, some are calling this. I see talking heads all over ESPN--some basketball experts, most just regular sports reporters--talking about how terrible this loss was, how inexplicable is was. They blast the NBA, criticize coach Mike Krzyzewski for his tactics...heck, even Washington Wizards star Gilbert Arenas has come out and said his omission from Team USA was a mistake.

But let's get serious here, people; can we try not to be hypocritical for at least a week or two?

It wasn't too long ago people were praising Team USA, eager to put the memories of the Athens 2004 debacle behind them. Coach K had the right players, the right ideas, and this was the closest Team USA had come to the Dream Team since...well...the Dream Team.

But one loss--a loss in the World Championship semifinals to a solid Greece team, no less--and everyone's mashing on the panic button. Seems as though everyone's forgotten the praise we were throwing Team USA's way not too long ago.

Chris Broussard says we've lost our grip on the game. Flip the dial to ESPN Radio and hear any number of hosts blabber on and on about how horrible and embarrassing this loss was. Colin Cowherd, Mike and Mike...Tony Mercurio of ESPN Radio 1310 in Virginia Beach, Va. called this team a joke, claming USA basketball would never again be successful in international competition.

And all because the United States lost in the semifinals. THE FREAKIN' SEMIFINALS.

Is the lack of a title disappointing? Most assuredly, and I don't deny there are a few areas this team needs to work on. A bonafide 3-point shooter would be a tremendous asset, and some more defense would be great. Personally, I think leaving Bruce Bowen off the team was a big mistake; his veteran leadership and on-the-ball defensive skills could've been a tremendous asset. I can't think of anyone else in the NBA who can guard the perimeter as well as Bowen--which, on the international level, is paramount.

And why not put a J.J. Redick on the team? I figured Coach K would've put him on the roster, knowing what J.J. can do. His touch from behind the arc would've been a big help--not to mention his accuracy from the free throw line (if I'm not mistaken, Redick holds the NCAA record for highest free throw percentage).

Are there areas of concern? Are there things for Team USA to fix before the Beijing Games in 2008? Yes. But to call this team an embarrassment and lament the death of basketball in the United States over a semifinal loss to a solid Greece team in the World Championships is a bit over-the-top and unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, as long as Team USA captures gold in Beijing, what they do in the years between Olympics really doesn't matter.

But this was by no means an embarrassment. At best, it's a reason for disappointment, a chance to take a step back and examine the strengths and weaknesses of Team USA. And Coach K and his posse have two years to do that, so as far as I'm concerned, this isn't nearly the deal everyone says it is.

In the meantime, you want to talk Team USA embarrassment on the international stage? How about we discuss that World Cup team from a few months back? Three games, never made it ouyt of pool play, and the only goal was an own-goal by Italy.

Now that was embarrassing.